This is an archive of past discussions about User:Evad37. 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.
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Disambiguation link notification for January 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kwinana Freeway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Evad37, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Rschen775404:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Riverside Drive, Perth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Midland Health Campus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King Edward Memorial Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, thanks for adding to the article. Your recent addition somewhat duplicates (although also expands on) some information already in the article, in the "identification" section. I suggest finding a way to consolidate the information. Jprg1966(talk)01:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Whilst there is a bit of an overlap, they do discuss different things: In the Background section, the information is on the advice given to the Australian government in 2010, whilst in the Identification section the information is what Bob Carr said initially and then subsequently. If you can reduce the amount of duplication whilst keeping the relevant information in both sections, please go ahead and do it. - Evad37 (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
GNH
Thanks for that at great northern highway - have been tweaking the wikivoyage version... different planet mind you. cheers sats15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
road project - good idea - we actually need an australian rail one as well - you have been given good advice from someone who ought to know - hope we can talk about it at the meetup. cheers sats08:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - it's good to here someone else say its a good idea. I was actually hoping to raise the idea on WP:AWNB before the meetup - in the next couple of days - but there's no firm timetable. If you have any advice or suggestions of your own, feel free to leave them here on my talk page. - Evad37 (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
NP, Australia has a number of holding sub projects that are not officially dead, but they smell that way. The thing about starting projects (I'll sprout forth on my actual experiences at meetup rather than here) is it is always important to have a few good coders as helpers - friends - like the guy I am having runins with over the Australian spelling hidden category - he looks as though his command of the various needs for knowledge about the syntax is that he would be a brilliant merchant of good code and good will for a template or two, if he was willing - to have at least someone to have the knowledge of how to get into the bowels of templates and their mechanisms, is the first thing. Some projects look half started on their project pages, lots of parts missing - anatomically challenged... Some get far too big and enroach into subjects they shouldnt touch - ships smelt like an rotting anthropomorphic extension of milhist some years back, and anything that could float seemed to be appropriated. The better projects like milhist know when to create task forces...
The other thing is to look at a project/portal that you like (a) the look of (some look like they have been created in a stolen car processing shed in wanneroo... if you get my gist) (b) functionality (death project I didnt do any coding/making, but was on parts of the expansion... - it has perhaps too many bells and whistles - looks good, but where do you stop? I think polinosiss got burnt out after making it and moved on...).
My preference for projects brought scorn from fellow west ozzies in the early days - they didnt see the important assessment and maintenance issues that a project can do for a subject area. Many go a certain distance and then die. Every now and then there are gems out there, and I suspect they have a vital part of what makes wikipedia (ok some would be very contrary in their arguments against that), and they can in turn be tied into portals, and also they tie-in all the loose ends of a subject that might not be otherwise contained in free standing unallocated articles - and in turn, can also hilight the missing bits simply by having a manageable category tree... From that there might be the thought that 'roads' in australia might be more broader and fittable into the larger scheme of things in a 'land transport in australia' context - but hey having the advice from others... its a few minutes out of your life to get it up and running... and dont under any circumstances let anyone put you off - even if you get it up and running and that was it, that in itself would be big plusses all around... btw my tally for MRD ex employees of recent who might be good contacts for extra info - one died in December, and the other I only see every 2 months
At what stage does this RFC close? Who decides? I think there is clearly a case for renaming the article... and I think that is the consensus. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2013
Nothing has been done re the 'Request for closure' but a bot has removed the RFC template as 'expired'. I'm tempted to close it myself - is there a reason I can not do that???? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Technically anyone can close, though it is usually done by an uninvolved editor / admin, so as to assess the arguments and determine (rough) consensus from a neutral position, and avoid (potential) claims of bias, or an unfair close.
Please also note that there is no WP:DEADLINE, and there are no dire consequences of closing later rather than sooner. It is listed on AN/RFC, so a volunteer will close it eventually.
