Jump to content

Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sort param

I'm going to add a listas param which allows the setting of the DEFAULTSORT setting (similar to what all the other WikiProject banners have) and remove the sort param if no-one objects. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain in plain English? Imzadi 1979 → 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can explain it very easily but I'll try. Currently if you set the sort param, it uses that to sort the item in the categories or uses {{PAGENAME}}, so if you set |sort=100, the item would be in the 1 section of the category list. The template code is currently littered with |{{#if:{{{sort|}}}|{{{sort}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}} after each cateogry to sort it. However, if sorting is set by using the keyword {{DEFAULTSORT:sortkey}} then there is no need for all that extra code. Actually, it doesn't appear as though the sort param is very well used. I only spotted 3 occurences, so I've removed them anyway from those banners as only sorting three items doesn't really help much as they are then out of place from all the other items in the categories. If I'm going to update the sort code, then I might as well change the param name to listas to match all the other banners though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so it's just a code update. I've been planning on getting the MI articles set to sort off the 3-digit version of the number so that the categories fall into natural order, but that's been an AWB run for another day. (Once I figure out how to do that, of course. MY AWB skills are a bit limited so far.) BTW, I think California extensively uses sorting already. Imzadi 1979 → 23:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I should note that virtually every Interstate and U.S. Highway uses the sort as well to group child routes with their parents. Additionally, it's used in NY on articles that have been featured on the USRD or NYRD portals to add leading zeroes to the route number (i.e., using a three-digit sort as described by Imz above) if necessary. – TMF 23:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd missed that. I had only seen the 3 articles where the sort was set to just a number. So, I can now see that the sort param should be kept but it could still be moved to a DEFAULTSORT param rather than being added to the end of each category to sort it. This would shorten the template code a little bit. Could add listas as an additinal alias while keeping sort as the main param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
This sounds good to me, assuming it works as advertised. – TMF 02:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
All done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

See [1], specifically [2] - apparently this new method leads to conflicts with the sorts used by other projects when they're not identical. – TMF 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with the DEFAULTSORT method, there can be only one sort order used by all projects. If WikiProject Tennessee can't use the same sort order as U.S. Roads for articles that they share then the changes I did will have to be reverted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Then revert. I don't think our project needs to be telling the others how to sort things, and vice-versa. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Changes have been reverted. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You might want to liaise with MSG on that Wos. I believe that sort orders that favour numerical rather than alpha sort of numbers are likely to be widely welcomed. A sort parameter in a template is a "halfway house" between an individual sort order and a DEFAULTSORT, there is maybe some kind of magic in the shell banner/css that allows some intelligent choices to be made when one isn't specified. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC).

Image tweaks suggested

Support, as suggester. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support suggestions two and three, not really controversial. Leaning oppose for suggestion one: I see the point, but I don't agree that the presence of the Missouri Route A marker will lead readers or editors to believe that the article's at A-Class when it isn't. The line immediately adjacent to the image spells out exactly what's going on, whether it's at ACR to be promoted or reviewed for demotion. A couple of lines above it is the class, which says "This article is <GA/A/B>-Class on the quality scale." Doesn't get much clearer to me than that. I don't think we should change the template to eliminate one potential confusion when there are several indicators already in place that wipe out any of said confusion in a half-second. – TMF 09:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Done the second one as it didn't really need discussion. I'll leave the other two incase there are any comments. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I see your point TMF, but it is a more standard image, and is what is used by {{CRWP}} and I think the Hwy project once they get ACRs up. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think having the Missouri Route A marker for ACR is a unique and creative idea. Dough4872 00:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal

Is there a reason that our template does not include the U.S. Roads portal box like most other project banners do? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And to answer a question off the bat, the {{WPUS}} tag has a switch that changes it from the US portal box to a DC portal box when a DC article is flagged, we can do the same thing for the NYRD portal. --Admrboltz (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably because banners didn't have portal boxes when this one was originally made. This idea's been informally proposed several times in a couple of different channels over the last few months, and I don't have any problems with adding it. As for the NY portal, the ideal setup IMO is to link to just the NY one for articles tagged as NY or NY-CRTF, and link to both if the article is tagged as either or both of those plus something else (like IH/USH or another state). I bet it's doable; someone (maybe myself) just needs to work out the code. – TMF 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I know it should be fairly easy to do US/NY based on state=xx parameter, but from any of the others, or adding two portal boxes, I have no clue. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh... unless I'm missing something, this switch isn't as easy as it seems. Unlike the WPUS banner (which has a simple DC=yes for DC), NY and NY-CRTF could be in any one of 21 different parameters: {{{state}}} and {{{state1}}} through {{{state20}}}. If a halfway decent way to detect when NY or NY-CRTF is one of the states is found, the rest of the code is simple. Adding the portal box to the template is as simple as adding {{portal}} to the start of the table cell containing the "This article ... " text, and switching from one portal to two is as simple as adding a second parameter to {{portal}}. – TMF 07:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

By-state importance ratings

As something of an off-shoot of the above thread, here's an idea that keeps reentering my mind every so often: implementing by-state importance ratings. The current importance system is fine on a national basis, but on a statewide level it doesn't really work. As it stands right now, each state only has one or two top-importance articles. In the case of NY, I can think of several articles that could/should be top-importance. I know that historically we've put a much greater emphasis on quality ratings than on importance ratings, but this might be something worth considering. – TMF 18:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So I am assuming you are saying for big national articles like I-70 being able to raise/lower the imp based on each state, or? --Admrboltz (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see that as a problem, since USRD's importance can just follow whatever is appropriate for the individual state. Imzadi 1979 → 22:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Ideally, it'd be enabled for every article. I'd argue that routes like the New York State Thruway, US 20, NY 5, and NY 22 are of top-importance to NYSR, for example, but to USRD they're either high or mid-importance. However, I don't agree that the USRD ratings should be changed; after all, those are probably right on a national scale. I'm not looking to supplant the existing system; rather, I'm suggesting something to supplement it. – TMF 07:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

