Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Michigan
Counties in infobox?
I've noticed that the Road infobox has support for counties (see here). Perhaps we should consider adding that to the list? I don't think it'd be very ungainly for all but the longest Ms (M-66, for example). —IW4UTC 23:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- While I feel it useful to list the counties, I think that type of information is too specific for the infobox. The counties that the route goes through makes more sense to me discussed in the body of the article. That said, we haven't set a standard regarding this yet, and I suppose that is your intention, so I'd encourage some discussion. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't find it too specific. Listing individual municipalities...yeah, that's way too specific. —IW4UTC 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to listing the counties in the infobox, my only concern is that on some articles the infobox already is longer than the body of the article...I suppose if counties are listed in the infobox (west -> east; south -> north) then expanded on in the body in the route description, perhaps that will flesh out the articles nicely. Stratosphere (talk - Contrib) 04:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't find it too specific. Listing individual municipalities...yeah, that's way too specific. —IW4UTC 02:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- As a side note, there are times when listing municipalities (by this, I mean cities) is an advantage over counties: take NY 5, which goes through 20 or so counties.
- That said, since I was actually the one who convinced SPUI to incorporate a county entry into Infobox road (as part of the "compromise" that led to the switch from "Routeboxny" to "Infobox road"), I see no problems with listing counties in the infobox (as is done on WP:NYSR). Simply put, if an infobox is longer than the article, the article is either a stub or of stub length or the route has a lot of major intersections. =) --TMF T - C 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- In most cases, cities have major intersections in them. I could see that covering the city portion in eight cases out of ten. —IW4UTC 11:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- That said, since I was actually the one who convinced SPUI to incorporate a county entry into Infobox road (as part of the "compromise" that led to the switch from "Routeboxny" to "Infobox road"), I see no problems with listing counties in the infobox (as is done on WP:NYSR). Simply put, if an infobox is longer than the article, the article is either a stub or of stub length or the route has a lot of major intersections. =) --TMF T - C 06:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've taken to listing counties in the pages I've updated. With the exception of M-28 at nine counties, most of the UP trunklines have only a couple if not just one. It is working nicely so far.Imzadi1979 10:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Concurrencies in Infobox
I'd like to come up with a reasonable way to indicate concurrencies in the infobox. Case in point the M-35 article. M-35 has an 8 mile conccrency with US 2/41 that begins at Escanaba and ends at Gladstone. For an example of how the Interstate project handles this, the I-94 article shows the concurrency between Tomah and Madison, WI by including I-94's shield in the junction. I'd prefer some kind of merge and split sign. I was unable to find any suitable ones on the Commons that have a road sign-like appearance. The closest thing I found were the images to the right. The theory is these could be used to the left of the junction shields in the junction list (sized to 20px), but I think something without a sign shape would be best; i.e. just a merge and split symbol with a transparent background. Comments? Ideas? Stratosphere (U T) 06:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen that particular sign, but I like it. Looks like it could work. —IW4UTC 09:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- ...but, I always feel there's room for improvement, deobfuscation, and universalization. —IW4UTC 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I like what you've designed, I put them in action at M-35 but I think they are too thin, and they need to be nearly square so they fit in with the 20x20px route signs. I didn't use the ones I posted originally because I didn't want to use a yellow sign, I think they are too intrusive. Stratosphere (U T) 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the icon is very intuitive at all. I think the yellow signs would be more intuitive. Drivers have seen them before and have some idea what it means.Imzadi1979 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No offense intended, but I don't think either image style is obvious or intuitive. Especially at iconic size, I think they will likely cause more confusion than clarification. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm beginning to agree, but I'd like to come up with ideas to address concurrencies, maybe a seperate section in the infobox, or maybe I'm going overboard...wouldn't be the first time...:P Stratosphere (U T) 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- What we do at WP:NYSR is list the route then the town/city/area where the concurrency begins and then the area where the concurrency ends. New York State Route 55 is one example of this. Of course, we also have the detailed junction list, so that makes it easier to do the "double-mention" procedure in the infobox. I dunno, I definitely see the point of the signage to indicate concurrency starts/ends, but is the signage too much for an infobox? --TMF T - C 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the signs are too much after looking at them in action. I think I might try out what has been done on the I-94 page. Stratosphere (U T) 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- What we do at WP:NYSR is list the route then the town/city/area where the concurrency begins and then the area where the concurrency ends. New York State Route 55 is one example of this. Of course, we also have the detailed junction list, so that makes it easier to do the "double-mention" procedure in the infobox. I dunno, I definitely see the point of the signage to indicate concurrency starts/ends, but is the signage too much for an infobox? --TMF T - C 14:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm beginning to agree, but I'd like to come up with ideas to address concurrencies, maybe a seperate section in the infobox, or maybe I'm going overboard...wouldn't be the first time...:P Stratosphere (U T) 14:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- No offense intended, but I don't think either image style is obvious or intuitive. Especially at iconic size, I think they will likely cause more confusion than clarification. older ≠ wiser 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that the icon is very intuitive at all. I think the yellow signs would be more intuitive. Drivers have seen them before and have some idea what it means.Imzadi1979 04:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I like what you've designed, I put them in action at M-35 but I think they are too thin, and they need to be nearly square so they fit in with the 20x20px route signs. I didn't use the ones I posted originally because I didn't want to use a yellow sign, I think they are too intrusive. Stratosphere (U T) 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- ...but, I always feel there's room for improvement, deobfuscation, and universalization. —IW4UTC 10:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
(too many bullets =), back left) The I-94 layout looks pretty good to me. In fact, I may have to bring that up over at WP:NYSR as, for some reason, the I-94 concurrency design appears to me to be much better than what we're using now. --TMF T - C 16:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about this: Test M-64 Article with concurrency section in infobox Stratosphere (U T) 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, ya know, I think that looks bad...I think I'm trying to put too much into the infobox. While I liked the I-94 page's handling of concurrencies I realized it didn't have a clickable text for I-90 next to the shield and putting it in looks clumsy. I think we should just put both shields in and just list the concurrent highway. See M-33 (Michigan highway) for an example. I also think we should limit ourselves to listing concurrencies and show them only if it's longer than 20 miles, otherwise just list it as a junction near the closest city/town. Anything less just seems trivial. Stratosphere (U T) 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Upper Peninsula Pages
Unless I missed one, all of the UP trunkline articles have been updated or created. There are some really small spur routes (M-98, M-162, M-170, M-178, M-180, M-200 & M-206) that have either been long decommissioned or subsumed in other trunklines that don't have pages. Also, I've used the counties= attribute in all of the UP pages. Any thoughts or comments on that?Imzadi1979 05:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the Letter then # routes
Think we should have articles on these-they are spread around the state? How would you feel if we added these to the project?Mitchazenia 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, first off, let me say that I have recently created shields for these. They're known as county-designated highways, and are actually named, maintained, and controlled by the counties they traverse. As such, they are not state highways, but perhaps we could incorporate CDHs as a subproject of MSHP. I wouldn't be averse to this; after all, even though MDOT has nothing to do with them, they're still part of Michigan's road system. —IW4UTC 19:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- See List of Michigan County-Designated Highways. There aren't many of these articles existing yet, but the list is there with red-links ready to go. I think we could use a better overview/introduction to them though. But I didn't want to rip-off Bessert's site and I don't know much more about these highways except for what Bessert has already done such a good job of putting together. older ≠ wiser
- You missed H-16.Mitchazenia 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't put that together, I was only pointing out its existence. older ≠ wiser 19:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You missed H-16.Mitchazenia 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)