Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated Project-class)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This article has been rated as Project-Class on the quality scale.

Module:Jctint/USA[edit]

The most recent version of jctint templates for US states did mainly the following:

  • Assign the state name to |region=.
  • Pass through a parameter to Template:Jctint/core.
  • Rename a parameter to a core parameter.
  • Build a string for a _special parameter that shares the same structure across these templates, only to differ in the state name.

The approach above has several drawbacks:

  • A parameter available in the core module not exposed by these templates becomes unavailable. Parameter additions in the core module do not propagate to these templates automatically.
  • A lot of duplicate template code is difficult to maintain.
  • These templates can only diverge from one another over time. Template users will have to memorize multiple usage when the interface for these templates could have been uniform.

For the past few days, I have converted most of these templates to use Module:Jctint/USA to eliminate the drawbacks above. You might not have seen any observable changes to articles, because you shouldn't! I am happy to report that the module now handles jctint templates for 40 out of the lower 48 states.

Before I can go into what prevents the templates for the remaining 8 states from being converted, I need to go into some technical details about how |sub2_special= was implemented for most states.

|location_special= is used by default. Certain templates permitted multiple locations to be specified as |location1= through |location4=. These parameters are concatenated as a list of wikilinks that is passed to the core module as |sub2_special=. Other templates did the same, but with townships instead of locations (see Interstate 70 in Ohio). The module handles both: |sub2param=township is used in the latter case; location is the default.

Now, why the templates for 8 states haven't been converted:

  • State name is not the correct article link (GA and WA): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Different |sub1name= (LA): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Special handling for |indep_city= (CA, CO, and MD): Road data modules should handle this.
  • Cascading |sub2_special= (MN): A list of both townships and locations are permitted, but the module doesn't support cascading yet, though it can easily be done.
  • |town= (WI): It appears that town articles are not named consistently, e.g., Bristol, Dane County, Wisconsin vs Bristol (town), Kenosha County, Wisconsin. So, I could not decide which one to use.

For more details about handling by road data modules, see Template talk:Jcttop/core#sub1name order for an idea, and Module:Road data/strings/USA/NH for an example. This is a longer-term transition, but I would like to avoid adding a boilerplate in the module when this transition is anticipated. See also Template talk:Jct#Inheritance and overriding in road data modules.

During the conversion, I noticed a beginning of divergence in some of the templates. While most states use |mile_ref=, some use |length_ref=. Specifically, templates for AL, FL, OH, OR, and TX. This parameter should be deprecated and renamed to |mile_ref=.

The module opens up other opportunities for uniformly customizing parameters for US junctions, e.g., cascading (above) and support for a list of cities. Additional customizations will not be implemented until there is evidence that they are useful for multiple states.

The templates are still fully backward compatible with the previous version, but the module might have added new features, e.g., list of locations, to some states' templates. These features have already been used in several other states' templates. I hope it is okay for every state's template to have the same leverage.

Of course, if you see any undesirable, observable changes, I will appreciate your report so I can troubleshoot. Constructive comments will also be appreciated. Chinissai (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Illinois has a mix of townships and precincts. There is no pattern that I can tell for which county uses which subdivision. –Fredddie 16:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I didn't see any use of precincts in jctint as a separate parameter, so I was able to convert {{ILint}} without trouble. The module should be able to support future customization for precincts, though, perhaps by using switch tables in road data modules. Chinissai (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
California has the funny postmiles stuff - is this properly supported? --Rschen7754 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, any "funny" parameters can be overridden by passing them to the module. See Template:ORint for example. It's only San Francisco that prevents me from converting CAint. Chinissai (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
On a side note, North Carolina has townships, but most, if not all, of the links don't exist, even as redirects. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hatnotes for Auxiliary Interstates[edit]

What's the rule here? Interstate 610 (Louisiana) and Interstate 610 (Texas) have a hatnote pointing to each other, but after perusing a number of articles from the List of auxiliary Interstate Highways, I don't see this practice elsewhere. The use of a hatnote does makes sense to me, but I'm inclined to revert for consistency's sake. Britinvasion64 (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The hatnotes are really unnecessary since we have Interstate 610 as a disambiguation page. Dough4872 16:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
That's kind of what I gathered from WP:HAT as well. Britinvasion64 (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Delaware shields[edit]

