Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Interstate Highways/Archive 2

Interstate 76 (east)
Please comment on the removal of the mileage table and the 3di template from this page at the talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Mileage table and 3di template (from Talk:Interstate 76 (east))
Please post comments on the revert war that is ensuing right here. Also Do not break 3RR. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)`

I'd like an explanation of what these actually add to the article, not just the fact that they are "Wikiproject standards". --SPUI (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored the mileage table and 3di template that had been deleted several days ago. Understanding the benefits that standard formats have for people reading articles on the same type of topic, I wanted to adhere to the Interstate Project standards so I resolved those two deficiencies. --Beirne 01:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The 3di template allows you to access the spurs of I-76. The other primary Intersttae articles have these too. The mileage table is there to give the mileage information that isn't included anywhere else in the article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The links right above the 3di template allow access to the spurs. The mileage is all in the first paragraph, and is even more precise there. I'd accept keeping the lengths, but as a standardized table (class=wikitable). Maybe it can be to the side in the description, like an infobox but separate? --SPUI (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The mileage is only in the first paragraph because you deleted the table and put the distances in the text. You otherwise actually make some fair points, though.  Why aren't you bringing them up on the Interstate Project page rather than here?  --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I completely rewrote the article, and the distances, which I did not get from the table (as they are different, except for New Jersey, which I changed a long time ago), were simply part of that rewrite. As for the discussion, I object to pretty much every "standard" proposed by the project, for the reason that it just simply makes sense. I was expecting others to also realize that, and don't really know where to start on a discussion. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you now have a few topics to start with on the project page, in particular the three boxes you don't like. I'm guessing discussing them there will be a lot more productive than trying to change things Interstate by Interstate.  --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a seperate infobox for lengths. (or perhaps even including those in the main one) --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I'm surprised that no one's reverted back to routeboxint yet. --SPUI (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm letting the 7-day call for deletion process run its course, then we'll see what to do. --Beirne 02:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also it would be pointless to revert to that and then have you revert it back. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally sort of like yours. It's closer to ideal at the moment than routeboxint, but deleting routeboxint is dumb. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, one objection I've seen to certain things is that it would just be too big for very long Interstates. (I don't understand why it's not considered a problem with routeboxint too.) I've already written Interstate 80 in New Jersey and Interstate 95 in New Jersey, each of which is long enough to "deserve" its own article. The same can be done for every state of these long Interstates. --SPUI (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a perfectly fair point and another good one to bring up on the project page. --Beirne 02:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree. I like great detail and length, just not in an infobox at the top of the article. --Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

One thing I want to point out about the state route things at the bottom. I like those much better than anything at the top, but I would suggest names a little more specific than start box and end box.--Chris 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * start box and end box are standard start and end templates for succession boxes on many articles. --SPUI (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly sorry. For some reason, I thought you had just come up with those. (Obvously, I've never written a succession box.) With that in mind, I really like the idea of doing state routes with standard succession boxes, as opposed to in the infobox or some other template. (disclaimer: i still don't like the idea of browsing state routes in general.) --Chris 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

If we use succession boxes though, then we get a huge one on Interstate 95? Also, I fail to see why there is red stuff in parentheses in the box. Keep in mind that having everything in the routebox is more consistent with the California, Washington, Kentucky, New hampshire, and Texas routeboxes, as well as the U.S. Highway one. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * With the current system of putting it in routeboxint, the bloated box will be even bigger with 15 lines worth of stuff. Also, keep in mind that the succession box is at the bottom, rather than taking up space in the top. Also keep in mind that I-95 is an EXTREME. The vast majority of articles go thru 3 or fewer states. (including 3dis) Also, by using standard succession boxes, it becomes in-line with the rest of wikipedia, not just a few states. Since it seems impossible to eliminate these, I am fully in favor of using succession boxes on the bottom of the page in every case where others insist on browsing in numerical order. (incl US, Interstate, and individual states) --Chris 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I-95 can be split into separate articles like Interstate 95 in New Jersey. The navboxes for NJ 94 and NJ 109 link to that. --SPUI (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

routeboxint
Here's my detailed analysis on the routeboxint infobox, only looking at the things that are not in infobox highway (comparing to ): I await comments. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Primary Interstate" is somewhat unnecessary, as it's a two-digit Interstate. The link to Interstate Highway System can take the reader to somewhere where that's discussed in more detail. Though I can see the use of it - I don't feel strongly about this line.
 * Major cities/towns is rather unnecessary, given that there's a section devoted to that, linked directly in the TOC.
 * Direction is covered in Extent, as are termini. The format in routeboxint fails on complete beltways.
 * States traversed is unnecessary, as the states are all in the length box.
 * Interstate junctions is bloody ugly. The information is all in the exit list, and a map of the route can serve the easy-to-see nature of the infobox while being more useful in general.
 * Browse state highways is better suited for the bottom of the article, where it can be avoided by those that don't care. In general this is very similar to a template like Interstates; it's just that listing all numbered routes in the state is too much.
 * Good. Fixing the standard rather than fighting it. I agree with most of that. I'll reply to each bullet individually.
 * Primary Interstate: unnecessary on all but maybe I-238 and the Hawaiian ones; remove on the rest as per your suggestion
 * cities/towns: remove as per your suggestion
 * direction: remove as per your suggestion
 * states: remove as per your suggestion
 * interstate junctions: indeed it is ugly, but I would still like to see a summary of maybe 5 or so, but WITHOUT the mileposts, so that they can all be on one or two rows (written horizontally, not vertically like they are now)
 * browse state highways: remove from routeboxint as per your suggestion; plus use those for every state that does that sort of thing; do not use for states that don't do that sort of thing. (for instance, I think I-95 is the only one in NY that has one of those; I think that one should be removed)
 * With that being said, I am sure that others will disagree strongly with many of the proposed shortenings. Compromise will be necessary. --Chris 16:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, however, not every interstate has an exit list yet, and on many interstates (I-35, for instance) it would border on cruft to list every single exit (especially in Oklahoma, where I can think of at least five exits to county roads that aren't notable for anything other than having an interchange). For Browse State Highways I kind of like the idea of using a standard succession box, as was discussed on routeboxint's TFD. Scott5114 19:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then don't link to the county roads. Doesn't mean you can't mention the fact that the interchange exists. --SPUI (talk | don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

