Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California State Highways/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Project directory 2 Business routes 3 Infobox discussion, time 3 3.1 History 3.2 Proposals 3.2.1 Rschen7754 3.2.2 Geopgeop 3.2.3 Northenglish 3.3 Votes and comments (votes bolded please) 3.4 Prototypes 3.4.1 What we have now 3.4.2 With the mileposts and all junctions 3.4.3 Without the mileposts and minor junctions 4 Browse box 5 {{SoCalFwy}} 6 State Route 1 exit list 7 Exit list - entrances? 8 Template:CAFESAlt and Template:CAScenicAlt 9 Don't know if you are interested in photos like this? Historic US 40 sign 10 Some neat definitions, history and trivia found on the Caltrans website 11 68.126.243.162's edits

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Business routes

Should we cover business routes that do not have concurrencies with state highways / have their own articles, besides Business 80 in Sacramento? Please see List of Business Routes of the Interstate Highway System; some Business Routes of 5, 205, 8, 10, 40, and 80 are within California. An example: Interstate 8 Business (El Centro, California) -- should it have the project tag on its talk page? Other Business Loops are already covered by concurrent State Route articles, like California State Route 265, for example (Business Loop of I-5) (err, that Business Loop is also covered by US 97, but US 97 does not have a CA specific article yet). --Geopgeop 12:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox discussion, time 3

This discussion is intended as the discussion to deal with the infobox mess.

History

A brief summary of the problem: Back in February 2006, at California State Route 15, {{routeboxca2}} was removed from the page. After a revert war started, the same user tried to modify {{routeboxca2}} to his own liking, but was reverted again. He then proceeded to TFD {{routeboxca2}}: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2, where consensus was to keep. Thus his alternative was to create {{Infobox CA Route}} and switch articles over to it, starting a massive revert war. However, subsequent debates have upheld the use of {{routeboxca2}}: /Archive3 for example. Finally, the page move wars took over, and RFC, ArbCom, and WP:SRNC came into being. So now that the dust has cleared, it is time to address this issue again.

Proposals

Rschen7754

I propose that we use the current routebox with a few modifications: a) Potentially updating the framework to integrate it with {{Infobox road}}, b) Splitting out the terminii and putting them in the special terminii fields, c) Updating support for lengths and maps. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Geopgeop

Remember the junction box (which is still in use in many articles)? How it would be too long, such as an implementation in the California State Route 1 or 99 articles? I propose to officially include it again, and also have it hide automatically, then add a "click to show" link that would, well, "click to show". Other infoboxes are using something like this now, such as WP:Anime's with the secondary channels and publishers hiding in its infoboxes, for instance. Of course, I guess this also depends on whether or not it already has a separate exit list. --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish

I propose changing completely over to {{infobox road}}. None of this "click to show" stuff. Major junctions can be included in the infobox; a complete list of all junctions with other state highways can be included in the article text -- similar to WP:NYSR, and to a lesser extent other WikiProjects as well.

The Washington WikiProject had a similar issue (albeit without ugly revert warring), and this was the consensus reached there. -- NORTH ^talk 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Votes and comments (votes bolded please)

