Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 5

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Looks pretty good. You may want to consider dropping the starting_terminus and ending_terminus fields and using directional fields instead (like "south_terminus" for displaying, well, "South Terminus" or something like that) in order to avoid the somewhat clumsy "From" and "To" construct.

Also, I'd like to see what consensus develops for using this infobox for roads that have multiple segments. --Swid 21:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see the information on the template that I added (with noinclude tags). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing the noinclude tags. The routeboxes mentioned provide a much better alternative to this one when they are provided. For New Mexico state highways (for example) this template is perfect (as well as for foreign highways). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

While it is good to see what it looks like as completed (shown above), a clean "template" of what to write for the template is needed for those copy-and-paste runthroughs. Here it is below, for quick copy-and-paste:

{{Infobox road|
 highway_name      = 
|marker_image      = 
|alternate_name    = 
|length            = 
|direction         = 
|starting_terminus = 
|ending_terminus   = 
|cities            = 
|established       = 
|system            = 
|}}

I put the pipe characters on the left so it wouldn't be necessary to type them on the right all the time. Whatever works. --Geopgeop 08:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Update October 01, 2007

I had a little debate with TwinsMetsFan over the spacing in the empty syntax for copying and pasting. I'd like some input as to how the standard would be, like how it sort of was above, actually [1] (as edited by me), or [2] (as put back by TwinsMetsFan, last actual edit by NE2). Note that spaces adjacent to the equal sign between parameter and value are ignored by the MediaWiki software. Note also that TwinsMetsFan said that adding spaces increases the size of the article, and that it was hard for him to read. That aside, again, what do you guys think? Spacing or no? --Geopgeop 22:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(Oh yeah, this is different from the spacing issue directly below; this is about spacing in the code, not spacing displayed in the article. --Geopgeop 22:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The copy-paste syntax that was status quo for over a year clearly wasn't broke. —O (说 • 喝) 23:11, 01 October 2007 (GMT)

I am not sure I understand the point of adding the spacing. --Holderca1 23:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm against spacing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgia State Route 13 has a bunch of extra space, and I can't seem to remove it

It could be the space in between the "if" statements, possibly bunch them together (instead of starting each on a new line). Look at examples of how other infoboxes do consecutive "if" statements. This is a bit of a tricky question for helpme, I think village pump tech or the help desk would be better suited.--Commander Keane 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Something like User:Commander_Keane/Sandpit works ok, although I haven't examined it much.--Commander Keane 01:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but that seems to work - thanks. --SPUI (T - C) 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something obvious, but when I tried to use the automatic kilometer calculation function today, it wouldn't let me round to any decimal points (as it kept rounding to a whole number). I had everything else set up correctly: only a length_mi entry was present (with a value of 3.03) and the length_ref and length_round entries were present as well. However, no matter what value I put in for length_round, it always rounded to a whole number. What am I missing here? --TMF ^{T - C} 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to change round to length_round - try it now. --SPUI (T - C) 09:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it works now. Thanks. --TMF ^{T - C} 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Are they up to date? I'm aware a lot of stuff got changed lately... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nah, there's a lot of parameters missing out of the base example above. If I can remember to do so, I'll write some new (or updated) instructions later on. --TMF ^{T - C} 16:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to disambiguate items in the type/route parameters? The Iowa Highway 1 page links to Interstate 680, but it should link to Interstate 680 (Iowa-Nebraska). Khatru2 10:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - you can change Template:Infobox road/IA/link Interstate to Interstate {{{num}}} (Iowa) and make the appropriate redirects. --NE2 11:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it for you, it links to Interstate 680 (Iowa) now which redirects to Interstate 680 (Iowa-Nebraska). For future use, all interstate links will now link to Interstate X (Iowa). --Holderca1 17:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Khatru2 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there any consensus to change the color/design of this heavily used template? Personally, I think the recent changes are atrocious and make infoboxes, like that on Interstate 99, hideous. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The background colours don't alternate using optional fields, so they're a bit pointless, and the infobox class is set in the stylesheet. If you think it's hideous, use a different stylesheet. Almost every other infobox on Wikipedia uses it. ed g2s • talk 22:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe using a different style sheet is an option - to my knowledge, only one CSS exists for Wikipedia. As for "every other infobox uses it"... if every infobox had a message stating "this is a template" on the bottom, would you add one to an infobox that did not have it? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Woah, what the? Ok, I've known for a long time that that the alternations don't always work, but they're better than NOTHING. At least put back one different color besides white so we can see the spacers in between the sections please. I don't really care all that much if they alternate or not, just so we can tell the difference between termini and junctions and such. Something similar would suffice too. --TinMan 22:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the current colors are needed (something like template:infobox rail could work just fine), but the change removed all bordering between rows. --NE2 23:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, one shouldn't use hard-coded colours just to distinguish rows, it's bad for accessibility. ed g2s • talk 23:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why (assuming the colors are light enough) it would make a difference. --NE2 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

ALL RIGHT! Timeout here! Why are we changing the design of this infobox!!?? It was perfectly fine one week ago! I'd revert this under any normal circumstances since it was not broken to begin with, but I am not going to get into any revert wars with anyone. [/rant] --• master_son^{Lets talk} 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - this has already evolved into a revert war: ed g2s vs. everyone else. And I thought the SPUI-style episodes were over... --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha. SPUI may make his way over here yet :) --TinMan 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed, please test and perfect the design in a sandbox before changing this template. I'm willing to look seriously at any proposal, but the ones you're currently changing to are somewhat unfinished. --NE2 18:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If a new design works and there is a consensus to change, then I'd consider any proposal as well. But as of right now, these changes are neither working nor are supported by consensus (rather, the current consensus is status quo), and shows a lack of understanding of how the infobox and its subtemplates work. Please, as NE2 said, for the sake of everyone involved, test any changes in a sandbox and, when you are confident that a design will have no flaws, then propose it here instead of hastily implementing it. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Please post a screenshot of what is wrong with the most recent version. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

NE2 already pointed out what was wrong in this edit summary. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what was wrong with not having borders in the bottom section. ed g2s • talk 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rest. What was the problem? I could see the alternating colors being a problem, I suppose. But the rest was perfectly fine. Why fix something that is not broken? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

All I did was remove the borders, and use the infobox class to set the border and background colour. The problems were with people insisting on having borders to separate the lines. ed g2s • talk 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed - wth? it was fine before you changed it again :| Now the maps - with the white bg - stand out - they were meant to blend in with the white. Where does it say in the manual of style that "class=infobox" must be used? • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To add to what Master son said, the infobox is also wider as a result of the change: 315px to be exact. To Ed g2s: why is the infobox class so necessary that you will revert war with three editors over its inclusion? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I was clear enough; it seems like some are taking my term "borders" literally. I don't know what makes them work, maybe a "br /" tag or something, but if you look at the infobox, you can see the little white space in between each section. I don't know if the "border" function is needed or not; I don't know much about that. Some sort of seperation was all I wanted to keep. Otherwise, all white dominates the box and it's harder to tell the termini shields from the major junction shields, etc. Status quo (before any change) is perfectly fine with me, or if there's a better way, then that's fine too. All I was doing is pleading for something the infobox must have, a seperation between the sections. Sorry for any misunderstanding. --TinMan 05:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that of the course of the edit war detailed in the section above, the formatting was changed so that text is aligned at the top of a cell instead of in the center. Was there a reason for this change? Would anyone object to me changing it back?

If you can't tell what I'm talking about, take a look at County Route 527 Alternate (New Jersey) and note how the NJ 33 aligns itself at the top of the cell, leaving empty space between it and the ending terminus. -- NORTH ^talk 06:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To reduce the size of this template, should we use a smaller font size? {{Infobox Illinois state route}} has a point there... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would think so too. Most other infoboxes use font sizes smaller than Infobox road's. --• master_son^{Lets talk} 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It would counter the "that infobox is too big!" argument. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A font size change, and probably a fresh, new font, like the one found on TMF's or my userpages.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Two of the most (in my estimation, which is probably wrong) transcluded infoboxes on Wikipedia, {{Infobox City}} and {{Infobox rail}}, both use a reduced font size. In each case, the reduced size does not hinder the presentation of information and actually helps to set the infobox apart from the article proper. As for the font size, Infobox City has it at 90%, as does Infobox rail and {{Infobox Illinois state route}}. The only concern I have is how are the shields, 20px high, going to appear next to the smaller font (~10-12px). Other than that, I support a smaller font. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be a pain.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions · VRoads} 03:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

After seeing the dysfunctional state of Quebec Autoroute 35 earlier today, I thought about, among other things, using a "state=QC" parameter for the infobox to automate the shield and the road name. The only problem is that Quebec is a Canadian province, not a U.S. state. Should I use the parameter anyway?

