Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/California
|
| 1 2 3 4 |
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)
Prototypes
What we have now
With the mileposts and all junctions
Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.
[[File: |300px|alt=]] | ||||
| Route information | ||||
| Length | 192.46 mi (309.73 km) | |||
| Existed | 2100–present | |||
| 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 | |||
| Location | ||||
| Country | United States | |||
| State | California | |||
| Highway system | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
Without the mileposts and minor junctions
Some info is fictionalized to get a full infobox.
| [[File:|300px|alt=]] | ||||
| Route information | ||||
| Length | 192.46 mi (309.73 km) | |||
| Existed | 2100–present | |||
| 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 | ||||
| Location | ||||
| Country | United States | |||
| State | California | |||
| Highway system | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
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)
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)