Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 1

This archive page was moved from Template talk:Infobox Interstate/Archive 1 after Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between August 31, 2005 and September 17, 2005.

Color Coding and a how-to

What is the proper way to color code each junction? None of the articles that use it so far seem to use any color codes. Also, what exactly is "browse" for? I think it's for other routes in the state, but how am I to select which ones? I can't possibly include every highway in NY. Wouldn't it be better just to link to a page with the complete list, like Category:Interstate highways in New York? --Engleman 03:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

My bad... I should have said something about that. If you need to color code then type in for example <tr bgcolor=paleturquoise>. The colors can be found on Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways. However not every junction needs a coding; only the ones that are deleted, etc. As for the browse dialog box... I'll take Interstate 5 for example, which runs through California, Oregon, and Washington. You create a table that includes the following routes: CA-4, CA-7, OR-4, OR-6, WA-4, and WA-6. You select the routes that surround the article route numerically. (There is no CA-6, so you go to CA-7). See User:Rschen7754/Routeboxinttest for an example. --Rschen7754

What about a secondary interstate like Interstate 678? Should I put I-587 (for the most part, completely irrevalent to 678) and I-695? I can't think of any high NY state routes (with the exceptions of unsigned ones like the Taconic State Parkway, 987G), or any high US highways; therefore, the 3di's would pretty much end up linking to each-other, often to 3di's not in the same family (as illustrated by the 678 example, it would link to a 87 3di and a 95 3di). Am I missing the point of the browse state routes section? (PS: sorry for asking so many questions) --Engleman 17:00, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a problem. The point of the browse section is for the CA, WA and KY WPs. This way people can go from US-395 to I-405 to I-505 in California (for example). {{routeboxca2}} has a browse section for this. The purpose of the browse section is to give the CA WA and KY WPs a place to put their info for the browse section. There is no highway WP for the other states... yet. I assume one day there will be 50 WPs for all 50 states, but currently 3 WPs plus Interstates and US highways has my hands tied (although of course you can start a WP). If there is a list of NY state highways that is complete you can take a look at that for help. --Rschen7754

OK now I understand. One more quick question about junctions: what about a simeltanious junction (Probably the wrong wording, but here's a great example: The Bruckner Interchange: there's 4 Interstate designations and 3 seperate highways, not to mention local roads; it's truely a monstrosity) Should they all be listed on one line in the junction section or seperately?

Just list the Interstate highways. You can do either because if you do it separately the junctions will have the same milepost. Thanks for your work- we need more people on this WP! --Rschen7754

Concurrency Colors/ More Color Coding

How does the concurrency color work? And what does "begin/end concurrency, bold route is carried through" mean? Unless it's a junction of more than one highway and concurrency (see: Interstate 80/94 / U.S. 6 / U.S. 41 / Indiana 152 in Hammond, IN for a particularly nasty case that may end up in Borman Expressway), bolding routes may just be confusing.

Also, what does "bold route on white background indicates termini" mean? Is this the article route's termini, or the bolded route's termini? If it is the former, I'd suggest leaving it alone... or having a row of colspan 2 and background yellow saying "End I-5" or a 2-column row saying "Mexican Border | End I-5", etc. Not all Interstates end at junctions with major highways. :-) --Rob 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really sure how the concurrency was intended to work, but for Interstate 86 (east) it was a rather simple case involving no interchanges with other Interstates along the length of the multiplex. --Engleman 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more, I think adding bright yellow to the background as article-route termini sounds like a decent idea. I'd officially like to propose it. Unconstructed (future) termini would probably have to be yellow/purple.

Example:

File:Interstate-290.png I-290	Mile 34.5
File:Interstate55.png I-55	Mile 12.5
...unconstructed...
File:Interstate80.png I-80	Mile 0.0

--Rob 20:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Is this what you mean?:

File:Interstate-290.png I-290	Mile 34.5
File:Interstate55.png I-55	Mile 12.5
File:Interstate80.png I-80	Mile 0.0

--Engleman 02:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It could be... the requirements are as follows...

• Northern terminus at I-290. 290 does not terminate there.
• Current southern terminus at I-55. 55 does not terminate there, either.
• Unconstructed southern terminus at I-80. I-80 does not terminate there.

