Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Archive 2

message: Please comment on the removal of the mileage table and the 3di template from this page at the talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3di template allows you to access the spurs of I-76. The other primary Intersttae articles have these too. The mileage table is there to give the mileage information that isn't included anywhere else in the article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The links right above the 3di template allow access to the spurs. The mileage is all in the first paragraph, and is even more precise there. I'd accept keeping the lengths, but as a standardized table (class=wikitable). Maybe it can be to the side in the description, like an infobox but separate? --SPUI (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mileage is only in the first paragraph because you deleted the table and put the distances in the text.  You otherwise actually make some fair points, though.  Why aren't you bringing them up on the Interstate Project page rather than here?  --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I completely rewrote the article, and the distances, which I did not get from the table (as they are different, except for New Jersey, which I changed a long time ago), were simply part of that rewrite.  As for the discussion, I object to pretty much every "standard" proposed by the project, for the reason that it just simply makes sense. I was expecting others to also realize that, and don't really know where to start on a discussion. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you now have a few topics to start with on the project page, in particular the three boxes you don't like.  I'm guessing discussing them there will be a lot more productive than trying to change things Interstate by Interstate.  --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a seperate infobox for lengths. (or perhaps even including those in the main one) --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm letting the 7-day call for deletion process run its course, then we'll see what to do.  --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also it would be pointless to revert to that and then have you revert it back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally sort of like yours. It's closer to ideal at the moment than routeboxint, but deleting routeboxint is dumb. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a perfectly fair point and another good one to bring up on the project page.  --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree. I like great detail and length, just not in an infobox at the top of the article. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: and  are standard start and end templates for succession boxes on many articles. --SPUI (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm terribly sorry. For some reason, I thought you had just come up with those. (Obvously, I've never written a succession box.) With that in mind, I really like the idea of doing state routes with standard succession boxes, as opposed to in the infobox or some other template. (disclaimer: i still don't like the idea of browsing state routes in general.) --Chris 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: With the current system of putting it in routeboxint, the bloated box will be even bigger with 15 lines worth of stuff. Also, keep in mind that the succession box is at the bottom, rather than taking up space in the top. Also keep in mind that I-95 is an EXTREME. The vast majority of articles go thru 3 or fewer states. (including 3dis) Also, by using standard succession boxes, it becomes in-line with the rest of wikipedia, not just a few states. Since it seems impossible to eliminate these, I am fully in favor of using succession boxes on the bottom of the page in every case where others insist on browsing in numerical order. (incl US, Interstate, and individual states) --Chris 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I-95 can be split into separate articles like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. The navboxes for NJ 94 and NJ 109 link to that. --SPUI (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Interstate 76 (east)]]

message: Please post comments on the revert war that is ensuing right here. Also Do not break 3RR. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 3di template allows you to access the spurs of I-76. The other primary Intersttae articles have these too. The mileage table is there to give the mileage information that isn't included anywhere else in the article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The links right above the 3di template allow access to the spurs. The mileage is all in the first paragraph, and is even more precise there. I'd accept keeping the lengths, but as a standardized table (class=wikitable). Maybe it can be to the side in the description, like an infobox but separate? --SPUI (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The mileage is only in the first paragraph because you deleted the table and put the distances in the text.  You otherwise actually make some fair points, though.  Why aren't you bringing them up on the Interstate Project page rather than here?  --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I completely rewrote the article, and the distances, which I did not get from the table (as they are different, except for New Jersey, which I changed a long time ago), were simply part of that rewrite.  As for the discussion, I object to pretty much every "standard" proposed by the project, for the reason that it just simply makes sense. I was expecting others to also realize that, and don't really know where to start on a discussion. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you now have a few topics to start with on the project page, in particular the three boxes you don't like.  I'm guessing discussing them there will be a lot more productive than trying to change things Interstate by Interstate.  --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of a seperate infobox for lengths. (or perhaps even including those in the main one) --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm letting the 7-day call for deletion process run its course, then we'll see what to do.  --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also it would be pointless to revert to that and then have you revert it back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally sort of like yours. It's closer to ideal at the moment than routeboxint, but deleting routeboxint is dumb. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a perfectly fair point and another good one to bring up on the project page.  --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree. I like great detail and length, just not in an infobox at the top of the article. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: and  are standard start and end templates for succession boxes on many articles. --SPUI (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm terribly sorry. For some reason, I thought you had just come up with those. (Obvously, I've never written a succession box.) With that in mind, I really like the idea of doing state routes with standard succession boxes, as opposed to in the infobox or some other template. (disclaimer: i still don't like the idea of browsing state routes in general.) --Chris 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: With the current system of putting it in routeboxint, the bloated box will be even bigger with 15 lines worth of stuff. Also, keep in mind that the succession box is at the bottom, rather than taking up space in the top. Also keep in mind that I-95 is an EXTREME. The vast majority of articles go thru 3 or fewer states. (including 3dis) Also, by using standard succession boxes, it becomes in-line with the rest of wikipedia, not just a few states. Since it seems impossible to eliminate these, I am fully in favor of using succession boxes on the bottom of the page in every case where others insist on browsing in numerical order. (incl US, Interstate, and individual states) --Chris 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I-95 can be split into separate articles like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. The navboxes for NJ 94 and NJ 109 link to that. --SPUI (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mileage table and 3di template (from [[Talk:Interstate 76 (east)]])