Comment: Sure, an integration with {{Infobox road}} would be great, considering we have 50 states and there aren't much differences between them except with shields, names, and types. If I were to view California State Route 88, which uses {{routeboxca2}}, and then move on to view Nevada State Route 88, which uses plain {{Infobox road}} and srbox, I wouldn't want to see a stark contrast as they really are just continuations of each other. I would like to see examples of what the infobox would look like compared to the other infoboxes as well. Remember, our project is part of WP:USRD and we need some collaboration with that and the other states' WikiProjects (especially neighbor Oregon) and also the other states as well (especially neighbors Nevada, Arizona, and possibly Baja California/Mexico). --Geopgeop 04:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'm intrigued by the "click to show idea." --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: I like integration with the Infobox road --- uniformity over large number of articles is good! hike395 04:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Question If Northenglish's proposal was adopted, would junction lists also be created? Would the information be saved for the junction lists? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't add the junctions to the infobox, because it makes certain infoboxes much larger than the others. A good idea would be to create a separate table for the junctions. As the junction lists are now in regards to infoboxes, they become confusing since it incorporates table code in the infobox. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I meant... just making sure the old infoboxes would be saved on the talk for help in creating the junction lists. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Originally, I was thinking of a hybrid of the infobox seen in California State Route 37, but I think the use of infobox roads would be best, since it would be helpful for those who edit route articles for other states as well. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 04:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish: Hidden data doesn't appeal to me. I prefer Infobox road and moving the junction table out to the article body. Doing so removes the box space constraints, and allows the list/table to be tailored for special cases without finding a creative way to stuff it into infobox parameter terms. —RandallJones 23:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: We haven't forgotten about the mini routebox, like what's in use in the Richmond Parkway article or California State Route 210, haven't we? Could we have the full routebox use optional parameters instead so we wouldn't need the mini routebox? If we still use the mini routebox, located at {{routeboxcamini}} (also, a certain user made {{Infobox CA Route small}}), we definitely need it to match the full routebox. --Geopgeop 12:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• The main purpose of that was for browsing, and we can just create another browse row in the infobox. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Comment: The infoboxes below right now have inconsistent browse boxes, the one provided by {{Infobox road}} with the name "State Route", and the embedded {{ca browse}} using just "Route". For {{ca browse}}, I guess it should say State Route, especially for those users who cannot view images and can't tell if it's really a State Route or an Interstate. Also: Northenglish: that's right, I'll go with his proposal, as I realize we have to be realistic in that not everything can/should be crammed into an infobox. Besides, a junction box just can't give as much detail in a small infobox as an exit list can in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 12:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

For the browsing, I would prefer "SR" instead of the full "State Route"; other states almost exclusively use abbreviations. Regarding the mini-infobox, not being an active member of this project, I'm not sure what it was originally used for -- Rschen seems to indicate it's no longer necessary -- but {{infobox road}} is programmed with a plethora of if commands, all the parameters are optional. -- NORTH ^talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

With that, I'm confirming my vote for Northenglish. --Geopgeop 04:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Northenglish Yup. As long as we have a junction list so no data is lost. Also we might consider adding a section to infobox road for the state law section. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we close this soon? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's consider this closed and move on to the next issue (what we see for the browse section). However, let's only apply this new infobox to one or two articles (preferably a few of each type of older infobox). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Prototypes

What we have now

Route 78
Length:	192.46 mi (309.73 km)
Formed:
Major cities:	Oceanside Vista San Marcos Escondido Ramona Julian Brawley Blythe
Direction:	East-West
JUNCTION POSTMILE I-5 SD 0.00 I-15 SD 16.54 SR-67 SD 35.52 SR-79 SD 51.11 SR-79 SD 58.13 SR-86 IMP 13.18 SR-86 IMP 13.19 SR-111 IMP 13.80 SR-115 IMP 18.65 I-10 RIV 16.41 California State Routes Unconstructed - Deleted - Scenic < Route 77 Route 79 >

With the mileposts and all junctions

Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

State Route 78
Length:	192.46 mi (309.73 km)
Formed:	2100
West end:
I-5	SD 0.00
Major junctions:
I-15	SD 16.54
SR-67	SD 35.52
SR-79	SD 51.11
SR-79	SD 58.13
SR-86	IMP 13.18
SR-86	IMP 13.19
SR-111	IMP 13.80
SR-115	IMP 18.65
East end:
I-10	RIV 16.41
Major cities:	Oceanside Vista San Marcos Escondido Ramona Julian Brawley Blythe
California State Routes < SR 77 SR 79 > < SR 1 2 SR 3 > Unconstructed - Deleted - Freeway - Scenic

Without the mileposts and minor junctions

Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.