P:MISH

Michigan has a portal now. Can someone duplicate the coding so that I can tag the articles and photos from the portal? Thanks. Imzadi 1979 → 07:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Still need assistance with this one... bumping back from the archive with a new date... Imzadi 1979 → 10:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

png → svg

Hello, the format of file:Nuvola filesystems camera.png is PNG. The same image exists in SVG format. Please change Nuvola filesystems camera.png to Gnome-dev-camera.svg. Nodulation (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a slight difference.
  • - Nuvola filesystems camera.png
  • - Gnome-dev-camera.svg
If no-one makes any comments in the next few days then I'll make the change. -- WOSlinker (talk)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Imzadi1979, 6 September 2011

-->{{#ifeq:{{{ACR|}}}|yes|
<tr><td>[[File:MO-supp-A.svg|30px|center]]</td>
<td class="mbox-text">A '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review/{{PAGENAME}}|discussion]]''' on {{#switch:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}|a=reviewing this article's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review|A-Class]] assessment|promoting this article to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Assessment/A-Class review|A-Class]]}} is underway. Please give your opinion.</td></tr>|}}<!--

should be changed to: 

-->{{#ifeq:{{{ACR|}}}|yes|
<tr><td>[[File:MO-supp-A.svg|30px|center]]</td>
<td class="mbox-text">A '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class review/{{PAGENAME}}|discussion]]''' on {{#switch:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}|a=reviewing this article's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class review|A-Class]] assessment|promoting this article to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class review|A-Class]]}} is underway. Please give your opinion.</td></tr>|}}<!--

This will convert USRD over to using the new HWY ACR forum. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit plz

For automating ACR 

-->{{#ifeq:{{{ACR|}}}|yes|
<tr><td>[[File:MO-supp-A.svg|30px|center]]</td>
<td class="mbox-text">A '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/{{PAGENAME}}|discussion]]''' on {{#switch:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}|a=reviewing this article's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review|A-Class]] assessment|promoting this article to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review|A-Class]]}} is underway. Please give your opinion.</td></tr>|}}<!--

becomes 

-->{{#ifeq:{{{ACR|}}}|yes|
<tr><td>[[File:MO-supp-A.svg|30px|center]]</td>
<td class="mbox-text">{{HWYACR}}</td></tr>|}}<!--

May need another in the future but this centralizes all the banners. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested edit

As part of creating task forces for every state, we will need new links for the states that currently do not have task forces and will also need to change the links of the current subprojects and task forces, which still link to the name of the subproject. Dough4872 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Something that got missed... The CASH, NJSH and PASH SA wordings should probably be updated to reflect the change to task force status while making any other changes. I realize that we'd be retroactively changing things on articles that were SAs when the TFs were still projects, but that's not a big deal to me. Imzadi 1979 → 08:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated in the sandbox. I'm not concerned about retroactively changing things either: any selected article in New York prior to March 2010 was never officially a selected article of the New York Roads portal (as the SA process was part of NYSR then), but it seems trivial to make that distinction as the majority of people don't care. – TMF 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 Done along with some cosmetic fixes and the implementation of the non-controversial parts of the above section. – TMF 07:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Cross-project tagging

Several years ago the Michigan Highways project (MISH) was made a subproject of the Michigan project (MICH) in addition to USRD. I'd like to propose that our banner, in addition to assessing Michigan's highway articles in Category:Michigan road transport articles by quality also asses them into Category:Michigan articles by quality. This would cement the relationship between the MISH task force and the MICH and USRD projects. Potentially, this relationship should be extended to all of the other states.

The only hitch would be importance ratings. Would it be possible for this template to take a mid-importance article for MISH and tag it as a low-importance article for MICH? Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea articles about a specific state's roads should be tagged as both a part of USRD and that state's project. Dough4872 01:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It's definitely possible - all that would need to be added is a new parameter. Ideally, this would be implemented alongside the by-topic importance ratings that were first proposed (disclosure: by myself) a year ago. Both items (the state project and the topic) would have their own importance parameters, but if one or the other isn't passed through, their categories would just use whatever importance is assigned to it at the national level.
The topic param would be something like {{{typeX_importance}}} and {{{stateX_importance}}} (or we could begin deprecating both and call it {{{topicX_importance}}} instead) and the state param could be something like {{{typeX_importance_parent}}}, substituting "parent" for whatever descriptor works best for describing the state-level parent project.
I support the idea, both on its merits and on a workload basis - since it would fall back to the USRD ratings by default, there's no extra work needed unless one of the other ratings absolutely needs to be adjusted. – TMF 07:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The subtopic sandbox has been updated with the necessary code. – TMF 08:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Main sandbox also updated, and code verified using the testcases page. All that's needed now is to copy the code over once there's consensus to do so. – TMF 08:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Another thing to consider is that some state projects would likely be opposed to having their banners removed because there would no longer be a link (or "advertising", if you will) for their project. That could be resolved by adding a line to this template saying "This article is also supported (1 state: by 'WikiProject Foo'; multiple states: by the following projects: 'WikiProject Foo, WikiProject Bar', etc.)." Just something to think about. – TMF 08:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I was just thinking that before I read your last posting. That's probably an easy thing to add just as you mention. Imzadi 1979 → 08:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added a proof of concept to the sandbox. A note about the testcases page: the reason WPLA is shown instead of WPMA is that the code looks for {{{state}}} before it looks for {{{state1}}} in cases where multiple states are listed. Those two params are not used at the same time in reality (or at least they shouldn't be), so this is mostly to make sure the template doesn't get confused. (It could also look for state1 before it looks for state; I have no preference as to what order they're searched for.) – TMF 12:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutral. I'm not terribly excited about this, but then again I've had a poor experience with state WikiProjects, so I'm probably biased. Don't see how this affects USRD negatively, though. --Rschen7754 08:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutral leaning oppose Had anyone from WP:IOWA really helped me out with US 30, sure I'd be OK with that project being tagged. That's not to say I don't have an idea of how we can accomplish the tagging. –Fredddie™ 03:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I see your points, but it seems somewhat petty to prohibit articles from being tagged with other projects just because they had no role in developing them. If that was what was done in practice, few if any articles would be tagged with anything other than this template. Fredddie's comment implies a cherry-picking tagging approach, whether it's article-based (which I'm vehemently opposed to) or state-based (which I'm far less opposed to, but still leaning against it). If we do elect for the latter, it'd make more sense to have this tagging be opt-out than opt-in, since I'd imagine that most states either support this or don't care. – TMF 09:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm all or nothing. As a whole, WP:IOWA does not help out with anything related to Iowa's highways. I was just using US 30 as an example. –Fredddie™ 01:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bump since we didn't get anywhere with this before... I'm bumping the discussion back out of the archives. I believe that we already have state-specific importances in place to allow each USRD TF/project to have a separate importance, as NY does in many cases. So it looks like it's a matter of making a decision folks. Imzadi 1979 → 08:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to applying this approach at least in the cases of Michigan and Maryland where the USRD TF is supposed to be a TF of the state project as well? Additional states could be brought on board later if desired, but you can't argue that technically our state highway articles are not in the scopes of the state projects. At least in a few cases though, (MI, MD), we formalized that by tagging only for the then state highway projects. Imzadi 1979 → 19:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