We could just drop the whole yellow thing and maybe keep the bolded notes, too. Or bold routes that terminate at the Interstate (like on the I-5 page, bold I-90) and insert another line that explicitly says "End I-5", also in bold. I'll experiment here still, there's lots of options. It was easy to get the termini confused using the current system.

File:Interstate-355.png Ends
File:Interstate-290.png I-290	Mile 34.5
other junctions...
File:Interstate55.png I-55	Mile 12.5
File:Interstate-355.png Ends
...unconstructed...
IL xxx	Mile 4
File:Interstate80.png I-80	Mile 0.0
Future File:Interstate-355.png Ends

--Rob 15:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow... I didn't think about the concurrency problem. When I copied the CA stuff from their WP I didn't think of that. In California whenever there is a multiplex (concurrency) one route typically dominates over another and the dominant route is bolded. However this is mostly untrue for the Interstate system... at least technically... in function there may be a dominance. As for the terminii... I'd imagine that it would be the article route's terminii, and Mexican border would be the terminus for I-5, for example. The yellow would be helpful as long as there are no clashes... say unbuilt or deleted terminii or whatever... so italic or underline may work better. Another possibility is making deleted strikethrough to help avoid conflicts. --Rschen7754 03:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Didn't know that. :-) So if California 1 and U.S. 101 become a concurrency, the road is signed one or the other, but not both? There are a few situations in Illinois where there are assumed concurrencies, (Interstate 290 and U.S. 20), but most of the time equal weight is given to both routes here (U.S. 12, 20 and 45, Illinois 116 and 117, Illinois 53 and Interstate 290). --Rob 14:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well most multiplexed routes would be signed with both routes, but in the highway code/ legislatively/mileposts etc. one dominates over another. However CA-1 is not always signed when it is on US-101... --Rschen7754 00:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Postmile vs. Milepost

A quick Google search shows that the term postmile appears to be California-specific. (The few remaining results still appear to be from California.) I know for sure postmile is rarely, if ever, used in the Northeast (I though for sure it was a typo at first glance.) Assuming that postmile is California-specific (I believe I have sufficient evidence, but please correct me if it is in common use elsewhere.), it's not good for use in the Interstate highway system. I think that milepost is the usual term throughout most of the nation. (I did another search, to make sure it wasn't just where I'm from, but if there is yet a third alternative term, please correct me.) Therefore, I am changing postmile to milepost --Engleman 04:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

How could I have forgotten mile marker? I suppose I saw the unfamiliar term, postmile and simply flipped it around in my head, not realising that I'm even more familiar with mile marker. Anyway, I don't know which would be better. Is one of these more common than the other in other parts of the US?

--Engleman 04:39, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

If this is a vote, my vote is for mile marker. --Rob 17:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it is more common, especially in places like the Florida Keys where there's just one road (most buisnesses give their location by the mile marker on US Route 1 they are nearest to). In other places, it seems that the general public doesn't refer to mileposts/markers at all, but both terms are used.

See what I just wrote at the bottom of this section for what in my opinion is a better idea than all three.

--Engleman 18:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem- I would have changed it eventually anyway. I am managing 3 WPs and am getting confused as to which one I fixed and which one I didn't :( Postmile is a CA-specific term since CA uses the weird boxes instead of green milepost signs... CA is just weird. --Rschen7754 05:36, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: by definition, all junctions on Interstates are interchanges with exit numbers, usually by state (In some states, it is possible for one interstate to have multiple exit numbering schemes and milage systems. examples: I-87 in New York has three (Deegan, Thruway & Northway), I-95 in New Jersey has at least two (NJTP & Bergen-Passaic Expressway)). Also in the majority of states, exit numbers are always based based on milage. The huge exception here is the Northeast. Some states have converted some or all (Pennsylvania recenly switched the whole state, I believe.), but there are still quite a few major Interstates that use sequential. Anyway, so what's my point? My point is that perhaps "Exit Number" or "Interchange Number" or "Exit" or something along those lines would be more relevant, and in most of the country, the data in that column would be exactly the same regaurdless of what you call it. As far as the states that use sequential numbering, have a look at what I've done for I-84. I put the mile first, and the exit number in parenthases if it is different. If the column were to be changed to say exit number or interchange number, then the two numbers would be swapped. As far as the states with multiple systems, I would suggest putting the state abbreviation first, then some common abbreviaion for the road, and linking it to the article on that particular road. (Like NJ-TP or NY-MD) Any thoughts? --Engleman 18:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think about that... but the problem is that states that don't use exit 0 will be messed up slightly (there, exit 1 can be anywhere from 0.00 to 1.49 miles, and exit 5 can be from 5.50 to 6.49 miles) It might not be that big of a difference though and I think that exit minbers are already starting to be used. So yeah go ahead and switch it, and I'll work with the CASR WP to make those interstate routeboxes conform. --Rschen7754 01:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot to mention one of the biggest advantages of doing it by exit number: it's much easier to look up exit numbers than mile markers. Anyway, so if we're going to do it that way, what should it be called? Interchange #? Exit #? Just plain Exit or Interchange? Perhaps Intrchng? I like using Interchange/Intrchng over Exit, because of interchanges where the same highway gets two exits. So say (this isn't true) Interstate 6 has an interchange (numbered 3) with Interstate 7. While the route box would just have one listing as #3, there would really be two exits there: 3N and 3S (or do they do it A/B in most places nowadays?). Anyway, it doesn't make much of a difference to me. Exit has the advantage of being the shorter word.