My response to the "analysis":
 * "Primary Interstate"- well some people might not know the difference? and what about Interstate 238?
 * Major cities/towns- as long as each interstaate article has the section... some of them do not.
 * This would be a reason to add the section (except for short 3DIs where the termini are at the only major cities). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And for REALLY short 3di's (like I-895 - litelerally less than 15 blocks in the Bronx long) it really doesn't make sense to list NYC three times in the infobox. --Chris 03:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Direction- see above
 * States traversed- see above (plus mileages, then we can throw out the state lines in the junction box)
 * Interstate junctions- Per CASR WP standards if we throw out the Interstate junctions section in our routebox then they have no place for their junctions info. It does look nice when it is done correctly. Oh, and WA, NH, TX? Same for them. We've cut this section down enough... if you go to history on I-5 that section used to be huge... and it's been trimmed so much.
 * Then create Interstate 5 in California. It's certainly long enough for its own article. And agreed with others - we shouldn't let the California infobox dictate everywhere else. I remember when the CA infobox was being designed - I considered arguing against it but assumed it would collapse under the weight of common sense :( --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that we are opening a can of worms here... as I expressed at Talk:Interstate 95 and someone else did at the TFD earlier. And we don't have enough for Interstate 5 in Oregon- we have to have consistency here! And are we prepared for 15 subpages for I-95? Because we will soon be getting madness like Interstate 95 in District of Columbia and Interstate PR3 in Puerto Rico. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is a total strawman, and you know it. I have recently rewritten Interstate 76 (east) and Interstate 78, and they are not split, because they are not long enough (in length and what can be said, not what is currently written). As for Interstate 95 in the District of Columbia, that would redirect to Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Except that in this case I-95 actually did enter DC, so it might be better as a redirect to I-395 (DC). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sticking with my position that the splitting of an article should be reserved for special cases. This is, after all, the INTERSTATE highway system, and therefore the articles should generally be interstate as well. I can think of a few good reasons to split it, though. (not just to comply with some state's WP standards though). Back to the topic though, I agree with SPUI that one state's infobox should not dictate an interstate system's infobox. --Chris 03:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * On the WP page I'm stating that Articles should be split only on a case-by-case basis. In other words, we need a consensus before splitting. This is to prevent problems. Only the extremely long articles should be split. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Browse state highways- For those interested in California State Highways- Once you click on an Interstate Highway link in routeboxca2 you will never be able to continue going through the CA state highways if we just throw the section out. Even though Interstates in California are California State Routes as by California law. And we don't care that it's nice and compact when it is done correctly. My concern with SPUI's template is that it is more bulky, and a bit complicated- what are the red links in parenthesis supposed to be for? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The red links are for former routes - see Route 157 (New Jersey) for one that's not red. It's also the same size when compressed, like at the bottom of I-76 (E). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the red links and have one browse path? In other words, why not just have one succeding route? Whether it is decommissioned or not? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * For two reasons - the former routes are less likely to have articles, and it can be useful to look through only current routes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. If an editor/state doesn't want them, they don't have to use them, right? --Chris 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That screws up California's system though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why must the rest of the country be subjected to California state law, and even California WikiProject standards? These are, after all, Interstate highways.
 * I-238 is the one and only exception to the 3di=secondary rule; it can be dealt with specially.
 * While SPUI's format might not be the best (specifically the bulkiness and the red links), splitting it off is a good idea. It does not aid with the Infobox's role as a summary of the article. It mandadtes that any state WikiProject wishing to interoperate with the Interstate system must use California/Interstate style boxes. Why not implement the California/Routeboxint format in a separate template, to get the best of both worlds? --Chris 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I-238 is an "auxiliary route"; it just has no parent. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I did not know that. I just fixed the article, I-238. --Chris 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to show my concept of brief junction boxes (yes the way I did it sucks, but it looks about the way I want it too), without changing routeboxint (as a result my examples don't quite fit with the 2-column format), I made all of I-95's spurs in NY (I-295 I-495 I-695 I-895 have them. The exit # isn't particularly useful in a summary, but links to each can be. I suggest that each have their top 5, and so therefore the shields would be smaller. I did these ones so they all have 50px-HIGH shields. Anyway, please take a look and comment. I hope that these type of things may provide a compromise between full junctions and no junctions. --Chris 05:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't see the point - if these are important junctions, they can be listed and linked in the intro to the article. And how do we decide what's important - otherwise we have the same problem with I-90. But I really don't understand the purpose of those links. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that then someone extremely quickly get an idea of the interstates it intersects with. For instance, suppose you goto I-895 and haven't heard of it (probably because it is so short) although you are somewhat familiar with the highways in the area. By seeing the two junctions, 95 and 278, it then may hit you (again very quickly) that "ohh this must be that little road connecting the two". Just seeing the city won't really tell you much of anything. I suppose a rough map WOULD be better, perhaps highlighting it in a map of all the interstates in the bronx or something like that. Maps are obviously more time-consuming to make. The point of doing it this way (like I did with these 4) over the current routeboxint way is that it still displays the important info of the junctions secion, but in a much shorter format. --Chris 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

See my note on the mediation page regarding a compromise with Browse STate highways. And junctions... well the five junction image setup is a bit basic... and if we convert the primary interstate routeboxes to use only 2dis it would b better. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  In regards to a better browse state highways: my thoughts are something similar to what we have at Deleted California State Routes (except at the bottom of course)... and with the state names... I'll create a better mockup when I get more time. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 

I'm starting 2 new sections to make things easier. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)\

Browse state highways
See my proposal for this section at User:Rschen7754/Sandbox1. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  19:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the point of the shields? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 19:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure those are just to make it more pleasing to the eye. I don't think they are essential. Here's my first modified version of it (trying to keep the code simple to start with:


 * to formulate it as a template, would probably be good to make a "single state" template to be passed to the bigger one. --Chris 04:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there a problem with the one at the bottom of Interstate 76 (east)? That one follows the larger ones (like on Route 33 (New Jersey)), which itself is based on the standard succession box. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's sure big, especially when we get I-95 with 15 states. If you want the state browse boxes to conform we could probably fix those up by only fixing the templates.--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So you'd put the former routes next to the current ones? Then it would be the same size as yours. Anyway, for I-95, they'd go on the split pages. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 10:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the 3 (SPUI's, Rschen7754's, and mine, I think I like SPUI's the best, but it really doesn't make much of a difference to me. I'd just like to see the Browse State Hywys section out of Routeboxint ASAP. --Chris 20:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We have three candidates... but we need one
I have put the three candidates for a browse state highways box below. We should probably merge things to make one prototype from all 3 of these.

Keep in mind that these are prototypes; the code will not be the same as what we would actually use in the article.

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A potential compromise:

