Eisspeedway

Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads

Redlinked class-rating categories

As of the most recent run of Special:WantedCategories, there are three redlinked class-rating categories being generated by this template:

So could somebody associated with this project please either create these categories if they're actually wanted, or figure out how to kibosh them if they're not? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: this is probably related to all of the changes to the banner metatemplate itself to change certain classes from "... articles" to "... pages". I'm just waiting for those editors to stop changing stuff so we can figure out what needs to be done here. Imzadi 1979 → 21:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, as of right now the only remaining class-rating categories still showing up as redlinks at all are these and a bunch that have already been resolved and just haven't been emptied by the job queue yet, so that I'm just doing "null edit category members" runs on them to clear them out. I obviously can't predict with any certainty that there won't be more in the future, but this most recent run was the first time in several runs that the number of redlinked categories has shrunk instead of expanding, and the first time in several runs that it's this class-rating crap has been in the minority, so at least for now it's looking promising that this craziness is finally on a downswing. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, any ideas why this is still happening? File talk:Jane M. Byrne Interchange Traffic.webm and File talk:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg are two examples of file talk pages exhibiting this behavior. Best (and merry Christmas if you celebrate), HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because this banner template has never been converted to the new version. It is still using obsolete code which is not maintained anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is both the final use of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks}} and a blocker on successfully finishing the current article->page moves, so I have done some investigation. Forgive me if this is repeated information to you; I want to make sure we are all on the same page.

WPUSRD has two types of WP:TASKFORCEs: "states" (e.g. Maine, New Hampshire, etc.) and "types" (e.g. Trail, Junction).

All other WikiProject banner templates handle WP:TASKFORCEs with code like |taskforce=yes. For instance, |Trail=yes, |ME=yes, |NH=yes to indicate a trail that spans Maine and New Hampshire. Template instead uses markup like does things like |type=Trail. So, the trail in Maine and New Hampshire would currently be specified with {{WikiProject U.S. Roads|type=trail |state1=NH |state2=ME}}. My proposed roadmap (no pun intended) to resolving this:

  1. Get a working prototype of modern, |trail=yes code working in the sandbox
  2. Hack together some transitory code which uses the |type=trail syntax if given any of the old parameters, and otherwise uses the new version
  3. Enlist Cewbot (or another suitable bot, but it is probably best to use the one which is already doing similar tasks) to do the conversion

