Template talk:Infobox road

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See the template for a primer on how to use this infobox.

Contents

[edit] Comments

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)

[edit] Usage

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)

[edit] Copy and paste

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Helpme - white space

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)

[edit] New Kilometer Calculating

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)

[edit] Instructions

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)

[edit] Disambiguation

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)

[edit] Recent changes in color/design

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_sonLets 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_sonLets 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)

[edit] Valign?

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)

[edit] An idea-font size?

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_sonLets 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)

[edit] International usage?

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_sonTalk - 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_sonTalk - Edits 17:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new maint parameter

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

[edit] Map aspect ratio

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 sonT - C 22:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting Highways

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)

[edit] Spurs

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)

[edit] City Streets

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)

[edit] Image/caption

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)

[edit] Infobox_road map size

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)