Granted, this isn't that big of a deal, but I figure that I need some discussion to point to if anyone asks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal. State=province=division=burough=etc... They are all country subdivisions, I don't think anyone would really get bent out of shape putting a Canadian province in the state field. --Holderca1 13:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the same for Mexican Federal Highways...see Mexican Federal Highway 1, using "state=MX" --Holderca1 14:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This template needs to be modified for international usage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, because this is such a heavily used template on U.S. Roads, it would pretty hard to change this template. The |state= parameter already works for this issue.  V60 ^{干什么？ · VDemolitions · VRoads (路)} 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not really helpful is it? It would help the project a great deal if a country neutral template was worked out instead of creating country-specific templates. See {{Geobox Mountain Range}} and {{Geobox River}} for neutral versions of templates. If needed, we could always make this a neutral one, and use a bot to migrate it to US-specific templates. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you rely on "marker_image" and "highway_name" and not the "state" parameter, this is the neutral template you are alluding to. The state parameter adds preset code for shields and links, and its omission on an article, as long as "highway_name" at the least is used, will not hurt the functionality of the template. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TMF here. The "state" parameter is used for automation of shielding, naming, etc in the US Roads - if used elsewhere, additional coding will be required - but if "Highway_name" and "marker_image" are used, you'll get the same effect without all the extra work. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The template now accepts "state", "province", and "country" as parameters. Only one can be used at a time, however. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What about metric units? Counties can also be expanded to include districts etc. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It already includes metric units since we have been using it on some Canadian highways. Okay, let's list out every possible name for a political subdivision so we can knock it all out in one edit, rather than going back each time. The template does the same thing whether you put in country=XXX or province=XXX, it points it to a subpage of the template where you can put the appropriate information. --Holderca1 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

to get metric units - use the "length_km" parameter instead of the length_mi parameter. Kilometers will be displayed first, then a conversion to miles in parenthesis. -- master_son^{Talk - Edits} 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

See WT:USRD#Template:Infobox road. -- NORTH ^talk 04:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Restricting the map height to 175px makes maps of some north-south roads appear overcompressed. Is there any reason why this could not be expanded to allow maps to be up to 290px high?? Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes the infobox too big. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a very long debate at WT:USRD/MTF and its archives, and it was agreed to have a 290 x 172 ratio to make sure that the infobox does not get too big. (→O - RLY?) 21:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have now read the discussion, and I have to say that I respectfully disagree (although I will make no further changes to the template). 1) The existing aspect ratio is biased toward resolving east-west roads better than north-south roads. 2) As far as the info box becoming too big, it can already be made as big as you like simply by adding entries to the junction list. Were it up to me, I would have the ratio much closer to 1:1. An extra 118 pixels in the vertical direction does not seem to me to be adding that much space to the box. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Our junction limit for the infobox is 10 maximum. That helps to keep the infobox small, and the 1:7:1 ratio complements that. We have no bias with east–west or north–south roads whatsoever; this was just a decision to make sure the infobox stays small so as to not dominate the article that much. Regards, (→O - RLY?) 22:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are user who add junctions that push the list over the 10 jct limit - those are to be trimmed down. master son^{T - C} 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a recent kerfluffle about whether or not a highway can be decommissioned, or deleted, or whatnot. I would propose something along the lines of the following:

1. Get rid of the term 'decommissioned'

Replace it with:

1. "Renumbered", for highways which have been renumbered
2. A field to represent handing the responsibility for the highway to another level of government (In Canada, we use "download" and "upload", or "turn back" if the highway is handed back to a level that was once responsible for it), perhaps a field for a date to represent each transfer of responsibility if necessary
3. A field/Fields to show dates of realignments
4. One or two blank fields for region-specific information.

vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this all belongs in the infobox, but we need to somehow show what happened. Maybe we could group it with the "established", so if the "deleted" parameter is set, it instead says "existed: 1926-1985". --NE2 23:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait until a consensus is formed on whether decommissioned is a neologism. —Scott5114↗ 06:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be feasible to distinguish types of child routes with respect to parents besides simply "Spur"? Any of the classes from Auxiliary route, for example. My primary want for this would be the wording to be able to say "Alternate Route of..." instead of "Spur of..." However I can see where "By-pass of..." and "Loop of..." could be handy as well. Just a thought! Thanks! ClarkCT (talk) 06:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This template works fairly decent on city streets. I applied it on 51st Street (Manhattan). It doesn't let me override the state without giving an error and looking for a shield. I did break the Wikipedia convention for directions since it is an east to west one way street. If you have any comments let me know. I might be applying it other streets in NYC. Americasroof (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to add parameters to either caption the marker or the map in {{infobox road}}? I am attempting to respond to Rush Street (Chicago) FAC feedback. Alternatively could someone add an image and image caption parameter?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

map_notes --NE2 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

map_notes is in the template, but not documented. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to scale the map size to match the width of the main image at Historic Michigan Boulevard District?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am adding a note that the use of a link to Commons from this infobox is now discouraged. I've seen it come up on 2 FAC's now. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Links_to_sister_projects links to other wikimedia projects belong at the bottom of an article. Dave (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

After deleting Template:Infobox Interstate (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 2#Interstate infoboxes), rather than deleting potentially useful talk page archives, I'm going to move them here as archives of this talk page. delldot ∇. 03:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Some recent change, not sure which, has changed California infoboxes from displaying the California version of the Interstate shield in the junctions section of the infobox to the generic one. Can this be undone and switched back? I'd do it myself but I lack the knowledge of this overly complex infobox. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Dicussion was to not use state-specific in 25/20px icon. It is impossible to see state name. Another user try to elime state-specific from 25/20px icons in Iowa--FRWY 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See these two articles Interstate 794 and Wisconsin Highway 794, they both seem to have the same issue - the image breaking out of the table formatting. Dunno how to fix it, perhaps someone can jump in and assist. Wongm (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why exactly, but this change [3] restored everything back to working for me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The info box needs a place to list "Towns" and Municipalities Cherry1000 (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

cities= ? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This template is very confusing, and very uncustomizable to the needs of many classes of roadways. Currently, about half the features are useless outside of interstate, state, and provincial highways. The next route/previous route cannot work with county roads, and does not have the ability to be customized. This should be infobox highway, as it is practically useless for county roads or city roads. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

what is the difference between parameters: browse vs browse_route? browse is explained in the documentation, but browse_route is not. Is the browse_route used with the jct template as input? and browse parameter used with a straight number? stmrlbs|talk 01:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the thinking on coordinates in road infoboxes? They could be included, say, for the start-, mid- and end- point, or just the outer two. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett

Need your expert help, see: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category:Temporary infobox road category. Copy of post: (I happened to run across and create this category: Category:Temporary infobox road category and it looks like it has several articles with infobox problems. Could someone that knows how to fix the articles or the {{Infobox road}} template help out? Thanks much!) --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This category pops up when a transclusion of the infobox uses the "type" param but not the "state"/"province"/"country" param. – TMF 09:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can this be changed to link to 'Interstate-nn in <state>' instead of 'Interstate-nn (<state>)'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.1.165 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those links are handled by sub-templates of this template, not the main template. – TMF 09:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The thought occurs that it would be quite smashing to have some documentation detailing how all of the subpages work, what the purpose of them all is, and how to set up new states and road classes. I usually cannot remember how the chain of transclusions works. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly help with a template like this. You can figure it out with successive subst:, but it is time consuming. stmrlbs|talk 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you go to edit a template, it will show the transclusions/substitutions it is making below the edit window. This can also help. However it would be nice to know how this labyrinth works. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This could be a good idea if it's put on, say, a subpage of the main documentation. There's no need to put more things on the main doc page since it's apparent that some users are confused by what's already there. – TMF 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that the shield in the infobox on U.S. Route 395 in Nevada is quite a bit smaller than the shields on U.S. Route 395 in Oregon, U.S. Route 395 in Washington, and even other US routes such as U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Custom route images aren't being used, so I'm wondering why this infobox isn't showing the route shield at the standard size height. --LJ (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually this template, but one of the sub-templates used. {{infobox road/NV US shield|num=395}} produces whereas {{infobox road/OR US shield|num=395}} produces . --Redrose64 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. The subtemplate was rendering 3-digit shields 70x56px instead of 88x70px. --Fredddie™ 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. --LJ (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a proposal. If this proposal is implemented, articles would see no immediate nor substantial changes at first. The idea is that the background colors of the template be eliminated, producing a clean, white infobox with black lettering. This would be a crisp update to the existing template design.

The second part of the change though would be slightly more radical. There would be a new |color= parameter implemented. Unless a value were specified, no visual change would be made to the appearance of the infobox. If the parameter were used, it would alter the appearance of the infobox in subtle, decorative ways. For example, if |color=green were specified, the top of the infobox would have a green background color, based off the MUTCD shade. Other options available would be blue, brown, and orange. We could implement purple as well. Again, if implemented, unless the parameter were specified, no outward change in appearance would be made. Projects would be free to decide to implement the color scheme, or not.

I've mocked up some examples here. Please note, that because of the way I implemented the samples, the Length and browse sections of the infobox will not be different in the samples; under my proposal, these would also have white backgrounds, not grey or cyan. The examples in my sandbox are rough drafts, and I would assume some cosmetic changes would be made to refine the concept. In discussing this idea with some other editors on IRC, the concept would be that a project could decide to standardize on the green scheme, producing a subtle variation of the "Big Green Sign" found so commonly on highways in the United States. The blue scheme would be appropriate for highways in other counties that standardized on "Big Blue Signs". The brown scheme would be appropriate for National Park Service roads, Federal Forest Highways or recreational systems like the Rustic Roads in Wisconsin. Orange would be appropriate for future roadways that are currently under construction, like M-231 in the example given. The color schemes would be 100% optional, available to projects at their discretion.

Colors would not be the only source of a piece of information. In my example, the orange M-231 infobox contains the legend: "Future State Trunkline Highway" as the name notes. Some of the samples on my sandbox use the cutout version of the Michigan shield. The reason is that the 2009 edition of the MUTCD specifies that the black square blanks are not supposed to be used on BGSs. Theoretically, this infobox should call the guide sign version of the shield, which is a cutout that lacks the "M" that's used on the reasurrance marker/trailblazer version of the shield. Until the guide sign version of the graphics was created though, the infobox would remain white, which is the default. Once the correct graphics were in place, a project could edit their subtemplate to switch over and then edit the articles to "turn on" the appropriate color. For demonstration purposes, I used the 1920s vintage Michigan cutouts as a mockup. The template could also be set that once the color is "turned on", the border and different labels below switch colors to match the scheme. (The blue sample shows an inverted white on blue variant because the text looked like wikilinks otherwise. Either method could be used in the final design.)