State Route 78
(CS&HC Section 378)
Length:	192.46 mi (309.73 km)
Formed:	2100
West end:	I-5 in Oceanside
Major junctions:	I-15 in Escondido SR-67 in Ramona SR-79 in Julian SR-86 in Brawley SR-111 in Brawley SR-115 in Imperial
East end:	I-10 in Blythe
Major cities:	Oceanside Vista San Marcos Escondido Blythe
California State Routes < SR 77 SR 79 > < SR 1 2 SR 3 > Unconstructed - Deleted - Freeway - Scenic

Browse box

On urgent matters, what happened to the browse box in the routebox? For example, I'm getting links to State 2 (California) from the California State Route 1 page. Either all pages have to have the "type" parameter in the routebox set to "State Route" from "State", or the routebox code has to be fixed. --Geopgeop 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, this is happening specifically with {{Infobox CA Route}} and {{Infobox CA Route small}} by the way, not {{Routeboxca2}}. --Geopgeop 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what happened. A change with {{Infobox CA Route/browse route}} and {{Infobox CA Route/browse no route}} did it. Hold on. --Geopgeop 12:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed for now. --Geopgeop 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry... I was creating the prototype and must have broken it... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 16:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the proposal boxes (see above for infoboxes), they're using {{ca browse}} for those with additional routes, and that also has that problem. I'm going to change that right now. --Geopgeop 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's just the values in the above proposals, not {{ca browse}} by itself. --Geopgeop 04:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, they're proposals anyway, I'm not going to change them... --Geopgeop 04:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we'll need to fix that when we close the poll and get the coding working. Someone will need to look my work over I think, I'm not sure if I made a mess. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

{{SoCalFwy}}

We haven't forgotten about {{SoCalFwy}}, have we? Except for a minor edit in October, this template, it seems, is largely forgotten. This, as well as the articles on Southern California freeways. Also, San Diego Freeway has a lot of cities in its infobox that could be better represented as a list in the body of the article. --Geopgeop 10:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And it already has. --Geopgeop 10:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

State Route 1 exit list

A near complete exit list for State Route 1 has been completed by me, Geopgeop, in my user space. See User:Geopgeop/Exit list of California State Route 1. All I'm missing is the statewide mileposts, plus any additional checks. Oh, as for exit 510 (Mission Street), is the Cal-Nexus data correct on that? SR 1 does not touch Mission Street at all, likely ramps that connect to it are the Alemany Boulevard and Brotherhood Way ramps. Please check that. --Geopgeop 10:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, any chance of implementing this in the main article in some way? --Geopgeop 10:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably can just go in like an Interstate list. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, does it match the new WP:IH standards? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Exit list - entrances?

There's an anonIP editing Interstate 580 (California), removing information on entrances for one-directional exits - for example, he's edited the 35th Avenue exit from Eastbound exit and westbound entrance to Eastbound exit only. Is this correct usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyriou (talk • contribs) 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Why remove the info? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:CAFESAlt and Template:CAScenicAlt

California highway articles can be changed to uniformly refer to Template:CAFES and Template:CAScenic to comply with the TfD outcome, since these are now changed to handle the "Alt" cases too.

How about changing WP:CASH to reflect this? -- Paddu 00:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There are subtle link differences... does the coding account for this? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's of course the point of "changed to handle the 'Alt' cases too". Please see for yourself: CAFES and CAScenic. "{{#switch:}}" is described at m:ParserFunctions##switch:. -- Paddu 06:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but since I am not aware of how it exactly works, I can't do the changes. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The anchor (i.e. the part after the #) in the wikisource link in Template:CAScenic is generated from:

                                {{#switch: {{{route}}}
                                | 28| 35| 38| 52| 53| 62| 74| 75| 76| 89
                                | 96| 97|127|150|151|154|156|158|161|173
                                |197|199|203|209|221|236|239|243|247|254
                                |330 = Section_{{{sec}}}
                                |Route_{{{route}}}
                                }}

