WikiProject U.S. Roads | (Rated Project-class) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Module:Jctint/USA
The most recent version of jctint templates for US states did mainly the following:
- Assign the state name to
|region=
. - Pass through a parameter to Template:Jctint/core.
- Rename a parameter to a core parameter.
- Build a string for a _special parameter that shares the same structure across these templates, only to differ in the state name.
The approach above has several drawbacks:
- A parameter available in the core module not exposed by these templates becomes unavailable. Parameter additions in the core module do not propagate to these templates automatically.
- A lot of duplicate template code is difficult to maintain.
- These templates can only diverge from one another over time. Template users will have to memorize multiple usage when the interface for these templates could have been uniform.
For the past few days, I have converted most of these templates to use Module:Jctint/USA to eliminate the drawbacks above. You might not have seen any observable changes to articles, because you shouldn't! I am happy to report that the module now handles jctint templates for 40 out of the lower 48 states.
Before I can go into what prevents the templates for the remaining 8 states from being converted, I need to go into some technical details about how |sub2_special=
was implemented for most states.
|location_special=
is used by default. Certain templates permitted multiple locations to be specified as |location1=
through |location4=
. These parameters are concatenated as a list of wikilinks that is passed to the core module as |sub2_special=
. Other templates did the same, but with townships instead of locations (see Interstate 70 in Ohio). The module handles both: |sub2param=township
is used in the latter case; location is the default.
Now, why the templates for 8 states haven't been converted:
- State name is not the correct article link (GA and WA): Road data modules should handle this.
- Different
|sub1name=
(LA): Road data modules should handle this. - Special handling for
|indep_city=
(CA, CO, and MD): Road data modules should handle this. - Cascading
|sub2_special=
(MN): A list of both townships and locations are permitted, but the module doesn't support cascading yet, though it can easily be done. |town=
(WI): It appears that town articles are not named consistently, e.g., Bristol, Dane County, Wisconsin vs Bristol (town), Kenosha County, Wisconsin. So, I could not decide which one to use.
For more details about handling by road data modules, see Template talk:Jcttop/core#sub1name order for an idea, and Module:Road data/strings/USA/NH for an example. This is a longer-term transition, but I would like to avoid adding a boilerplate in the module when this transition is anticipated. See also Template talk:Jct#Inheritance and overriding in road data modules.
During the conversion, I noticed a beginning of divergence in some of the templates. While most states use |mile_ref=
, some use |length_ref=
. Specifically, templates for AL, FL, OH, OR, and TX. This parameter should be deprecated and renamed to |mile_ref=
.
The module opens up other opportunities for uniformly customizing parameters for US junctions, e.g., cascading (above) and support for a list of cities. Additional customizations will not be implemented until there is evidence that they are useful for multiple states.
The templates are still fully backward compatible with the previous version, but the module might have added new features, e.g., list of locations, to some states' templates. These features have already been used in several other states' templates. I hope it is okay for every state's template to have the same leverage.
Of course, if you see any undesirable, observable changes, I will appreciate your report so I can troubleshoot. Constructive comments will also be appreciated. Chinissai (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Illinois has a mix of townships and precincts. There is no pattern that I can tell for which county uses which subdivision. –Fredddie™ 16:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. I didn't see any use of precincts in jctint as a separate parameter, so I was able to convert {{ILint}} without trouble. The module should be able to support future customization for precincts, though, perhaps by using switch tables in road data modules. Chinissai (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- California has the funny postmiles stuff - is this properly supported? --Rschen7754 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, any "funny" parameters can be overridden by passing them to the module. See Template:ORint for example. It's only San Francisco that prevents me from converting CAint. Chinissai (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- On a side note, North Carolina has townships, but most, if not all, of the links don't exist, even as redirects. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, any "funny" parameters can be overridden by passing them to the module. See Template:ORint for example. It's only San Francisco that prevents me from converting CAint. Chinissai (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- California has the funny postmiles stuff - is this properly supported? --Rschen7754 18:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. I didn't see any use of precincts in jctint as a separate parameter, so I was able to convert {{ILint}} without trouble. The module should be able to support future customization for precincts, though, perhaps by using switch tables in road data modules. Chinissai (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Whatever happened to this? I ask because Module:Infobox road/sandbox2 got nominated for deletion. --Rschen7754 03:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Rschen7754: Chinissai hasn't edited since mid-2017. That's what happened. –Fredddie™ 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts) § Distribution link
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Interstate 84 (Pennsylvania–Massachusetts) § Distribution link. Treyhazard2001 (talk) 06:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Source for images
- The North Carolina Department of Transportation Flickr account has been using CC-2.0 license for its photos for the past few years, good source of images for highway construction, bridge dedications, etc. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening dates of interchanges in exit list
Many of the interchanges in the Garden State Parkway and New Jersey Turnpike exit lists include opening dates in the notes. Are there worthy of inclusion? Needforspeed888 (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I shy away from putting expected opening dates anywhere except Future/History section, even if sourced. Construction schedules slip, funding gets pulled and put to a more pressing project. Stuff like that happens all the time. So even if notable, rarely reliable. By only including them in the future section, IMHO, it's more clear these dates are tentative. But putting them in a table implies it's set in stone and will happen. But if there's no reliable source for the opening dates, then it's a no brainier, zap them. Dave (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Moabdave:, I was referring to interchanges that already opened. Sorry if I was not clear. Needforspeed888 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is usually trivial information. Just being true doesn't mean it's important enough to include in an article such as this; lots of true and verifiable things can be written about roads and their construction and maintenance. Perhaps in a "history" section it can explain, in prose, the dates at which sections of the road opened, but as a note on the exit list table, it isn't useful or relevant. --Jayron32 12:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies as well, I could have checked the article to confirm you are talking about past dates and not future dates. My opinion is the same. The tables and infoboxes should largely focus on what is today, the what changed 15 years ago or will change soon be should largely be kept to the history/future sections. There are cases where it is hard to describe what is, without delving into what changed 15 years ago. There are also cases it's more clear to present the information in a table verses prose (such as when exits are renumbered for an entire stretch of the freeway) and if that's the case that's fine. But more often than not filling a table with trivial details both diminishes the clarity of the table and encourages people to bloat the table with even more stuff. Dave (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Typically, I'll add a reference for an interchange that's planned but not yet open and then I'll update it after it opens. Then after a year or two, I quietly remove it. I'd never add an opening date for something far in the past. –Fredddie™ 05:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
South Carolina Highway 769 / 40-769
Ollhg87 first tried to update South Carolina Highway 769 to "40-769" leaving it a broken mess and unsourced name change (so I reverted), then they created South Carolina Highway 40-769 as a bad copy-paste move of the same.