message: I have put the three candidates for a browse state highways box below. We should probably merge things to make one prototype from all 3 of these.
Ohio        	I-75      	I-76	I-77
Pennsylvania	75        	I-76	77(76)
New Jersey  	73(74, 75)	I-76	76C(76)
State	Prev         	Next
CA   	<  Route 4	Route 7  >
OR   	<  Route 4	Route 6  >
WA   	<  Route 4	Route 6  >
Prev   	State	Next
Route 4	CA   	Route 7
Route 4	WA   	Route 6
Keep in mind that these are prototypes; the code will not be the same as what we would actually use in the article.
--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad - I'd remove the state abbreviations though, as the state names are in the middle. Probably also the Interstate shields, as they look out of place to me. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: State abbreviations removed... unless it's an Interstate or U.S. Highway. Hopefully people can figure that it's a state highway out... images aren't really necessary either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Also when we have these on each article then we should get rid of the state highway templates that look like  and . If we have even 3 or 4 of those on an article it gets cluttered, and the browse state highways page will make it redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, personally I'd just get rid of those altogether - I believe I did that for Mass when I did a bit of work on it recently. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed- those are really bulky anyway. I'll add it to the WP page... should we start coding the template then? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified  to do it (without any meta-templates), and updated the bottom of I-76 (E) and I-78. The only possible issue is that it specifies the Type Number (State) format that I've been using, rather than the older State Type Number - redirects would take care of that issue either way. Maybe have  for the other order? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... could you please update the WP page though once we have the coding right so we know how to code it? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK,  is done, and is now in use at the bottom of I-76 (E). I've been thinking about the title - do you think it's necessary? Can you think of a neutral title? Browse numbered routes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Browse numbered routes is fine by me. I put one on Interstate 40 and have been testing them on some of the Oklahoma state highway articles I've been writing and they do just the trick. The only problem I see is when the prev/next highway is of a non-SR class, like an interstate or something like that. Then you end up having to make a nasty redirect like Oklahoma State Highway I-40 to keep from breaking the template. I know redirects are cheap, but I'd like to avoid having to do redirects from titles that people wouldn't go looking for in the first place. Perhaps we could have a  for this situation (i.e. you can specify the route type individually for prev/cur/next)? Or something else? Scott5114 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We have three candidates... but we need one

message: is done - just use that instead of . As for the redirects, I'd call that a necessary evil, but you might want to try something else. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made a  which is pretty much the same as piece 2 but you can specify a separate type for the before and after roads. Note that the types no longer include the states; you'll have to add those manually as part of the type field. As an added benefit, if I play with it some, I might be able to get it to show a blank box when appropriate (for highways at the very start and end of the list, like "1" ). Scott5114 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In California and Washington we already have California State Route 5 (for example)... it could be done for CA and WA easily since... there's only a few interstates that have consecutive numbers (and since they both use a slightly different browse system). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works good for California and Washington... Oregon might need one redirect or so but we'll address that when it happens. Interstate 5 --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've streamlined  a bit - the typebefore and typeafter fields have been removed. Include the full name of the article in the  and  fields, e.g. "Interstate 240 (Oklahoma)" or "U.S. Route 75". Scott5114 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. I've been putting this one on Interstates, but maybe the bigger ones are better for other roads. --Chris 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say leave it up to the state highway WP if there is one, if not just use the same template throughout the entire system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finalizing the coding