Can someone add a parameter to mark selected articles of P:MDRD? Dough4872 05:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

needs-kml

Since we track maps, and we're starting to slowly deploy KML files to our articles, how about we add a parameter to track whether or not a KML file is needed in an article? Just like needs-map, it could be set to default to "yes" and place the article into a tracking category. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 19:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We never did the RJL tracking cat either... --Rschen7754 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of a needs-kml parameter. Dough4872 00:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The icons for this exist now:
for articles with KMLs,
for articles that lack them, and
for articles that need the parameter set. That is the same globe used by the WikiMiniAtlas with a red line to represent the KML output.Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please synchronize Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/sandbox and Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/subtopic/sandbox with the respective template. This will add the coding for both the needs-kml parameter and the MDRD-SA parameter needed for the section below. In addition, in Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/hookcounter, please change the contents to: 

{{#expr:{{#ifeq:{{{hook1|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook2|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook3|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook4|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook5|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook6|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook7|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook8|¬}}}+{{#ifeq:{{{hook9|¬}}}|¬|0|1}}}}

so that the main template will show the MDRD-SA output as needed. Imzadi 1979 → 18:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

An idea we could steal

{{WikiProject India}} has an assess-date parameter that is used to track when the article was last assessed. Maybe this is something useful for tracking our assessment audits? Audit the article, change the date? Imzadi 1979 → 16:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This idea might work. Dough4872 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Couldn't hurt. -- LJ ↗ 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012

Change 

This article {{#ifeq:{{{MDRD-SA}}}|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|is the current|was the}} '''[[Portal:Maryland/Selected article|selected article]]''' of the '''[[Portal:Maryland Roads|Maryland Roads portal]]''

to 

This article {{#ifeq:{{{MDRD-SA}}}|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|is the current|was the}} '''[[Portal:Maryland Roads/Selected article|selected article]]''' of the '''[[Portal:Maryland Roads|Maryland Roads portal]]''

Dough4872 02:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Dough4872 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit needs-kml?

I am concerned that there may be a KML 'file' but that...

  1. The {{Attached KML}} template may no have been set, or
  2. the page at [[Template:Attached KML/{{PAGENAME}}]] does not contain KML data.

Admittedly in the latter case it is simply a matter of getting the page deleted. Nevertheless I think if the 'needs-kml' parameter has not been set there should be a link to the KML page so it can be checked and instructions to confirm that the {{Attached KML}} template is used in the article before setting the parameter to 'yes'. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 03:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally, we assume that if someone knows enough to create a subpage of the template, that they know how to use it properly. The alternative was manually tagging another 3000 pages. --Rschen7754 04:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
People make mistakes. This template can now detect if there is a KML page for an article even if is is a redirect that was left behind after a page move. At the very least this template should categorize the pages where 'needs-kml' is not set so that a bot can do some basic checks. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 17:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we do not have the manpower to code a bot or to provide the extra categories for such a small benefit. --Rschen7754 19:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I found four redirects; Template:Attached KML/Abandoned Pennsylvania Tunrpike, Template:Attached KML/Interstate 270, Template:Attached KML/State Route 74 (New York – Vermont), and Template:Attached KML/Whitefish National Forest Bay Scenic Byway. The second one is of concern because the template at Talk:Interstate 270 is linking to it. I will try to have the other redirects deleted as there are no links to them. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 21:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Just CSD G6 the redirects. If a page is moved by a non-admin, the redirect can't be suppressed. That sort of thing is routine housekeeping that can get forgotten at times, but G6 will cover. if the I-270 redirect is causing an issue, and it was created from a page move, same thing, just G6. Imzadi 1979 → 21:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Rschen7754 21:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012