I'm leaning towards EXIT # on this one... but yeah it's better to bring up these problems now rather than waiting until we have a couple hundred routeboxes that we have to change manually :( --Rschen7754 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Missing Fields

Merging Interstate 355 with routeboxint, just to start small... there's a few things that have no place.

I created the I-355 table, so I'd like to keep things like:

• When the route was constructed/established
• What the termini are at either end, both city and route

Also, for "State Highways"... let's safely assume there will eventually be 50 WikiProjects, one for each state. Does this mean for a particularly long Interstate (again, taking I-90 here) that there will be 15-20 state to maintain in this section? --Rob 15:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if all 50 WP's do come into existance, than each one can maintain their two routes on each of the interstates within its state. On the other hand, it would become rather long list for those like (as you pointed out) I-90.

Wouldn't it be better to add those two things into Template:Routeboxint than create a new one? The point of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways is "To standardize the format of the Interstate highway articles."

--Engleman 19:14, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. Would you like me to add these three fields to the template? --Rob 20:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want, but aren't the termini covered by the Junction section?

Also, make sure to allow room for XXXX-XXXX. (range of years)

Would the range start when the first part of the actual roadway was opened or when the Interstate designation was first officially assigned? I guess the range would end when the whole thing (as it exists today) was first open and designated as that Interstate.

--Engleman 20:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

(btw: I began to write this before the text directly below this was saved. I'm now writing in an edit conflict.)

Okay, so I've run into something that will require a little bit of backtracking.

If we're going to go ahead and specify termini, a direction has to be associated with that termini. It doesn't matter if it's Interstate 5 and we go with North-South, then specifying Northern and Southern termini, or Interstate 24 and we go with Northwestern Terminus/Southeastern Terminus. I can implement the neat little trick to have the direction be direction_a and direction_b.

So then we get into things like Interstate 465. :-) These now require their own template, because they have no termini, and "Loopern" wouldn't make sense.

Since we don't have any loops yet, I'll implement it this way, and we can discuss further. --Rob 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with this. All of the pages that currently use this template are now broken. (No direction) Clever as your trick may be, its probably best to leave the direction field alone, especially since there are loops. I'm going to re-instate the direction field.

Also, what about the junction listing? Doesn't that show the termini anyway?

--Engleman 20:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

(btw: I began to write this before the text directly below this was saved, but before the text above this. I'm now writing in an edit conflict.)

It's entirely a toss up between 1.) having the termini easily visible in the summary, and 2.) being able to use this template for 3di loops.

I don't really care if 1 is more important, or 2 is more important... if 2 is more important, the termini can be limited to the introductory paragraph. --Rob 20:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Also of note... if being able to use the template for 3di loops is of utmost importance, then I will roll back my changes to Interstate 84 (east) and the template (since summary terminus information is useless for 3di loops), and I can go ahead and start with Chicago area expressways.