message: Here's my type thing, which I'm not really recommending in this exact format, but this sort of might provide a good compromise between ommitting the section entirely and keeping as it is now:
I-495I-695I-95
Anyway, this sort of thing lists the major interstate junctions, but is much shorter than listing them vertically. It does omit the exit #, but is that really important for an infobox? I think two things that should be kept in mind are (even if my format is completely thrown out) that the NUMBER of junctions should be limited (for instance, including every 2di I-90 intersects makes it huge) and that horizontal probably takes less space then vertical.
While I'm on the topic, would anyone object to removing either the terminii or cities section? If the cities are in order, it kind of makes the terminii section redundant. But on the other hand, if the cities section were to be removed, then the terminii section would be important. I also know that some terminii sections include what highway they end at, but an ordered junctions section makes that reduntant. I'm proposing to remove the terminii sections.
--Chris 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 80 is fine for example... I think that for the extremely long interstates we have to go for major 2dis only. In regards to terminii... not a problem... just as long as somewhere in each article it explains the terminii. We should check each article to make sure. Same with cities too. As long as there's no loss of information... I mean, as long as it's still in the article somewhere...--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 80 was confusing to me at first, in that it only had major 2di's in the routebox. Should the type3 for I-80 be changed to MAJOR INTERSTATE or MAJOR from INTERSTATE, to highlight that only certain interstate junctions are listed? C.Fred 04:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... switch it to Major interstate... that way it will work better. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: why not put the shield right next to the article link?--Chris 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Junctions list

message: Should this be converted to template form? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inside the routebox? The only change I'd want there is a nbsp instead of a regular space between the number and the mi/km suffix: I hate when the km wraps to the next line. As for the one in the article, I wouldn't mind some standardization. IMHO, the articles where one state his mileage to the thousandth, while the others round to the nearest mile, aren't very pleasing to look at. C.Fred 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason not to make the beginning of the table a template, though the actual body is simple enough to not need one. As for rounding, unfortunately some states measure stuff to higher precision than others. We should be able to get it to 1/100 mi from the Route Log and Finder List though, except for recent extensions (I-26, I-73, etc). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I like SPUI's idea, but please, not in the routebox. --Chris 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me change that: I suppose putting the lengths in the routebox would be alright if the states section were to be removed. --Chris 17:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengths list

message: Thanks to Rob Droz for finding these. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've compiled the Interstate info in Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/History. Interestingly, AASHTO uses "Interstate X" and "Interstate Route X" but never "Interstate Highway X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Texas uses Interstate Highway.... but that's it. As long as we have Interstate x it should be fine. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Bud Shuster got the number into law, but AASHTO had to approve the signage as a formality (which they did in 1998). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info. --Chris 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present

message: Links to subpages of these sites:
*http://www.milebymile.com/
*http://www.westernexitguide.com
have recently been added to a vareity of Interstates and other highways. They do have some useful content. OTOH, their addition has clearly been spam. Any thoughts about whether these links are worthwile? -Will Beback 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They both seem to have decent exit lists. I wouldn't call them "clearly spam." The first has some ads, but really not much. The second doesn't seem to have any. --Chris 04:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little biased towards the second site but I think it's pretty good. The other one could be considered ads, but maybe not to the unacceptable level. I don't think it's worth the reverting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant "clearly spam" in that they were added en-masse by the owners of the websites. -Will Beback 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links or spam 

message: Commons:Interstate shields#Business Routes;how do you guys like them? They're based on my state name ones, since i used M1-2/3 dimensions for those. (just like with my other templates, they don't look right on wikipedia. But the 95 ones are how they should look) Do we even have any articles on these? I'm not really familiar with them, since there aren't any near me (not signed ones anyway).  --Chris 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found :Category:Bannered Interstate Highways, but I'm guessing that that must be incomplete/ Anyway, I'll make two for 75, and will do so for any others that are added there. Oh, I almost forgot, the 2di Buisness Loop shields are indirectly derived from SPUI's. --Chris 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They look good, though I'd make the numbers a bit bigger so you can read them easier when scaled down. Oh, and I found some more that don't neatly fit in categories. (It looks like often the loops are mentioned as part of the main interstate article.) Scott5114 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to use my 3DI shield for the few 3DI business routes that exist, as yours has no line on the outside border. Other than that, looks good. I've started a list of the routes at List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything about a black border in SHS 2004, just about a 15mm white one. I mean, it's no big deal that you have it, but I don't see a real need for it. You can see that mine have the white border if you look at them on any non-white background. Oh yeah, if you want to know why I used your 2di one but not your 3di one, the reason is simple: I already made a 3di one, and had the word INTERSTATE as text, and therefore could easily switch it to BUSINESS. With the 2di one, since I didn't have a text-as-text one, I had to remove INTERSTATE from yours and had to look at SHS to get all of the dimensions right for BUSINESS. --Chris 14:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh wait, I just figured it out. the black border, though not in SHS, makes the white border visible on white backrounds (which is what most people viewing wikipedia). The only potential problem I can see with the black border is what if someone wanted to use the shield on a green backround, like your everyday American highway exit sign. Anyway, I'll stop making shields based on my 3di until this issue is decided. (and then I'll correct all of mine if we decide in favor of the black line) --Chris 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a good analogy for this. M1-4 has two official forms. SPUI's shield is more like the independent use M1-4 (SHS2004 page 3-4) and mine is more like the guide use M1-4 (SHS2004 page 3-5). So now the question is: should these shields be made for use on a whitebackround, or everywhere else? Some funny other trivia: I did a :Image:Interstate-469.png a while back, and only posted the PNG export of :Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 000.svg. If you look closely, for some reason PNGs on MediaWiki seem to have thin little borders around them, similar to SPUIs SVG shields! I wonder if they could make the same happen for SVGs. --Chris 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a zero-width border to clearly delineate the edge of the shield. On a white background, it is possible to make out the shield, and, on a differently-colored background, the border will pretty much fade into it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. I'll change all of them over today. --Chris 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Chris 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: business