Please replace Merge sign.svg with MUTCD W4-1.svg. The file was either renamed or the former was deleted in favor of the latter in the case of duplicates. Either way, our template no longer is showing a graphic as it should now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Rschen7754 04:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

needs-kml bug

See Template talk:New York State Route 17. The banner template is currently coded to look for Template:Attached KML/{{PAGENAME}}, which returns Template:Attached KML/New York State Route 17 for that template's talk page. Since NY 17 has a KML file, the banner erroneously states that the template has a KML. Of course, the NY 17 template could be moved to some other name, but that's a lazy fix that IMO isn't acceptable. It's much a better idea to change the code in this template to only look for KMLs when the supplied class is one where KMLs are actually used, like articles and (maybe) lists. – TMF (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo requests

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to move the photo requests into the issues section? I think it looks out of place where it is. –Fredddie™ 16:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. Dough4872 14:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I would have to agree. Also, I think that all of the other "issue"-type items should be put there, as well. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Now done in the sandbox and ready to view in the testcases -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good as far as I'm concerned. –Fredddie™ 00:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner

I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

New option for needs-jctint

I am proposing a new option for the |needs-jctint= parameter, |needs-jctint=missing. This option would be used for articles that should have a tabular junction list, but currently have none at all. Articles tagged with the new option would be placed in Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing a junction listCategory:Road articles needing a junction list. I feel it would be best to separate these articles from those with hardcoded junction lists (|needs-jctint=yes) and articles not requiring a tabular junction list (|needs-jctint=na). I am requesting input from the community on this manner. Please state your opinion below. Thanks. -happy5214 09:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

{{Requested move/dated}}

Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject → Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads – Every other WikiProject is named that way, plus that this templates categories are named that way. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". There was a discussion about this three years ago where the same rationale was used. Everybody who supported was not a USRD editor, everyone opposed was a USRD editor. I suspect it will be exactly the same. –Fredddie™ 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose not this again. --Rschen7754 20:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Oppose—there is a redirect in place, but this project is named the "U.S. Roads WikiProject", not the other way around. Yeah, it bucks the system, but nothing is broke so nothing needs to be fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I retract my request. -(t) Josve05a (c) 23:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested edit

Can someone please change the shield for the NJSCR-SA from New Jersey blank.svg to Ellipse sign blank.svg? Dough4872 19:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done TCN7JM 19:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Dough4872 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned

This template has been mentioned here. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:U.S._Roads_project_articles_without_needs-kml

Why isn't this category there to see what articles don't have it? Thewombatguru (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Since |needs-kml= defaults to "yes", it really isn't necessary. If it's not tagged, it will show up in a subcategory of Category:U.S. road articles needing KML as if it were tagged with |needs-kml=yes. -happy5214 12:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
So why are there categories for without map or jctint? Thewombatguru (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Because those tags don't have defaults. If you have time, try to empty those categories by tagging the articles in them. The jctint one should actually be empty already. -happy5214 14:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thewombatguru: because KMLs have to be named with Template:Attached KML/<article title> in order to work with {{Attached KML}}, the banner can automatically detect if the appropriate file has been created using an {{#ifexist}} parser function. There is nothing that forces us to use a specific naming convention for maps, which could be uploaded in SVG or PNG format, even GIF or JPG. As for the {{jctint}}-related tracking, a template on a talk page can't see if templates are used on the article page to automatically know. Imzadi 1979 → 19:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Template-protected edit request on 28 October 2014

"|VI=Circle sign blank.svg" needs to be added to Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/shield, because "Virgin_Islands_blank.svg" does not exist, "Circle sign blank.svg" would be the same image as "Virgin_Islands_blank.svg" and it is used on Template:USVirginIslands-road-stub. Thanks, --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done SiBr4 (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 November 2014

Could it be added so articles without KML-files will be added to e.g. Category:B-class articles without KML files ? TheWombatGuru (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment User:Happy5214/Map and KML Tables has automatically updated tables for articles with missing maps and KMLs listed by assessment and task force, as well as links to lists of those articles. I'm not entirely sure a new category is strictly necessary. (By the way, a list of B-Class articles without KMLs can be found here.) -happy5214 10:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to mark this as answered there are already ways to to find the desired information. Imzadi 1979 → 10:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 August 2015

The live version incorrectly handles the photo parameter when it is the only issue. Photo request does not appear if no other issues are present. This is because the issue counter cannot take it into account as the counter can handle at most 8 issues. Since the photo parameter is listed as a main-section parameter in the documentation, the request should be displayed along with similar paramaters such as reassess and merge. The test cases illustrate this problem, and the sandbox contains proposed changes. Chinissai (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the ability to have 9 issues in the issue tracker and then added |photo= to the list of issues that will trip it. @Rschen7754: can you look at this? –Fredddie™ 21:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't quite work, because photo parameter is not a yes/no/na parameter, so I think the issue counter is getting confused. See Talk:New Hampshire Route 28 for the erroneous, empty "having issues" section. Chinissai (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It turns out the issue counter is not robust enough. See my edit request there. Chinissai (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Your fix seems to have done the trick. –Fredddie™ 01:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As expected, the more robust issue counter has uncovered more bugs with the template. When required issue parameters (such as needs-map) are left out, they are misinterpreted by the issue counter as not an issue. The default value of these parameters needs to be something other than ¬, e.g., "undefined", to increment the number of issues. Once again, the test cases illustrate this problem, and the sandbox has the corrections. Chinissai (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done – Please update documentation as needed. – Paine  02:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cross-project tagging, part deux

Last discussed a little over two years ago, I think it's time to resurrect this proposal.

I've put the coding back into the template sandboxes, so if you look at Template:U.S. Roads WikiProject/testcases, you'll see that the sandboxed banner is displaying a section with:

This article is also supported by the following projects:

followed by the appropriate state-level wikiprojects. The idea is that our banner would also pass the appropriate article assessments to a state-level project, and quite possibly WP:WikiProject United States.