If {{{route}}} is 28, 35, 38, 52, 53, 62, 74, 75, 76, 89, 96, 97, 127, 150, 151, 154, 156, 158, 161, 173, 197, 199, 203, 209, 221, 236, 239, 243, 247, 254 or 330, the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Section_{{{sec}}}" else the link generated is "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/California_Streets_and_Highways_Code%2C_Section_260-284#Route_{{{route}}}". Similarly the wikisource link in Template:CAFES is generated. -- Paddu 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative for CAScenic is to replace the {{#switch:}} with:

{{#ifeq: {{{sec}}}|263.1
|Section_{{{sec}}}      <!-- used if {{{sec}}} = 263.1 -->
|Route_{{{route}}}      <!-- used otherwise -->
}}

and similarly for CAFES:

{{#ifeq: {{{sec}}}|253.1|Section_{{{sec}}}|Route_{{{route}}}}}

This code is smaller and requires no modification if sections 253.1/263.1 get amended. -- Paddu 21:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and updated WP:CASH to recommend the use of only {{CAFES}} and {{CAScenic}}. -- Paddu 20:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you are interested in photos like this? Historic US 40 sign

Hello, I am a member of the WP:CAL project and saw your project sign on one of our pages. I uploaded a copy of the thumbnail at Wiki:Commons. If you would like to use it, you are welcome. This sign (and more in Sacramento, CA) have been placed along Historic US routes that passed on major thoroughfares. This one is as per its description, at the intersection of Del Paso Blvd. and Arden Way as per the pic. The sign is actually on Del Paso Blvd. which I guess was part of US 40. Please contact me on my talkpage if you have any questions. Cheers. Ronbo76 00:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Some neat definitions, history and trivia found on the Caltrans website

I am doing some work for a WP:CAL article, Alemany Maze that was recently prod'ed. Today's research found the term maze defined in that article along with its connotation to the MacArthur Maze. Your project may wish to use this Caltrans Facts/Information in defining terms. Cheers, Ronbo76 17:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

68.126.243.162's edits

68.126.243.162 (talk • contribs) has been doing a bunch of edits to SoCal freeway articles as well as many other road articles. For example, they changed many of the dates in the Interstate 710. Since I know that you guys are pretty fanatical about such details, I was just going to revert, but decided to bring the issue here for you guys to look at. It looks like that also edited several road templates. ^BlankVerse 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing on Interstate 705 (Washington). There s/he edited a referenced date (for the year established) in the infobox, and also added a completion date to the article text. The established date was clearly wrong, contradicting the reference, so I reverted that, but I was nice and tacked {{fact}} on the date in the article text, since I can find very little information at the moment on the short little freeway in Tacoma.

In general, I would go ahead and just revert for the most part, unless it's new information – in which case, tag it and verify it when you get the chance. -- NORTH ^talk 09:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP from Orange County, California PacBell/AT&T DSL IPs keeps editing SoCal freeway articles. The latest IP is 68.126.240.219 (talk • contribs), but there have been at least one or two more besides the IP I listed at the beginning of this section. The obviously bad thing in their edits is that I saw them remove the {{fact}} tags a couple of times. There are so many edits an admin is going to have to do all the rolbacks, and then should probably semi-protect the articles for awhile. ^BlankVerse 07:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

TMF and I (I think?) discussed this. It's hard to tell if the IP is vandalizing or telling the truth. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I caught one definately bogus edit: [1]. The Orange Crush is on the border of the city of Orange, California and 2-3 miles from downtown Orange.

One edit the 68.126.*.* editor was doing regularly, and therefore originally creating redlinks, was editing 1964 renumbering to 1965 renumbering, which they then later re-edited, taking out the wikilink to read "1965 state highway renumbering". See [2]. ^BlankVerse 13:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)