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Hi, I'm done with the disambiguated Interstate templates.  I'll keep checking for awhile before asking that the templates themselves be deleted:
now  
plus :Category:Lists of Interstate Highways sharing the same title.
I placed the category under :Category:Interstate Highway System, where it should be easy to find.
I'm sorry about the earlier problems with Tedernst, who didn't follow anything like standard procedure. Since I'm not a rampant disambiguation hack and slasher, please note that the pages are intact (or as intact as Ted left some of them). I merely changed the template and added the new category.
I hope things continue more peacefully on this worthwhile project.
:--William Allen Simpson 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD plus new category 

message: I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads.  If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: Are notable deaths on specific roads encouraged? And if so is the Notes section where I should put it? Or a new "Notable deaths" or "Notable accident" section? - RoyBoy 800 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable deaths? -- [[Interstate_25#Notes]] 

message: Has any one else noticed problems with the shield images?  For example, 
: (I-40), can be seen (or not seen, in this case) on Interstate 85
: (I-55), same thing, on Interstate 40
: (US 4) on I-95 exit list
It seems to be only 20px that i've noticed, cuz  is 21px.  I haven't been able to find this problem with other sizes, other than 20px.  But it seems to be happening with these and possibly others, so I figured I'd bring it up.  The Most others work fine.
:
: <<<US 2 has a problem as well.
:  US 1 works fine.
So I don't know.  Any cure, or is it just me?  MPD01605 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there is a problem rendering certain SVG image made in Adobe Illustrator. There was a discussion on the Village Pump about it here...Scott5114 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed these edit summaries and did some experiments and filed Bugzilla:4722 which turned out to be a minor extension of Bugzilla:2532 which has been fixed in MediaWiki 1.5.7. The version used here is 1.6alpha, which is in the 1.6 branch and not 1.5, so I'm not sure about the bug status here. -- Paddu 13:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shield problems 

message: Interstate 96#Junctions with other interstates uses the phrase "reflexive duplex", googling for which gives only matches from Wikipedia and its mirrors. What does that phrase mean? I wonder if it is a "real world" term or one that was invented by User:68.43.21.149. -- Paddu 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reflexive isn't even used in the dictionary in that context. I removed it from the junction list but added a note: the 69/96 duplex is the only one where the roads' numbers are the reversals of the others' digits. (It's also the only such intersection, since 78 and 87 don't intersect in NYC, and they're the next closest such pair.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reflexive duplex"? 

message: What's preferred in wikitables — the green standouts of Interstate 190 (Illinois) or integrated like Interstate 180 (Illinois)? Now that I've done both, it's time to choose. :-) —Rob (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the "integrated" setup better myself. ...Scott5114 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termini in interchange tables 

