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

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Infoboxes and Navigation/Links

Steps to making this project

Establish a clear consensus on both the infobox and navigation standard discussion pages.
Write up the standards page for both topics.
Enforce the standards across WP:USRD.

If we do this in order, we should be in pretty good shape. I've posted some ideas on the two discussion pages; feel free to add your own ideas or concerns as well. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2 is now complete. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of page moves

As many of you witnessed, the ELG was formerly a USRD subpage, but was recently moved to a MOS entry. This brings these guidelines to question; should these be moved to MOS entries as well? Please remember that these are style guidelines; would these be more suitable as MOS entries? V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. --myselfalso 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are moved, a lot of the sections will need massive rewrites to become more universal in nature. These guidelines were intended for application on U.S. roads only, a purpose that is reflected in the language and examples used on the pages. It's also an issue that has plagued the ELG ever since it was moved... To get back to the original point, I guess they could be moved, but I don't see the benefit in doing so. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, sooner or later somebody like Matt Yeager might come over here and say that these two guidelines are style guidelines, and would be more suitable as MOS entries. V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 18:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such a move. --MPD^{T / C} 18:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? V60 ^{干什么？ · 喝掉的酒 · 路} 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making banners and shields work in harmony

Does anyone have an idea on how to make banner plates like and shields like say work better together? The plate goes on top of the shield, but placing them so there's not extra space in between and getting them centered in the right place is difficult, especially for infoboxes (like US 74A), and requires some html code. I've seen this code used effectively in the Wade Avenue article. Is there a way we could have a template made to remedy this? I would do it myself but I'm not that skilled. I've experimented with Template:Banneredhwy to try to get it to work, but to no avail. Is there any way to surround two images, put them on top of each other and continue writing on the same line without being bumped down? Basically this (2 side by side) all on the same line:

--Triadian 05:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put spaces between the shields and banners. --MPD^{T / C} 05:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought I had tried that but maybe not. --Triadian 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template you asked about:

NC 9 Bus. / US 29 Alt.

--Holderca1^talk 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SR 599 Bus. to I-266

Ok I have absolutely no clue how to make this look like this:

This has to be the worst template ever^{[citation needed]}. --MPD^{T / C} 00:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is because I haven't got to Virginia yet. --Holderca1^talk 03:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Virginia is good to go, keep in mind that "to" plates are not in the template, this is optional anyway and not required for exit lists. --Holderca1^talk 17:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will those be available in the future? For the jct template to be interchangeable with regular markup, it should have all the functionality that it can. Speaking of future, future Interstate shields aren't 100% supported; I don't know how a state shield would work, but right now we get this:

I-73 (Future) / US 220

Can that be piped? --MPD^{T / C} 17:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the "to" plates, I honestly don't know yet, I still have quite a few states to finish with regards to bannered highways. Once I get finished, I will take a look at it, see if it can be done as an optional item for those that don't want the "to" plates. I am not sure what you are asking for the future interstates, can you do it in regular markup so I can see what you want? --Holderca1^talk 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at that shield, it's a "Future" I-73 shield. That's done by putting "Future" in parentheses, just like for a state-name shield. The only way to get that to show up is to put "73 (Future)" in the markup like you see, which calls Image:I-73 (Future).svg. Unfortunately, that creates the link Interstate 73 (Future) (North Carolina) and pipes that to I-73 (Future). Can we work on that so it can call the future shield, but not change the link?

Also, you're going to love this (sarcasm). I'm experimenting with a wide version of banners

Essentially, it eliminates the need for Image:No image.svg at random places and creates uniformity. Don't worry about that too much, we can talk about that later; you've got a lot to do. I appreciate the work you've been doing. --MPD^{T / C} 19:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should be a pretty simple fix, this template is using the infrastructure of {{infobox road}}, we would just have to create a new road type, for example {{jct|state=NC|Future Interstate|73}}. As far as the wide plates, is that what is used? I keep meaning to take a look when I drive around, but never remember. --Holderca1^talk 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indent. I've seen them in Virginia, and some others claim to have seen them, too. It's not a standard, by any means. It's (objectively) visually pleasing, and we don't have to fumble around with no-images. For the most part, it'd just be for ease-of-use and IMO cleanliness. With jct template, they wouldn't be real relevant except for if you wanted to make it look continual, because it automatically places the banners correctly. But if I were working on an exit list by hand- which will be going on until I learn jct better- I'd use wide banners for the ease. It's just like when people used 25px banners over 25px shields, but that threw off the height; now it's all the same height. That's all that's different. --MPD^{T / C} 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, adding "to" plates looks very possible, I have done a small test and you can see the results below.