Since this seems to be the easier solution, I'll proceed with this by tomorrow unless someone else has suggestions. :-) --Rob 21:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility is creating a sub-template to make things work... so that for loops the phrase "Beltway" is displayed instead of the terminii fields. --Rschen7754 03:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly (I'm not 100% sure what a sub-template is.), it sounds like a good idea. --Engleman 01:52, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thought templates couldn't refer to other templates? --Rob 18:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just tried it in the sandbox... template parameters can't be other templates. That, unfortuantely, was the best way to handle the situation. :-) I vote that we just stick with Direction and just refer to terminus cities in the introductory paragraph. --Rob 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Are we all talking about the same thing? In my screwing around (I did some other stuff in User:Engleman/RBItest1, not to mention pouring through a lot of MediaWiki docs.) with the idea of making an option to include or exclude the browse state highways section, I am certian that subtemplating works fine. My only trouble was getting it to not break all of the existing ones. Although the same problem would probably happen here...oh well. I don't have time to experiment more at the moment. --Engleman 20:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Given that only about 10 (if that many) Interstate Highways use this template right now, I think we can afford to not be completely backwards compatible. --Rob 11:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a valid point there; I never thought about it that way. Right now there are only 11. --Engleman 01:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Another idea... what if we removed the words "Browse State Highways" and added them to the highway articles that go through CA or WA? --Rschen7754 01:37, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

That would work. I guess then on all the other ones, we'd just set browse to blank. The only problem (no this isn't likely; I'm well aware of that) is that in the far, far off future, if this section were to be changed in any way it would take a while to do it all; it's too bad a template can't be part of a paramater. There is my other idea (which I mistakenly confused with plain old subtemplating), which is sorta complex, but the only drawback I can see is non-backwards compatability. The advantage over subtemplating is that any future changes to the template won't need to be carried out twice (on the main and the sub). If noone minds, I might get a chance to do that and change all the articles to work with it over the next week. --Engleman 02:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

In Practice Example

See Interstate 84 (east) for the new example. Before proceeding with converting other Interstates, I wanted to come to an accord on this one. --Rob 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh, Wikipedia is confoundingly slow today... --Rob 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, every page attached to this template should be completely functional. I will do Interstate 465 later today to verify loop functionality. Usage information will be up on top of this talk page, and can (and will) be updated as the template gets updated. As it is, I think it looks pretty good. Some Interstates need the Interstate that they terminate at -- I forgot to put this in. --Rob 16:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Browse State Hwys

Recently, as I was thinking about putting those on the NY interstates, I realised something: the majority of state highways don't even have an article. Even instates that already have WP's (such as California), not all of the state highways have articles. Someone who actually wanted to go through all the numbered highways in the state in numerical order would run into frequent dead-ends in this system. Not to mention the fact that at least a few states have duplicate routes, unlike in California where all State Routes (Interstates, US highways, and state highways) are in a comprehensive law and there are no duplicates.

Personally, I am opposed to the Browse State Hwys section. I don't see why someone would want to go through all of the numbered highways of all types in a state in numerical order. Many don't have articles, meaning dead-ends for someone that would want to do this. Not to mention, that it is not necessarily true that all states will eventually have WP's. Only three out of fifty exist at the moment.

The only reason that I'm suggesting removing the section is that the box is huge. It causes no harm other than taking up space.

I don't really know how others feel about this, but if anyone really wants it, one possible compromise would be to simply not include any for the states without WP's. To take this a step further, it would also be possible to make a copy of this template, call it something else, and take off the Browse State Hwys section. Then the new one would be used on those interstates that don't go through any states with WPs. Interstates that go through one or more states with WPs would use the old one (this).

I'm not trying to start a huge debate here, I just think the section is useless in practice. (It's not pointless, but the point of it probably doesn't matter to many readers and is not possible to reach until every state has a WP and every state highway has an article.) Please let me know what you think.

--Engleman 19:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done about the size of the routebox... it's concerning. California State Route 1 has a huge routebox... but that has every single junction (that sure was a pain to code!) I'd go with the idea of taking off the browse state highways section for the highways that don't need it (although it might be easier to use a subtemplate... possibly?) It's just I-5, 10, 15, 40, 80, 82, 90 for CA and WA... KY might not be using this browse section anyway.--Rschen7754 03:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm going to need to research this sub-template thing you speak of. Sounds like a good idea. --Engleman 01:54, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, so I think I get the concept here, but not sure how to implement it without breaking all of them (See the recent revisions (which I just reverted) to see what i was trying to do. With that went Template:Routeboxint subSR and Template:Routeboxint subSR no. The idea was that if an article doesn't use the field sectionSR, then it would simply use Template:Routeboxint subSR. Unfortunately, that doesn't work, because it then evaluates it as {{{sectionSR}}}, and then obviously it can't find the nonexistant [[Template:Routeboxint subSR {{{sectionSR}}}]]. If I were to move Template:Routeboxint subSR to Template:Routeboxint subSR yes and add that field to all of the existing articles, then I guess it wouldn't break anything.