There's supposed to be images for all of them... but I'm not sure where they are stored... how's this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not bad - I'd remove the state abbreviations though, as the state names are in the middle. Probably also the Interstate shields, as they look out of place to me. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * State abbreviations removed... unless it's an Interstate or U.S. Highway. Hopefully people can figure that it's a state highway out... images aren't really necessary either. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also when we have these on each article then we should get rid of the state highway templates that look like Massachusetts State Highways and Oregon State Highways. If we have even 3 or 4 of those on an article it gets cluttered, and the browse state highways page will make it redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, personally I'd just get rid of those altogether - I believe I did that for Mass when I did a bit of work on it recently. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed- those are really bulky anyway. I'll add it to the WP page... should we start coding the template then? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've modified srbox piece to do it (without any meta-templates), and updated the bottom of I-76 (E) and I-78. The only possible issue is that it specifies the Type Number (State) format that I've been using, rather than the older State Type Number - redirects would take care of that issue either way. Maybe have srbox piece 2 for the other order? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure... could you please update the WP page though once we have the coding right so we know how to code it? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's difficult to code because we have one system of naming (FL, PA, OH, NJ, MA) and another separate system (most of the other states). We might have to recode the srbox piece2. Also should we do a title? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, srbox piece 2 is done, and is now in use at the bottom of I-76 (E). I've been thinking about the title - do you think it's necessary? Can you think of a neutral title? Browse numbered routes? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Browse numbered routes is fine by me. I put one on Interstate 40 and have been testing them on some of the Oklahoma state highway articles I've been writing and they do just the trick. The only problem I see is when the prev/next highway is of a non-SR class, like an interstate or something like that. Then you end up having to make a nasty redirect like Oklahoma State Highway I-40 to keep from breaking the template. I know redirects are cheap, but I'd like to avoid having to do redirects from titles that people wouldn't go looking for in the first place. Perhaps we could have a srbox piece 3 for this situation (i.e. you can specify the route type individually for prev/cur/next)? Or something else? Scott5114 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Finalizing the coding
start srbox is done - just use that instead of start box. As for the redirects, I'd call that a necessary evil, but you might want to try something else. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a srbox piece 3 which is pretty much the same as piece 2 but you can specify a separate type for the before and after roads. Note that the types no longer include the states; you'll have to add those manually as part of the type field. As an added benefit, if I play with it some, I might be able to get it to show a blank box when appropriate (for highways at the very start and end of the list, like "1" ). Scott5114 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In California and Washington we already have California State Route 5 (for example)... it could be done for CA and WA easily since... there's only a few interstates that have consecutive numbers (and since they both use a slightly different browse system). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Works good for California and Washington... Oregon might need one redirect or so but we'll address that when it happens. Interstate 5 --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the compromise one listed above. Let me just make sure I understand the different pieces: ! | I would also recommend showing the compromise listed near the top of this section to the state wikiprojects for possible use on each systemwide. (not just on Interstates) Also, I recommend, now that there is a good compromise in place, removing the browse state highways section from routeboxint. --Chris 05:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) This is probably a stupid idea, but what about something like this: (called Template:srbox piece NY): It would save alot of typing (having to specify the type and the list and writing out the state name, and also, you could even put Category:New York state highways in there to categorize stuff. Weakness: you still need to use redirects, like with type #1 and #2. --Chris 17:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * srbox piece 2: allows for states that use names like New York State Highway 132, but requires that the "type" and "state" be the same for both before and after, so the hypothetical NY-5 between I-6 and NY-4 might have a problem, unless a redirect is made from New York State Highway 4 to Interstate 4. It also allows other stuff to be displayed underneath (former routes i think, right?)
 * srbox piece: same as #2 (incl "redirect requirement" and "others"), but would be more like State Highway 132 (New York.
 * srbox piece 3: seems like #2 (all info comes before SR#), but lacks the requirement of redirecting between 2 different kinds of routes. I think it would be better to combine the   and    into    and   , respectively, since the text that is displayed should always be the route #. Another weakness is that it won't work for states that normally use type #1.
 * I propose the following to address the weaknesses of, and replace, type #3: (it does add the weakness of having to actually write out the links in the   and   , but I think that's better than having three attributes.
 * - style="text-align: center;"
 * align="center"|&lt; ''
 * align="center"| &gt; ''
 * with that having been said, just using types #1 and #2 and then redirects seems to be a viable solution, although somewhat annoying. I don't feel strongly on either way of doing things, other than that I think that #3 has a bit too many attributes to deal with and not enough flexibility to justify them.
 * I'm not sure about the templates above, I'm a bit confused on them myself. But yes I think that we should standardize all the highway succession boxes (the CA, WA, KY, NH, TX style and the NJ, PA, FL, MA, OH style) once we get everything squared away here and at the U.S. Highway wikiproject. As for removing the browse state highways, we need to convert all the articles to use the new templates before we remove it (just as long as there's no article that uses the pld standard, it's fine; let's not worry about adding data now). I started last night and once I get my homework done I'll have more time to work on it, or someone else can do it too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * alright, cool. i'll take care of all those that pass thru NY state today. --Chris 15:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess I need to explain what I was thinking when I make up #3 ;) I made the link text a separate parameter for those cases where the article you're linking is not just named Interstate X, but rather something like Interstate 235 (Oklahoma) - see Oklahoma State Highway 199 for an example of this. This is also good for end-of-range articles like highways numbered "1" - the "previous" box can just have some dummy value there and have a link text of . I imagine it could also be useful for things like Texas, where you'd want to have the link text read IH-#, though I've not really tried this out yet. Scott5114 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've streamlined srbox piece 3 a bit - the typebefore and typeafter fields have been removed. Include the full name of the article in the   and    fields, e.g. "Interstate 240 (Oklahoma)" or "U.S. Route 75". Scott5114 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are we using this on state highways? I thought the idea was to make something smaller for routes that pass through multiple states. But state highways like State Road 520 (Florida) are fine with the bigger one, which matches standard succession boxes all across Wikipedia. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've been putting this one on Interstates, but maybe the bigger ones are better for other roads. --Chris 21:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say leave it up to the state highway WP if there is one, if not just use the same template throughout the entire system. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all of the articles that had the old system have been converted over to the new template system. Therefore, I'm removing the old Browse State Highways. Feel free to remove the now unused browse parameter. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  01:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Junctions list
Here's my type thing, which I'm not really recommending in this exact format, but this sort of might provide a good compromise between ommitting the section entirely and keeping as it is now: Anyway, this sort of thing lists the major interstate junctions, but is much shorter than listing them vertically. It does omit the exit #, but is that really important for an infobox? I think two things that should be kept in mind are (even if my format is completely thrown out) that the NUMBER of junctions should be limited (for instance, including every 2di I-90 intersects makes it huge) and that horizontal probably takes less space then vertical. While I'm on the topic, would anyone object to removing either the terminii or cities section? If the cities are in order, it kind of makes the terminii section redundant. But on the other hand, if the cities section were to be removed, then the terminii section would be important. I also know that some terminii sections include what highway they end at, but an ordered junctions section makes that reduntant. I'm proposing to remove the terminii sections. --Chris 03:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interstate 80 is fine for example... I think that for the extremely long interstates we have to go for major 2dis only. In regards to terminii... not a problem... just as long as somewhere in each article it explains the terminii. We should check each article to make sure. Same with cities too. As long as there's no loss of information... I mean, as long as it's still in the article somewhere...--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  03:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interstate 80 was confusing to me at first, in that it only had major 2di's in the routebox. Should the type3 for I-80 be changed to MAJOR INTERSTATE or MAJOR from INTERSTATE, to highlight that only certain interstate junctions are listed? C.Fred 04:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... switch it to Major interstate... that way it will work better. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Junctions List really needs to go, you only really need the start/end, otherwise the box is just way too big. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What about multiplexed routes in the list? At the end of I-59, it makes sense for it to be written I-10/ I-12, because the two roads aren't multiplexed. But for I-75 crossing the Ohio Turnpike, I think I-80/I-90 is a clearer description, in a nutshell, of the interchange. Feedback? C.Fred 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * why not put the shield right next to the article link?--Chris 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Lengths list
Should this be converted to template form? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Inside the routebox? The only change I'd want there is a nbsp instead of a regular space between the number and the mi/km suffix: I hate when the km wraps to the next line. As for the one in the article, I wouldn't mind some standardization. IMHO, the articles where one state his mileage to the thousandth, while the others round to the nearest mile, aren't very pleasing to look at. C.Fred 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason not to make the beginning of the table a template, though the actual body is simple enough to not need one. As for rounding, unfortunately some states measure stuff to higher precision than others. We should be able to get it to 1/100 mi from the Route Log and Finder List though, except for recent extensions (I-26, I-73, etc). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I like SPUI's idea, but please, not in the routebox . --Chris 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me change that: I suppose putting the lengths in the routebox would be alright if the states section were to be removed. --Chris 17:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Useful resource - AASHTO reports 1989-present
Thanks to Rob Droz for finding these. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've compiled the Interstate info in WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/History. Interestingly, AASHTO uses "Interstate X" and "Interstate Route X" but never "Interstate Highway X". --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 08:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Texas uses Interstate Highway.... but that's it. As long as we have Interstate x it should be fine. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Retarded question that I'm sure there's a good answer to: Wasn't I-99 just some nut from Pennsylvania and not AAHSTO? (I looked at the source material, and it's defintely there like you say, but I'm just wondering if you, or anyone else, can unconfuse me.) Thanks. --Chris 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bud Shuster got the number into law, but AASHTO had to approve the signage as a formality (which they did in 1998). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, there's a bit in (PDF) about numbers written into law: Notwithstanding established policies, AASHTO recognizes that Congress on occasion will establish highway routes, specifying the location of the route as well as designating the route number(s) to be used. In those instances when Congress designates a route, the state(s) affected will follow the established procedures relative to route numbering. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. --Chris 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

External links or spam
Links to subpages of these sites: have recently been added to a vareity of Interstates and other highways. They do have some useful content. OTOH, their addition has clearly been spam. Any thoughts about whether these links are worthwile? -Will Beback 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.milebymile.com/
 * http://www.westernexitguide.com
 * They both seem to have decent exit lists. I wouldn't call them "clearly spam." The first has some ads, but really not much. The second doesn't seem to have any. --Chris 04:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little biased towards the second site but I think it's pretty good. The other one could be considered ads, but maybe not to the unacceptable level. I don't think it's worth the reverting. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant "clearly spam" in that they were added en-masse by the owners of the websites. -Will Beback 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

SVG shields
See Interstate shields for a nice list of all of the SVG shields available (including Business Routes, as well as templates for making your own! --Chris 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I figure this place would be the place to annnounce my first of 5 (2di nostate, 2di state, 3di state, 3di nostate, and H201 (seperate, because uses thinner font)): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 000.svg (i also made a redir at Image:Interstate-000.svg). Please see my note there about why it's probably not a good idea to start replacing everything with it. I plan on making those others, and then talk about having a bot do all of the dirty work. --Chris 04:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks very wrong. Does it depend on having a certain font? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It most certianly requires the Roadgeek 2005 fonts. --Chris 21:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which means Wikipedia can't convert it to PNG properly. You'll have to convert the text to paths. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This one isn't for use in Wikipedia articles, but for basing others on it. Like I said, Image:Interstate-469.png uses this one. I suppose converting the text to paths might be better than just converting the SVG to PNG. --Chris 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I made Image:Interstate4.png from MUTCD specs - if yours looks the same (with possible differences due to no state name) it should be correct. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like yours has no outside border. If you want me to make the shields, I'll do it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure mine does have the outside border. (you are referring to the 15mm white thing around the whole thing, right?) But if you want to make the others, go for it. I probably won't get around to finishing all of them for a month or so. I don't have that much time to spare. --Chris 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm making them from scratch, and can't seem to find where the colors are defined in the MUTCD - any idea? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Here we go. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the official Pantone color list, and here's them in RGB, from the Roadgeek fonts zip file:
 * Brown -- Panose 469 -- RGB 97,54,29
 * Green -- Panose 342 -- RGB 0,110,85
 * Red   -- Panose 187 -- RGB 181,39,60
 * Blue  -- Panose 294 -- RGB 0,62,134
 * Yellow -- Panose 116 -- RGB 255,277,0
 * Orange -- Panose 152 -- RGB 230,113,0
 * hth --Chris 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) (you beat me to it!)