:{{jct|state=TX|I|20|to1=to}} :{{jct|state=TX|TX|20|to1=to}} :{{jct|state=TX|BL|20|to1=to}}

I will take a look at fully implementing once I get the rest of the banners working. --Holderca1^talk 18:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turning this off for now since it isn't implented globally yet. --Holderca1^talk 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2Q's regarding template problems on Utah Highways pages

Q1: anybody know why the shield graphic is not being displayed on Utah State Route 20. I've scoured the template and can't figure out why.

Q2 (a consequence of Q1): I've had several problems using the template {{Infobox Utah Route}} aside from one. The state highway articles I've worked on where the project uses {{Infobox road}} seem to work much better, seems to be a more robust template. Any reason why the Utah project is using their own? Could/should it use the general road template? Davemeistermoab 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Q1: this is related to bug 5463 and is a problem with the shield and not the template. See WP:USRD/S for more info. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Q2: {{Infobox Utah Route}} is based off {{Infobox road}} (if you look at the coding). So you are free to use whichever one you choose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, one further question. Is it really ok to use both templates interchangeably on Utah highways articles, or should the project page be changed to encourage everybody to migrate towards the infobox road template?Davemeistermoab 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably doesn't matter which template is used. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing in multistate routes

The background to this is Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee), specifically browsing at the bottom vs. browsing in the infobox.

There's currently nothing here mentioning what to do. Of the Interstates, there is only one three-digit Interstate - I-275 - that spans three states, and I believe all two-digit Interstates that span three or more states will be split into state-detail articles eventually. So, except on I-275, we'd only have one more line in the infobox than on a single-state route. On the other hand, placing browsing in the infobox leads to consistency in browsing between routes; you don't have to wonder where the browsing is when it doesn't appear in the infobox.

Can we discuss this? Thank you. --NE2 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

--Rschen7754 (T C) 18:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This (2 state-routes having browse at bottom) has been the current operating procedure for a long time. Furthermore, consistency is a red herring; what abut I-80, for example? Therefore, I support the current operating practice. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with I-80? Interstate 80 shouldn't have any browsing, since the state-detail articles are in the chain. --NE2 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or with multi-state routes (3+ states) that have no S-D articles. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep those at the bottom until the state-detail articles are created. I-275 should be a reasonable exception. --NE2 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound as if every interstate route needs state-detail articles. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think all browses should be at the bottom, but single-state browse in the infobox and multiple at the bottom has been the de facto standard for a while now, so I'm surprised to find that INNA doesn't specifically say it. I'd support adding it. —Scott5114 ↗ 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. How that was overlooked when this was drafted, I don't have a clue. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I had thought it was always acceptable to put multiple browsing in the infobox, see President George Bush Turnpike as one such example. --Holderca1 23:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That example is acceptable, as that is an intrastate route. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would this be an unacceptable example? Loop (Texarkana) --Holderca1 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unacceptable when going by straight practice; however, I don't have that much of a problem with that setup, maybe due to how the list links in that article are placed as they would be in an intrastate route infobox. I dunno. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 07:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So something like Loop (Texarkana) would be fine on I-155? --NE2 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a fairly old discussion, but I originally moved the browse into the infobox on Interstate 155 (Missouri-Tennessee) because I saw it on this article Interstate 280 (Illinois-Iowa). I was auditing existing TN routes the other day for INNA browse compliance, and on U.S. Route 58 the browser for VA is in the infobox with another VA state route browse box on the bottom of the page, I ended up adding tn browse to the bottom since this is a multi-state route. My personal opinion is that all browsing should be done from the infobox to maintain continuity with state-level articles.Pepper6181 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Screw-Ups Happening NOW!

I just found tons of glitches on infoboxes, exit lists, and intersection charts that are happening today. They're on almost every state-specific Interstate 95 article, Interstate 495 (New York), and New York State Route 59. I thought somebody screwed up the NY 59 intersection chart, until I tried to fix it, and found this problem existed throughout WikiProject U.S. Roads. ----DanTD (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been fixed? I don't see anything. --NE2 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they were. I wonder who did it, and how it was done. ----DanTD (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to make shields in imageshack?

Can somebody please tell me how to make shields in imageshack?

If you can help, thanks--Roadgeek55 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imageshack, as I know it, is a media hosting website. You're probably wasting your time trying to make shields there. Try out Inkscape instead. --Fredddie ™ 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]