User talk:2601:244:4081:500:3E:F95D:A9F2:15AE

Illinois Route 43
I have once again undone a reversion of the article to a poorer state of formatting. Your edits have undone all of the following positive changes:
 * 1) The addition of the use mdy dates template which tells the citation templates which date format to use so that they consistently format output dates. The script that applied that template also put all the dates into a consistent format, so they'd appear properly even if the template was missing.
 * 2) The reformatting of the junction list in the infobox so that it uses the correct list output. Screen readers and other adaptive technology would pick up on this and tell blind readers of the article that there is a list of items there.
 * 3) The reformatting of some hard-coded citations to use citation templates for consistency in the output of our citations along with providing hidden metadata for the citations.
 * 4) The usage of convert so that measurement conversions are consistently handled, both for calculation and display.
 * 5) The consistent usage non-breaking spaces so that a line doesn't break in the middle of a highway designation.
 * 6) The consistent usage of the "IL #" abbreviation scheme as introduced in the first sentence of the article.
 * 7) The request for a full citation for a pair of the footnotes.
 * 8) The inclusion of - so a clear space is created as needed so that the junction list template appears at full width and is not compressed horizontally if the infobox extends too low.
 * 9) Various improvements to the formatting of the junction list table.

If I had to guess, you've bluntly reverted all of these improvements to get back to a revision of the article that has two additions.
 * 1) The inclusion of a pair of alternate names in the infobox.
 * 2) The inclusion of a county road in the junction list with the note: " First Intersection for IL 43".

Regarding the first, we only list an alternate name in the einfobox if it applies to the full length of the highway. As IL 43 is not either Harlem Avenue or Waukegan Road for the full length, neither should appear in the infobox per project standards.

As for the addition in the junction list, county roads are not typically listed in many junction lists. It was added at the same milepost as the I-80 junction, so that's problematic. The note for it is pure trivia, and implied by the position in the table, so thus not needed. There were other formatting issues introduced by the addition.

In short, the article is in better shape. Please don't revert the improvements.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)