All of the roads project banners have a similar behavior now, passing article assessments into Category:Road transport articles by quality to make Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/Live provide the overall assessment statistics for all of the projects combined together.

In a further refinement, or a phase 2, I would also suggest we come up with coding that allowed "(Detroit)" to appear after "WikiProject Michigan" in the list. We could then include the major metropolitan area task forces or projects grouped with their states.

If our banner were to pass its assessments to WPUSA, I would suggest we do so in the same silent manner as the "Road transport" tagging unless a parameter were invoked to specifically show it. Imzadi 1979 → 08:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Tentative support I think this is a more long-term solution to local WikiProjects who insist on tagging articles on highways, rather than removing the tags. Of course, we would have to see how implementation would work (@Happy5214:) --Rschen7754 21:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments I will think about this on two different fronts:
    • Technical: I haven't actually looked into how hard this would be to implement. But the banner is set to be entirely rewritten once Module:WikiProjectBanner is finished, and I am really loathe to make major changes to the current code if I'm just going to have to re-implement them in Lua a few months later.
    • Assessment: HWY/USRD and the WP:USA subprojects have different assessment standards. For example, an article that has only one Big 3 section, a really long RD, might be a Start in WP:USA, but a Stub in USRD. And don't get me started on importance ratings. How do we reconcile those disparate assessment systems?
  • I'll have a bunch of free time early next month, so I'll see if I can make anything of this. -happy5214 06:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The original discussions included provisions to change the importance by state. (We already have the capability now for our state task forces, although it's rarely used.) As for the quality assessments, the state projects would basically have to inherit our assessment guidelines. Since USRD is the specialist project dealing with road articles, we honestly should be determining the actual quality of the article. Most of the other projects out there based quality sub-B levels based on word counts, yet we actually base ours on whether or not the appropriate information expected in the article is in the article.
    • As it stands, the MI and MD task forces are technically considered TFs of the appropriate state-level projects and they have been for some time. Yet our articles aren't falling into their assessments. (In the MI case, any potential difference in assessment scheme will be academic before long since there aren't many articles under GA-level left.) One thing we might want to implement is a switch that puts our A-Class articles in the states' GA-Class category and AL-Class lists in the plain List-Class since most state projects do not use A-Class.
    • I would like to get at least Michigan on this scheme as a test, if nothing else. The coding is already in the sandbox to display the state projects in the banner for all states. If we decided to limit that to white-listed states, it would take a bit of revision. Imzadi 1979 → 06:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New York renamed

New York and Wikipedia:WikiProject New York have been renamed New York (state) and Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state) respectively with the categories updated appropriately. Please can someone who understands this template make the necessary adjustments. Timrollpickering 10:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timrollpickering: Which categories, specifically? Please give examples of where it is wrong. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Timrollpickering: since we don't append "(state)" to the categories and naming for Washington, I don't see a need to do so for New York either. Imzadi 1979 → 00:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki glitch

On Talk:U.S. Route 63 in Missouri, I tried to correct the fact of the article having a KML (which it doesn't) on this template using the rater script, but now, for some strange reason, it displays two instances of the |needs-kml= parameter. What might be the problem here? ToThAc (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@ToThAc: you only need to insert |needs-kml= in less common situations, like articles on highway systems or interchanges, not on articles about specific highways. In those cases, this template automatically looks to see if a KML exists and internally fills in the yes/no. There was only one instance of the parameter once you removed the duplicate template. I just removed it completely to let the banner template do its automated function. Imzadi 1979 → 16:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. While I sympathise with the opposers about the general pointlessness of moving templates, in this case there is a consensus that moving the templates will help with technical issues that apparently can't be solved by just using the redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