On a final note, the new schemes actually improve the accessiblity of the colors used in formatting the infobox. This tool measures the colors used in a webpage. When I ran my sandbox through, it generated several error messages related to the color difference between the grey background and the color of a wikilink. (Note that all of the samples generated this message because of the way the length and browse sections weren't altered.) Of the proposed color schemes, only the orange scheme produced an error message, but I don't envision that the orange scheme would be in wide usage anyway. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If the gray background generates an error with wikilinks, that's really more of a WP issue than an issue with this template. The gray background is generated by the WP-standard infobox class, which many infoboxes use with no modifications. Now, as for the colors...as I commented online earlier, I don't like them at all. I'd rather strip all colors from the template than add any more into it. IMO, using this many colors makes the infobox look a bit unprofessional and honestly a bit weird.

I'm also against the white background as that makes the infobox blend in too much with the article itself. The gray background does a nice job setting the infobox apart from the prose.

When I was first shown {{Infobox Ontario road}}, I disliked that for the same reason: the excessive colors. If this template ends up going down that road, I'll have no issues with reinstating {{routeboxny}} and making it a non-colorized version of this template. I come from the "KISS" school of thought, and to me adding a bunch of colors - and, really, having colors in the first place - is nothing but clutter. – TMF 08:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems too flashy. This really seems unnecessary. --Rschen7754 09:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with TMF and Rschen. The addition of these colors doesn't really add much to the template, and seems like it would be more distracting than anything else. Adding colors also detracts from having an infobox with a unified appearance across all articles. --LJ (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do like the first part where the colors are stripped out. --Fredddie™ 13:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The colors are way too unnecessary. Let's stay away from that... even the revised white infobox isn't doing it for me. There's nothing wrong with the template as is; it's clean and simple enough as it is. CL (T · C) — 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see too much harm in adding some color to the infobox, even though its fine the way it is now. However, I am opposed to using cutouts of shields since we'll have to create a bunch of new shields. ---Dough4872 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I do kind of like the idea of making the infobox stand out more, and the idea of using colors to subtly tell the reader something about the road, but I think these are a bit too flashy. Perhaps instead of MUTCD colors, you could use something more like pastel colors to replace the gray background? Another option is perhaps applying the color to just the title line(s)—many fictional character articles do this to identify alignment (for example, if I remember right, the Harry Potter articles use one color for the protagonists, another for faculty members, another for Death Eaters, another for Ministry officials, etc etc). I think this particular proposal might be too much, but I think you might be onto something here. If you can produce some way of making the infobox beautiful, I'd love to have it in use. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For most of 2009 there was some edit warring that occurred with an identical background color change to Template:Infobox bridge. The talk page is void of any discussion; however, one can see the proposals by skimming the edit history for "my eyes are bleeding" and "any better?" type comments. I bring this up for two reasons: First, viewing past revisions of this page more will show more examples of colors that have been tried. Second, the current background of this infobox is white, although I liked some of the other colors that were used. I agree with others that dark colors are distracting.Dave (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I started with the MUTCD colors as a starting point, since those colors are standardized for highways and roads. Other variations would be appropriate, say mute the MUTCD colors to 50% intensity? My demos are only a starting point at how we could change things, not how I think we necessarily should change things. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, using the infobox bridge example above, I though some of the pastel and light colors that were briefly used looked ok. I'm not opposed to playing with the infobox, but I agree with others that the color scheme should be kept simple, and only neutral, soft colors should be used.Dave (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like removing the shading from the junction lists; the alternating colors make for easy visual delimiting. Certainly the appearance could be tweaked, but just plain white gets a little confusing and makes it hard to tell what's what at a glance. Powers ^T 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have recreated {{Infobox road}} using the meta-template {{Infobox}}. The template itself is at User:Fredddie/Sandbox/4 and mockups are on the talk page. --Fredddie™ 02:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I really like this. It's a lot cleaner-looking than current infobox road. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed, although I wish there was better visual separation between the termini and the junction list, as there is in the current box. I admit, however, that the new box handles edge cases better visually (i.e., cases in which the background colors on the current box don't alternate properly due to omitted fields). Powers ^T 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree. What should be added to separate the termini and junction list? --Fredddie™ 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer there to be no separation, but if it's decided to separate them, how about 1px line? Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If this becomes the "new" infobox road, I could potentially see the above redesign proposal to be implemented with it (i.e. allow different highway types the option to change the blue colored bars). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to move forward on making permanent the changes to this template I proposed a while back (seen here). It's come to my attention that far more countries use this template than was known. So, I'd like to ask your help in finding out what needs to be done so changing the template will be seamless. A list of countries and what infobox they use is here. I have been changing Infobox road to User:Fredddie/Sandbox/4 to see what needs to be fixed. Please post anything you find below. Thanks! --Fredddie™ 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. |highway_name= was added --Fredddie™
2. The requested parameters in the section below were also added

 Done I have completed the sweep and I'm confident that updating the template would go smoothly. —Fredddie™ 05:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

On N1 road (South Africa) I would like to have a "next" link to N2 road (South Africa) but no "previous" link as there is no lower-numbered road. If I simply blank the previous_type and previous_route parameters I get an ugly mess. Is there any way to have the next link without the previous link? - htonl (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The practice used by most (if not all) jurisdictions that use this template is to use the highest numbered route as the previous route in that case. See U.S. Route 1 in New York for an in-practice example. – TMF 20:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah OK, that seems sensible. - htonl (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What is the logic behind including the next and previous routes in the infobox? Unlike presidents or Oscar winners, route numbers are arbitrary and not inherently sequential. Route number are just arbitrary tags. While they can be sorted numerically this has no more meaning than if automobile model infoboxes had previous and next cars based on alphabetical order. --Beirne (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Most jurisdictions either number their highways from west to east / south to north in order, or group similarly numbered routes in one geographic area. It also lets you know the next number in the list, since many gaps exist in numberings (There may be Highway 101, but no 102, 103, or 104. Therefore it is helpful to link to Highway 105). My thoughts anyways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ_¢ 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I knew it was the case for US interstates but didn't think about it as the basis for the previous and next indicators in the infobox. It isn't the way highways are organized in Ohio, but I don't know for other states. Still, though, putting this in every infobox so that people can look for missing numbers when they can just look at the automatically-generated category page seems like unneeded work. --Beirne (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That depends on the jurisdiction, some jurisdictions choose arbitrary highway numbers. In others, the highway numbers are systematically assigned. In the United States, for example, one can navigate from one end of the country to the other without a map, provided they understand how the enumeration of U.S. and Interstate highways works. Also for the record, automobile model articles do have browse boxes, not on alphabetical order, but on replacement models.

With that said, I do feel some reform is badly needed. The browse boxes on the USRD articles is a mess, appearing in the infobox for short highways, but in a separate box at the bottom of the article for longer highways broken into detail sections. I've wanted to change this for a long time. However, I'll admit I'm not sure how to do it. I'm tempted to vote to get rid of the browse boxes as it's impossible to make consistent, rather than question their value. Dave (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at The Middle Road. I plan on making it into a linear story:

Lake Shore Road -> The Middle Road -> Queen Elizabeth Way -> Ontario Highway 400 -> Ontario Highway 401 - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Cars pointing to their replacement models does make sense, as there is a historical progression that would not be obvious via other things like Wikipedia category pages. Someone reading the history of a car model might well want to go from one car to its successor. Even in the cases where the highways are laid out in order, though, there is no particular reason to read about I-77 after reading about I-75 unless someone is just the sort who likes to read through arbitrary lists, and that can be done from the category pages. --Beirne (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Ohio; however, most U.S. states do have some system for assigning highways numbers. Most states in the west started out with sequential numbering, but switched to a different system. Common ones include: grid (Florida and Colorado), clustering (Nevada), branching (Washington) or where the highway number corresponds to the last digits of the section of streets and highways code where the route is defined (California, Utah and Washington). For jurisdictions that use a grid, a browse box doesn't add value. For clustering or sequential numbering, there might be some value. I've just included them out of habit, your query is the first time I've ever thought about it. I'll advertise this at WT:USRD and see if we can't get some more opinions. I would be ok with deleting them. Dave (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the "browse these routes" boxes because they make absolutely no sense. Example: someone is interested in getting from Woodbridge, VA to Alexandria, VA. So, he's interested in US 1, I-95, VA 241, SR 611, and SR 613, not VA 2 (near Fredericksburg) or VA 895 (near Richmond) that show up in the "browse by" section if he were looking at the U.S. Route 1 in Virginia article. Because of the wide numbering difference in these routes, the "browse by" option is useless. What I have found useful is the "major highway" templates that are currently available for Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudoun counties. There you get links to routes that go where you want, regardless of the type or numbering scheme. --Tim Sabin (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what the Major intersections table is for. This is to browse a specific highway system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming that all roads that a person is interested not only always intersect, but Wikipedia has these intersections in the Major intersections table. This is fallacious. 1) SR 613 and US 1 or VA 241 do not meet - ever. 2) Many articles - including U.S. Route 1 in Virginia do not have a Major intersections table. 3) Hardly any US and VA articles list intersections with Virginia secondary routes (SR). --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If routes related to a route aren't listed in the junction list or the route description in some way, there's always the option of adding an entry to the "See also" section. If they're not related enough to be listed in the see also section, then there's no issue here. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a travel guide that gives someone advice or instructions on how to get from one location to another. If we do so in some articles in the process of providing complete, comprehensive coverage on a route, it's nothing more than a coincidence. (For what it's worth, I highly dislike those navbox templates, but that's neither here nor there.) – TMF 03:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's an extremely compelling reason, but it does make maintenance rather easier (if some change needs to be applied to all articles in a set, you just have to start at 1 and browse through in order). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, I think the browse is useful to readers who want to flip between the articles in a highway system in numerical order. It can also be helpful to editors who are cleaning up articles within a highway system who can easily navigate between articles. Dough4872 02:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