message: Number	Number	Mile	Destinations                                                              	Destinations	Notes
      	Old   	Mile	Destinations                                                              	Destinations	Notes
208   	      	    	Sandy Ridge Road                                                          	            	
210   	      	    	NC 68 - High Point/Piedmont Triad International Airport                   	Greensboro  	
211   	      	    	Gallimore Dairy Road                                                      	Greensboro  	
213   	      	    	Guilford College Road                                                     	Greensboro  	
214   	      	    	Wendover Avenue                                                           	Greensboro  	split into 214A and 214B eastbound
216   	      	    	NC 6 east - Coliseum Area                                                 	Greensboro  	eastbound exit and westbound entrance
217   	      	    	High Point Road/Koury Boulevard/Coliseum Area                             	Greensboro  	
218A  	      	    	US 220 south to Interstate 85 Business south - Asheboro                   	Greensboro  	US 220 joins eastbound and leaves westbound
218B  	      	    	Freeman Mill Road                                                         	Greensboro  	
219   	      	    	Interstate 85 Business south/US 29 south/US 70 west - High Point/Charlotte	Greensboro  	no westbound entrance; I-85 Business, US 29 and US 70 join eastbound and leave westbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 Business south via exit 36A (old exit 123)
36    	124   	    	Randleman Road                                                            	Greensboro  	exit 36B westbound
37    	125   	    	South Elm-Eugene Street - Downtown                                        	Greensboro  	
38    	126   	    	US 421 south - ML King Jr Drive/Sanford                                   	Greensboro  	US 421 joins westbound and leaves eastbound
39    	127   	    	US 29 north/US 70 east/US 220 north - Reidsville                          	Greensboro  	eastbound exit and westbound entrance; US 29, US 70 and US 220 join westbound and leave eastbound
41    	128   	    	NC 6 to US 29 north/US 220 north - East Lee Street                        	            	
43    	130   	    	McConnell Road                                                            	            	
44    	131A  	    	Interstate 85 south/to US 70 - Charlotte (Future Interstate 840)          	            	I-85 joins eastbound and splits westbound; I-85 Business begins westbound and ends eastbound; I-40 west splits from I-85 south via exit 131
"Present city" is handled in a column to the right of the exit description. The cell containing the city name is colored red, and spans all rows that lie within that city. I have also used this to indicate toll sections, by changing the color to green. ...Scott5114 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Interstate 40]]

message: :All right. Let's try this:
Number                                                    	Number                                           	Mile           	Destinations                                                                                                      	Destinations                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Notes
Old                                                       	New                                              	Mile           	Highways and/or Control Cities                                                                                    	Municipality                                                                                                                                                                                                         	Notes
If applicable — some states did not have old systems	If applicable — some exits are not numbered	Milepost Number	Format: Route Icon (if applicable) Route Number (or street name) - Control City 1, Control City 2 (if applicable).	Same as Control City if interchange is actually within the city limits of the control city. Otherwise, what city you're actually in. This may span several rows if several interchanges serve the same city in a row.	If you need a notes section.
Example below; I definitely do not want more than six fields, because six is already quite confusing.
Number         	Number         	Mile           	Destinations                                                                                                                   	Destinations        	Notes
Old            	New            	Mile           	Highways and/or Control Cities                                                                                                 	Municipality        	Notes
1              	3              	2.5            	Park Blvd - Springfield, Shelbyville                                                                                           	Nowhereville        	Full cloverleaf interchange. Northern terminus of mysterious highway 6.
Toll Booth #172	Toll Booth #172	Toll Booth #172	Toll Booth #172                                                                                                                	Toll Booth #172     	Toll Booth #172
1A             	7              	6.9            	U.S. Route 66 - Los Angeles, California, Chicago, Illinois                                                                     	Oklahoma City       	Southern terminus of mysterious highway 6.
None           	None           	23.0           	Illinois State Route 64 - North Avenue, Carol Stream, Illinois, Bloomingdale, Illinois, Wheaton, Illinois, Glen Ellyn, Illinois	Glen Ellyn, Illinois	Example of implicit control cities (cities are on destination signs on an exit ramp).
Best Practices
* Road shields are helpful, but overuse is not. Do not repeat road shields in the same row (I've been guilty of this already... will fix <g>)
* Road shield guidelines: 2dis = 20px, 3dis = 25px (the numbers are about equal size this way). Proportion accordingly.
* Use of background colors in tables is discouraged; use of full-colspan dividers is encouraged. Best Practice regarding different shades of gray (no more than three, including heading shade) to make full colspans stand out is unknown.
* I would like to encourage the use of good quality diagrams for interchanges that are horribly confusing. See exit 12, Interstate 290 (Illinois).
* See row 4 above. Control cities specified on exit ramps are, I feel, implicit control cities, not explicit. Therefore they should be included as control cities, but only italicized as if we were adding them unofficially (although that's not entirely true -- they're semi-official control cities).
* The full "city, state" combination is not necessary if the article route stays entirely in one state AND not one control city lies outside of the state's borders. Otherwise it leads to inconsistency.
* I'll work on refining Interstate 290 (Illinois) to these standards, but nothing else 'til we get a chance to hash things out.
Comments? Questions? Fierce disagreements? It's easy to create a standard (of sorts) now, instead of having to have huge arguments later. It's much easier to change templates than it is a freaking table. :-) —Rob (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. ...Scott5114 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that if that becomes the standard then we'll be well on our way to getting to... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Presently the only featured article on a road is the Ridge Route. I'm interested in promoting some other road articles to featured status, and the Interstates are probably the easiest place to start. Should we wait and get the articles up to WikiProject standards first or start looking at some of the better ones like Interstate 5, Interstate 95, Interstate 80, or Interstate 90? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ... featured articles.