I've made one at Image:I-20.svg. Please comment soon if you see anything wrong with it, as I'm going to start making them all soon. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And a sample three-digit: Image:Interstate 195.svg. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 23:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on the 2 digit ones now. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All two-digit ones are up, in commons:Category:Interstate Highway shields. If I missed any, please let me know. The same will go for the three-digit shields. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

commons:Interstate shields. Let me know if I forgot any. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Should routeboxint be switched to use the svg images? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Already done. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 08:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the numerals are pretty small. Every new shield I have seen out in the field has the numerals taking up a larger percentage of the blue area. If you could adjust the SVG template to have large numerals, that would make it more legible when the images are shrunk down to 20~30 px (plus I think they look better with large numerals). --Kamlung 11:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did them according to the latest standards. Personally I think they look better this way, maybe because it reminds me of state-name shields. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Was it just my imagination, or were the numerals transparent yesterday or earlier today? Otherwise, they look good. What was the motivation behind going from PNG to SVG? &mdash;Rob (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia in general is going from PNG to SVG wherever possible. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, any plans for doing U.S. Highway shields this way? &mdash;Rob (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, eventually. I'll do Business Interstates too. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 07:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The font used for "INTERSTATE" seems quite wide, at least to my Illinois eyes. Is there a new MUTCD standard none of the states have taken up yet, or are they all ignoring it, or is it just Illinois that uses a much narrower font (maybe Series B), or did someone accidentally use series D for the SVG? On the left of this paragraph are two signs; the font used in Illinois (on both 2 and 3 digit Interstates) is always like the narrow one on the old PNG as far as I know, which is narrower than both 2di and 3di signs now in SVGs. --Closeapple 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Mine are made exactly to the 2004 standards. When I was making them, I was wondering why the "INTERSTATE" in the 3DI was so narrow and checked with some photos, all of which had it wider, before realizing that it is actually wider in the standards. (The standards specify both the font series and the width.) --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 15:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * SPUI is right here, I already commented a while ago on the fact that all of them seemed narrower than SHS2004 specifies when I made Image:Interstate-469.png. But it is true that many3di signs out there seem to use C-width (the one for 2di's) when they should use E-width. Actually, I just remembered I had  a conversation with Kamlung about this. I think he said the 1988 MUTCD specifies a narrower font than the 2004 one. --Chris 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In other shield news, I made a 3di shield (based on my 3di SVG) and a 2di shield (based on SPUI's SVG) with state names. SPUI expressed concern to me about there being 15 different shields on I-95 and so forth. I think that these should be reserved for intrastate Interstates ONLY. Here's the originals (which won't look good on Wikipedia): Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 600x600mm 88 NY.svg and Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 678 NY.svg. I also made Image:Interstate 678.svg and Image:Interstate 88 (New York).svg. Only the 678 one is in use, because I'm not sure how to make the I-88 one go in the box for Interstate 88 (east), but not the other one. --Chris 20:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stupid question: I always thought that for H201, B-width was necessary, but somehow I made one with C-width, and it fit! Is there an official ruling someplace that B-width should always be used? --Chris 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I had to use B to get it to fit at the same font size. Unfortunately all real I-H201 shields I've seen are two-digit shaped. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's really weird. I'm guessing that's maybe because Hawaiian sign manufacturers were only used to making one kind of Interstate shield. Whatever the case, I'm pretty sure they should use the 750x600 signs, and I just realized that B-width is necessary to get it on a 750x600 M1-1 w/o the state name, but if the hieght is reduced to fit HAWAII, then the C-width is small enough to fit.

business
Interstate shields;how do you guys like them? They're based on my state name ones, since i used M1-2/3 dimensions for those. (just like with my other templates, they don't look right on wikipedia. But the 95 ones are how they should look) Do we even have any articles on these? I'm not really familiar with them, since there aren't any near me (not signed ones anyway). --Chris 21:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I found Category:Bannered Interstate Highways, but I'm guessing that that must be incomplete/ Anyway, I'll make two for 75, and will do so for any others that are added there. Oh, I almost forgot, the 2di Buisness Loop shields are indirectly derived from SPUI's. --Chris 21:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They look good, though I'd make the numbers a bit bigger so you can read them easier when scaled down. Oh, and I found some more that don't neatly fit in categories. (It looks like often the loops are mentioned as part of the main interstate article.) Scott5114 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to use my 3DI shield for the few 3DI business routes that exist, as yours has no line on the outside border. Other than that, looks good. I've started a list of the routes at List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything about a black border in SHS 2004, just about a 15mm white one. I mean, it's no big deal that you have it, but I don't see a real need for it. You can see that mine have the white border if you look at them on any non-white background. Oh yeah, if you want to know why I used your 2di one but not your 3di one, the reason is simple: I already made a 3di one, and had the word INTERSTATE as text, and therefore could easily switch it to BUSINESS. With the 2di one, since I didn't have a text-as-text one, I had to remove INTERSTATE from yours and had to look at SHS to get all of the dimensions right for BUSINESS. --Chris 14:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I just figured it out. the black border, though not in SHS, makes the white border visible on white backrounds (which is what most people viewing wikipedia). The only potential problem I can see with the black border is what if someone wanted to use the shield on a green backround, like your everyday American highway exit sign. Anyway, I'll stop making shields based on my 3di until this issue is decided. (and then I'll correct all of mine if we decide in favor of the black line) --Chris 14:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a good analogy for this. M1-4 has two official forms. SPUI's shield is more like the independent use M1-4 (SHS2004 page 3-4) and mine is more like the guide use M1-4 (SHS2004 page 3-5). So now the question is: should these shields be made for use on a whitebackround, or everywhere else? Some funny other trivia: I did a Image:Interstate-469.png a while back, and only posted the PNG export of Image:US DOT FHWA MUTCD SHS 2004 3-1 M1-1 750x600mm 000.svg. If you look closely, for some reason PNGs on MediaWiki seem to have thin little borders around them, similar to SPUIs SVG shields! I wonder if they could make the same happen for SVGs. --Chris 14:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a zero-width border to clearly delineate the edge of the shield. On a white background, it is possible to make out the shield, and, on a differently-colored background, the border will pretty much fade into it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 18:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. I'll change all of them over today. --Chris 19:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done --Chris 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

All routes that have known articles have been added to the list and have all the shields replaced with SVGs. I've only seen 2dis so far, so the controversial 3di one has yet to be used in an article. --Chris 15:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

TfD plus new category
Hi, I'm done with the disambiguated Interstate templates. I'll keep checking for awhile before asking that the templates themselves be deleted:

now disambig plus Category:Lists of Interstate Highways sharing the same title.

I placed the category under Category:Interstate Highway System, where it should be easy to find.

I'm sorry about the earlier problems with Tedernst, who didn't follow anything like standard procedure. Since I'm not a rampant disambiguation hack and slasher, please note that the pages are intact (or as intact as Ted left some of them). I merely changed the template and added the new category.

I hope things continue more peacefully on this worthwhile project.
 * --William Allen Simpson 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal
I have just created Portal:U.S. Roads. If you have any feedback, please place it under "Portal" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads.Rt66lt 03:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable deaths? -- Interstate_25
Are notable deaths on specific roads encouraged? And if so is the Notes section where I should put it? Or a new "Notable deaths" or "Notable accident" section? - RoyBoy 800 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Shield problems
Has any one else noticed problems with the shield images? For example,
 * [[Image:I-40.svg|20px]] (I-40), can be seen (or not seen, in this case) on Interstate 85
 * [[Image:I-55.svg|20px]] (I-55), same thing, on Interstate 40
 * [[Image:US 4.svg|20px]] (US 4) on I-95 exit list

It seems to be only 20px that i've noticed, cuz is 21px. I haven't been able to find this problem with other sizes, other than 20px. But it seems to be happening with these and possibly others, so I figured I'd bring it up. The Most others work fine.
 * [[Image:I-95.svg|20px]]
 * [[Image:US 2.svg|20px]] <<<US 2 has a problem as well.
 * [[Image:US 1.svg|20px]] US 1 works fine.

So I don't know. Any cure, or is it just me? MPD01605 03:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently there is a problem rendering certain SVG image made in Adobe Illustrator. There was a discussion on the Village Pump about it here...Scott5114 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed these edit summaries and did some experiments and filed 4722 which turned out to be a minor extension of 2532 which has been fixed in MediaWiki 1.5.7. The version used here is 1.6alpha, which is in the 1.6 branch and not 1.5, so I'm not sure about the bug status here. -- Paddu 13:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reflexive duplex"?
Interstate 96 uses the phrase "reflexive duplex", googling for which gives only matches from Wikipedia and its mirrors. What does that phrase mean? I wonder if it is a "real world" term or one that was invented by User:68.43.21.149. -- Paddu 14:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Reflexive isn't even used in the dictionary in that context. I removed it from the junction list but added a note: the 69/96 duplex is the only one where the roads' numbers are the reversals of the others' digits. (It's also the only such intersection, since 78 and 87 don't intersect in NYC, and they're the next closest such pair.) —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Termini in interchange tables
What's preferred in wikitables &mdash; the green standouts of Interstate 190 (Illinois) or integrated like Interstate 180 (Illinois)? Now that I've done both, it's time to choose. :-) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the "integrated" setup better myself. ...Scott5114 19:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Interchange table content
So far there seems to be the following available "fields":


 * Milepost number (to the hundredth of a mile)
 * Exit number (if different)
 * Control cities (unofficial control cities sometimes)
 * Destinations (in other words, "what is this exit for?")
 * Cities
 * Counties
 * A catchall "notes" section.

