Talk:Newcastle Inner City Bypass

Australia: New South Wales / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Newcastle Inner City Bypass is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Australian Roads: New South Wales Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Australian Roads, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads and highways in Australian states and territories. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Australian RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Australian RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Australian RoadsAustralia road transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Topics:
/
	New South Wales

This article needs a KML file. If it already has one, purge this page, or add |needs-kml=no to the WikiProject Australian Roads banner.

Confusing history

As a reader who is not overly familiar with the Newcastle area, I find this article quite confusing in its current state. The route description and the history of its construction appear to be all mixed together. It is also unclear why the Newcastle Inner City Bypass should be regarded as four sections, with a gap in the middle where another section would be, rather than regarding it as a single contiguous route (A37), or simply two sections, not four. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem confusing, even to me, and I'm a local. The road has been planned since at least the 1960s. A large tract of land was set aside for the northern part, which was opened in 2014, and is shown in a 1971 street directory that I have here. It's actually three distinct sections right now, the two shown in the infobox and a missing section between McCaffrey Drive and Jesmond. It has been built in four section with a fifth yet to be built. By the time that is built we'll probably have flying cars. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tickhole Tunnel

I don't see the encyclopaedic value in mentioning Tickhole Tunnel at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the road. It isn't under a bridge, it's about 30m under the hill, well below and out of sight of the road. It really is as irrelevant as mentioning electricity transmission towers that cross the road, or Shirley Smith's house. Even the distance to the tunnel is irrelevant. It's not an identifiable feature, like an intersection or an actual bridge so inclusion serves no purpose in the article. It's not something that would ever be used by anyone using the road. Driving along that part of the road is just like driving along any unremarkable section. There is no evidence that the tunnel even exists. It's certainly not an interchange so it shouldn't be in a list of interchanges. There's no way to get to the tunnel from the road, even if there was an accident and a car crashed over the side of the hill. Not everything needs to be included in an article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the tunnel even exists. So if it doesn't exist, how come an article was written 10 months ago with multiple third party cites yet has not been deleted? Maybe because it actually does exist. The reason given for reversal of Inclusion of tickhole tunnel has been opposed [1] was a bit presumptuous. Implies that a consensus has alraedy been reached, rather than being the opinion of one editor. Does look like of an editor taking WP:OWNERSHIP. Electricity transmission towers or Shirley Smith's house are not relevant because they do not have articles, failing WP:N unlike Tickhole Tunnel. Silverserv (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't quote content out of context. The actual quote should have been Driving along that part of the road is just like driving along any unremarkable section. There is no evidence that the tunnel even exists. Nobody driving along the road would be aware that the tunnel exists, there are no turnoffs, no interchanges, no bridge, no signs, etc that would indicate the presence of a tunnel.

The reason given for reversal of "Inclusion of tickhole tunnel has been opposed" was a bit presumptuous. Implies that a consensus has alraedy been reached - Incorrect. I suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. The latter specifically states "During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain". In short, when the addition of content has been opposed, the contested section should remain at the revision prior to addition of disputed content until there is consensus to include it. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Support - I agree that the tunnel should not be in the Interchange list as the railway line does not intersect with Charlestown Road, but since the tunnel is of heritage importance and it happens to be under this road, I think it would be appropriate to talk about it in the main article.Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this seems blunt, but why? The tunnel has absolutely nothing to do with the road, at all. It might be relevant in the suburb article, because the tunnel is in the suburb, but as you've noted the railway line does not intersect with Charlestown Road. By contrast, there are heritage listed buildings visible from the road. Should we include them? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been focussed away from Wikipedia for a few days, and just noticed there had been this this discussion. As the editor who originally inserted the mention of Tickhole Tunnel, I obviously supported its inclusion. Initially, when I created the junction list, it just said "railway line" at the two points where this road crossed railways on a map. As they aren't level crossings on a freeway, I assumed they were both bridges without any further thought (wikiminiatlas doesn't show anything different). The next day, I confirmed which railway line it is under each "bridge", and wikilinked the railway crossings (it turned out to be the same line both times). I noticed that the railway article route map named one of the "bridges" as a tunnel, so went and read the article and discovered the tunnel is older than the road, but not very long. I'd say that a short tunnel is worth noting on a road article as "train nuts" driving along the road will notice that the railway has changed sides and wonder where it happened, especially if the tunnel is not noticeable from the road. Looking at the contour map, it looks like the prose should say "...along a saddle..." rather than "...up the ridge...". As for not seeing it or having access from the road, Google Streetview suggests otherwise: Glimpse of railway through the trees, pedestrian access down from the footpath. I would generally consider it worth mentioning anything vertically above or below the subject of a Wikipedia article that is worthy of mentioning in Wikipedia - bridge, river, railway, tunnel, mine, etc. One of the references mentions in passing that the mine voids created interesting challenges for the road builders, I would consider including that too if there was more than two sentences in a 7-page report that explicitly does not discuss them and does not name the mines. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that a short tunnel is worth noting on a road article as "train nuts" driving along the road will notice that the railway has changed sides and wonder where it happened - Wikipedia isn't a tourism guide for train or any other type of nuts. "Where it happened" is best explained in the tunnel article, if anywhere, not in the really unrelated road article.

Google Streetview suggests otherwise - Having driven along that road a million times, I know where it crosses, but I can't see it from the car.

You need to remember the way that we write articles, as I explained at WT:AURD, especially here and here --AussieLegend (✉) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Newcastle Inner City Bypass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]