Template talk:Jctint

"state_special" parameter broken

The "state_special" parameter appears to be broken. If you look here, you'll know what I mean. HeatIsCool (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What are you attempting to do? It looks like you should be using {{Jctbridge|river=Red River|river_wide=yes|...}}. –Fredddie™ 22:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh...okay, thanks. But even so... HeatIsCool (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

County to something else

Is it possible at the moment to change the row name from county to something else. More precisely, so that it says Municipality, instead of County. For some countries, smaller ones especially, there may not be any counties, only municipalities. I am asking because I have been doing some changes on roads in Montenegro, tables look good, but it would be better to use universal templates, instead of coding the tables (e.g. M-1). Counties don't exist. Its Country (i.e. Montenegro)->Municipality->Location. Obviosly I don't need country, but it would be nice to put Municipality instead of County. Requiem mn (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Requiem mn: Take a look at M-10 highway (Montenegro) - I've added templates. You may need to tweak the links to locations and municipalities since I'm not familiar with the Montenegro place naming conventions. --Rschen7754 20:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Thanks.Requiem mn (talk) 07:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:JPNinttop

I'm working on a junction list for an expressway in Hokkaido right now. Using Template:JPNinttop I'm having a problem when placing Hokkaido the template. The template wants to automatically change Hokkaido to Hokkaido Prefecture, which is a redirect, but it displays as a red link. Here's an example of the top of the list:

The entire route is in Hokkaido Prefecture.

Location	km	mi	Exit	Name	Destinations	Notes
Tomakomai	0	0.0	6	Tomakomai-higashi	Hokkaido Expressway– Muroran, Sapporo

Mccunicano (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just created a redirect from the red link to the main page.

Proposed Exit (Parameter Request)

In Connecticut, we have a situation where many highways are being transitioned to Mile-Based exits. There are many list showing proposed numbering, but they are subject to revision. Would it be possible to add a "proposed" exit parameter? This would allow reliably-sourced information to be shared, while accurately reflecting the exiting numbering as physically posted along the highway. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

If the exit numbers are not yet in use, I don't think that they really shouldn't appear in the article yet. That means this wouldn't be needed. Once the transition itself happens, then the now-current/future-old numbers shift over and the new numbers appear in their appropriate location. Imzadi 1979 → 14:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Specific to Connecticut articles, someone has already "updated" the exit numbers, although they do not accurately reflect the existing posted exit numbers. I would like to try to salvage this, rather than straight revert and clean up intervening edits. Several projects are also under active construction to change the numbers (while others are scheduled later in the 2020's), so being able to toggle proposed to active would be nice. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Are the new exit numbers published somewhere? Otherwise, we could just <!-- comment out --> the offending exit numbers until they become official –Fredddie™ 05:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We historically have not included future exit numbers because they're not yet in use and hard to source. Essentially, until the signs are in place, minor adjustments may be made so that things don't align with the mileages as expected. If ConnDOT has produced a document listing the new numbers, that would be one way to source then. Otherwise, someone might be able to find signing plans for the updated signage showing the new numbers. Otherwise, it's a lot of assumptions based on the mileposts.

So if someone has preemptively converted the numbering over for Connecticut to reflect numbers not in use, that should be removed. While tedious, the best way would be to manually edit the tables to selectively change the details back. This is safer than wholesale reversions and preserves beneficial editing since the errors were introduced. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)