Just to show how different things are, compare Interstate 290 (Illinois) with Interstate 87:

Interstate 290 sample
I feel this should be standardized... and that the notes section is really, really quite important now that we've scrapped the old junctions method. What should go in the tables? &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Maybe merge the differences so we don't have drastic redos though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's also the style found on Interstate 76 and some talk pages, e.g. Talk:Interstate 40. I have been using an adaptation of this style to build an Interstate 35 exit table in my user space (part of it is on Talk:Interstate 35). ...Scott5114 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the table that made me want to discuss this:

Interstate 172

 * I like this layout, I really do, including having the optional Old Number field. But where should we put the control cities? What about the present city? If we have the present city, is the present county also necessary? I do feel that the Route - (name on sign OR control cities) / city served for the destinations column isn't going to work. I'd like to strongly suggest having a city (served) column, and debate having a county column. Since different interstates will necessarily have different formats, I hesitate applying a universal standard to the Interchanges table. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 01:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Specifically for the destination field, I would opt for either of the following two choices: Route Number -   OR   (Route Number)  depending on how important state route numbers actually are in the area. &mdash; Rob  (  talk  ) 02:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look at how Interstate 40 handles the "present city":

Talk:Interstate 40
"Present city" is handled in a column to the right of the exit description. The cell containing the city name is colored red, and spans all rows that lie within that city. I have also used this to indicate toll sections, by changing the color to green. ...Scott5114 02:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

 * All right. Let's try this:

Example below; I definitely do not want more than six fields, because six is already quite confusing.

Best Practices
 * Road shields are helpful, but overuse is not. Do not repeat road shields in the same row (I've been guilty of this already... will fix  )
 * Road shield guidelines: 2dis = 20px, 3dis = 25px (the numbers are about equal size this way). Proportion accordingly.
 * Use of background colors in tables is discouraged; use of full-colspan dividers is encouraged. Best Practice regarding different shades of gray (no more than three, including heading shade) to make full colspans stand out is unknown.
 * I would like to encourage the use of good quality diagrams for interchanges that are horribly confusing. See exit 12, Interstate 290 (Illinois).
 * See row 4 above. Control cities specified on exit ramps are, I feel, implicit control cities, not explicit. Therefore they should be included as control cities, but only italicized as if we were adding them unofficially (although that's not entirely true -- they're semi-official control cities).
 * The full "city, state" combination is not necessary if the article route stays entirely in one state AND not one control city lies outside of the state's borders. Otherwise it leads to inconsistency.
 * I'll work on refining Interstate 290 (Illinois) to these standards, but nothing else 'til we get a chance to hash things out.

Comments? Questions? Fierce disagreements? It's easy to create a standard (of sorts) now, instead of having to have huge arguments later. It's much easier to change templates than it is a freaking table. :-) &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. ...Scott5114 00:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if that becomes the standard then we'll be well on our way to getting to... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm using background colors for cities for a simple reason - browsers sometimes have trouble rendering the tables, and sometimes I get a table without the lines between cells. The multi-row city cells are useless then, as there's no indication of where one city ends and the next begins. This is probably the one thing I will not give up.

Interstate 80 in California is a good example of my current method. Exit number right before the destination, and city before that, with bgcolor cycling red-green-blue-etc. For destinations, I've been using what's on the signs as much as possible. Using Mapquest driving directions, one can get that information (though it's rather slow and time-consuming).

All concurrencies are included in the notes column, as are partial interchanges. A road that doesn't need notes is very rare.

I've been sizing shields so they're all 20px high - that seems the most consistent to me. This means (for MUTCD-standard shields, not California variants) 20px for 2-digit and 25px for 3-digit. All shields have been at the beginning of the cell, even if not signed. Unsigned routes then have the full name in parentheses. Every route with a shield is also mentioned in text - we don't want to require looking at the shield. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 08:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

... featured articles.
Presently the only featured article on a road is the Ridge Route. I'm interested in promoting some other road articles to featured status, and the Interstates are probably the easiest place to start. Should we wait and get the articles up to WikiProject standards first or start looking at some of the better ones like Interstate 5, Interstate 95, Interstate 80, or Interstate 90? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few more - Pulaski Skyway and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge come to mind. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I-101
Just to bring this to everyone's attention, an Interstate 101 article was created about a week ago, but I've always thought that "I-101" was just road geeks speculating on a route number for the route described in the article (and I left a comment on the article's talk page about it). The article does have some good information about the history of the Delaware Relief Route, so it should probably be moved there unless the I-101 designation has actually been approved.-Jeff (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've redirected to proposed Interstate Highways, and removed the recently-added I-101 section from there. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 19:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Vermont State Highway 289
Hi everyone, was wondering if I could use the interstate infobox on VT Route 289, as that was a proposed interstate? Probably for shields what I'd do is a grayscale interstate shield, with a red slash through it, and next to it would be the shield used ?

Thanks --Raj Fra 19:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 89
One other thing - created an exit table, but just saw the ones on the project site, and I really like. Will conform to one of those, but comments desired on whats there so far. Thx. --Raj Fra 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I-45 and 2di rules?
I-45 runs from Galveston, Texas north to Dallas, Texas, a distance of only 284 miles, so should this be excepted from the divisible by five rule or does it matter? Just a thought... Mr "I am probably missing something here" Zotel - the Stub Maker 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's still considered one of the mainline interstates, despite it's short length. --Mhking 18:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Image use problem
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. --Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, are they enforcing the trademark? The shield shows up on state maps, Rand McNally maps, billboards, etc. I would think that using the trademarked design in an artist-drawn image is permissible, between derivative art and fair use. I think we make it pretty clear that we are Wikipedia describing an AASHTO product; we certainly are not trying to open our own limited access highway. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess the trademark is not enforced anymore, as there are a multitude of businesses that use the Interstate shield or derivatives as their own trademarks, such as for example the Interstate trucking company. A query on "Interstate" using the USPTO's search feature at its website [www.uspto.gov] confirms this.  Also, certain state laws have done the work of managing billboards anyway, so the trademark is not needed.  I did think that this issue was a concern though, and that it needed to be brought up just in case.  --Geopgeop 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image use problem
We might have a problem with the Interstate shields: according to the FHWA's FAQ, AASHO (now AASHTO) registered the Interstate shield as a trademark in 1967. While it's obvious that Wikipedia is not a giant billboard next to an Interstate highway, technically it is a restriction, and all images must be tagged as saying that AASHTO owns the trademark. Very sorry to have found this out, as while the FHWA is a public agency, it follows the AASHTO, which reserves all rights. --Geopgeop 12:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, are they enforcing the trademark? The shield shows up on state maps, Rand McNally maps, billboards, etc. I would think that using the trademarked design in an artist-drawn image is permissible, between derivative art and fair use. I think we make it pretty clear that we are Wikipedia describing an AASHTO product; we certainly are not trying to open our own limited access highway. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess the trademark is not enforced anymore, as there are a multitude of businesses that use the Interstate shield or derivatives as their own trademarks, such as for example the Interstate trucking company. A query on "Interstate" using the USPTO's search feature at its website [www.uspto.gov] confirms this.  Also, certain state laws have done the work of managing billboards anyway, so the trademark is not needed.  I did think that this issue was a concern though, and that it needed to be brought up just in case.  --Geopgeop 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure
This structure is starting to show its age. Here's what's there now...

1.) (implicit) Intro / overview 2.) Route description 2a.) (if > 1 state) State 2b.) State ... 3.) Length 4.) Cities 5.) Intersections with other Interstates and other main roads 6.) Spur routes 7.) Notes 8.) References 9.) External links 9a.) (if > 1 state) State 9b.) State ...