I think we need to make some changes to the state route shields for Delaware. It appears newer shields for 3-digit state routes use the ellipse sign rather than the elongated circle sign (see Delaware Route 279, a route assigned a few years back, as an example). However, the 1- and 2-digit state routes can continue using the elongated circle sign as the newer signs use series C fonts. In addition, it appears the circle design used in Delaware starting in 1971 but before the current design uses the ellipse sign (series D fonts) for 1- and 2-digit routes and the elongated circles for the 3-digit routes. We should probably create a type in {{jct}} and {{infobox road}} that calls the 1971 specifications. Dough4872 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you spell out what you need with pictures? –Fredddie 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
For the current shields I need Elongated circle 10.svg for the 1- and 2-digit shields and Ellipse sign 100.svg for the 3-digit shields. For the 1971 shields I need Ellipse sign 10.svg for the 1- and 2-digit shields and Elongated circle 100.svg for the 3-digit shields (Delaware Route 14A should use the elongated circle shield for the 1971 routes). Dough4872 23:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure it's 1971? There is a DE 1970 type that calls for all circle signs Circle sign 1.svgCircle sign 10.svgCircle sign 100.svg. –Fredddie 02:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually it appears 1978 was around when Delaware started using elongated circles for 3-digit state routes. So the type for Ellipse sign for 1- and 2-digit routes and Elongated circle for 3-digit routes should be 1978 not 1971. Dough4872 02:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, we need to add the DE 1970 shields to the {{infobox road}} templates. Dough4872 03:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
DE
DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
DE 1978
DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
DE 1970
DE 1 / DE 10 / DE 100 / DE 896
Everything including the infoboxes should work now. –Fredddie 03:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Dough4872 03:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
We need a switch so 1A, 1B, 1D, and 9A use the proper shields in the infobox, right now they are coming up as errors since they are calling the ellipse signs and not the elongated circles. Also have a banner error here. Dough4872 03:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Instead of a switch, I went with image redirects, which works just as well if not better. I also edited Template:Infobox road/banner and the error is gone. –Fredddie 05:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again! Dough4872 05:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 87[edit]

It appears that Interstate 87 (North Carolina) is now signed. As a result, we're gonna need to make some changes. Interstate 87 needs to be moved to Interstate 87 (New York) in order to make room for the dab page as neither Interstate can claim to be the primary topic. But before the page move is done we need to make sure all links for "Interstate 87" are pointed to "Interstate 87 (New York)", it would help if someone with AWB or bot access can do this task. Dough4872 23:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Correction, it should be Interstate 87 in New York, after all that is how we been titling these articles for primary routes, like Interstate 95 in New York. I'm currently trying to get @Jayron32: or anyone to make the correction now to Interstate 87 in North Carolina. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
No, that naming convention is for state-detail pages of longer Interstates. For national-level articles of separate Interstates in different states, we use the state name(s) in parentheses, such as Interstate 88 (Illinois) and Interstate 88 (New York). Dough4872 00:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: What is the standard to make the difference from "(North Carolina)" to "in North Carolina"? I mean there will eventually be a Virginia page too, so it will be more than two states... we have a three-state interstate called I-26 that uses the "in North Carolina" format. So what is the official standard here or is it honestly being inconsistent. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: Okay, I see what you are saying now, every split interstate is setup that way, which means one day it will become "(North Carolina-Virginia)" once it is completed. Okay, fine... I will stop pouting about it. So can you or maybe @Cards84664: can move the Talk:Interstate 495 (North Carolina) to Talk:Interstate 87 (North Carolina)? Thank you. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Cards84664: I noticed you moved the I-87 page but it was not done properly. Talk:Interstate 87 was not moved to Talk:Interstate 87 (New York). We need someone to delete the latter so the former can be moved. Dough4872 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dough4872: I was aware of it, was about to throw a speedy deletion on it. Cards84664 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Washuotaku: Tagged Talk:Interstate 87 (North Carolina) for CSD so it can be moved. Dough4872 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles should be Interstate 87 (New York) and Interstate 87 (North Carolina). This is no different than the two Interstate 88s. –Fredddie 00:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The articles are now at the correct titles (the talk pages need to be moved pending some CSDs), now we just need to change all the Interstate 87 links to Interstate 87 (New York) before we make Interstate 87 a dab page. We need either AWB or a bot to do that as there are a lot of links to change. Dough4872 00:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Should we ask for mapframe to be turned on?[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #Should we ask for mapframe to be turned on?. <mapframe> makes a slippy-map, similar to <maplink> (previously discussed here), but embedded in the article - Evad37 [talk] 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

History section of Interstate 90 in Ohio[edit]

