Template talk:Crossings navbox

Any suggestions about how to handle the crossings of the San Francisco bay? This navbox has upstream and downstream. This does not work for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge as both crossings are "upstream", one to the north and one to the south. -- Samuel Wantman 07:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by both being "upstream". Perhaps generalization of the template to allow specifying the label for crossings of things other than rivers. This would allow replacing 'upstream' and 'downstream' with other labels, such as 'north' and 'south'. I found this through Bridges of the Mississippi River, in which case 'upstream' and 'downstream' make sense. As you travel with the flow of the river (generally south), you'll pass the bridges in downstream order. --Christopherlin 04:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added optional parameters so you can set upstream_text=West and downstream_text=East. --SPUI (T - C - RFC) 10:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't this go to the crossings template???!!!![edit]

I was surprised to see nobody else raised this issue. Why doesn't this template send readers directly to the source of the crossings (e.g., List of crossings of the Missouri River) rather than the water body in question. It gets lost in the water body articles. It is totally unique in crossings and that's where 99.9% of the articles originate. I personally have spent more than $1,000 updating, documenting and photographing my crossings. I hate to see my efforts lost in the river maze (I of course am happy to have been "forced" to cross every bridge between Omaha and St. Louis in the last six months but that's another issue) Americasroof 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten around to making any changes en mass, but I've seen the template used with the parameter structure defined as: |structure = [[List of crossings of the Missouri River|Crossings]]. I had not done such coding in my inital placements of the template because most bridge articles have a "See also" section with a link to the list of crossings. Anyway, does the above coding address your concern? VerruckteDan 00:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I respectively disagree with this methodology. I'm very tempted to sending my articles directly to the original crossings article(s) (which to in my opinion exceeds my expectations_. In any event it's been great fun "completing" this list in as far as I can (and now adding vacation destinations for upper river river destination on both the Mississippi and Missouri (please don't alert the kids). Americasroof 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Sending my articles directly to the original crossings article(s)", what do you mean? VerruckteDan 01:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Americasroof. Why should the top of the Navbox link you to an article about the body of water. Most people reading a bridge/tunnel/ferry article will be more insterested in the full list of crossings. If a comprehensive list of crossings has been created, then it should link there. But, I am OK with the workaround as long as it is shown as a standard on the Navbox page. Not all bodies of water will have (nor warrant) a comprehensive list. - SCgatorFan 00:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upstream and Downstream terminations[edit]

OK, VerruckteDan, Why is the ocean listed as a crossing of the river, like you changed to on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge article? Seems to be a misnomer to me. Using an ocean to get across a river? Doesn't seem to make sense to me. What is wrong with just stating None and listing the Ocean like I had it.

I have also seen the road that goes around the body of water listed as an upstream crossing. Start at the Sunshine Skyway Bridge (which shows the Gulf of Mexico as a downstream crossing]] and follow the navbox upstream. You will get to Florida State Road 580. The crossings box disappears once you get to this road article because, of course, it doesn't cross any navigable water. Going around is not a crossing, so why shouldn't the navbox in the Courtney Campbell Causeway article say None or Land Route or the long way around (or anything that doesn't imply crossing) for upstream crossings but still give a link to the SR 580 article. After all, going around the body of water is still a way to get to the other side. (Again noting that using the ocean to get across is not so much of a help.) - Sincerely SCgatorFan 00:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I should've checked the map or at least the cleanliness of my foot before I spoke. SR 580 does cross Old Tampa Bay. It's been a long time since I've driven it and it is not an impressive bridge. But this shouldn't lessen the point of my discussion. How do you handle the last upstream crossing with this Navbox? - Humbly SCgatorFan 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the format of the downstream listing for the Ravenel Bridge to match the formating of every other crossing that is the last to cross a river/bay that I'm aware of. I've always interpreted the listing as saying that downstream from this crossings is whatever body of water is listed. You indicate that you feel it is a misnomer, as it indicates that the ocean is a crossing. While I feel that its rather obvious that the ocean is not a crossing, I guess there is a chance that some users could be confused. Perhaps wording such as "Cooper River terminates at Atlantic Ocean," would be clearer. But, unless a consensus emerges for such a change, I think its best to leave things in the established format.

The last upstream crossing for most rivers usually isn't the actual last crossing, but rather the last notable crossing. In these cases, there is still a upstream crossing listed, just not a link to an article. In other cases the listing will be a crossing on the next body of water, such as the Benicia-Martinez Bridge which upriver links to Rio Vista Bridge (Sacramento River) and Antioch Bridge (San Joaquin River). The Tampa Bay usage was one that I had not seen before, and a clear means should be decided upon. VerruckteDan 01:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Branches of the body of water[edit]

What is the suggested way to handle the branching of a body of water when using this navbox? Looking at the Potomac River, there is a great list of crossings. It breaks down crossings by branch and also breaks out the tidal portion. It also lists dams and links to a ferry and ford page. More valid river crossings.

While this is an extensive list, the individual articles do not extend upstream enough to handle the branching in the navbox.

Is there an example of how to handle this? - SCgatorFan 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See West End Bridge, which is the upriver most crossing of the Ohio River. It's upriver crossings is a split between the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers. VerruckteDan 01:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should have know the City of Bridges would get it right. Should this option be shown on the template page? - SCgatorFan 02:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse[edit]

I reverted the collapse for 2 reasons. First, it shifts the title text from being centered and looks awkward. Second, its a small navbox like the succession boxes found on many pages and I don't see a compelling reason that it needs to be collapsible. VerruckteDan 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse[edit]

I'm curious as to the reason behind the addition of the reverse attribute? To me, all it seems to do is introduce uncertainty into the navbox, as some will have the upstream listed on the left and others on the right. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having the option to place downstream left and upstream right is exactly the purpose. And the reason is, for example, at rivers that flow east to west, having downstream at the left makes it easier to visualize, as left is commonly associated with west, and right with east. I don't see inconsistency, but options. Much better than having to crate an extra template just for this reason. There's no "uncertainty" as long as the parameter is properly explained in the usage section. --Qyd (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The uncertainty is not to the editor, but to the average reader. Navigation templates are meant to aid with navigation between Wikipedia articles and should therefore present a consistent logic. This template does not intend to show directionality of a river, as many if not most rivers follow a winding course and flow in several compass directions. The reverse option will lead to some rivers listing crossings in one direction while other rivers are listed in the opposite direction and that seems to reduce the simple navigation that this template is meant to provide. I also don't think a separate template is necessary for rivers flowing in different directions, as all this template is showing is the upriver and downriver crossing, irregardless of direction. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, can we make the default display downstream to the left? Well, never mind... Don't forget to clean up the usage instructions if you don't restore the reverse option. --Qyd (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax problem[edit]

i.e. syntax in the generated text. On the Lions Gate Bridge article, this template's title winds up saying "Crossings of the Burrard Inlet", which is not at all how that name is used; it is never used with the definite article. This template should be amended to allow for omission of the definite article in such cases, which are no doubt many. "I don't like it one bit", let's put it that way; inflexibility in templates is not a good thing, and results in people using neologistic syntax of this kind, i.e. Wikipedia generates usages, rather than copies them. Please make the necessary changes to the template, I hope I have no occasion to return here and bitch further.....Skookum1 (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]