The problems are...
 * 1) No history section. By history, I mean anything that has happened in the past, whether in 1962 or 2002 that is so notable as to be in the main article. Something like the Big Dig, not individual state DOT projects. This is more for 3dis, btw.
 * 2) No future section. Kinda along the same line as above.
 * 3) "Length" really, really should be part of "Route description". As a table, floating left.
 * 4) Section 5 should be renamed, or shortened to "Major intersections".
 * 5) We have an "Exit list" section for shorter Interstates. It seems like it would replace "Intersections......" and "Cities".

I might do these boldly after a few days if I don't get any comments. In addition, a lot of these sections are optional, and having an entire section that says, "None" is pretty wasteful.

This might fly in the face of 2di freeways, but I've been working 3di ones for the past couple days. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 19:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of those points. I had to think about many of those same things as I was working on Interstate 490 (New York) and Interstate 590 the other day. -- T M F T - C 20:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Maps
Greetings. I've been creating maps of the Interstates for articles that do not have them. I just finished a rather large batch of maps for the U.S. Highway project (which are here: Commons:Category:Maps of U.S. Routes). Anyway, I started to tinker around and I have three different kinds of maps and was looking for input on what this project community prefers. The first map is akin to the ones I made for the U.S. Highway Project: just a highlighted route. The second one is a map with nearby major cities. The third has major cities as well as cities along the route within 5 miles.



I'm going to hold off on finishing the others until I get a bit of feedback. Stratosphere 07:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really like the third one, especially with the way the cities are shown with circles. Either of the other two looks good, though the first may be better for long routes. --SPUI (T - C) 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the second, and consider using the Route Log list of major cities (> 5,000 population) when determining which cities to highlight. (Then again, it lists, for I-45, "Galveston, Texas City,

Houston, Huntsville, Corsicana, Ennis, Dallas" which is a LOT of cities.) Depending how small the maps will be when they're in the infobox, I'd agree with SPUI, but it's your call as to whether or not at a given size the city text is clutter or not. Good job! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 16:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the second, if the cities are limited to those that are in the Major Cities section. The first is closer to what is in some of the articles already, e.g. Interstate 85. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)  On further reflection, the first may be better for longer interstates like I-40, I-95, I-90, etc. Or, just minimize the number of cities shown on those routes. 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To me, the second one looks best. -- T M F T - C 17:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the third one, but the second one is good too. Powers 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the second looks best, plus the third one would take longer to generate. Be mindful that the fact that there was cities at the endpoints of I-37 was purely coincidence and wouldn't happen on all the maps, unless I create a new data layer. Stratosphere 02:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, on a related note, SPUI incorporated the map feature into the infobox template as we have done for the U.S. Highway project. So, if no one objects, I'll replace the maps of the interstates that have been done with one that'll fit into the infobox nicely. Stratosphere 02:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the maps are done. Commons:Category:U.S. Interstate Maps. Just need to plug them into the infoboxes now. I also redid the ones that were already made for two reasons. One was so they'd fit snugly in the infobox when reduced, the other is that I mapped them in the preferred United States projection. The old ones looked like they were using a Mercator Projection which stretched the country out the further north you went. I used Lambert Conformal Conic North American Projection which is what most printed U.S. maps are projected with. For some of the maps that were only within a particular state, I used that states preferred state plane system, if anyone cares :P Cheers. Stratosphere 05:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

State names on shields
After being corrected by when I incorrectly thought that placing state names on Interstate shields was deprecated, I find that I still don't like the look of it. The particular article that brought this up is Interstate 390 (New York). The images in question are: Now, it may just be because the former is far more common in New York these days, but the latter just looks bad to me. Perhaps more persuasively, however, at the size used in the info box, the state name so small as to be barely readable, at best. I can think of no good reason, then, to use the state-name-specific image over the generic one. Thoughts? Powers 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:I-390.svg[[Image:I-390.svg|75px]]
 * Image:I-390 (NY).svg[[Image:Interstate 390 (New York).svg|75px]]


 * I commented on this issue over at Talk:Interstate 390 before I saw this discussion here. My answer here is the same as on the I-390 talk page: if the "state name" shields are used in reality, then use them in the routebox. If they are not used in reality (as they are not to an incredibly large extent in New York State), then the neutered shield should be used, IMHO. -- T M F T - C 01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be sinking my own argument here, but I disagree. I think we should be consistent one way or the other, even if the states are not consistent in their signage.  =)  Powers 02:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should only use them if the state still uses them. --SPUI (T - C) 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought: what about using the neutered shields on main pages, especially interstates that are truly interstate. Then use the shields with state names for state-specific articles (Interstate 95 in Georgia) or for 3di's within a single state (Interstate 440 (North Carolina)). Then it just gets ambiguous for interstates that "aren't," like Interstate 4. —C.Fred (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that's the current situation, actually. It doesn't address the fact (ok, my opinion) that the New York-specific I-390 shield looks bad.  Whether that's due to a defect in the image or just due to my own unfamiliarity with the style (since New York doesn't put the state name on new shields anymore), I don't know.  =)  Powers 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Aha! It's not just me.  The state-name shield doesn't have the right text size for the number.  See this link for a picture of an actual I-390 sign with the state name: .  Powers 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking that NY shield used the older-style numbering sizes. If we use it go-forward, it should be redone at the bigger size. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Subpage technicalities
See discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Highways. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Exit lists or tables
I have read through the archives, and cannot seem to find a consensus regarding exit lists/tables and standards for them. Was this ever completely sorted out? Are the standards still open for debate? One thing I have noticed in reference to tables is that some people have a strong opinion against them. I, on the other hand, really appreciate them, and find them rather useful. I would like some direction, if someone could assist. Thanks.

--Homefryes 21:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exit lists in the form of tables are greatly appreciated. I'll get back to this when things settle down... basically this is a bad time to be at Highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exit lists should generally be formatted as tables. The generally accepted (well, not "accepted" per se, but one of the most commonly used formats) can be viewed on Interstate 390 and Interstate 590. Echoing Rschen's comments, after viewing some events that have occurred lately, this is a rough time to be at anything involving highway projects, hence my current wikibreak (which is helping me to limit my time here every day to a half-hour), which may be extended if things don't calm down here. -- T M F T - C 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood; thanks for the "heads up." I like your tables the best out of all I've seen.  I'd like to edit/create exit tables for the interstates in Pennsylvania, but under the Exit column, I need New and Old subheadings.  If it's not too much trouble, during your break, if you could get me started on the coding for the tops of those?  I'd really appreciate your assistance. --Homefryes 01:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The easy way to get the table headers, of course, is to crib them off of an article you like. I know that I-985 is set up with them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks – just needed to be pointed in the right direction! --Homefryes 02:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to check out /Archive2 for more stuff about exit tables. —Scott5114↗ 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of a solid proposal, or rather, a lack of consensus there underlines the fact that we need to develop a standard here. (Useless FYI warning: Also, it seems as if justice will finally be served regarding the events that have occurred lately, so I will officially end my wikibreak.) In any case, my proposal for a standard is the table style used on every Rochester (NY) area 3-digit Interstate (Interstate 390, Interstate 490 (New York) and Interstate 590). -- T M F T - C 11:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, exit lists are hard. Given the patience and technical knowledge required to put together a table, comments from 4 of 10+ group members seemed like an agreement to me. One of the issues Interstate 290 (Illinois) handles is where you are at that point in the road - I know I-294 goes to Indiana and Wisconsin, but you're in Hillside/Elmhurst (depending on which way you're going) at the time. For rural Interstates, this becomes Rural X County if there's no municipality for miles around. The 5/6 field table (exit number (old, new), mile marker, regional destination, local destination (where am I?), notes) allows more flexibility and gives more information than the 4 field table, while keeping good visual presentation. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From the way it seems, maybe it's best to use different tables based on the individual expressway. I see where a 4-table format could be problematic for rural freeways, but it's plenty enough for an urban expressway. (Plus, I-390, I-490 and I-590 have maps, so that eases the pain as well.) -- T M F T - C 15:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I kinda dismissed this issue with my comments a week ago, I believe that it's time to come up with a hard standard for exit lists (after seeing 4 different formats on 4 different articles). Before anyone thinks that these comments are an echo of my comments from August 3, I'm willing to take a different approach to come up with a standard. Instead of looking at one type of table and deciding which one to use, we should start with the basics and think about what should an exit list should contain. From what I've read above and from what other editors have used, here's what I've found, in the order that they would be in the table from left to right:


 * County name as a rowspan to encompass all exits in the county
 * Location name, whether it be a town, city, or village
 * Exit number, if any
 * Mileposts, milepost of the exit
 * Destinations, locations and state roads as presented on guide signs for the exit
 * Notes

An example using the above proposal:

