Talk:Road signs in Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Highways: Europe Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the European Highways Task Force.

Extraordinary rendition?

Have removed the following from the article:

The signs warning for animals do not render the vehicle, as is usual of other states' signs, but only render the animal in question (for example the famous elk warning sign).

because it is unclear what it means (can't see how the Norwegian "Caution: Elk/Cows/Sheep/Ducks/etc. signs differ from their counterparts in other lands. which also "render" only the species in question, not the vehicle). -- Picapica (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of images to show

Due to the nature of this article, I used a gallery “template” in order to hide signs (not a template in the Wikipedia sense). With this, I wanted to achieve emphasis on the general sign description, with examples of the actual signs available at a whim. I also hope it prevents hidden signs from being loaded until shown, but I am not able to confirm if this is the case.

Two things that might see a benefit of being changed is the number of images shown by default, and prevent loading for hidden images, if that's not already the case. For the first issue, I chose 14 images, which makes two lines on a 1440 px wide screen. I thought three lines seemed too much, and perhaps it could be adjusted to make two lines on a 768 px or 800 px wide screen. I'd only like to see this change done by someone with a professional opinion on these internet aesthetic matters or someone authoritative, as anyone else's opinion would be no better than mine. Not without some discussion (here), at least. 158.37.73.71 (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be removing the image hiding function I put in. The first edit did not give any reason, and the recent second edit had a reason “unreasoned hiding. Too large articles should be split, not hidden.” I don't think hiding images in a list-like article as this one is unreasonable to hide. I hid them to prevent visitors from loading them all, with a show/hide function for those specifically interested in viewing them. The article isn't “too large” content-wise, so it definitely shouldn't be split to sub-pages. It just has a lot of images due to the nature of the subject, and it might not be in everyone's interest to scroll through all of them over having a show/hide function for each section.

I won't bother starting an editing war, but I would at least like to see some reasonable discussion on it here. Why is it better to show all the images in this case? The size difference between hiding and showing images is quite large when it comes to the ~32 kB philosophy. I also think the article has improved browsability with hidden images. The headlines for each sign type gets engulfed by images as it is.

It would be nice if others could actually discuss this here, instead of just editing in their own opinions. 158.37.73.30 (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Norwegian-road-sign-408.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Norwegian-road-sign-650.41.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons

The sign galleries should be moved on a commons page, as Wikipedia is not a gallery, nor an indiscriminate collection of information (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). --JTE Dimandix (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect description of sign

The description of roundabout is inncorrect.

Sign nr 406 only mandatory circular driving direction, not that it is a roundabout.

If it is combined with a yield sign (sign nr 202), then it's a roundabout. It's a traffic circle if it has only sign 406.

A usage if only sign 406, is a circular road for dropping of children in front of a school...

https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2005-10-07-1219/KAPITTEL_5 88.88.74.114 (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@88.88.74.114: I have Norwegian driving licence. "Traffic circle" is a synonym of "roundabout" (see its article), meaning both terms are the same meaning.

The Norwegian term rundkjøring is translated as "roundabout".

The sign 406 is used only on roundabouts where entering traffic must give way to traffic in the roundabout (the sign is always combined with give way sign). There are circular roads that are not roundabout, where vehicles must give way to traffic coming from right unless otherwise signposted. In case of one-way circular road that is not a roundabout, the sign 406 is not used. Instead, either the sign 402.1 or 404.1 is posted. See Harald Hårdrådes plass for example. This also includes one-way circular road for dropping children in front of a school. --Stylez995 (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]