How many people flip through the articles in numerical order, and why is it necessary to support that? The category pages provides the highways in order with a minimum of human input and maintenance. To get back to the automobile models, mentioned above, knowing the previous and next models actually provides information to the reader. Knowing the next highway in numerical order does not tell the reader anything. --Beirne (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of indifferent on this. Not that this is a reason for retaining numerical browsing, but it's been in use in some shape or form for all of my "wiki-life", either as a navbox at the end of the article or at the bottom of the infobox. Tradition, as the browsing arguably is, is typically only broken when there's a convincing reason to do so. On that note, I can't think of a good reason to retain it, but I also fail to see the benefit in eliminating it. – TMF 03:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What about adding this to the depreciated sections at WP:USRD/STDS (and similar pages for projects at other countries)? That way it's ok to leave in for now, but as articles are improved they should be removed? For me, this is the best compromise between me not wanting to go through the 1000s of articles that have this immediately and my agreement that there is (so far) no valid reason for keeping them. Dave (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If that approach is taken, the support for browsing should be shut off at the source - here - at the same time. The "browse numbered route" boxes and the browsing code could be eliminated as described. – TMF 04:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, my personal preference is to leave the browsers intact. Imzadi 1979 → 04:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Same. I won't be shutting it off. Clumping of nearby highway routes is common in Ontario, as well as the fact that A) Freeways are all grouped together in the 400s B) most trunk highways have a number below 17 (2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 17). This makes it useful to both editor and user alike. That to me is enough of a reason to keep them over the lack of a reason to remove them (besides WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the redundancy theory). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the benefit is when highways are grouped together. You still don't know which clumping of highways applies to where you are. It isn't clear that it helps editors that much, either. If I were going to change a bunch of highways I would still need to go back to the category page for the highways as someone may have missed a next or previous highway in one or more of the infoboxes. --Beirne (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to clarify I am only referring to the browse interface in the infobox below. I continue to approve of navboxes for related sets of articles where a sequential browse makes sense, such as state-designated pages for multi-state highways (for example, U.S. Route 29 in Virginia, where the navbox would have before and after links to U.S. Route 29 in North Carolina and U.S. Route 29 in Maryland, respectively). The forward-and-back operation of a browse is only helpful when a user wishes to look at route articles in numerical order. It is not helpful when a user wants to look at routes in the same geographic area, unless coincidentally the routes are clustered in that area.

A browse works under the assumption that route numbers are static and remain in order. This is a reasonable assumption for the route numbers out in the field, since so few numbers change each year outside of systemic renumberings. However, route number articles in Wikipedia are not so static. For instance, there may be articles on Routes 102, 103, 105, 106, and 107 at a certain time. So the browse in 103 has 102 and 105 as the back and forward route, respectively, while 105 has 103 and 106 as back and forward. Then the Route 104 article is added. At least two different browses need to be changed to reflect the updated article count in Wikipedia. Many times, the wrong routes are included for the previous and next route, or the previous or next route is a redlink; those types of misinformation defeat the purpose of a sequential browse. The benefits of being able to browse through routes in numerical order to perform maintenance is outweighed by the headaches of maintaining the browse integrity. If, while performing maintenance, Route 104 is not part of the browse chain, that route has to be hunted down outside of the browse anyway.

There are other methods of looking at route articles in numerical order. Almost every state has a List of [state] state highways article. Many of these lists contain other information a user can use to decide whether to visit a particular page, such as endpoints, mileage, and regions in which the route lies. Almost every state has routes tagged into categories by state, county, or even city. These organizational methods are more flexible and utilitarian than a sequential browse.

I concur with Dave and move for the browse functions of Infobox road to be deprecated. This avoids the headache of having to remove browse entries from thousands of articles in a massive cleanup; instead, the browse entries can be removed gradually. In one or two years, when almost all of the browse entries are gone, a final cleanup can be done before the browse functionality is removed from Infobox road. Viridiscalculus (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

As TMF stated, disabling the browse code in the infobox road template would "fix" all articles instantly. However, before I would support this I'd like to give ample time for others to chime in. Perhaps there is some jurisdiction where this browse option does add value and should be kept. Dave (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat liken this to {{infobox television episode}}, which has an episode chronology section which has links to the previous and next episodes in the series. For some shows (especially dramas, such as Lost) a browse with episode order makes perfect sense, as the episodes follow a continuously developing storyline that a reader would want to follow in order. For other shows (especially sitcoms and animated series, such as Family Guy), there is not a major storyline that continues from episode to episode, so the chronology simply browses by air date. Similarly, the infobox road browse can be helpful in those cases where routes are clustered by area (such as Nevada) or relation (as in Washington), may not be helpful where routes are legislatively assigned or follow some other (non-)pattern. So, I can go either way on this, but lean towards leaving it alone for now. If the consensus is to remove the browsing from the infobox, I would suggest that some kind of alternate browsing standard be in place before the infobox road browse is deprecated. For WP:USRD at least, there are many existing navboxes used for various collections of numbered routes, and I'd like to see some standardization between these should this become the preferred (or only) browsing method. -- LJ ↗ 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this analogy is better than the car analogy presented above. I also agree that Nevada, which has a true clustering system, with very few exception to the clustering rules, is one state where the browse option makes sense. Floydian stated Ontario uses a (partial???) clusterin. But realistically those are the only places I can see where this would help. Washington's branching system uses the 1st digit, not the last, to establish the branch relationship. So a sequential browse box does not help for Washington. There are some states, such as Utah, which do cluster routes, but the system has so many legacy issues that the clustering is more the exception than the rule. So, do we want to keep the browse box available for Nevada and some Canadian provinces, and discourage its use elsewhere? Dave (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just read the description of the numbering system for Nevada. It says: "Primary state routes are assigned numbers based upon the county in which the majority of the route resides (or, in some instances, the county of the major town on the route)." So I one can browse through the highways that have their major portion in a county, but you can't browse through all of the routes for a county with confidence, as the county may contain small parts of other highways. --Beirne (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would suit WP:USRD well to eliminate browsing from this template. I'm not against browsing at all, but I think there needs to be a simpler and more consistent way to do it. Some browsing takes place in this template and other browsing occurs at the bottom of the page. How would a new user know which browse style to use? —Fredddie™ 22:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's my thoughts on a purely-US level. Other countries may vary and simple removing the browser coding is not advised as it removes functionality for an Amerocentric discussion. I don't think that the browsing system is broke at all. The issue is that the infobox can support it, as well as separate templates used at the end of the article. Personally, given the advent of state-detail articles, national highway articles should not have browsing implements at all, unless a state redirects there. For Michigan, the browse order is M-1 → US 2 in Michigan → M-3 → etc. The national US 2 article doesn't need a browser for Michigan, since the MI sequence skips the national article in favor of the state-detail article. Any states that don't have state-detail articles and redirect to the national article would still need browsers added. Should there be a small enough number, I'd move them up to the infobox. That would solve the location inconsistency issue. For articles that still had too many browsers to comfortably include in the infobox, maybe we could code up something that appeared in the infobox that jumped to the browser boxes at the end of the article.

Now, my second though is to just move all the state-browsers to the bottom. The reason I don't like this is that it complicates things a bit. For articles with multiple browses, it's not as complicated since there is the template to start the browers, the browsers and the template to close the browsers. For a single browser line, that's 3 templates to do one job, when the infobox has the ability to take some parameters to set it up directly. Just my personal preference, but I'd rather leave the numerical browsing at the top of the article in the infobox. Any additional navigation templates appear at the bottom. Imzadi 1979 → 00:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the functionality is for Amerocentric discussion. In the Michigan example, there is no meaning to going from M-1 → US 2 in Michigan → M-3 → etc. State and national highways are different sorts of things, but even for just Michigan highways the browsing doesn't add anything. A similar example is the New Jersey infobox sample on the template page itself. It goes from I-695 to NJ 700 to I-895. Those highways are unrelated, and the browser adds no information. It is just stringing together articles. --Beirne (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about this some more, and I now believe the numerical browsers should be removed. IMO, no one has presented how a numerical browse box helps our goal of building an encyclopedia (as opposed to a roadgeek site). However, I am for now still supporting browse boxes that are not numerical designation based (such as state progression browse boxes, or parent-sibling highway relation boxes) Dave (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Beirne: there's a common misconception about highways in the US. There are no "national" highways, per se. All US Highways and Interstates are state highways: owned, maintained and operated by the states. To take California as a specific example, I-80 is legally SR 80, but signed with the Interstate markers instead of the miner's spade. Back to the Michigan example, it browses from the highway assigned the number 1, to the highway assigned the number 2, etc. My problem is that what system replaces the current one. The current system, while imperfect, has functionality. The options are to create a better system, or have no system at all. No system, to me, means a loss of functionality, which is not acceptable to me. I've created a set of templates that list highways by county in Michigan, but that was related to a FTC requirement. With the current M-28 FTC, the previous county-based FT may be discarded in favor of a highway-based FT. If so, the point of the templates is moot, and they'll be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that interstates and US highways are actually state highways subsidized by the federal government, but each type of highway had its own numbering arrangements so mixing them in a browser makes even less sense than making a browser for the same type of highway. My vote is to remove the highway browsers and do not replace them. Other than an obscure sense of convenience of being able to walk through the highways in numerical order, there is no function provided by the browsers. The browser makes no more sense than it would to put the cities in a state or county into a browser by alphabetical order. Someone might say it would be helpful for someone wanting to update all of the city articles, but in practice no one cares and it isn't worth the effort. The same applies to the highway browsers. If someone wants to edit all of a group of highways they can go off the category pages. The only time I see a browser making sense for highways would be if there are separate articles for each state a highway passes through, so then someone can follow the geography. --Beirne (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I proposed a new infobox on Wikiproject History for historical trails and roads (i.e. truly historical like the Appian Way or the Chisolm Trail; not simply modern highways that have been decommissioned). If you have a thought on this please comment there.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the {{{previous_type}}} and {{{next_type}}} parameters be changed to default to the value for {{{type}}} if they are not set? -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at Norwegian National Road 4 where this template doesn't display all parameters correctly. __meco (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the "route" and "length_round" parameters, it's because neither is being used correctly. Please read the documentation for proper usage. – TMF 20:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was created by a less experienced editor so that explains why that is. I may look at it myself, but I was hoping someone here could make a quick fix. __meco (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I made some fixes, including fixing the map to what I think the editor intended it to look like. I'm not a fan of superimposing images, but to each their own. – TMF 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to start including an infobox on articles dealing with historical road systems and travel networks ranging from the Appian Way and the Silk Road to the Red River Trails and the Chisolm Trail. I had proposed a new infobox on WP:Wikiproject History but several editors insisted that these articles should instead use this infobox with extensions.