If anyone thinks something is missing, please comment. The reason I'm adamant on this issue is that, for one, I will be spending a good amount of my time here now with the mess going on with state roads, and two, the articles would look much better with a standardized exit list format. -- T M F T - C 16:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the first question I have is what about rural interstates, where a lot of exits may not be in a location? Do we leave the location field blank for them? Second, the mileposts...I guess they're researchable, and we just go with the milepost under the center of the intersecting road? I agree that a standarized format is good, and I like the one you show for a road that continues under another name. I think that can help the Interstate 985 table I did. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For rural Interstates, the location would be wherever the exit is located, so it is perfectly fine if there is a different location for each exit. For the mileposts, I use either sources that list them or use trip planning software to measure the distance between the centers of the intersecting roads at the exits. -- T M F T - C 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the layout. I would also like to suggest the inclusion of major waterway crossings.  Thoughts?  – Homefryes 20:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be fine for an expressway with only a handful of exits. But what if an expressway has a few dozen exits? It's a novel idea, but I don't know if it would overload an extremely lengthy exit list. -- T M F T - C 20:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, by “major,” I’m referring to, for example, I-80 in Pennsylvania, which crosses the Shenango River, the Allegheny River, the Clarion River, the Susquehanna River, the Lehigh River, and the Delaware River. All in all, only 7 rivers (not too many extra lines).  Homefryes 20:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on experience with the junction lists in the infoboxes, no, we do not need waterways in the exit list. That said, I think exceptions could be granted for toll bridges or tunnels and drawbridges, e.g. I-95 in Maryland would note the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (but not the Potomac River directly) and the Fort McHenry Tunnel. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, but what about rural interstates where there is no obvious location? If an intersection is between two cities, which one is listed as the location? What if there isn't a city for 20 miles around (I'm thinking Utah here, where there are some cases.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say leave it blank. I've been doing exit lists for OK/KS and generally leave it blank even when there is a nearby city, only putting the location for exits that lie within a city limit. (See Talk:Interstate 44.) —Scott5114↗ 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, if the exit's in the literal middle of nowhere, I'd leave it blank. Honestly, I would fill "Location" in only if the exit is in an urban area (including suburbs) or if the exit is very close to a town/village. -- T M F T - C 21:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. There would be very few actual exits (as opposed to junctions) in the middle of nowhere anyway. Also, mile numbers are probably not required for mile-based exit numbers. --Polaron | Talk 22:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree about the mile numbers. Make it an optional column for California or for startes that use sequential exit numbers? Then it's still standardized; it's just an optional column only used where necessary. On a related noted, what about old exit numbers? Should we provide a column for states, like Georgia, that recently converted from sequential to mile marker? —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * California uses exit numbers, although it's still putting them up. A website has the info though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  18:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would still use mileposts for states that use mile-based exit numbers, so the distance between exits can be determined with greater precision than to the nearest mile. Also, for the old/new exit numbers, the old exit numbers can go in a column to the right of the new numbers. -- T M F T - C 22:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about instances where eastbound exits may differ from westbound exits? Such a case is I-80 in PA, exit 307.  Also, what about split exits, such as same list, exit 4 (which is split the same in each direction) or exit 236 (which is split EB but not WB)?  Should all three of these special cases be handled in the notes section for the exit?  In reference to mileposts, I can also see a need for them in cases where an interstate's first exit may be labeled "Exit 1" even though it's before milepost 1, esp. in very urban areas.


 * Re: Split exits: See Interstate 390, exits 12 and 14 for how I would handle them. -- T M F T - C 15:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those work when the split exits are for different routes. If the split exits are for the same route, I'd probably combine them into one entry.  Powers T 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

←For exits that are only one direction I usually put something like westbound only in bold.

I think the reasoning for including both 'exit' and 'mile' is that 'exit' is for the actual exit number (e.g. 101) and 'mile' is for the exact location (say 101.44), which is determined by postmiles in California. Correct me if I'm wrong.

SPUI mentioned that the reason he includes the cycling red/green/blue colors on the exit tables he uses is because sometimes the Gecko renderer (used by Mozilla, Firefox, K-Meleon, etc.) will glitch up and not show the table's lines, which makes determining where one city starts and the next begins impossible without the colors. —Scott5114↗ 21:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah... CA has a slightly odd system. Exit 1 can be from 0.00 to 1.50 miles. Exit 2 can be from 1.50 to 2.50, etc. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  21:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although most states, especially in rural areas, do not have mile posts more precise than 1 mile. So for most interstates, the milepost and exit number is identical. --Holderca1 17:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's more a problem with the state DOT in that case for lacking in precision. I still maintain that the milepost column is not redundant per my comments on the exit list guide talk page. -- T M F T - C 19:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Are we in the business of Business Loops?
Does this project cover Business Interstates? There's a few of them that have articles but I'm not sure whether they should fall under the purview of this project, the state project, or USRD. Thoughts? —Scott5114↗ 14:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally think Business Loops should be covered by this project, as they are Interstates technically. -- T M F T - C 18:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They are interstates. Business loops are given Interstate shields (granted they are green).  For example, the only one in Pennsylvania is Business Loop 83 in York.  It does not up to interstate highway standards, but it is signed regardless.  --myselfalso 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For reference by the interested reader: List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System. Powers T 14:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A point of interest, in Ashburn, Virginia, there was a new interchange constructed at Claiborne Parkway and State Route 7; at some intersections on Claiborne Parkway, they installed interstate-style Business Loop 7 signs to show the direction to the route, instead of the Virginia Route 7 sign. I'll get a picture when I'm up there next; I just found it interesting.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Interstate 74
I decided I should bring this up with the project instead of just the two articles it really deals with. As with Interstate 76 and Interstate 84, I feel that now, especially since someone just made the Interstate 74 in North Carolina page, we should rename the two pages. There is the intention to eventually connect the two pieces of interstate, but we're looking at a long long time away until that happens. I propose that, since it is an east-west interstate, that the current Interstate 74 article become Interstate 74 (west) and the I-74 in NC article become Interstate 74 (east). They're two entirely different highways that won't be connected within the foreseeable future. --MPD01605 (T / C) 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty good idea. It would probably be best to redirect Interstate 74 to Interstate 74 (west) for now though. But Interstate 74 in North Carolina shouldn't become Interstate 74 (east), since South Carolina plans to build their portion, and the West Virginia piece is posted "future I-73/74 corridor".
 * Would it be better to have a single article about both I-73 and the extension of I-74 and their history and general facts, and then make separate state pages for most, at least those that are studying something? (Interstate 74 in Virginia doesn't need one, as it's an overlap with I-77, for instance.) I-73/74 North-South Corridor, the ISTEA designation, is a possible name. It also makes it clear that these aren't actually being built as Interstates everywhere. --NE2 18:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the east and west articles, and don't like the "in state" articles. I-74, if it goes to South Carolina at all (there have been previous attempts to make the terminus at Wilmington) will only run in South Carolina for about 20 miles, which is hardly deserving of its own article... especially for an Interstate. I say just combine South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia into Interstate 74 (east). The segment in NC betweeen US 52 and I-77 is the only true section of I-74 in the area (the US 220 section is still "Future I-74"). --TinMan 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So is it okay to move "Interstate 74" to "Interstate 74 (west)" and "Interstate 74 in North Carolina" to "Interstate 74 (east)"? --MPD01605 (T / C) 23:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say no, since I-74 in North Carolina is only part of I-74 (east). --NE2 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm... hmm. All right. The state detail pages are sticking around, but they "belong" to their parent, which it sounds like is going to be split into Interstate 74 (west) and Interstate 74 (east). It would only be okay if it's made painfully clear that unlike every other split highway in the nation, the two are actually related and are thought of as the same Interstate. Which is why my personal vote is for keeping Interstate 74. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 11:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Are they the same Interstate though? Ohio has no plans to build their piece, and West Virginia isn't building a freeway. The most accurate way of looking at it is probably the older Interstate 74 west from Cincinnati and the newer I-73/74 North-South Corridor east into South Carolina. FHWA and AASHTO have approved sections of this I-73/74 North-South Corridor as Interstate 74 and Future Interstate 74, but the rest is simply a high priority corridor, not an Interstate. --NE2 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a decent layout: --NE2 11:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interstate 74 (west): cover Quad Cities to Cincinnati; eventually also split into state pages.
 * I-73/74 North-South Corridor: cover general information about both corridors, and possibly specifics in Ohio and Michigan.
 * Interstate 73 and Interstate 74 (east): cover only in and south/east of Ohio. Also split into states - but in West Virginia a redirect to U.S. Route 52 in West Virginia (as currently exists) may be preferable.
 * No arguments here, but there has to be a better name for the I-73/74 corridor article (maybe like "Interstate 73/Interstate 74 corridor" or something along those lines). -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I-73/74 North-South Corridor is the actual name in federal law, and signs in West Virginia use that name (with an extra "High Priority" tacked on). To be rather pedantic, nowhere is it actually defined as Interstates 73 and 74, just "I-73/74". --NE2 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it can't be named that - I'm just saying I don't like the name nor the abbreviations used in it. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If we want to get into technical names, it should be "Intermodal Surface Transportation Effeciency Act Corridor 5". --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the I-73/74 North-South Corridor deserves its own article. The I-73 article is fine as it is.  The only issue is I-74.  I see the reasoning behind User:Rob's argument.  That said, perhaps we can leave the I-74 article as it is for now, and the I-74 in NC article as it is for now until perhaps another state signs I-74 which connects to the NC portion, creating an interstate interstate (as opposed to an intrastate interstate).  Would it be possible to modify the interstate routebox to reflect two disjointed sections of the same interstate?--MPD01605 (T / C) 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already possible with a horizontal rule: U.S. Route 460 in Virginia. --NE2 19:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But I meant with two East ends, west ends, and junctions.  I know it's possible, but I can't find the source code for the infobox road.  I'll edit the I-74 infobox and we can see if it's okay.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If we do go forward with this, it would probably make sense for I-66 as well; Virginia and West Virginia are not building freeways along the extension. --NE2 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the current status of I-66 in Kentucky? Is it open yet and signed as I-66?  The Interstate 66 Kentucky website is not very helpful. --MPD01605 (T / C) 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a future corridor: . Here I'd definitely keep the Virginia route at I-66 until the Kentucky route is signed. --NE2 19:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to Infobox Interstate
See Template talk:Infobox Interstate. -- T M F T - C 15:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exit lists
Articles such as I-5 exit list and such should be called? There is no convention right now... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Interstate 5 exit list, to stay consistent with article naming (we don't call the article for I-5 "I-5", now do we? ;) ). -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 05:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do these exist? Shouldn't they be in individual state articles? --NE2 05:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus on... I-95 exit list I think it was. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just going to mention that, but the edit conflict stopped me. I think we can point to that and say that the I-5 exit list should not exist.  That took a good chunk of time to get settled.  I also redirected that link to the talk page since "I-95 exit list" is now a redirect to I-95.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