Thoughts? Things I am missing? Courtesy pings to @Bearcat, MSGJ, and Kanashimi, and I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent plan. Please see Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 3#WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces for previous discussion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: let me please reiterate my continued opposition as an editor who frequently uses this banner. The vast majority of articles are assessed for a single state and a single type. When we use Rater to tag a new article, we can just fill in four prompted/required details: state, type, needs-map and needs-jctint. So when Wisconsin Highway 195 needed assessment after its creation, it was |state=WI |type=SH |needs-map=yes |needs-jctint=no. Four easy required prompts and done for all of the tracking metrics that matter to the project. Again, most articles are only tracked for a single state and a single type, and all should be tracked for the presence of a map and the junction list templates.
The proposed switch above will either mean wading through the full list of states/territories and types generated by the templatedata to choose the proper selections, or it will leave the required state and type unprompted, increasing the tracking burden for those of us left in the project. There would be over 60 options to wade through (50 states, DC, 5 territories, 8 types) if they were all listed, and if they weren't individually listed, people wouldn't know that setting a state/type pair is supposed to be required.
Additionally, I would further oppose any change that separates the two basic topics (they're not really task forces in the traditional sense anymore) so that types and states appear mixed together in the same line of the banner output. That may be just cosmetic to some, but it's important to us.
In short, things were set up this way for a reason, and I trust that our brilliant coders can continue to create templates that work for the needs and workflows of our editors instead of forcing editors to always conform to the desires of the coders. Imzadi 1979 → 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: I'll start by saying that regardless of whether they act like task forces in reality, the states and types are considered task forces by the code (both the current and the proposed).
Let's try and work together to come up with a solution which works for all of us. I need the template to respect the article-> page updates, and want the template to not use {{WPBannerMeta/hooks}}. I want to make sure I understand your requirements and desires, too; is this following accurate?
  1. Need to continue using the |state=WI style-input
  2. Want to keep the new, additional parameters to a minimum
  3. Not sure what you mean by oppose... types and states appear[ing] mixed together in the same line of the banner output. At Talk:Wisconsin Highway 195, I see U.S. Roads: State highways / Wisconsin Mid‑importance, which seems to violate this? Or are you requesting new functionality?
HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: for 1 and 2, yes. For 3, if you expand the banner, there is one line for the topics and one line for the locations in the banner output. That's the separate lines I was talking about. Imzadi 1979 → 23:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Changing number 3 to put them on one line would actually be additional work, so I can promise you that will not be happening :)
I'll see what I can get working in the sandbox. Do you have an example of a road article which spans both multiple states and has multiple types? I want to make sure the code is thoroughly tested. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: I'm not aware of one article that has multiple states and multiple types. Talk:U.S. Route 66 has multiple types (US 66, USH), but as a national overview with state sub articles, it isn't tracked by state. (Multiple types would be rare, actually.) Talk:U.S. Route 8 has multiple states (MN, WI, MI), but it's a single type (USH). Imzadi 1979 → 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Iowa has multiple types and a state. Imzadi 1979 → 02:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: you might be interested to look at Template:WikiProject Canada Roads which I managed to convert by writing a little piece of code in Module:If any equal. I could do the same to this template but the additional complexity of task force importance made it non-trivial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I noted before, only one state used separate importance ratings in the past when it operated as semi-independent project. That ended long ago though, and at this point, importance ratings should be the same for the entire project. Imzadi 1979 → 06:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, would it be possible to expand the functionality of Module:If any equal to accept additional value parameters (e.g. |value2=), to properly aliases? For instance, dealing with the equivalent |type=I and |type=Interstate. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added support for the plural |values=, so you may use |values=I, Interstate, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: There is some undocumented functionality where you can use the |type= syntax to specify a state (e.g. |type=MI). Is this safe to remove? To an outsider, it seems... weird... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: I think it's weird as well and probably a holdover from some older coding. It probably should be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 22:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed. There is also |state=USA – I would think that is implied by being in WikiProject U.S. Roads, no? Can this also be removed, or is there some other reason why it helps to be extra specific? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: And another question: There are some Canadian parameters; are those used? Apologies for the barrage of questions... You can also view the current working thing at Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/sandbox :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: I can't imagine why that was in there, but it could go now.
I think I saw that there was some old coding for a time when |state=FL-CRTF or similar worked. That was really a cosmetic thing to allow articles classified as county roads in Florida to be tagged for the state but not have the state highway marker appear and use the CR marker instead. That can go away too because those should now all have |type=CR |state=FL as a pairing. At this point, anything not related to sorting articles by type and location using those two parameters (and the additional numbered siblings for multi-state or multi-type situations) could go. Then the rest is tracking stuff like if an article needs its map, or a shield, etc. Imzadi 1979 → 04:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the prototype is ready! Check out Special:Permalink/1267888130, which is Talk:U.S. Route 8 with the new code. You can test any page you want by calling {{WikiProject U.S. Roads/sandbox}} in preview. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster: looks good, but...
  1. That test with US 8 dropped two of the three states. |state1=MN and |state2=WI disappeared from the banner and only |state3=MI worked.
  2. It looks like something similar happens with Talk:U.S. Route 30 in Iowa, dropping the state and the second type. Special:Permalink/1267889124
  3. Could we get back to having the types in a row labeled topics and the locations in a row labeled locations and avoid the wordiness of "supported by" and "travels through"?
  4. The additional icons in the collapsed view make it look busy. If it's easy enough to drop them, I would.
Imzadi 1979 → 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2 are done. I don't think number 3 can be easily fixed, though I have it coded to always display the route type above locations. However, we can easily customize the "supported by" and "travels through" text to say whatever (such as only including the link, or even saying nothing besides the image). Ideas welcome. For number 4, I don't see a way in the code of Module:WikiProject banner. However, that seems like a good feature flag, or perhaps a config option to only show the first x number of them. I agree it can get really big really fast, but having a couple doesn't seem too cluttered. MSGJ, would that be easy enough? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC); edit – will look number 2 tomorrow 05:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nested icons were a much requested feature, and normally look great. I think this article might be an outlier on the number of such notes that it has. It might be good to look at a larger sample before making any decision on that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop the text "this page travels through ..." because it looks weird. On templates like Template:WikiProject Canada Roads we just list the names of the states, and this has been uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I have added another feature to Module:If any equal so it will accept a |prefix= parameter. So instead of passing state1, state2, ... state20, you can just use |prefix=state and it will check all of them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads