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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ideas[edit]

Here's some ideas for standards. I think most of these are common practice, but I'll mention them for the sake of covering all the bases. If anyone else has any others, or concerns regarding anyone's ideas, please voice them.

  • The infobox should be Infobox road or a state-specific routebox calling Infobox road, such as Infobox NH Route.
  • "Headline shields" (the shield of the article route) in infoboxes should be 70px in height. "Headline plates" should be 70px in width.
  • Shields for infobox junctions should be 20px in height, if possible.
  • Displayed text for links to routes in the infobox should be an abbreviated form.
  • Lists of cities or counties should be a comma-delimited list. Lists of junctions should be a <br> (line break)-delimited list.
  • Segmented routes can be reflected in the junction list with a <hr> (horizontal rule).
  • Do not include the state abbreviation with town names for the junction list for a state highway (as it is implied that the town in question is in the same state as the road). Do include the state abbreviation in every other case.
  • Use three-letter abbreviations for bannered routes ("BUS", "BYP", "ALT",...). These save typing and space.
  • All items addressing the infobox in WP:USSH apply here as well. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would IL have to switch over? As has been mentioned, they have a routebox incompatible with {{Infobox road}}... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, they (as well as the other four states not using Infobox road in some way) should switch over, but I wouldn't worry about it right now. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MO used to have an infobox incompatible with Infobox road, but I had to work my butt off on converting...maybe IL can convert just like MO did. V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK can be converted since its structure is almost the same... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MN didn't take too much effort since it was practically the same as MO - all fields supplied in the old one were covered by {{infobox road}}. • master_sonLets talk 14:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scaps template[edit]

I assume that we are not to use the {{scaps}} template anymore due to WP:MOS • master_sonLets talk 17:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, no. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 17:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
short response - ok. • master_sonLets talk 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Font size[edit]

See Template talk:Infobox road for an idea relating to font size. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Infobox occurences on one article[edit]

I've been finding many instances of this happening as of late which is drawing concern (from me for sure). So far I've seen the following:

All with unusual circumstances for sure. MN-62 has a wierd twist for sure, NE-2 was truncated and split when US-30 was formed. and of course the infamous "split of I-95." in NJ.

Since we have ran into split article situations before (e.g. U.S. 2) What is the best way to deal with this? -- master_sonTalk - Edits 12:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no answer that can cover every case, and this is something that must be determined on a case-by-case basis. My thoughts:
  • I-95 in NJ should have a single infobox with a line break <hr>, as the road was intended to be a continuous roadway (and will be within the next decade).
  • MN 62 should be split into two articles, as the two "segments" of MN 62 have nothing to do with the other. It's similar to PA 97.
  • MN 101 should have a single infobox with a line break, as the road was once a continuous route (see PA 29).
  • Ditto for NE 2: once a continuous route, therefore one infobox with a line break. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you on I-95 except for one thing... It was intended to have a single continuous route, but not with it's current routing. Had the southern terminus of the "main section" remained at I-287, one infobox would have been fine. But with the southern terminus being at I-276 some thirty miles south of Trenton, a line break in a single infobox just doesn't make sense. Other routes with two sections are continuations of each other, with a clear route from Section 1 to Section 2. Traffic from Philadelphia to New York however, isn't expected to travel from the northern terminus of one section to the southern terminus of the other – in fact, such a movement is impossible.
Two articles on I-95 in New Jersey would be okay with me, except that then there would be no place to discuss the I-95 gap. -- NORTH talk 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just put the "split" template on MN-62 to draw consensus about it. North - I agree with TMF, The point you bring up is a valid one, but in a matter of five years (give/take a few) that will become moot when it is rerouted along I-476 and the NJTpk. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Five years is a very long time. -- NORTH talk 07:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, for the most part, one infobox per article is a very good idea. I just don't see how to make it work cleanly for Interstate 95 in New Jersey. The horizontal line – for reasons I mentioned above – just doesn't work in this case; they're two completely separate routes. So, IMHO, that leaves three options:

  • The status quo (two infoboxes)
  • Remove the Trenton infobox entirely. It makes sense, since the main section is the main section, and in five years, it will be the only section. But it seems to me to give to much weight to the future, and not enough to the facts as they are now, which an encyclopedia should do.
  • Split the article. As I said above, this is okay by me, but it leaves us without a place to discuss the I-95 gap. Perhaps though that material could be merged with either the Interchange Project or Somerset Freeway.

My preference is for the dual infobox (of course, I put it there!), then the split, then the single infobox. -- NORTH talk 09:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Infoboxes on Decom'd routes[edit]

See Minnesota State Highway 81 for an example. Per the above discussion - I would think this deserves a split - but I looked further to find that both sections described a decom'd route. Does it require an infobox at all? Also of note, the first infobox uses both an older shield and a non-standard image, I am aware of that. -- master_sonTalk - Edits 10:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my two cents:
    • Turn the page into a disambig
    • Link the first STH 81 to US 75 in MN
    • Link the second STH 81 to CR 81
This is the same case with Pennsylvania Route 47. No infobox should be on the disambig, just a shield is fine.  V60 VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10 junction limit[edit]

I've added the 10 junction rule that was apparently missed when the proposal was proposed. Nonetheless, WP:IH uses the rule everywhere; we should be doing this for all of USRD. V60 干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this has been here for a while. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major multiplexes[edit]

I'm wondering if something regarding major multiplexes could be added to infoboxes. For example, U.S. Route 81 has significant and lengthy multiplexes with Interstate 135 and Interstate 29. Interstate 90 has two with Interstate 94 and one with Interstate 80. It would unclutter some of the major intersection listings I've seen to add a major multiplex section. DandyDan2007 04:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a concurrency section to the infobox would eliminate the west-east and south-north progression in the infobox. Also, adding multiplexes to its own area in the infobox wouldn't clear out the major junctions as the idea of keeping junctions to a minimum stems around keeping the infobox a reasonable size. So, in other words, for every theoretical concurrency that is added, one junction would have to be removed to compensate sizewise, so there'd be no point. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Termini debate in Infoboxes rears its ugly head again[edit]

See the current edit war reinstated at Interstate 75. What was compromised a year or two ago was that the Infobox, since it is an at a glance chart would put the major city of the termini, while the text ("near Miami, FL") would put the actual suburb (Hialeah). One anonymous editor from Miami Dade College keeps changing it siting non-reasons like WP:OR -- it is of note that the FHWA master list says it terminates in Miami. Now, however an established editor changed it back. I think we need some agreement and for it to be put into the Infobox standard. -- KelleyCook 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Standards/Infobox_archive&oldid=1137361222"