– I request two moves to improve the consistency of the same type of templates as Template:WikiProject UK Roads, Template:WikiProject Australian Roads, Template:WikiProject Hong Kong Roads, Template:WikiProject Indian roads, Template:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Template:WikiProject U.S. Streets, Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, Template:WikiProject Canada, Template:WikiProject Canada Streets. Sawol (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose—the redirects exist already, so there is no actual proffered advantage to the move. While we are at it, I suggest that we trout the nominator for renominating the USRD template again after it was rejected twice less than three months ago. In the case of the USRD template, it has been discussed, and rejected, at least four times:November 2010, November 2013 and April 2014 and April 2014. The CARD/CRWP template was discussed in April 2011 when the move was rejected as well. If this move is rejected, there should be a moratorium against renominating for a year. Imzadi 1979 → 08:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I was leaning toward doing back to my original "meh" from the last discussion in April, but of course Rich Farmbrough can't even spell my user name correctly, and he started tossing around stuff about ArbCom and editors not part of this discussion.... The nomination above still had no proffered advantage because readers can't tell if a template is transcluded with {{USRD}}, {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} or {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}}, and there's been a redirect in place at the desired name since November 13, 2006‎. An editor, Ritchie333, someone who isn't the nominator from this nor the last request found an actual problem that a page move might solve that the redirect does not. If that's the case, then I'll support the change, if not, my indifferent opposition stands. Imzadi 1979 → 15:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem! The template redirect Template:WPBiography is transcluded in over 125,000 pages. No need to change. Sawol (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
To opposer. Do you want to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Category:WikiProject U.S. Roads? Sawol (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the first solution would require renaming a few hundred subpages (which not even an admin can do with one click), and the second would also result in a bunch of work, no. --Rschen7754 01:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Sawol, Izmadi and Rschen have been opposing this with a great big dollop of WP:OWN for years. Even the stubborn Kirill Lokshin has gone with the community way of doing this, though not until after he had drafted a very severe ArbCom result against me. There are some things its not worth the effort, though I will however give you a moral Support message, and assure you that no trout is deserved. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Oppose – It's not broken; it doesn't need to be fixed. TCN7JM 02:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Waste of time to move. Dough4872 02:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support once again the tired old shibboleths are trotted out against this move. If the move were made it would make it much easier to identify banner templates, and offer potential for increased simplicity all round. There are only three project with non standard banner names, and the Canada roads one was I believe at the instigation of Izmadi. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Question - As a member of this project, I've never understood the vehement opposition to moving the banner. Yes, the name of the project is "The U.S. Roads WikiProject". However, there are other examples of standardized naming (i.e. the project home page is not located at Wikipedia:U.S. Roads WikiProject, but rather uses the convention of other projects Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads). So, is there a rationale other than "the name of the project" for not moving the template to a standardized name? Perhaps if there is a documented rationale, it would help fend off the recurrent move proposals... -- LJ ↗ 03:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I have only seen !votes that looks like WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OWN. All the other WikiProjects' banned are named this way. It might be that the 'project itself' is named one way, but it needs to be consistent. The cat and project-name is under WP USR, why not the banner to? (sorry, but... People seem to want to keep it "like it has always been", and are narrow-minded to only see it from this WikiProjects' POV.) Why should WP USR (and Canada) be an exemption to the standardization of the banner names? Please someone explain this, without saying "it works" or it is our name...since it is not. The official title is Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads, and you might have an inside name, but that doesn't change the fact that the project itself (and the category) is located under the name WikiProject U.S. Roads. (t) Josve05a (c) 08:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - found a technical problem with the Articles for Creation helper script. The script picks up projects to assign new articles from, and appears to do it with any page in WP space that matches "WikiProject <name>". Under U, I can see Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and even Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66, but not this project, and I suspect the inconsistent name is confusing Theo's Little Bot into removing it from the available project list. Ideally, WikiProjects would be in a separate namespace, but we have to work with what we're given, and the name needs to change to support the bot.
Just for the record, although I !voted above, I have no fight whatsoever with those wanting to support this - everyone is entitled to their point of view and arguments seem to have been made with good faith. Furthermore, in the grand scheme of things, this debate is not too dissimilar to edit-warring over the colour color of templates, and it's worth putting that in perspective. (And, no matter how much we may wish otherwise, WP:TROUT is not actually policy!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can someone else verify what Ritchie333 is saying? It's not that I don't trust his judgment, it's just that this is the first time I can recall reasoning that wasn't "all the others are this way" and I'd like to confirm it. If it's true, I may be swayed after all. –Fredddie™ 14:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The list itself (which the script uses) is in User:Theo's Little Bot/afchwikiproject.js - I've got no idea how it's generated, so I'll ping @Theopolisme: to see if we can get an answer. It must ultimately use the template name, because that's what it has to transclude onto a newly created talk page when an AfC draft is approved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Canada Roads is listed there, and like the USRD banner, it has a redirect at the "Template:WikiProject Foo" style name. Unlike the Mathematics project, which was is listed with its non-standard template name, {{Maths rating}} with "[manual] Adding Mathematics" as the edit summary, it appears the Canada Roads banner was picked up automatically by the bot. Imzadi 1979 → 15:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Would a redirect from the "conventional" name not serve the purpose? Also, Theo hasn't been that active lately - @Technical 13: do you know, by chance? --Rschen7754 17:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If I had to guess, adding our project name should fix it. --Rschen7754 19:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the project was on there, but this bot edit wiped it out. Manually adding it would work to a point, but runs the risk of being wiped out later should Theo (or anyone else maintaining the list) decide to do a bot run. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • NeutralSupport - Doesn't make a lick of difference either way. There's a reason we have the redirect system, and semantics over template naming is just that. Consistency makes sense though. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed my !vote to support. Given some of the arguments above, it makes more technical and simplistic sense to just move the template and its subpages, done. My reasoning is 6-fold: 1) As noted by Rich F, these are two of three non-standard banner templates out of thousands! 2) The redirect system is a useless argument, because it applies equally to both outcomes. Moving the template won't disturb existing links to the current pagename. 3) As noted by Josve05a, the project itself and the categories are in the standardized order, but the template is not. 4) As noted in previous discussions (ie last July), the name is not compatible with AWB, which is inefficient for our many editors who use the program. 5) I don't understand the semantics of "Our project is the U.S. Roads WikiProject" vs "It's WikiProject: U.S. Roads". Does it really matter? Bring it in line with convention as far as page titles go and use one of the handy dandy templates that overwrites the level 0 header so that it shows up any colour you like when the page loads. 6) For all whimsical purposes, WP:USRD = Wikiproject U.S. Roads. Now the moniker CRWP, which I'm trying to phase out in support of WP:CARD, would have made sense in this situation, but such is not the case with how we (particularly you @Imzadi1979:) have strived to standardize the project names and shortcuts under WikiProject Highways. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In fact... since I can't find any discussion for Canada and it only seems to be in place because the project was set up by mirroring the U.S. project, I may just make the bold move myself in a few days. There's really no logical reason to oppose this, and if it helps with tools, searches, and future editors... then it should be done! - Floydian τ ¢ 23:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: According to the section above, this template may have a pending re-write and transition to Lua coming. Does the coding of this template currently rely on complex sub-pages which would also have to be moved? If so, would the Lua rewrite eliminate the need for those sub-pages, and thus would it make sense to hold off on moving the template until the rewrite is done? -- LJ ↗ 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    The Lua rewrite is months away at the earliest. I'm waiting for @Kephir: to finish Module:WikiProjectBanner before porting. I'm hoping for a December-January timeframe. As far as I can tell, the subpages, at least as currently constituted, would no longer exist in the rewritten version. Regarding the subpage count, there are 20 subpages + 1 redirect. Of those 21 pages, 7 are sandboxes, 3 are documentation pages, and 1 is a testcase page. That means there are 10 subpages in actual use. Some are more complicated than others.
    I'm definitely of the mindset that it would be easier to move the banner during the rewrite process. Moving the subtemplates wouldn't be the hardest thing to do, technically speaking, but why move them if the whole thing is going to be rewritten anyway? If the final consensus is to move, we'll need to decide when it should happen. -happy5214 09:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping. I would not be so optimistic about the rewrite, though. I have to sort out some disagreements with S first, and I might not be available to work on this in the coming months. — Keφr 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    I would also think that it would be a long while before a Lua version would work with this banner since the tackforces are displayed in a different way to most other banners and that this template does not even use {{WPBannerMeta}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It really makes easier for database scans, tools, bots, etc. if the WikiProject pseudonamespace has all projects. This does not affect the content of the WikiProject but makes life easier for the rest. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Doesn't make a great difference either way, but support to bring into line with the WikiProject's main page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Magioladitis, MSGJ, WOSlinker, Ritchie333, Josve05a, and Rich Farmbrough: It's been over two and a half years since the template was moved, but it still does not show up in the various gadgets, like the AfC helper script, as an option. It believe that was one of the main reasons why the move was requested. Where's the follow through on this issue? Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"needs-kml" not working