I got a couple of other ideas.

--Engleman 02:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

To do a sub-template you name the subtemplate Template:Routeboxint/subSR (for example). If you need more help then you can take a look at {{routeboxint}}, {{routeboxca2}}, or you can just ask on this page. --Rschen7754 01:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Don't have much time to explain, but in short, what I was attempting had nothing to do with what you suggested. I completely misunderstood you. --Engleman 04:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see what's going on. This will need to be documented. Let me try creating Template:Routeboxint/loopdirsub and Template:Routeboxint/regdirsub, and then we can put reg or loop as the type in the parameter. spur is unnecessary as it is structurally equivalent to a reg route. --Rob 14:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Junction nightmares!

Okay, next line of business...

Editing junctions seems to be a nightmare. For the guys that have already done it, I have no idea how you guys did it, and I salute your efforts.

Going off the previous subtemplate concept, I would proposing shunting the junction part of the box (anything that previously would have belonged in {{{junction}}}) into its own subpage of Routeboxint -- for example, putting the junction tables in {{Routeboxint/int355il}}

This is just a proposition, and comments would be greatly, greatly appreciated. --Rob 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't gone into details about the routebox and I should have explained it... sorry about that. You copy this line of code for every state line and MAJOR junction (major defined by Interstate ONLY, if another type of highway is used, it needs to be really important, for example CA-99)

<tr><td>[[Interstate 5|I-5]] [[Image:Interstate5.png]]</td><td>[[San Diego County, California|SD]] 45</td></tr>

For subsequent junctions in the same county you don't need to wikify the county abbreviation. Just use the exit numbers for the milepost column... we'll probably switch it to that anyway. --Rschen7754 01:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

County? Do you mean state? I'm pretty sure most states use a state-wide milage and exit system, with some exceptions mostly resulting from toll roads that have multiple Interstate designations. Usually the toll road will have a constant mileage/exit scheme, even more likely to be sequential exits than most roads, and the free sections of the Interstate will have a seperate system. I don't think I've seen one based on counties (there are those reference markers in NY, but those are distinct from mileposts, and they don't seem to exist in other states). --Engleman 02:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Could junctions with U.S. numbered highways be included (not just the especially important ones)? I think most pass through more than one state, I'm not sure though. - Evil saltine 09:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

In the case of shorter highways with a small number of interchanges, it's probably not a bad idea. I don't beleve we have a hard rule on this at the moment. Mostly just author's judgement. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways#Ridiculously Long Junction Boxes? for my guidelines. --Engleman 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

One potential advantage to shunting them would be the ability to make a template for each row (the way Template:3di works). I haven't had much trouble so far, but I guess it is a bit tedious. --Engleman 02:19, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

That might or might not be overkill... plus we'd be trying to send templates as parameters to templates again, which doesn't work. Sigh. So long as Wikipedia ignores whitespaces inside of template calls (haven't tested this yet...), having junctions on each line within the parameter list would work.

Regarding major junctions... I vote this should be author's judgment. Interstate 355 has 3 junctions -- 55, 88, and 290. It would be nice to put the other 6 -- U.S. 20 and 34, and Illinois 56, 38, 53, and 64, for a total of 9... mindful of the fact that the extension will add U.S. 6, Illinois 7 and 171. 12 total is small compared to some 2dis I've seen out there... :-) --Rob 19:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, tested it. Whitespace works for the junction part. For the cities, whitespace turns large parts of the template into a giant PRE block. See the new example code in Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Interstate_Highways#Example... --Rob 19:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be overkill, but it will work. If we were to do it that way, I'd do it the way Template:3di and Template:3di row do it, and obviously that works fine. --Engleman 01:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as the routebox isn't very big it's not a problem. As long as the highway is significant enough to be put in the corresponding size of the article it's fine. That means don't put every state route into a 2di box, but for a small 3di that might be okay. I just don't want bloat. --Rschen7754 04:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

More Worlds of Hurt

Hmm. What would you do for the following situation?

