Module talk:Road data/strings/USA/WI

Bypassing redirects for Interstate and US Highways
Lua is much, much faster than the older parser functions. Because of that speed enhancement, adding code to bypass redirects makes a negligible difference in parsing times. For that reason, I added code so that:
 * Links pointed to "Interstate X" for all of Wisconsin's Interstates other than I-90 and I-94.
 * Under the three-state rule, I-39 will never have an "Interstate 39 in Wisconsin" article without a significant extension south from Bloomington–Normal or north from Rothchild. The same goes for I-41 and I-43. The only other way any of those three numbers would need differentiation is if the numbers were duplicated elsewhere.
 * The auxiliary Interstates for Wisconsin are uniquely numbered, so a "(Wisconsin)" suffix is unnecessary at this time.
 * Links pointed to "U.S. Route X in Wisconsin" for all of the state's U.S. Highways. Under the three-state rule, US 141, US 151, US 110 and US 118 would not need Wisconsin-specific articles. US 8 will likewise not need a split because the Michigan segment is only 2.3 miles, compared to about 25 miles in Minnesota and 250 some miles in Wisconsin; essentially it is a two-state highway.
 * If any of the above conditions were to become untrue, a simple edit here to update the coding would take care of the situation.
 * Similar coding changes have been made in other states' modules to no ill effect.

The benefits are that the tables in List of Interstate Highways in Wisconsin and List of U.S. Highways in Wisconsin link directly to the appropriate articles and not through redirects. Additionally, all calls through jct will point to the proper article as well. Once infobox road is switched over to the various Lua modules, the browser section will link to the articles directly as well.

Yes, it makes the code a bit more complex, but only editors who know what they're doing with the coding should be editing these modules anyway. (And yes, we're all human so even editors knowledgeable about these modules will make occasional mistakes.)  Imzadi 1979  →   08:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the technical aspects, Imzadi is correct in saying that there is no discernible performance hit with the use of code like this. While the benefits of bypassing redirects in this fashion are mainly stylistic, there is not a technical reason that should preclude the use of this type of code. While the modules are meant to be easier to contribute to, changes to them propagate much more widely than with the old system. A simple syntax error could break hundreds of pages. Therefore, edits to these modules should not be made lightly, nor should they be saved without basic testing practices (previewing a transcluding article, etc.) being followed. Because these modules are so high-risk, edit warring should not be tolerated under any circumstance. -happy5214 09:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The benefits are not even stylistic. There are no benefits and potential drawbacks (for example, US 151 could be split by states in the future, as it's a major highway with a bunch of history in each state). Your own personal problem with redirects is no reason to cock up templates. --NE2 09:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Addition of former STH shield designs
Now that several old state highway shields were added to Commons, I think it might be necessary to add the "WI [year]" to accommodate with old state highway shields, whether already uploaded or yet to be uploaded.

Something like this:        AlphaBeta135 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the code has been added:
 * (1919)
 * (1927)
 * (1938)
 * (1949)
 * (1958)
 * (1970)
 * When graphics for 1919, 1927 and 1938 are created, they'll work so long as they also follow the  format for file naming.  Imzadi 1979   →   17:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)