Can somebody do the additions needed? At minimum I believe that the following fields need to be added to accomodate these historical routes (what specific name to use for each field is of less importance).

• Historical significance
• Time period (the established and decommissioned fields are not necessarily appropriate since, in many cases, these routes were never formally established or decomissioned and, regardless, the precise dates may not be known)
• Routes (many of these historical trails were actually multiple trails and/or changed over the course of their history; to the extent that these variations are significant the infobox needs some sorts of field[s] to describe the different routes)
• Established by (in many cases a historical route was used by many groups or civilizations; sometimes the society that established the trail or road is of major historical importance)

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• There is a history field that could be used for significance.
• When used together, the established and decommissioned fields make the date line say Existed: <established>–<decommissioned>. While it's not very elegant for what you need, it could work.
• A related routes and an established by field could work

I can't edit the template, but I'll discuss it with someone who can and is familiar with this template. —Fredddie™ 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

• The history field is prefixed with History in the infobox. That doesn't really imply the same thing as significance. Mind you, I am not saying the text has to be precisely "Historical significance". But it should be something synonymous.
• Established/decommissioned: The Silk Road, for example was never "established" or "decommissioned". Even in cases where such designations are meaningful the exact dates may not be known. It is often more useful to describe the time period than try to describe begin and end dates.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I just want to preface that I'm perfectly accepting of the changes you'd like. I just want to make sure it's something that won't be abused by less mature users. That being said, do you think an era field should go in place of established and decommissioned for unclear dates? |era=The Middle Ages would appear Existed: The Middle Ages. —Fredddie™ 03:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is that "Existed" implies that the road doesn't exist now. Why that might be true, how about an era parameter that formats it as Timeframe: or just Era:. Imzadi 1979 → 03:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been working on a rewrite of the template, I added the requested parameters to that. I created a mockup for the Silk Road here (pardon the inaccuracies, I was going for proof of concept) The regular template, however, has not been changed. —Fredddie™ 04:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work. Comment:

• I'm not sure that the 'Era label is sufficient in all cases. For example, for the Chisolm Trail, would you simply put "19th century"? Or would you put a range of decades? "19th century" is pretty vague but putting a range of decades under the label "Era" seems rather strange. A label like "Time period" or "Time frame" might work better simply because you can choose to use an era, a range of years, or whatever time reference and the label still makes sense.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Some additional thoughts:

Looking at some of the articles that might use this some additional items that would be worthwhile to include occur to me:

• Modern roads - In some cases the routes of these historical trails are closely followed, in part or in whole, by some important modern roads. This seems worth mentioning in the infobox.
• Protection status / governing body - In some cases part or all of these historic trails are protected and/or maintained by some government as part of parks or as historic areas in their own rights. Having fields identifying the exact status and the body governing them is worthwhile (some of these trails currently use Infobox Protected area; if we switch to using Infobox Road the items in the current infobox should not be lost).

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is always the maint= parameter, which will display "Maintained by __" underneath the name of the road. You could also use the existing established= and decommissioned= parameters to provide ballpark dates of when the road was first used and when it declined. Failing that, we could establish a "flourished" parameter, which would mirror the use by biographers (it's used when you don't have exact birth/death dates, but know of a certain time period when the guy was doing things that get him mentioned in the historical record). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I use the maint= parameter to like to counties or cities for former state highways here in Michigan, since the road is now maintained by the county or city. Would it be wrong to say that a historical road is maintained by the park or historic area? I don't think so, so that works there. Imzadi 1979 → 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: these suggestions were implemented in the update. The only change is the |era= parameter will display as Time period: upon transclusion. —Fredddie™ 06:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Highway 230
Route information
Maintained by ArDOT
Section 1
Length	13.8 mi (22.2 km)
West end	US 167, Cave City
East end	AR 25, Strawberry
Section 2
Length	8.3 mi (13.4 km)
West end	AR 14/AR 25, Locust Grove
East end	US 167, Southside
Section 3
Length	17.2 mi (27.7 km)
West end	US 67, Alicia
East end	US 63 BUS, Bono
Section 4
Length	7.0 mi (11.3 km)
West end	US 49 BUS, Brookland
East end	AR 135, Dixie
Location
Country	United States
State	Arkansas
Highway system
Arkansas Highway System Interstate US State Business Spurs Suffixed Scenic Heritage
← AR 228 → AR 231

I've made some changes in the sandbox so that support for roads with multiple sections can be added which would then allow for the {{Infobox Oklahoma Highway 2}}, {{Infobox Arkansas Highway multiple}} and {{Infobox Iowa Highway multiple}} templates to be replaced. Any thoughts? -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

How many sections does it support? I think the Arkansas template supports up to 8 currently. As long as it works, I support the concept in general Imzadi 1979 → 11:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just added 4 at the moment, but it's very easy to add more. Four seems to be the maximum number used in Arkansas Highway 119 and Arkansas Highway 230. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. My only concern is that I'm trying to rewrite this template with {{Infobox}} as the base. I'll make the additions there as well. —Fredddie™ 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Additions made to my mockup. —Fredddie™ 17:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Could the sandbox changes for multiple sections be added to the main template. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold up a moment. Can we change that yellow color? It's a bit... bright. Additionally, why are the two ends of each section in different color backgrounds? Imzadi 1979 → 23:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Virtually covered by the revamp, as stated above. – TMF 02:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After further review, the requested edit has been completely covered in the revamped design, which has full support for routes with up to four sections. – TMF 02:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at WOSlinker's mockup, I seem to have messed up how the parameters are handled. They should be handled as Section # and nothing more. —Fredddie™ 05:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is  Fixed. – TMF 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm updating articles in Michigan to make sure there's nothing weird with the new box. M-8 was built in 1942, but didn't become M-8 until 1997. How about a |constructed= parameter for situations where construction and designation differ. BUS M-28 has been a state highway since 1919, but was only designated BUS M-28 in 1958. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous infobox and the revamp both have a history parameter, where you can lay out the route's history in a line or two. So, |history=Became state highway in 1919, designated as BUS M-28 in 1958" should do the trick in this case. – TMF 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

A parameter that wasn't in the documentation, but works well all the same Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we've just overhauled the template, the next step is really to work on the documentation. There are parameters missing from the list. Additionally, maybe we should have a secondary page that has sample usages, that way editors can see some of the options in use. Imzadi 1979 → 09:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I can update the doc once we get the spur_of situation figured out. – TMF 19:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The revamp proposed at Template talk:Infobox road/Archive 5#A different redesign proposal has been implemented per the consensus reached at that section. This design has been tested extensively by User:Fredddie, who did the vast majority of leg work regarding the revamp. Slight, mostly cosmetic changes were made in the "11th hour":

• The line generated by spur_of has been moved to the bottom of the infobox, matching the previous layout of the infobox.
• Full support has been added for IR/state law, specifically the new "subsection" parameter.
• A tracking category has been added that will categorize all articles with deprecated parameters.
• The spur_of line has been fleshed out for banners. It will now display different text depending on what type of banner it is, such as "Business route of" for business routes.

Comments or questions about the new design are welcome. – TMF 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's an issue with the browsing. It's not calling the extra browse templates unless the infobox browse is used.

{{#if:{{{previous_route|}}}|{{Infobox... should be {{#if:{{{previous_route|}}}{{{browse}}}|{{Infobox. —Fredddie™ 05:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. – TMF 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The "maintained by" section of the revamped infobox is linking to MDOT in Maryland state highway articles no matter whether the maint parameter is blank or has a value in it. First of all, the proper agency is MDSHA, not MDOT. Secondly, there are some highways maintained by bodies other than MDSHA. For instance, parts of MD 410 are maintained by the city of Takoma Park and Prince George's County. I placed that information in the maint field but it is overridden by the revamp. I request that a default value only be displayed if the maint field is blank, and that the default value for Maryland be MDSHA. Viridiscalculus (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it exists, the new template will find and use the location's maint template, in this case {{Infobox road/MD maint}}. —Fredddie™ 16:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like that maint template needs to be removed. This looks to be the downside to which I alluded in setting default parameter values. Imzadi 1979 → 18:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor issue, but in updating U.S._Route_1/9_Truck to get it out of the tracker cat, I had to set |type=US-Truck but the links for the US system dropped off. The links meta template is protected now, so I can't add US-Truck with the other special routes to the US section of the list. That begs the question, should special routes of US Highways get linked to both their state and the US systems? Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Re first part:  Fixed. Re second part: I believe so. Among the US system links is a link to the bannered routes page, and the state pages likely cover the bannered route in question as well. – TMF 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There are a few rare Interstate business routes with full articles, so similarly, shouldn't type=BL and type=BS trip the Interstate switch as well? Imzadi 1979 → 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed – TMF 04:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Another comment, just as a reminder. With the new update separating the infobox into sections, we have the text "Major intersections" duplicated. I know it's lower on the list of priorities, but that side label needs to be removed at some point. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In the original mockup, the header was "Major intersections" while the junction section's name was "Major junctions". I'm not sure why the header was changed. – TMF 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back to "Major intersections" for now. – TMF 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The |rural_municipalities= output is showing next to a Counties: tag on Saskatchewan Highway 16. The |parishes= on Louisiana Highway 1 is also outputting under a counties label, but the bar for Location is not appearing there. Imzadi 1979 → 20:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All  Fixed. – TMF 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an interesting use for the infobox: bike trails. Devonwood Bike Trail, Riverfront Bike Trail and Russell Street Neighbourhood Trail use it. They've used |cities=Neighbourhoods: [[University of Windsor|University]]/[[Sandwich, Ontario|Sandwich Town]] and the like. Maybe while updating location parameters, add one for that purpose? Imzadi 1979 → 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox hiking trail seems more appropriate for those articles, the name of the infobox notwithstanding. – TMF 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created a new section for infobox issues below. – TMF 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please post all issues relating to the new infobox code here. – TMF 04:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the new code, it seems like "spur_of" will now be exclusively used for special routes, meaning that all uses of the parameter on three-digit U.S. Routes, suffixed U.S. or state highways, or any other uses beyond special routes will be eliminated. Before we proceed any further, is this the direction that the community at large wants to go in? – TMF 18:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, in this case I don't support template-enforced deprecation, but rather a case-by-case discussion. Imzadi 1979 → 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What about what WP:WASH uses it for? --Rschen7754 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That usage is being flagged as deprecated and dumping articles into the tracker category, but I think it should be reversed. BTW, I had asked that the spur line show at the bottom of the template like the old layout. Now that special routes are pulling in their state/type links template, it doesn't need to be at the bottom. I think it would be better in the "Route information" section of the box, under the maintenance output. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of reversing the deprecation of the spur_of line for Washington routes, and as an extension of that I'm in favor of reversing the deprecation of the line for US Routes, suffixed routes, and the like. Moving the line into the Route information section is fine with me too. – TMF 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm kinda partial to having it on the subheader line, where it was before it moved down. —Fredddie™ 05:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit open to both options. Either way, we can definitely agree that the current location isn't ideal. – TMF 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like anyone's in favor of deprecating the usage of spur_of for everything but special routes, I have removed the code that deprecated them from the template. I did not move the location of the line, though, since the discussion of that is still ongoing. – TMF 16:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't like the original location under the name output because in the case of BUS M-28, it had BUS M-28 on one line, and Spur of M-28 on the second. Now that the output is flexible based on the type of highway (business route, alternate route, etc), it would look much better. I think though, the information is better displayed as a part of the "Route information" section. That way above the first heading, only the shield, name, alternate name, map and map caption are in the first section. The parent route information is more like the maintenance, legal definition, length and time period of the road. That's just my $0.02 though. Imzadi 1979 → 21:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The parent parameter