message: Just to bring this to everyone's attention, an Interstate 101 article was created about a week ago, but I've always thought that "I-101" was just road geeks speculating on a route number for the route described in the article (and I left a comment on the article's talk page about it).  The article does have some good information about the history of the Delaware Relief Route, so it should probably be moved there unless the I-101 designation has actually been approved.-Jeff (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected to proposed Interstate Highways, and removed the recently-added I-101 section from there. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-101 

message: Hi everyone, was wondering if I could use the interstate infobox on VT Route 289, as that was a proposed interstate? Probably for shields what I'd do is a grayscale interstate shield, with a red slash through it, and next to it would be the shield used ? 
Thanks --Raj Fra 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vermont State Highway 289]]

message: One other thing - created an exit table, but just saw the ones on the project site, and I really like. Will conform to one of those, but comments desired on whats there so far. Thx. --Raj Fra 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Interstate 89]]

message: I-45 runs from Galveston, Texas north to Dallas, Texas, a distance of only 284 miles, so should this be excepted from the divisible by five rule or does it matter? Just a thought... Mr "I am probably missing something here"  Zotel - the Stub Maker 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's still considered one of the mainline interstates, despite it's short length. --Mhking 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I-45 and 2di rules? 

message: We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967.  While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark.  Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights.  --Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practical matter, are they enforcing the trademark? The shield shows up on state maps, Rand McNally maps, billboards, etc. I would think that using the trademarked design in an artist-drawn image is permissible, between derivative art and fair use. I think we make it pretty clear that we are Wikipedia describing an AASHTO product; we certainly are not trying to open our own limited access highway. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess the trademark is not enforced anymore, as there are a multitude of businesses that use the Interstate shield or derivatives as their own trademarks, such as for example the Interstate trucking company.  A query on "Interstate" using the USPTO's search feature at its website [www.uspto.gov] confirms this.  Also, certain state laws have done the work of managing billboards anyway, so the trademark is not needed.  I did think that this issue was a concern though, and that it needed to be brought up just in case.  --Geopgeop 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image use problem 

message: We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967.  While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark.  Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights.  --Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practical matter, are they enforcing the trademark? The shield shows up on state maps, Rand McNally maps, billboards, etc. I would think that using the trademarked design in an artist-drawn image is permissible, between derivative art and fair use. I think we make it pretty clear that we are Wikipedia describing an AASHTO product; we certainly are not trying to open our own limited access highway. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I guess the trademark is not enforced anymore, as there are a multitude of businesses that use the Interstate shield or derivatives as their own trademarks, such as for example the Interstate trucking company.  A query on "Interstate" using the USPTO's search feature at its website [www.uspto.gov] confirms this.  Also, certain state laws have done the work of managing billboards anyway, so the trademark is not needed.  I did think that this issue was a concern though, and that it needed to be brought up just in case.  --Geopgeop 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image use problem 

message: This structure is starting to show its age. Here's what's there now...
1.) (implicit) Intro / overview
2.) Route description
2a.) (if > 1 state) State
2b.) State
...
3.) Length
4.) Cities
5.) Intersections with other Interstates and other main roads
6.) Spur routes
7.) Notes
8.) References
9.) External links
9a.) (if > 1 state) State
9b.) State
...
The problems are...
# No history section. By history, I mean anything that has happened in the past, whether in 1962 or 2002 that is so notable as to be in the main article. Something like the Big Dig, not individual state DOT projects. This is more for 3dis, btw.
# No future section. Kinda along the same line as above.
# "Length" really, really should be part of "Route description". As a table, floating left.
# Section 5 should be renamed, or shortened to "Major intersections".
# We have an "Exit list" section for shorter Interstates. It seems like it would replace "Intersections......" and "Cities".
I might do these boldly after a few days if I don't get any comments. In addition, a lot of these sections are optional, and having an entire section that says, "None" is pretty wasteful.
This might fly in the face of 2di freeways, but I've been working 3di ones for the past couple days. —Rob (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all of those points. I had to think about many of those same things as I was working on Interstate 490 (New York) and Interstate 590 the other day. --TMF T - C 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: Greetings.  I've been creating maps of the Interstates for articles that do not have them.  I just finished a rather large batch of maps for the U.S. Highway project (which are here: Commons:Category:Maps of U.S. Routes).  Anyway, I started to tinker around and I have three different kinds of maps and was looking for input on what this project community prefers.  The first map is akin to the ones I made for the U.S. Highway Project: just a highlighted route.  The second one is a map with nearby major cities.  The third has major cities as well as cities along the route within 5 miles.  
  