When I put "yes" for the "needs-kml" parameter of this template on a talk page, it does not update. For example, I changed the "needs-kml" parameter on Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Nebraska to "yes", since there is not a KML for US 30 in Nebraska, but it still shows up as "This article has a KML file..." Am I doing something wrong? Azmjc02 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Attached KML/U.S. Route 30 in Nebraska exists (and it's in the article as well, top right corner) so I assume the talk page banner just looks for the existence of a page at Template:Attached KML/Article title - Floydian τ ¢ 12:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Azmjc02:, my colleague Floydian is correct. The banner template had some logic added to it a while back to check for the existence of a KML file. Unlike maps, the KML files have to be titled a specific way, meaning the template can look to see if they exist. Because the KML exists for that article, the template is ignoring your parameter input. If an editor adds a KML to an article, the banner will update its status, although it might take a purge or null edit to make the update immediately, otherwise it will update when he job queue gets around to it. So in essence, the parameter now only exists as a way to tag articles that don't need a KML, lest the banner say one is missing when we wouldn't add one. Imzadi 1979 → 18:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if Azmjc02 was conflating a KML with an interactive map. As such, I created the GeoJSON and created the map on Commons. –Fredddie™ 06:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was referring to the interactive map, and I figured that was the same as the KML map, because I didn't notice that in the upper-right corner there are usually route maps in addition to the infobox maps. My fault, I apologize. With that being said, since interactive maps are presumably preferrable to static maps, should this template be edited so that it has a parameter for interactive maps rather than any (static or interactive) map? It could include both "needs-map" and "needs-interactive", so it can be shown that a page has no map at all, or just a static map, or an interactive map. This would also allow for a category page for articles that need an interactive map, similar to the category page for U.S. Route articles needing KML. Azmjc02 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I could certainly see a need for this, as well as a few other parameters to help sort articles to particular needs... for example articles needing updates, articles that haven't been reviewed in several years.
In the meanwhile Azmjc02, if you would like to be able to add these yourself (since it only takes about a minute once you get a feel):
  1. Go to your user preferences, go to the Appearance tab, and edit your custom JavaScript for all skins.
  2. Add the following text to it:
    importScript('User:Evad37/kmlToJson.js'); // User:Evad37/kmlToJson
  3. On any article with a kml, go to Template:Attached_KML/article title, and there will be a tab at the top, and a box with links near the top left of the page when you try to edit the kml page.
  4. The tab, "geojson", will generate code. Select all and copy and paste the output that appears.
  5. The link that appears when you edit a KML page, "JSON data for interactive maps", links to the page where you should paste the code you just copied.
  6. Copy the map code from an infobox on an article with an interactive map, and adjust as needed (far easier than trying to spell out the mapframe template).
Hope this helps! - Floydian τ ¢ 03:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

New parameter proposal

I'd like to propose a few new parameters for this template (which could presumably be duplicated to the other road projects).

  1. A needs-update parameter for articles that have gone a certain length of time without a review. Especially handy for older GAs or B class articles that have languished for 5 or 10 years.
  2. A new-construction parameter for routes currently going through major construction, which would necessitate frequent updates in the very near term.
  3. As mentioned in the above section, a needs-interactive parameter, for articles that haven't had (or needn't have) an interactive JSON map added.