At some point before the revamp, a "parent" parameter was added to the infobox. It works the same as the spur_of param, but it displays the text "Auxiliary route of "<route>" instead. If we're retaining the status quo in terms of the usage of spur_of, perhaps the three-digit USHs and suffixed routes should be changed to use this parameter (and "parent_type") instead. Or, we could go the other route (no pun intended) and change the handful of uses of "parent" to "spur_of". Thoughts? – TMF 16:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since we're streamlining parameters, they should be combined, with the new flexible output. The easiest would be to convert the parent_type/parent to spur_type/spur_of. Honestly, the newer parameter names are more intuitive. I'm already envisioning a massive AWB run to convert parameter names, so why not throw another set onto the pile? Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to make spur_of display "auxiliary route" by default if the parameters are combined. Spur-type special routes would still display "spur of" though. – TMF 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This particular change has been applied as part of stage one of the backend revamp. I also added a tracker cat (the pre-existing Category:Temporary infobox road category) to the default value ("auxiliary route") to categorize all of the articles that aren't caught by one of the special types. – TMF 02:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a concept from {{infobox Ontario road}} that we might consider: a heading for the map, which would make only the shield and name-related information at the top of the infobox. The plus is that it makes the shield and name(s) work as the title of the infobox, and moves all other details into sections of the infobox. The hesitation I have is articles that use non-map graphics (usually photos) in the map location, but that usage has been panned by members of the project in the past. Additionally, the map would be a single item section. Right now other sections have more information in them, like "Route information" with legal definitions, maintenance, length and timeframe information. On many articles though, the "Highway system" section only has a link to the state's system, with some having extra links for components of a state's system. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I coded up a sample infobox and used it for some samples at User talk:Imzadi1979/Sandbox4. It's a modification of the current infobox, but moved the map into a section and moved the spur parameter into the Route information section. Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the concept. On articles with proper map captions (like NY 241), the header would be a bit redundant. – TMF 22:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As alluded to in another section above, I've been working on a total overhaul of the backend of Infobox road's code, namely how it stores all of its data: shield naming conventions, route names, footer links, etc. I was inspired to take on this endeavor when Fredddie began work on the graphical overhaul, and I used his mockup as a base for my own. As such, I waited for a few months until his overhaul was implemented to introduce mine. My revamp can be seen at User:TwinsMetsFan/Sandbox2 and an explanation of the changes that I made is available at User talk:TwinsMetsFan/Sandbox2. Some mockups using both in-practice examples and slightly modified examples are available at User:TwinsMetsFan/Sandbox3 and User talk:TwinsMetsFan/Sandbox3.

On the summary page, I note that this backend overhaul can be implemented in three stages if desired. If there is consensus to implement this revamp, I can begin implementing stage 1 immediately. The contents of stage 1 are locked in; I'm still tweaking some of the code relating to stage 2's items. Comments welcome. – TMF 23:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have my support on this change. Additional benefits include making it easier to expand the template to other countries and situations using better standardized subtemplates. Imzadi 1979 → 00:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Stage one implemented after an initial hiccup (I accidentally deleted the browse coding somewhere along the line, and it took a bit to figure out how to insert it back in). – TMF 02:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I made a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Template:Infobox road updates to get the ball rolling on converting articles from the deprecated parameter names. I left the length parameter out of the request because that will require some manual conversion. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox now has redlinks at the top. Here's the one on U.S. Route 285 as an example. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I rolled it back a bit for now. Feel free to revert my rollback if you can identify and fix the problem, or if I introduced new problems. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In reverting the template, you "screwed up" the articles that were fixed. – TMF 23:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)All Interstate and US Highway articles that don't have a state defined will need |country=USA added to them. Until that's done, they won't display correctly with the new infobox updates. This is part of an overhaul designed to simplify the backend of the template in preparation for potential future highway infobox consolidation efforts, and to make the template as a whole less USA-centric. The redlink display is an issue of which we're aware and getting around to updating the article to fix. The problem is not with the template, but the articles' usage of it. Please revert the template change. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Any idea how long this will take? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We're working as fast as the job queue is filling the tracking categories, running AWB on the contents. The reversion though has now emptied the categories, and we need to wait for them to refill. Imzadi 1979 → 23:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will start a script to purge the pages to help refill the categories. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the page purge is working as the tracking categories are filling up. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what's gone wrong on (for example) N1 road (South Africa)? Thanks, htonl (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The first thing, |state=South Africa needs to be changed to |country=ZAF. We're switching the template over to ISO_3166-1#Current_codes (alpha-3) for each country. The state parameter is being reserved for the US states. After that switch, we'll need to set up the subtemplates for South Africa. We're getting there though, bear with us. Imzadi 1979 → 01:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the parameter names have been consolidated. User_talk:TwinsMetsFan/Sandbox2 has the list. We've been running AWB to switch parameter names before shutting the old names off. Imzadi 1979 → 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I created the new templates, and it appears this is now sorted if you just change the country to ZAF. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you've already AWB'ed the articles, so thanks very much! - htonl (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the red link problem is still there for Puerto Rico highways (PR-22, PR-52, etc). Could anyone fix it? ANDROS¹³³⁷ 16:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed. – TMF 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just needed to purge the cache. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Stage 3" - the new backend of the browse row, plus other changes, has been implemented. The extra browse rows (generated by {{ny browse}} and the like) will be broken temporarily as I migrate those templates to the new format. If you see a broken browse, please do not panic; it will be fixed in short order. Thanks. – TMF 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Rejected
I was looking at es:Carretera Federal 2 and noticed the flag and country name beneath the route name. Would this be something worth considering for our template? For the most part, the ISO alpha3 code we're using for countries can be used for the {{flagcountry}} template, but states and provinces would have to use another method. Any thoughts? —Fredddie™ 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My first instinct is that it probably violates MOS:FLAG. – TMF 03:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That would probably run afoul of MOS:FLAG, so I say we don't need it. Imzadi 1979 → 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

From my read, that would definitely run afoul of the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" clause of MOS:ICON. -- LJ ↗ 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've completed my survey of the other infoboxes with data on how they differ from IR, and the results have been made into a list at Template:Infobox road/doc/conversions and consolidations. Imzadi 1979 → 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worth converting over the articles that use (number of article transclusions in brackets as of 20th June)

to use Infobox road instead? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I see value in having a consistent infobox regardless of geographic location, let alone reduce the duplication of effort through extensions of a single template. Speaking of the Ontario infobox, that infobox uses colors to help denote roadway type, with colors varying by type automatically. Other countries use similar infoboxes, but differ on color schemes, or have additional display parameters. This template after the overhaul has a parameter to change header colors, meaning that we could code a switch into the master template that automatically sets the header colors to green if the country is Italy, just as an example.

There are other infoboxes to add to your list. Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) did a survey of all the different countries' road-related articles while we were doing an overhaul to the MOS page on junction lists. Using his survey, the missing infoboxes from your list are:

Korea is using a non-road infobox, {{Infobox Korean name}} to hold maps and transliterations of the name.