I looked on google maps and it does now appear to be labelled 40-769 however I could not find a source.
So I just thought I'd post here so someone with interest/knowledge in the area can hopefully sort out and also introduce Ollhg87 to the existence of this project if this is an area of interest for them.
Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have never seen a combo sign for South Carolina Highways and I doubt such a thing even exists. Signage on the ground is SC 769 and SCDOT maps, so lets keep it as that. --WashuOtaku (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- It does seem odd and I did assume vandalism until I saw that google street view labels it 40-769 and google map view shortens that to 40-7 and "Congaree Rd". I had originally tried to verify on Street View but had checked the south end which only had images from 2009, but I just checked the north end and in Dec 2021 it is just signed as 796 so maybe just redirect South Carolina Highway 40-769 to South Carolina Highway 769. KylieTastic (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Google maps are rife with errors. It's usually okay for most things, but especially with street names, if there is any doubt or conflict with other information, assume Google Maps is wrong. --Jayron32 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and redirected the page to South Carolina Highway 769. SC secondary highways are numbered S-xx-yyy where xx is the county number (alphabetically) and yyy is the route number. Richland County, where SC 769 lies, is numbered 40. Somehow that nomenclature was applied to a primary highway. –Fredddie™ 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Google maps are rife with errors. It's usually okay for most things, but especially with street names, if there is any doubt or conflict with other information, assume Google Maps is wrong. --Jayron32 14:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Kansas City
@Imzadi1979 and SounderBruce: At your advice, I'll move the thread over here. SounderBruce did mass reverts of most of the highway shield graphics spam that had been done by AllThingsKC (talk · contribs). I did so with several more cities that were not as easy to undo, all at tremendous waste of my time and energy. I removed and adapted some of it in Kansas City, Missouri and Kansas City metropolitan area, leaving the new subsections for highways. and I'd appreciate it if you'd review the infoboxes and subsections of those two articles because you're saying there aren't any standard criteria for how many highways is enough or too much. And please link me an article that's a good example of a small town and of a metro. Be sure to use {{reply}} so I see it. Thanks a lot. — Smuckola(talk) 07:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If you feel like it, there's also List of state highways in Missouri and Missouri State Highway System. Of course anyone else is welcome to reply to this. — Smuckola(talk) 08:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Most of the list comports with WP:USRD/STDS/L, and over time, the rest of the bulleted list in the former section should be moved into the table with the appropriate expansion of information. The system article is underdeveloped, and someone can develop it further in the future à la Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: cmon over. I just this week started touching highway stuff due to removing the above mentioned cruft abuse. To answer your question about this edit, no I haven't gotten any response except approval lol. I'm here to ask what the standards and practices are.— Smuckola(talk) 08:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Highway icons have been added to articles not about highways, such as US city articles, as well as US city infoboxes. There is nothing at WP:USCITIES#Transportation supporting the addition of icons (compared with WP:USCITIES#Sister cities where icons are permitted), and there is nothing at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes supporting icons. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think most of us care either way if highway shields are used in U.S. city articles. The biggest thing we've learned over the years is that shields are basically decorations and that there should be accompanying text with the shield (see: MOS:FLAG). IF you are going to add highway shields to U.S. city articles, I would suggest using
{{Jct}}
or just a plain wikilink and no shield. –Fredddie™ 04:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think most of us care either way if highway shields are used in U.S. city articles. The biggest thing we've learned over the years is that shields are basically decorations and that there should be accompanying text with the shield (see: MOS:FLAG). IF you are going to add highway shields to U.S. city articles, I would suggest using
New List Page for incomplete interstate routes in NC
So this exists now List of future or partially complete Interstates in North Carolina. Don't really see the purpose of it other than highlighting the fact they are partially completed routes. Probably should be discussed here if this is a valid article to have. --WashuOtaku (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Washuotaku: I saw it earlier today and just sent it off to AfD. My thoughts are that the topic fails to meet WP:GNG, as a topic unto itself. It's a copy/paste of content from other articles improperly attributed to those articles. I'd say redirect it to List of Interstate Highways in North Carolina, but it's not a likely search term, so nuke it instead. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)