Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Standards/Navigation archive

message: Like my post in the infobox section, here's some quick hits:
*All accepted practices discussed at WT:USRD should be reflected here, most notably the standard code for browsing (Interstate, US, 2-letter abbreviation).
*Precedence order is Interstate, US, State.
*Bannered routes should not be included in the browse. Suffixed routes should. Use the "spur_of/spur_type" parameter for bannered routes instead. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd disagree with the bannered routes though. Otherwise it sounds good. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm flexible regarding the bannered routes - that is, if we can get the bannered routes to display correctly in the browse. The best we can get right now is to make a shield specifically for that bannered route, which is a situation I'd like to avoid. Until the browse row can be redesigned so that a custom shield containing the banner and the route shield is no longer necessary, I think the present system of leaving the banners out, linking to them on the parent page and using the spur_of/type will have to do. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave the banners out.  They can have a link to the parent route, but NOT in the browse.  Also, for state browse boxes, some states' (like CA and NY) use "State" instead of "CA" or "NY".  How about redirects to the proposed naming convention? V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's the thing. Per WT:USRD, the "proposed" naming convention isn't proposed at all - it's what is now (as of early January) being used in practice. Redirects, however, do exist for most states but making more redirects is (IMHO) not necessary nor recommended. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas

message: Definitely agree with this. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: I am planning to make an article on minor state highways of Connecticut instead of creating an article for each of these where not much can be said about them. This will be about 20% of all the CT state highways. How should the browsing be handled when there will not be articles for some of the routes in the sequence? Should they simply be skipped? Are there other highway projects that have done this sort of thing already? How was browsing handled in those cases? --Polaron | Talk 20:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CASH has done something to this effect on a couple of pages, one being Deleted state highways in California. For the browse, an empty infobox road and a series of browse rows were used to continue the browse order. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just do this:

This will produce something on the right.
Routes in Connecticut                    	Routes in Connecticut                    	Routes in Connecticut                    	Routes in Connecticut
Special Service Roads – State Roads	Special Service Roads – State Roads	Special Service Roads – State Roads	Special Service Roads – State Roads
Hope that helps.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  browsing question 

message: Are we still ordering them alphabetically or by standard direction? (W-E, S-N) •  master_sonLets talk 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently by direction, but we could probably open up discussion on it if desired, as I don't think the order was ever written down anywhere. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordering browseboxes by in US, Interstate route articles 

message: Okay, still working on figuring out how to browse on Florida state roads.  U.S. Route 1 in Florida carries the hidden designation of State Road 5 for most of its length.  It also carries the hidden designation of State Road 15 for its northernmost 15 miles.  I had planned on browsing with SR 5 since that was the majority of the route, but State Road 5 has its own article since it is signed for about 6 miles in West Palm Beach.  They couldn't have made it easy on me or anything.  It is looking like I may have to do multiple browse for some of these, but I just want some input on what others think.  --Holderca1 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put this page together to help illustrate my problem.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida State Roads/Hidden  --Holderca1 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the browse should go by the road's signed number then to avoid the issues shown on your subpage. This issue may affect Georgia as well, which gives Interstates an unsigned 400-series designation. Whether or not issues like the ones that exist in Florida also exist in Georgia, I can't say. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I am thinking that may be the only way to go or else I will be constantly banging my head against the wall.  --Holderca1 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More on browsing in Florida

message: What does everyone think about adding a section that describes what to do in situations that are not obvious.  Such a Texas section that shows how to browse loops, spurs and farm roads, and Florida with its hidden designations and to browse by what it is signed.  --Holderca1 16:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a section for state specific issues