Before you go on a mission to merge templates, we will need to add parameters to the main template in places. We just completed a multi-month overhaul of the template, and we're mopping up some things here in the US yet. Can we hold off a bit first? I know we're contemplating overhauling some of the back-end templates. Let's finish this stage of things, and maybe if we do any merging, we merge Ontario into the fold before branching out to the other continents. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please also make sure the infobox is compatible with the PROPER Ontario road shields as well as Ontario's method of browsing routes (which in addition to just the next and previous routes, allows manual inputs in the three browse sections for cases like The Middle Road or Don Valley Parkway). The simplified markers should not be used. As it stands, infobox road is not customizable enough to have Ontario merged into it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most of that is related to subtemplates and not the main template. Change which set of graphics the templates call, and the graphics will switch. As for the browser, if you look at U.S. Route 131, the infobox-generate browser line is not used. Instead the subtemplates {{in browse}} and {{mi browse}} are used to set the Indiana and Michigan browser lines. A similar {{on browse}} template could be built, allowing multiple iterations of the template to be called for extra browser lines, and the parameter can take a middle cell between the two sides. If working with the infobox-generated browser, it should work with any input for previous_type/previous_route that the subtemplates can be set to output. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, while I fully support you in this, we need to get consensus before going in and changing things (especially in Western Europe and Eastern Asia and Australia). In Africa, Latin America, and Oceania we can probably just go in and change things.

Keep in mind that there are some infoboxes with the exit list in it, and we'll have to clean that up. --Rschen7754 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like the infobox for Papua New Guinea was converted to IR in the process of the first revamp and the first sets of parameter changes. That's one to scratch from the list of potential mergers. Imzadi 1979 → 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I found one other, related template: {{Infobox street}} in use for US streets. Other streets, like Jefferson Avenue (Detroit) use infobox road, but Grand Boulevard (Detroit) use the street one... for now. Imzadi 1979 → 20:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Street wise, there's also {{Infobox UK street}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we want to absorb {{Infobox street}}. It seems to be a different beast than this template is. Perhaps street infoboxes could be shoehorned into Infobox street instead. —Fredddie™ 06:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I second this motion. Just like U.S. street articles use different standards than U.S. road articles, I think it makes more sense to have streets use a different template designed specifically for them. – TMF 23:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, different parts of the world use different standards than U.S. road articles. They should have an infobox designed specifically to their needs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Floydian, what information does Infobox Ontario road display that Infobox road doesn't, that is necessary to understanding Ontario roadways, compared to the other nine provinces of Canada? As far as I can tell, the only information that IR lacks compared to IOR is an additional date parameter and the lanes parameter. We can argue that the lanes parameter isn't really needed in the infobox, and that the current history parameter can be used to display additional information concerning the historic dates of the roadway. The rest is layout differences. You cite "needs", well what each country needs is the appropriate information to be displayed. The revamped IR code can be extended to use the color schemes that are appropriate to each country, display the correct marker graphics and display any missing parameters, which is mostly different types of location divisions like countries, regions, districts or areas. The advantage to any conversions is that there only needs to be one codebase to support, updates to that codebase apply to all highways article internationally making future accessibility updated global instead of local. When ALT text was being required at FAC, {{jct}} was updated once, and thousands of articles complied with the requirement instantly. Had there been separate templates by U.S. state, 50 templates would have needed updating.

Let me summarize all of that like this: Common template codebases have distinct advantages not available to segregated templates; The majority of these highway templates already show the same information; this template can easily be extended to add parameters for important missing details. Imzadi 1979 → 03:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except with WP:HRT and the general attitude of editors here, features will not be added because a country needs them, they'll only be added if the US or Britain needs them (and the latter is still questionable and dependent on their cooperation). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an absurd statement to make. In the last three days, three parameters were added to the template because other countries needed them (they're not even enabled for the US), and it's likely more will be added once a list of all the needed params is compiled below. – TMF 16:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Morocco is cleared and can be TfD'd. —Fredddie™ 04:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind updating User:Rschen7754/World when you convert an infobox? --Rschen7754 04:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Been updating it for you, two more templates were converted over and are no longer in use. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've switched over the two France autoroute infoboxes (only 4 transculsions) and add country info two a couple of articles that were already using Infobox road. There are a lot of other French autoroutes that could do with Infoboxes adding though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the template used to create the French "shield" out of raw text formatting though is restyling the names. We're going to need to find some specs and create proper graphics for those articles. Imzadi 1979 → 07:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I also had to do that for a couple of the types of Spain roads. See C & N in Template:Infobox road/shieldmain/ESP. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

For whatever reason though, some of the French infoboxes are bleeding the white on red scheme into the name, but the Spanish ones are not. I suspect it has do with how the template being used in the French articles formats output, or the fact that the output is generated by a template called by the |marker_image= parameter of the infobox.

Honestly, if we don't have actual graphics at this time, I'd prefer that no text tricks like these be used at all. Several USRD project members can easily create the graphics needed if we can find some specs online for them. The text tricks just don't look very professional since they don't come close to replicating the look of the signage. I know US signage uses a specific typeface, which is available online for hobbyist usage. Several European highway typefaces are also available online. That means that default typefaces have to be used to approximate signage, and it's just not right. When I did the conversion of Turkish articles, there is another class of Turkish highway for which no articles have been started here. I did find graphics uploaded on the Turkish Wikipedia for those highways, meaning it should be possible to transfer them to Commons for use here. Likewise, we might be able to get French and Spanish images moved to Commons and used here as well. Imzadi 1979 → 08:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Could a new parameter called countries be added to the Infobox in the location section? This would then allow for the Infobox to be used on the European route articles. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... First, I have to set up a "shutoff" for it so it'll only be used on E-roads or similar roads. Otherwise, there's the real potential of this param being overused. – TMF 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Simpler than I thought it would be.  Done; however, it should be noted that "countries" will only work if "country=EUR". If we need to enable the parameter for other uses, we can do that later on. – TMF 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One word of note before any action is taken. I've been working on a survey of all of the infoboxes that were listed above with respect to what would need to be done if any addition templates are migrated over to this one. I'll post the link here shortly after I double check some things, but there is one thing that needs to be said with how the European infobox is currently in use. Some countries in Europe did not set up their own infoboxes nor did they use this template like so many others. They've been using the European infobox. If IER is being migrated to IR, these usages should be transitioned not to |country=EUR like the European route articles, but instead to using their correct ISO 3611-1 alpha-3 codes. Then those countries' types/graphics/links should be set up at that time. Additionally, IER uses the "regions" parameter as a geographic subdivision. Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the Infobox road subtemplates to handle the Croatia ones. They currently use the regions parameter of {{Infobox European road}} but I think the counties one will do when converting over. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Set them up with regions... I believe that's being added here shortly. It's been added. If any other countries besides Croatia and Italy need to display regions though, they'll need to be added that to the test template, or they won't show. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, I've converted A1 (Croatia). Any comments before I do the rest? -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I guess they don't use the region name, so switching them to counties and removing the "County" part of the piped display would be better. In the example, Zagreb/Zagreb County should be City of Zagreb/Zagreb with the county label in that case. Also, |length_round=1 should be set since the km value has a single decimal point. Otherwise, it looks good! Imzadi 1979 → 21:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any plans to allow |states= for national Interstate and US Highway articles? I would implement it such that as long as |state= was not in use, |states= could be used. —Fredddie™ 21:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How about this idea. Let's get ALL of the location-type parameters together and implement them all. States would be beneficial for the US, Mexico and India, just off the top of my head. Hong Kong and one of the European countries from the IER conversion have "districts". I know Singapore uses "areas", but I'd combine that to "regions" since the term isn't specific, i.e. the links aren't to X Area or Y Area. Turkey uses "provinces", which was implemented. As TMF has done though, most of these geographic subdivisions have switches installed to prevent them from appearing on articles where they don't belong, which is a Good Thing™. Imzadi 1979 → 21:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one to add to the list. On the {{UK road routebox}} template, there's a parameter for Primary destinations. Could probably be split into towns and cities though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But unlike the other countries that use that output, there's an issue I noticed. The UK's Department for Transport actually publishes a list of primary destinations, and the UK boxes have a link to an article section that explains them. Several countries cloned the box, including the link to the UK's article. For the UK, I'd say if there's ever consensus to merge, then we'd need it. For the other countries, they should probably be split into cities/towns as you suggest unless some research uncovers an analog. Imzadi 1979 → 22:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see a list of exactly what's still needed before we make any more changes to the template. If we have to add any more country- or region-specific parameters, at this point it'll probably be necessary/better to retool the shutoffs in such a way that each country- or region-specific parameter has its own "test" template. – TMF 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering if the length_notes could be changed from:

{{#if:{{{length_notes|}}}|<br><small>{{{length_notes}}}</small>|}}

to

{{#if:{{{length_notes|}}}|{{#if:{{{length_mi|}}}{{{length_km|}}}
|<br><small>{{{length_notes}}}</small>|{{{length_notes}}}}}|}}

for cases such as Autovía A-92 where length_mi and length_km are not specified but length_notes is. This would get rid of the br tag and show the notes full size rather than small. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Would this be a good use of the section parameters instead? I'm not against this change, I'm just giving another option. —Fredddie™ 21:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, yes, it would. But I don't have all the info to be able to put in the individual lengths. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of having both sections start at Seville and end at their particular locations, which I think would be simpler than combining each until the split and then separate them out after the split. —Fredddie™ 21:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I did a segmented route for an Italian autostrada last night. In some fixes of state highways in the US during the parameter deprecations, I left the empty parameters there for lengths for a future editor to fill in, and just created the segments. Imzadi 1979 → 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed it to just two sections. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. and not related to the lengths issue above, but shouldn't all foreign language Spanish names for highways in the alternate_name field be in italics? Imzadi 1979 → 22:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I had added a parameter for that, but I removed it because I was told they shouldn't be in italics. – TMF 16:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify my comment, foreign scripts (Greek, Cyrillic, Kanji, etc.) aren't rendered in italics. Foreign words rendered in Roman script are italicized. When I set up the name templates for the Czech Republic and Slovakia, I did it with D{{{route}}} Motorway<br/>"Czech or Slovak word for motorway" {{{route}}}, which hard-coded that translation into the infobox. With Greek roads, only a transliteration of the Greek name would go in italics, but the Greek name in Greek script would not be italicized. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to call this parameter. There are two "supranational" highway networks, the European E-roads and an analog for Asian. In converting country-level articles from IER to IR, the E-roads were dumped into the map_notes parameter, which mimicked the location where they were in IER. I think though that when a roadway is part of a supranational network, that should be indicated some other way. I'd say use the spur_of=|spur_type= markup, but many of them are parts of several E-roads. How about a parameter that would display "Part of the <links to E-roads/AHS roads>" in the Route information section. As a preference, I'd prefer that the output of the parameter not be used with graphics and instead just links to the articles. Imzadi 1979 → 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd call them |E-roads= and |AHS_roads= with the text E-roads: and AHS roads: linking to the article about the respective system. —Fredddie™ 21:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's another idea. I was thinking of mimicking the spur output a bit, but that works too. Imzadi 1979 → 21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You could call it something like intl= or intl_type= or such. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Fredddie's approach is the better way to go here. – TMF 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In looking at a French usage, WOSlinker had put the E-roads in the |system] space, and that didn't look too bad actually. Imzadi 1979 → 02:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A1 autoroute (France) had already put them into the |system= parameter, so I just used the same location for the 4 others that I converted. For the Poland ones I converted, such as Expressway S5 (Poland), I used |map_notes= so that they were in a similar location as before conversion. I also did the Spain ones in a similar way. Once a dedicated parameter has been setup, I can go back and update them all to use it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