After finally doing research which I had been contemplating for years, I've been able to find out most of the various opening dates of sections of I-90 in Ohio. (It doesn't help that my primary sources have no indeces.) However, I discovered that the highway opened in more numerous relatively short sections than I had anticipated when I recently created the article's history section. I really don't want to have the section read "This stretch opened at this time then this stretch opened at this time then...." I thought about a table, but I'm not sure that that wouldn't add undue weight. Assuming that it would, I also thought maybe to just mention the first and last sections independent of the Ohio Turnpike and pre-existing Cleveland freeways to open, such as "I-90 opened in sections between 1959 [here] and 1978 [there]", but for completeness, there would probably need to be at least as many footnotes for that as individual sections that opened. I looked at other state-level articles and didn't see any consistency (my sample: Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania; Interstate 5 in California; Interstate 94 in Michigan) so I'm not sure how to approach this. Mapsax (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Interstate 8 might be another example to look at. --Rschen7754 18:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not really necessary to list when each section opened sequentially. You're right in that you shouldn't want to write that and none of us want to read it; it makes for pretty boring prose. You'd be better off saying when the first and last sections opened, then mention that the sections opened up with some degree of regularity. If one section took much longer than the others, or was better covered in the press, talk about that one and be sure to mention why it took longer or why it was important. –Fredddie 20:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
A lot of my FAs do list each date, but generally there was something significant to say about most of the sections that broke up the monotony. If I were to do it again, I would probably have cut out some of the sentences such as "it was scheduled to be complete by X in X, but actually it was completed in X" and some of the extra dithering like that. --Rschen7754 00:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If you do not want boring prose, perhaps use a list to detail the opening dates or when each section was constructed? I suggest you get all of the information out there and then refine it. Based on the current History section, it looks like you are using newspaper sources, which is great. You should be able to glean more interesting information from those sources to incorporate into the section to make it more than just a list of opening dates, and you may also be able to group sections by trends you discover in your research.  V 03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. This might take a while due to not only the number of segments but the possibility that it might have briefly run with not one but two segments of SR 2 where it doesn't run now, plus there's the ambiguity of how it got between the Ohio Turnpike and the SR 2 freeway early on, complicating where the "first" purpose-built section was...I'll raise any specific concerns on the article's talk page. Mapsax (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Junction list colors[edit]

I have concerns with the junction list colors that need to be addressed. The colors for ETC and toll are an identical shade of purple, which can be confusing if a road has both ETC only tolls and traditional toll facilities. Is there a way we could differentiate between the two and use two different shades of purple? Dough4872 21:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss changes like that. –Fredddie 13:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Where should we discuss this then? Dough4872 00:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
WT:RJL, as this applies across the Highway project. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Discussion moved there. Dough4872 01:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Slow-simmering edit war[edit]

There is a slow-simmering edit war between myself and Chaswmsday on U.S. Route 34 in Iowa regarding this interchange (link). The disagreement comes whether or not it should be called a "one-quadrant interchange" (which this intersection is specifically mentioned in a couple sources) or a "quadrant interchange" (which merely drops the number). Any input is welcomed. –Fredddie 13:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned at my last edit of the article, if Fredddie can find a RS for the term "quadrant interchange", I will gladly stop reverting, otherwise, its use is OR, or just wrong. Additionally, such a term would have to be added to the prose at Fredddie's redirect target, quadrant roadway intersection#Variants. --Chaswmsday (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
What I've been trying to suggest all along is that the number, especially in this case, does not matter. This is an idiosyncrasy of the English language issue, not a WP:RS issue at all. It's similar to saying someone has "a thousand dollars" versus "one thousand dollars". –Fredddie
No, there are "one-quadrant interchanges" contrasted with the somewhat poorly-named "two-quadrant interchnanges". --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not well-versed on interchanges, but a quick search on Google turns up reliable sources for three variants of the term: "quadrant interchange" and "single-quadrant interchange" in this FHWA report and "one-quadrant interchange" in The Civil Engineering Handbook. Britinvasion64 (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In the first, I find an undefined "quadrant interchange" & in the second, "one-quadrant interchange". I HAVE found just "quadrant interchange" in some state DOT documents, but these seem more like a description of parclos, while the quadrant interchanges mostly seem to require turns across traffic... --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
This PPT appears to show the exact interchange in question on a slide titled "Grade Separated Quadrant Interchange," then uses the more specific "one-quadrant" term to compare it to a "two-quadrant" example. Britinvasion64 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Personally, I wouldn't bother listing the interchange type at all, thus solving the issue of what to call it. That's interesting only to limited audiences, not to the generalist audience we ascribe to serve. Imzadi 1979  23:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)