Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 4

This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate after Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2.

Type
Is it really necessary to have the "type=" parameter? It's implied that two-digit Interstates are "Main Interstates" while three-digit Interstates are "Auxiliary Interstates", and if needed, a short blurb could be added to the intro to the article to make up for removing it from the infobox ("I-390 runs for 76 miles north-south from Rochester, New York to the small town of Avoca, New York, where it meets I-86/NY 17. It is one of the longest auxiliary Interstates in the Interstate Highway System."). Plus, the recent trend of using state-specific infoboxes for intrastate Interstates has already eliminated the "type=" parameter. Should we do the same on this template (delete the "type=" parameter) to have consistency between the articles? -- T M F T - C 15:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And then there are the articles for I-35E (e.g. Interstate 35E (Texas)) and I-35W, which identify themselves as "Branch Interstates." I do agree that it's one of the least useful items in the infobox, though. —C.Fred (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the type should stay. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  20:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Really, I don't have an issue with keeping the "type=" parameter - it's just that the recent intrastate Interstate infoboxes that have been popping up are lacking a type line, though one could be added easily by using the "name_notes=" parameter. C.Fred brings up a good point, as I can see the relevance of the type line in that case. Thanks for the input. =) -- T M F T - C 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rschen7754. It should stay.  The "Interstate X in [State]" infoboxes aren't really a big deal, because they all come off of the main page.  Each state may want to use a different infobox for various reasons and have different things in them.  Of course in the Virginia route infoboxes, we don't really have a say about anything.  But intrastate interstates like Interstate 66 (for the most part), and Interstate 74 should use the interstate infobox and the type parameter, because they are the main page for the route.  Did that make sense to anyone else?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Browse State Hwys. (Revival)
On WT:USRD, we are having a discussion about using which infobox on intrastate Interstates. User:Northenglish, TMF, and I are having an argument on this issue, and it is mainly about browsing State Hwys. Because of the nature on that discussion, I feel if I should bring it up here, since the browse section was deleted two months or so ago. On that discussion, I argued against the point about using Infobox road on intrastate Interstates and proposed strictly using this template unless if the Interstate is multiplexed with a signed route for its entire length. See Interstate 190 (South Dakota) and Interstate 270 (Colorado) for examples. Comments? V60 21:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the same infobox...look at the source code. If you haven't noticed, the discussion that you alluded to in this section header dates back to the days of Routeboxint, which was not the same as Infobox road at the time. The two routeboxes are now identical, with the exception that Infobox Interstate fills in a couple of parameters. End result: it makes no difference whatsoever what routebox is used. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct... SPUI reinstated the browse section a while back. Please read WP:IH for the current browsing situation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)