|translation=. On the /sandbox, I added a new subtemplate for translations. It's currently only set up for Russian motorways ({{Infobox road/translation/RUS}}), but the naming scheme is the same as the other subtemplates. It moves the translation to the first subheader line. The translation parameter will override the subtemplate if either exist. Demonstrations at Template talk:Infobox road/sandbox. —Fredddie™ 01:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Currently, there is a subtemplate, {{Infobox road/meta/colors}}, which works to control the color of the section headers, which now defaults to light blue. However, during the massive update that was just undertaken, it was not added to the main. Now, I think most of us agree that colors should be implemented, but I think where we disagree is how color should be implemented. Here's how I think we should implement colors. Feel free to comment at each point. —Fredddie™

1. Color combinations have to meet accessibility guidelines (WP:COLOR)
2. Colors should be representative of actual signage
3. Colors should be consistent at the country level
4. There will be special cases, but any exceptions must have logical arguments for their inclusion in the templates.

Here's my comments in brief. #1 is non-negotiable, and in surveying many of the other infoboxes, they don't always comply with the first point. In fact, the old version of this template didn't either. #2 is purely logical, otherwise the default shade of blue, or any neutral color, is perfectly fine. #3 is entirely appropriate, as this template is basically set up by country, and #4 gives us a reasonable level of flexibility. I can endorse all 4 points. Imzadi 1979 → 04:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't going to be germane to the discussion, but I have to comment on this anyway. The fact that there wasn't a clear consensus on how colors should be implemented and/or what colors should be used is exactly why it wasn't included in the backend revamp. The revamp was straightforward and uncontroversial - all it did was change how IBR stores its data - while colors have historically been a touchy subject around these parts. Thus, I didn't feel comfortable including it with the rest of the overhaul. Now...in an attempt to make this post help build consensus either way for the colors, here's my thoughts on the points:

1) Mandatory; no discussion needed. 2) I think this works best in Europe, where there's a greater emphasis on sign colors IRL than in North America. For countries or regions where none or very little connotation exists, a neutral design - the default black on blue in all likelihood - should be used. 3) Don't see why that wouldn't be the case. 4) There's exceptions for a lot of crap in the inner workings of IBR; no need for this to be an exception to that trend. =) – TMF 04:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with 2. There isn't a good reason (including WP:COLOR) for being limited to the colour combinations of official signage. They should be usable for organizational purposes as well, much as the case with wikiprojects such as WP:ALBUMS and WP:SONGS. I'd only endorse number 3 on the agreement that the implementation of these infoboxes into other countries by WP:USRD members doesn't count towards establishing the "norm" for a country, regardless if they do it now or did it years ago. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but that provision is built out of observations of other countries' signage practices where in many cases they don't have different road sign marker designs. In the UK, motorways have blue signage, primary A roads signs are green with yellow text and secondary road signs are white with black text. In that country, the color functions much like the Intestate shield denotes part of a freeway system in the US, the US shield means a road is a part of the United States Numbered Highway System and various state highway marker designs are used for state systems. That means color has a meaning in the UK and many other countries that it doesn't have in the US or Canada. Restricting color usage on the basis of signage is a valid compromise. Now, it's likely that unless/until there is agreement on that point, no color usage will be extended under this template. Btw, doesn't Ontario use another template instead of this one, so why does it currently matter? Imzadi 1979 → 05:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I need a second reply since you expanded your comments and edit-conflicted me, but this isn't WP:ALBUMS, this is WP:HWY. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Imzadi 1979 → 05:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Because Ontario would rather compromise where possible to achieve a better encyclopedia for all :) This is not WP:ALBUMS, but likewise where has WP:HWY previously specified this before? Nowhere - It's a new proposal.

In Canada, signage isn't a federal issue. It's handled province by province. Each province has remarkably different markers, using different colours and all sorts of shapes and most importantly, symbols. Symbols are too complex to represent by one colour, so instead a simpler method is to simply organize roads by their legal types. In Ontario this is the Controlled-Access Highway (Freeway), Provincial Highway or King's/Secondary/Teritiary Highway, followed by the County and then local roads. I don't see why other countries are able to use colours to differentiate between these types of roads solely because the route marker or the signs are coloured solidly that way. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that there are no proposals to set actually set the colors yet, just the principles behind which usages are to be used? We've all been assuming that you want Ontario to use this template if and only if Ontario articles would replicate the color scheme of {{infobox Ontario road}}, which is not based on signage but an arbitrarily chosen color scheme invented by you. Your attitude feels to me like the little kid making demands of others, or he'll take his ball and go home. We're all playing fast-pitch softball, but you keep insisting that the rest of us switch to slow-pitch softball. If you want to play ball, you're going to have to compromise a little

Now, Fredddie's proposal was all about the standards for the last uncompleted part of the template revamp: implementing alternate header colors in the template. The capability is there, it just needs to be activated in the main template. Of the 4 proposed principles, you don't like #2 because the color scheme from your template couldn't be imported into this template. You've yet to provide a case for including that scheme under point #4, because it was arbitrarily defined by you, and not defined elsewhere. This color=meaning classification would have no basis outside of the English Wikipedia articles on Ontario roads, which fails the burden needed for an exception under proposed principle #4. The system has only been around since February in the template namespace, so it's not like you're asking for a system of long-standing to be imported here either. As for your condition on point #3, that's baseless. Most of the countries where IR has been deployed have been by non-USRD members, and until a week ago, this template had no capability to add a color scheme of any kind. Imzadi 1979 → 09:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it funny that you compare me as in-superior. My point on number 3 is well based, since I can't roll out the colours country-wide if a few USRD editors have decided since they created a few stubs that they should have a say in the way everything goes, and will create a fuss just to be resistant. Ontario doesn't use coloured signs. Rather than being forced to use one colour for all roads (which perhaps the US enjoys, but I do not), I have chosen arbitrary colours to divide them into their very legally binded types. Arbitrary colours represent things in many facets of Wikipedia, and it really comes down to the point that not every single visible detail on the encyclopedia needs to be based upon something already in existence. I have created organization which you oppose because the signs posted once every 15km are white instead of coloured based on their type (but they are shaped or numbered based on their type instead).

Also, before you say it, as the information is still clearly presented in the article, no information is lost to colourblind users and therefore this would be acceptable under WP:COLOR. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you agree with #1? —Fredddie™ 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You keep attempting to paint this as a USRD vs. ONRD thing, which it isn't. We're all members of WP:HWY, and in the past that larger project might not have been as active on matters, this is a time that it isn't. It isn't as though this is the first time the template might be used outside of USRD scope. It also is not like "a few USRD editors... created a few stubs" because I know that US editors have expanded Canadian articles in the other provinces to GA status, and worked with other editors to help them achieve the same. Now then, at this time, I suggest that if you don't like the principles as proposed that you either make your own proposal or come to terms with the potential outcome that a consensus could form supporting them, or no consensus to implement colors in the template will form. Imzadi 1979 → 18:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't dislike the Ontario color scheme, per se (that's another discussion), but I would like to see one set of colors across Canada – Ontario's colors or not. —Fredddie™ 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I denote my full agreement with the four principles. --Rschen7754 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to roll it out across Canada. It would be impossible to do any colour in Canada on a nationwide level (except 10 TCH articles that don't need a unique colour) since the signage differs from one province to another, and one route to another. However, I can agree to 1, 3 and 4 in that light. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This answers my biggest complaint with the Ontario scheme – that it's not applied across Canada. Floydian, would you be willing to borrow the colors from the other provinces to kind of unify things? —Fredddie™ 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not sure there could be a consistent colour scheme seeing as each province has a different shield, but I'd be happy to work with the editors in Canada to come to an agreeable consensus on it (in the end I think nation-wide consensus should override number two). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, would you object to IR not displaying any color scheme until one is developed, allowing Ontario to merge back into the fold now, rather than later? Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I would, because then there would be no incentive to add them and things will fall into status-quo territory. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Color schemes that are needed

Ok, the color subtemplate has gone live, but so far only the UK and Italy are supported in it. Please list any color schemes here that are needed to accommodate other countries' templates with color codes and type names so that they can be added as needed to the template. Imzadi 1979 → 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If desired, Luxembourg used a blue shade, "#3366c6" for their header with white text and a medium blue, "#CEDEFF" for section headers. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If desired, Spain used background color "#0c0" green for E-route, "#FF0000" for National Roads and "#003399" blue for other types. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add the following switch to {{Infobox road/meta/colors}} above the line starting with |ITA=.

 |DEU={{#switch:{{{type|}}}
  |A|Autobahn=background:#039; color:#fff;
  |B|Bundesstraße|Bundesstrasse=background:#FC3; color:black
  }}

This will add the correct colors for Germany to the template. Imzadi 1979 → 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done as requested – TMF 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)