Template talk:Road infrastructure in Hobart

Possible new template
Hobart

Thoughts?
Every time I visit an article with both this info box and the Road infrastructure in Tasmania (eg: Brooker Highway) I cant help but feel frustrated that both infoboxs look too much alike. I was very impressed with the infobox setup on the Gateway Motorway article which inspired me to create something better for this infobox. Does anyone agree that the above would be better for Hobart's Roads Template? If this design were to be adopted, I dare say missing information cut from Hobart's infobox would need to be moved onto the Road infrastructure in Tasmania infobox (as the Tasmanian infobox appears in all the same articles as the Hobart infobox). Wiki ian 19:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to base the code off the navbox series of templates - navbox with columns would allow for a similar design to the above to be built. This would mean the styling would be inline with the vast majority of wikipedis'a navboxes, would correct the alignment of the top bar (edit link causes it not to be centred), allow for auto-collapse on any pages with multiple navboxes, and would be the full page width
 * I think it would be better to use road full names, rather than chopping off the "Road" or "Highway" etc at the end of the name, or other bits of the name. Also in my opinion, "Midland (Bypass)" is too easy to misinterpret - is it clear to an outsider that "bypass" refers to Brighton Bypass?
 * There are problems with information only being presented via route marker images, but that is a wider issue than just this navbox - see this thread.
 * You asked for alternatives on WT:AURD, one such alternative could be to merge the Hobart and Tasmania templates (not saying that this is necessarily a good idea, just another option you may wish to consider). - Evad37 (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interpretation of the changes Evad has suggested. This could be built upon as you see fit. -- Nbound (talk)

Hobart