• Intersection of E-W and N-S Interstates, multiplexing E-W U.S. Hwy westbound and an E-W State Hwy.
• WB exit to milepost 15 to NB and SB Interstate
• EB exit to NB milepost 13 and both U.S. / State Hwys, end multiplex of U.S. Hwy.
• EB exit to SB milepost 15
• WB exit to U.S. / State Hwys. eastbound and multiplexing westbound, but state highway does not multiplex.

Any ideas? :-) I'll work with what I've got... --Rob 17:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind.

The amusing solution is presented in Eisenhower Expressway. I've decluttered it as best as I can. --Rob 17:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Legend for Junctions

While I'm at it, I may as well bring up my other two suggestions for this box.

The legend takes up a lot of space, and at the size it is now, it is (depending on browser; I know you can adjust the size, but I'm speaking about the default on mine) too small to easily read (6px tall). Rather than taking up space and being hard to read (not to mention that it serves no purpose on those interstates without unusual junctions), why not put the legend in a seperate page, of course with a link from the box.

Also, there is a color coding missing: junctions where there is access between the two highways, but where you must travel on a side road with traffic lights to get between the two. (example: I-87 and I-84; i listed this one as having NO access, but this isn't entirely true).

Perhaps the new coding for the above would include this, but there are also incomplete interchanges between two limited access roads. Incomplete (some good ramps exist, but at least one is missing) interchanges that involve service roads with lights are unfortunately common in New York City. Example: I-495 and I-678.

--Engleman 20:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Assignments?

Over the past month I've been putting the {{Interstate-stub}}, {{3di}}, and {{U.S. Interstate Highway WikiProject}} tags on every Interstate Highway article. I started sometime in August and now I'm on Interstate 91. I found out that there are over 200 articles on Interstate highways... If we need to make a major change like this in the future to every article (say if we have to make a routebox change or something) should we divide up the articles so that the task can be done faster? Just a thought... please give your input. Thanks --Rschen7754 03:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

By region I suppose? We don't have many people at the moment; I think I'm the only one in the Northeast. I can do all of New York, all of New Jersey, the westernmost part of Connecticut (I'm not too familiar with New England aside from the NYC suburbs.), and also cover a bit of the area east of the Delaware River to cover future and present I-95 as far as the Maryland border. I can go a bit (or I suppose a lot) beyond that if noone else lives anywhere near my area of knowledge. --Engleman 03:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of by number... like I think we have 3-4 ACTIVE people on the project, maybe asking someone to do I-4 to I-40 for example... but this would only happen if we needed to fix something (i.e. we broke the routebox on every page and we need to tweak the code on all 200 pages). You wouldn't necessarily need to know anything about the Interstate... it's just a suggestion since otherwise it would take a month to fix all the routeboxes... --Rschen7754 04:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Oh I get it. Still, they could be sorta based on region (like if I get all the evens from 76-90 and the odds from 81-95). Purely numeric works too though. --Engleman 05:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you marked some pretty well-done articles as stubs... I was confused for a while as to why some got marked as stubs. Oh well. :-p With regards to who does what... let's stick with regional for right now (I've got the Western Great Lakes area and anything within a day's drive of Chicago) but I know that someone's gonna end up doing Interstate H3 that may not be from Hawaii... --Rob 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Intro statement on new infoboxes

I think the statement made at the top of the infoboxes are callous and rude, to be blunt about it (as on Interstate 44). It seems to make the statement, "Don't you dare touch it!" It is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be for everyone. If someone does mess it up and doesn't fix it, how would this be enforced, anyway? I was going to try to implement these, myself, but found them confusing. I have started several articles in Wikipedia in hopes of people adding to them because I didn't know enough about them to write a complete article. If someone messes it up, they mess it up. It happens. If I find this, I fix it. This statement gives the impression that adding information is unwelcome (regardless of the intent of the statement). Regardless of what we do, as Wikipedia's policy states, if you don't want your work mercilessly edited, then don't put it here. I think these boxes are informational, but the comment is totally inappropriate.Rt66lt 05:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

What we are saying is that because the routebox keeps changing, some pages may be broken, and it takes forever to fix them. But yeah I'll remove it if the statement can be misinterpereted. --Rschen7754 05:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)