I feel these could help direct editors to articles that need attention in various ways in a more categorial fashion, especially in areas with lower wikiwork requirements. -- Floydian τ ¢ 03:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We do have Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration which was introduced before the interactive maps that looks at the map parameter and matches it against route map (P15). It does not match instances of {{Maplink}} or {{Maplink-road}}. I can work out a similar tracking cat that matches instances of P15 being used. It's not perfect, but it will take some guesswork out of which articles need interactive maps. –Fredddie™ 03:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Does this automatically pick up new map_data pages or do they have to be manually added into the wikidata? I feel like this could theoretically be achieved by checking for the existence of the map_data page, but I'm still stuck in 2015 and that wouldn't verify if the map was actually inserted into the article. Floydian τ ¢ 03:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I will say, needs-kml= seems really outdated in the era of GeoJSON and I would support a plan to sunset it. --Rschen7754 04:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't sunset it yet. KMLs are still useful for external uses. We should encourage the addition of them where they are lacking as the first step toward the interactive maps anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 05:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a way to roll them both into one? We have scripts and links to interconnect the first step of a KML to the second step of a JSON map, so I'm not sure that sunsetting will be an option until json data can be easily outputted by map services in the same way that KML is now (ArcGIS aside). Floydian τ ¢ 05:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding #1, how would the needs-update work? Would it just be a flag that we turn on/off? Would it be automatic and require a 5-or-10-year timer? –Fredddie™ 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say manual, since the a majority of roads aren't going to see any changes in the near or mid-future. However, I could also see a use in having a datestamp on it, and a separate category that has articles that need to be given a quick look over and manually set to needs-update=yes or no, X years after the datestamp.
In other words, the value could be yes, no, or auto, where auto becomes flagged after X years. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I had an idea probably 10 years ago that I never really went public with (or maybe I did and I forgot), but it was to remove the classes below GA from the class mask, meaning you would not be able to set an article as C-Class. In their place, there would be several checks in a similar vein as Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist. If it met all of them, it would be B-Class otherwise it would score articles and give them a class accordingly. Basically it would ask if the big three sections were there and if they were any good; it would also flag the needs- categories if something was not good. I never progressed with this idea because it seemed really complex and hard to explain to others why it would be a good idea. –Fredddie™ 06:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea. Basically it would codify current practices more objectively and be more transparent. Imzadi 1979 → 22:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
What would we do with articles already assessed? It sounds like we would have to reassess them. --Rschen7754 00:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I know we don't have the youthful zeal that we did 15 years ago, but did you forget that we used to have semi-regular assessment audits? –Fredddie™ 06:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Here are some parameters that I'm thinking would be useful. The general answers would be yes, no, NA, and fix:

|has_RD=
|has_hist=
|has_RJL= this would would also accept 'bulleted'
|has_map=

I was going to add another one called |good_shape= that would be used like the B-Class checklist, but then I thought we could just implement that instead. –Fredddie™ 07:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

New York Roads

Portal:New York roads has been deleted. Its former redirect Portal:New York Roads can be unlinked from this template. Certes (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't sure whether the section could be updated in some way, but just deleting it seems a good solution. Certes (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
According to a search, the affected parameter was not in use on any talk pages, making it useless. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2023

|note 5={{#if:{{lc:{{{needs-kml|}}}}}||{{#ifeq:{{talkspace detect|main=yes|default=no}}|yes|{{#ifexist:Template:Attached KML/{{PAGENAME}}|no|yes|no}}|no}}}}

Should be: 

|note 5={{#if:{{lc:{{{needs-kml|}}}}}||{{#ifeq:{{talkspace detect|main=yes|default=no}}|yes|{{#ifexist:Template:Attached KML/{{PAGENAME}}|no|yes}}|no}}|no}}


25or6to4 (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 Partly done: I inserted the code and it didn't seem to do anything, but I went back and broke it down. I think there were too many options. –Fredddie™ 07:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Washington issues

Just something to fix: using photoreq=yes for Washington adds a link to a disambiguation category (Category:Wikipedians in Washington) and places talk pages in what is supposed to be an empty category (Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Washington). In both cases, they just need to have "(state)" appended to them. SounderBruce 07:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Could also just change it to |photo=Washington (state), which can be handled by AWB. –Fredddie™ 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

Please remove "-->" from "|auto={{{auto|}}} -->" Christian75 (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I've done that. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Route 66

I propose to add support for the U.S. Route 66 task force so that Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/U.S. Route 66 task force can be merged into this template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: this template already supports that task force. No merger is necessary on that score.
The other template exists for a specific reason: namely to tag articles related to US 66 that are outside of the main USRD scope. Switching those articles to use the main template would mean articles on gas stations, motels or museums would suddenly be tagged fully under the main project. That would cause various issues, which is why the second template exists. Imzadi 1979 → 20:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, understood. Out of curioisty, what is the syntax for this template to support those ones, because I can't see it from the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
|type=US66. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Categories

Category:The United States articles needing KML and Category:U.S. road junction articles needing KML are being populated. Should these be created? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: they've been emptied by adding a missing parameter to the banner on the appropriate talk pages. Interchange articles wouldn't have KMLs, and I'm not sure where the other category was coming from. Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces

This template is using Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces which is no longer supported. I would like to update to use the native task force support in Module:WikiProject banner. Will do some work in the sandbox shortly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

U.S. road junction articles needing KML

Category:U.S. road junction articles needing KML, an unwanted yet non-empty redlinked category that was brought here a few weeks ago for cleanup, recurred again on the most recent run of Special:WantedCategories. I was able to resolve it again by checking what was done the last time it showed up and doing the same thing on the implicated page this time, but I had to spelunk through several levels of investigation (including diving down into Imzadi's contribution history to find the previously affected pages) just to find out what was done the last time it showed up, because I just raised the problem and wasn't the solver of it the first time. (And even if it is me again next time, I'm likely to forget what I did today due to the passage of time, and have to respelunk again to find it.)

(ETA January 2023: it recurred again today, and I did indeed have to respelunk.)

The point noted in the prior discussion was that road junctions or interchanges wouldn't have, or be expected to have, KML in the first place, meaning that this is a category that genuinely should never exist. However, if something else isn't done, it may recur again in the future, and since I with my prior knowledge of this situation won't necessarily always be the one dealing with redlinked categories it may get created by somebody else in error.

Accordingly, I wanted to ask if there's another way that this can be prevented in the future:

  1. Is there any way to make this template abort that category at the source before it even happens?
  2. We also have various maintenance categories of the "there's an error in the template coding that needs to be fixed" variety, such as Category:IMDb template with invalid id set. So if aborting the category isn't possible, then would creating it as an error-catcher category, with an "if this category is non-empty then please fix the error" note on it, be a viable alternative?

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, is Category:NA-Class U.S. byway articles a desired category? Again, US roads isn't my area of expertise, so I don't know if this should be created or just killed — so could somebody look into that one as well? Gracias. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_2&oldid=1199660005"