I'm going to hold off on finishing the others until I get a bit of feedback. Stratosphere 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like the third one, especially with the way the cities are shown with circles. Either of the other two looks good, though the first may be better for long routes. --SPUI (T - C) 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the second, and consider using the Route Log list of major cities (> 5,000 population) when determining which cities to highlight. (Then again, it lists, for I-45, "Galveston, Texas City,
Houston, Huntsville, Corsicana, Ennis, Dallas" which is a LOT of cities.) Depending how small the maps will be when they're in the infobox, I'd agree with SPUI, but it's your call as to whether or not at a given size the city text is clutter or not. Good job! —Rob (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the second, if the cities are limited to those that are in the Major Cities section. The first is closer to what is in some of the articles already, e.g. Interstate 85. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To me, the second one looks best. --TMF T - C 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer the third one, but the second one is good too.  Powers 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the second looks best, plus the third one would take longer to generate.  Be mindful that the fact that there was cities at the endpoints of I-37 was purely coincidence and wouldn't happen on all the maps, unless I create a new data layer. Stratosphere 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, on a related note, SPUI incorporated the map feature into the infobox template as we have done for the U.S. Highway project.  So, if no one objects, I'll replace the maps of the interstates that have been done with one that'll fit into the infobox nicely. Stratosphere 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Maps 

message: After being corrected by  when I incorrectly thought that placing state names on Interstate shields was deprecated, I find that I still don't like the look of it.  The particular article that brought this up is Interstate 390 (New York).  The images in question are:
* :Image:I-390.svg
* :Image:I-390 (NY).svg
Now, it may just be because the former is far more common in New York these days, but the latter just looks bad to me.  Perhaps more persuasively, however, at the size used in the info box, the state name so small as to be barely readable, at best.  I can think of no good reason, then, to use the state-name-specific image over the generic one.  Thoughts?  Powers 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented on this issue over at Talk:Interstate 390 before I saw this discussion here. My answer here is the same as on the I-390 talk page: if the "state name" shields are used in reality, then use them in the routebox. If they are not used in reality (as they are not to an incredibly large extent in New York State), then the neutered shield should be used, IMHO. --TMF T - C 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may be sinking my own argument here, but I disagree.  I think we should be consistent one way or the other, even if the states are not consistent in their signage.  =)  Powers 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that's the current situation, actually.  It doesn't address the fact (ok, my opinion) that the New York-specific I-390 shield looks bad.  Whether that's due to a defect in the image or just due to my own unfamiliarity with the style (since New York doesn't put the state name on new shields anymore), I don't know.  =)  Powers 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha!  It's not just me.  The state-name shield doesn't have the right text size for the number.  See this link for a picture of an actual I-390 sign with the state name: .  Powers 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I was thinking that NY shield used the older-style numbering sizes. If we use it go-forward, it should be redone at the bigger size. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State names on shields 

message: See discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways#Subpage technicalities. —Rob (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpage technicalities 

message: Does this project cover Business Interstates? There's a few of them that have articles but I'm not sure whether they should fall under the purview of this project, the state project, or USRD. Thoughts? —Scott5114↗ 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think Business Loops should be covered by this project, as they are Interstates technically. --TMF T - C 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are interstates.  Business loops are given Interstate shields (granted they are green).  For example, the only one in Pennsylvania is Business Loop 83 in York.  It does not up to interstate highway standards, but it is signed regardless.  --myselfalso 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A point of interest, in Ashburn, Virginia, there was a new interchange constructed at Claiborne Parkway and State Route 7; at some intersections on Claiborne Parkway, they installed interstate-style Business Loop 7 signs to show the direction to the route, instead of the Virginia Route 7 sign.  I'll get a picture when I'm up there next; I just found it interesting.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we in the business of Business Loops? 

