Template talk:MIint/Archive 1

Archive 1

Exit Numbers?

This is a very nice start, but for the freeways, the actual exit numbers would be more informative than using Mile Markers rounded to the nearest tenth (e.g. for Interstate 75 in Michigan, 53A Warren Avenue, 53B I-94 is significantly more useful to the average wikipedian. Doing this would take a new exit= parameter in the Mint and a positional parameter for the MIinttop to choose a Mile/Exit heading. -- KelleyCook 19:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This point (or something similar) was brought up over at WT:WVR some time ago, where it was agreed that this template shouldn't be used for exit lists. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though the information at Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan State Highways#Templates will need to be updated as it says to use this template. -- KelleyCook 20:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Exit list instructions now point to the Interstate exit list guide, which was the inspiration for the junction table design. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That one was my fault, I forgot to add the Exit list info to the project page when I added the Intersection List instructions Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Subst

Why are you recommending to WP:SUBST the Shield formatting templates. The nice templates you designed are significantly clearer and easier to edit than the resulting subst code, IMO. If the answer is — as I fear — for performance, remember WP:PERF. -- KelleyCook 19:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The logic behind the substing originates to this edit summary at WP:NYSR (where the junction template originated). No one spoke against it at the time (or since until now), so it was assumed that this method was deemed acceptable. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, but I must profess that I still disagree. Mainly as they are not just for easy editing, it is to maintain readability (and for that matter a quick changeability) after the edit. -- KelleyCook 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By not substing the templates, however, the ability to modify the resulting code is lost. There may have been a discussion on this issue at some point in time; I'll try to find it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I set forth the subst: recommendation because the other projects I've seen do it that way as well. I'd prefer to not have to subst because it allows template changes to be made that filter to all the pages that use it rather than updating all the pages again. TMF is right in that you can't edit the resulting code if you subst, but I feel that as a minor drawback (he probably does, too). So, I'd like to see if he finds anything on why other projects are using subst to see their rationale. Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother looking, simply because there was none. The best explanation as for why the other projects subst is simply because that was the way it was introduced to the project and no one cared enough to change it (in fact, no one ever expressed a desire to). Do I care one way or the other? Not really. Keep in mind the subst was introduced back when links had to be fixed for disambiguation, segments, etc. Although the disambiguation issue has been fixed (by being lazy and adding the disambig parameter automatically), segmented routes still require subst.

Another note: if this project doesn't use the side-by-side method for concurrencies, then I don't see much of a use for the subst. If it does use the side-by-side, then substing would make it easier to generate the code to move around.

Sorry if you were expecting an bevy of discussion links; this is all I've got (and all that can be said). =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's what the answer was, it's just that way because that's how it was done first. What do you mean by "side-by-side" method for concurrencies? Stratosphere ^{(U T)} 17:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pennsylvania_State_Highways/Archive_1#Junction_Table. Another name for it is the horizontal method. It originated at WP:PASH and has since carried over to (AFAIK) Ohio and New York. New York State Route 9D is a pretty good example of an article that utilizes the side-by-side to display the difference between junctions with a concurrency (US 6/US 202) and a junction with two routes that are not concurrent (US 9/CR 77). --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)