State subcategories
I've asked this before, but...

Route description is a second-level header. Each state name is a third-level header below it.

Do we wiki them, or not? Current consensus is 50/50 across all articles I've read. &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite know what you're asking. Can you clarify?
 * Is it just me, or does that sound like one of those automated speak-into phone things? --MPD01605 (T / C) 07:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe he's asking about linking state names in headings under "Route description". Yes, that does sound like some sort of automated phone thing... —Scott5114↗ 17:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, linking them. I'd say no.  But in the description, I'd link to the state.  But then again, I'm not a big fan of wikilinking headers.--MPD01605 (T / C) 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interstate spur navboxes
Copied from User talk:TwinsMetsFan.

Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 29. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Holy hell. That's it, this deleting of navboxes has to end now, and it begins by keeping these templates. I've added my $.02. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 01:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to create a standard 3di template which can then be filled in using paramaters rather than creating one for every interstate that needs it? I may be missing a key idea, but I think taking that approach would quell these rampant TFDs.  S tratosphere (U T) 02:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...this could definitely work. I'll see what I can whip up. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would disagree since the templates are repeated on the page, which is why templates were created, and if the template needs to be changed... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had a more flexible template that could handle stuff like this:   couldn't it serve the same purpose or am I missing something?  S tratosphere (U T) 03:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * States too, and past-future... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Soooo, you're saying it'd be too much for a paramater based infobox? Remember Infobox road is pretty crazy, but it works. Just brainstorming a possibly way to consolidate all those templates into one easy to fold super kit for only $19.99.  Cheers.  S tratosphere (U T) 04:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I could make a parameter-based template work, if I included a ton of parser functions (#if and the like). I'll work on this in my sandbox over the next couple of days, over which time if anyone wants to help with the coding, feel free to do so. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I failed to find a single parser function that would work correctly in this case, so I don't think a parameter based template is possible. But something has to be done. For some reason, people are prejudiced against these templates, and unfortunately the precedent for their eventual total deletion has been set. The only thing I can think of would be to recreate these templates as a subpage of WP:IH and then use them in the articles, although there's probably some policy against this. Another option would be to replace the templates (not 3di) with manual entries. But based on the results at DRV and TfD, the current system will not work. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

3di xx simply prepares the table header row and automatically fills in parameters for 3di row. For 2dis with a single spur, what is the problem with simply substing the template or filling in 3di row manually? It's only going to be used on the 2di article anyway since it's useless in the 3di article itself. --Polaron | Talk 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with using 3di in conjunction with manually-filled in 3di rows. But something has to be done, as all of the "3di X" templates will be deleted soon at the current rate of deletion. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this for these single link templates?

which produces:
 * }

--Polaron | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * }
 * I'd support that. As for where the test2 template could be stored, it'd have to be in 3di3 or something similar (as "3di" and "3di2" already exist. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Or we could replace it on all the articles (not just the single 3di-ones), which should be easier than it sounds with subst'ing, and convert 3di to this. Just a thought. -- NORTH talk 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, though some of the more massive ones (like 3di 5, 3di 90, 3di 95, etc.) are probably best left as templates. The other ones could easily be subst'ed. I'll hold further comment until I see which way the project wants to head with this, as there are a number of avenues we can go down with this issue. -- T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 00:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this for the smaller ones with one, two, or even three spur routes. However, if the others are fine as it is, they could just stay that way.  IMO, any larger ones would be rather unsightly code in the article edit box.  Also, how would this work with the past/future rows?  --MPD01605 (T / C) 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already handled by 3di row since that template doesn't automatically create links. --Polaron | Talk 21:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other comments on this? I'm planning to make some changes to the actual templates later today. The appearance of all tables would not be altered in any way. --Polaron | Talk 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What happens if I add a prose description of I-516 to Interstate 16? Then I can remove the table, right? --NE2 17:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In theory, I suppose so (my humble opinion only), but what's the point of adding a prose description when your linking to the I-516 article anyway? -- NORTH talk 20:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it's more useful to a reader who is looking for a certain spur. It's not so much an issue on I-16, since there's only one spur, but someone looking for a spur of I-85 but forgetting its number doesn't have to open each article if there is a short description of each. --NE2 01:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, don't make any actual changes to the articles until we have a consensus on this issue. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

What do people think about putting the table entries for the single-link templates directly into  ? For certain specific xx values, instead of calling, it will get the values from an inernal list. I've tried to implement something at User:Polaron/test3 (look at the bottom 4 tables). The main function is at User:Polaron/test4, which is intended to replace both 3di and 3di2. It currently has an awkward construction. Anybody more familiar with parser functions should be able to construct this more elegantly. --Polaron | Talk 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that if the above function is used for 3di, this would only require inserting a template parameter to at most 18 articles without affecting the appearance in any way of any article, and simultaneously allow for the deletion of single-link  templates, as well as. I am hoping this is a reasonable solution. The only drawback I see is that the proposed template is about 500 bytes larger (2x larger) than the current one. --Polaron | Talk 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, it was no consensus on the deletion. Someone want to go to the affected articles and remove "this template is being considered for deletion etc etc etc" from the boxes?  I'd do it, but I don't know where they are. --MPD01605 (T / C) 18:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD on Canadian exit list - next stop, Interstate lists?
As an alert, please note this AfD for regarding a major Canadian freeway's exit list: Articles for deletion/List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario). While most votes so far are keep, there was one particularly strong demand to delete the exit list on grounds that it violates core Wikipedia policies. This may potentially lead to AfD calls on any Interstate exit list pages. The Interstate project members may want to weigh in here. Dl2000 04:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We've been deciding to merge exit lists with the article here, unless it's too long. I'm not sure what the standard here is though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the two salient points are that discussion was held in the 401 article to split it off, and that the exit list is long enough that it warrants breaking off from the main article. We're probably poised to run into a few problems like that in the US (I-5 in CA; I-10 and 20 in TX), though in those cases, the body of the article may be short enough to not be problematic...whereas the 401 article has the whole narrative of the highway plus the exit list, with no easy way to subdivide it other than breaking off the exit list. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. The 401 discussion will certainly provide some precedent for anything else.  --MPD01605 (T / C) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)