message: See Template talk:Infobox Interstate. --TMF T - C 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change to Infobox Interstate 

message: Articles such as I-5 exit list and such should be called? There is no convention right now... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 5 exit list, to stay consistent with article naming (we don't call the article for I-5 "I-5", now do we? ;) ). --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Why do these exist? Shouldn't they be in individual state articles? --NE2 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus on... I-95 exit list I think it was. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to mention that, but the edit conflict stopped me.  I think we can point to that and say that the I-5 exit list should not exist.  That took a good chunk of time to get settled.  I also redirected that link to the talk page since "I-95 exit list" is now a redirect to I-95.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Exit lists

message: Copied from User talk:TwinsMetsFan.
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy hell. That's it, this deleting of navboxes has to end now, and it begins by keeping these templates. I've added my $.02. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to create a standard 3di template which can then be filled in using paramaters rather than creating one for every interstate that needs it?  I may be missing a key idea, but I think taking that approach would quell these rampant TFDs. Stratosphere (U T) 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...this could definitely work. I'll see what I can whip up. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree since the templates are repeated on the page, which is why templates were created, and if the template needs to be changed... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had a more flexible template that could handle stuff like this:{{3di|parent=25|child1=225|child2=etc...}} couldn't it serve the same purpose or am I missing something? Stratosphere (U T) 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: States too, and past-future... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Soooo, you're saying it'd be too much for a paramater based infobox?  Remember Infobox road is pretty crazy, but it works. Just brainstorming a possibly way to consolidate all those templates into one easy to fold super kit for only $19.99.  Cheers. Stratosphere (U T) 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I could make a parameter-based template work, if I included a ton of parser functions (#if and the like). I'll work on this in my sandbox over the next couple of days, over which time if anyone wants to help with the coding, feel free to do so. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I failed to find a single parser function that would work correctly in this case, so I don't think a parameter based template is possible. But something has to be done. For some reason, people are prejudiced against these templates, and unfortunately the precedent for their eventual total deletion has been set. The only thing I can think of would be to recreate these templates as a subpage of WP:IH and then use them in the articles, although there's probably some policy against this. Another option would be to replace the  templates (not ) with manual entries. But based on the results at DRV and TfD, the current system will not work. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with using  in conjunction with manually-filled in s. But something has to be done, as all of the "3di X" templates will be deleted soon at the current rate of deletion. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd support that. As for where the test2 template could be stored, it'd have to be in  or something similar (as "3di" and "3di2" already exist. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we could replace it on all the articles (not just the single 3di-ones), which should be easier than it sounds with subst'ing, and convert  to this.  Just a thought. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, though some of the more massive ones (like , , , etc.) are probably best left as templates. The other ones could easily be subst'ed. I'll hold further comment until I see which way the project wants to head with this, as there are a number of avenues we can go down with this issue. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this for the smaller ones with one, two, or even three spur routes.  However, if the others are fine as it is, they could just stay that way.  IMO, any larger ones would be rather unsightly code in the article edit box.  Also, how would this work with the past/future rows?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already handled by  since that template doesn't automatically create links. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In theory, I suppose so (my humble opinion only), but what's the point of adding a prose description when your linking to the I-516 article anyway? -- NORTH talk 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's more useful to a reader who is looking for a certain spur. It's not so much an issue on I-16, since there's only one spur, but someone looking for a spur of I-85 but forgetting its number doesn't have to open each article if there is a short description of each. --NE2 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So, it was no consensus on the deletion.  Someone want to go to the affected articles and remove "this template is being considered for deletion etc etc etc" from the boxes?  I'd do it, but I don't know where they are. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interstate spur navboxes 

message: As an alert, please note this AfD for regarding a major Canadian freeway's exit list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario). While most votes so far are keep, there was one particularly strong demand to delete the exit list on grounds that it violates core Wikipedia policies. This may potentially lead to AfD calls on any Interstate exit list pages. The Interstate project members may want to weigh in here. Dl2000 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been deciding to merge exit lists with the article here, unless it's too long. I'm not sure what the standard here is though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the two salient points are that discussion was held in the 401 article to split it off, and that the exit list is long enough that it warrants breaking off from the main article. We're probably poised to run into a few problems like that in the US (I-5 in CA; I-10 and 20 in TX), though in those cases, the body of the article may be short enough to not be problematic...whereas the 401 article has the whole narrative of the highway plus the exit list, with no easy way to subdivide it other than breaking off the exit list. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.  The 401 discussion will certainly provide some precedent for anything else.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD on Canadian exit list - next stop, Interstate lists?