If you do decide to close, please read WP:CLOSE carefully, particularly the section How to determine the outcome. A couple of key points are: "A good admin [or other closer] will transparently explain how the decision was reached", and the paragraph beginning "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy". - Evad37 (talk) 11:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I have been holding back as I do have an opinion. Sure is slow though - I think the consensus has been clear for a while. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Shiftchange. I was assessing according to The B-class criteria for WikiProject Highways. My main concern is that that it is missing a route description section and an intersection list.
The route description could be integrated into the "Design" section, and would basically describe where it starts, the route it follows, and where it finished, including distances to features, eg from start to the river, from the river to Shafston Avenue, and then to the Pacific Motorway. The distances can be taken from Google maps if there is no better source available, and cited using the {{Google maps}} template.
An intersection/exit list is usually more than just a list, and should contain, for each entry, the location (ie suburb), the (wikilinked) name of road, and route designation if applicable, and destinations (such as what appears on the green background advance guide signs). Again it can be sourced to Google maps, although a published street map can also be used.
The Causeway is an article I recently got to GA, and while it is a bridge, it has the same sections I describe above.
I also have some suggestions if you want to take the article to WP:GAN:
There are a couple of section 2 headings with only two sentences in them - they should be either be expanded or integrated into other sections.
The lead should summarise the article, and its content should be reflected and expanded on in the body of the text. Half of the refs in the lead don't appear elsewhere in the article, and outside of the lead, the history starts off with the announcement of the successful tenderer.
Every paragraph should end with a reference - most do, but there are a couple that don't.
Refs 8, 9, 38, 39, 44 only have a linked title. They should at least have the publisher, and preferably also date and access date.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Have you ever thought about taking some of your GAs to ACR? It's a good place to prepare for FAC, should you be interested in that. It's entirely been U.S. and Ontario (Canada) roads so far that have gone through there, but we want to encourage editors from around the world to take road articles to FAC. I don't think the infobox issue should be an issue - there may be some disagreement, but nothing in the Australian infobox violates MOS, as far as I am aware, and that's what matters for FAC. --Rschen775404:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that you should consider ACR. I'd gently encourage switching the infobox over in any nominated articles and encourage making suggestions for updates. That said, I wouldn't formally oppose promotion on that basis, but rather I'd reiterate my suggestion to consider it. One update that we did make at one point was to add a parameter to note road restrictions which was inspired by an Australian article or two. For example, look at Brockway Mountain Drive, Interstate 696 or H-58 (Michigan county highway) for FAs on American roads that have access restrictions noted in their infoboxes. Imzadi 1979→05:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both for your encouragement. Going through ACR is on my to-do list (and I would definitely do so before FAC), so I probably will get around to taking some articles there eventually. I problem is I can foresee is the lack of free available data (from reliable sources, as opposed to Google maps). The data exists, but you have to pay for it (eg, Road centreline data (Shape Files) are charged at $102.73 per MB!). - Evad37 (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but when it comes time to implement the banner for WP:AURD, I would suggest continuing the naming convention for the other roads projects' assessment categories: Category: Foo road transport articles and Category:FA-Class Foo road transport articles. Eventually, I want to get a leaderboard similar to WP:USRD/A/S and WP:CRWP/A/P set up that lists each of WP:HWY's subprojects and TFs for comparison, and it would simplify things to keep the naming harmonized. Imzadi 1979→09:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The main work required will be adding |road=yes and |road-importance= to the talk page tag, but I'm thinking a bot could do most of the initial work, since every article within Category:Roads in Australia is within scope. What will need to be done manually is tagging related articles such as Main Roads Western Australia that aren't in that category, and then assessing quality and importance per the AURD assessment scales. (But see next point)
I've made the necessary code for the {{WP Australia}} talk page banner, but its a fully protected template, so an admin needs to implement it - I've put an edit protected request on Template talk:WikiProject Australia
Sure, either category name is fine by me
The other thing you could do would be to invite anyone who might be interested to take a look. The wikipedians I am (currently in the middle of) inviting are:
Just about all of the other ones are named that way. I'm not sure how the name came about, but I guess we're stuck with the convention. --Rschen775403:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
OK - thanks for explaining that - that helps allay a sense of something or others - I think the explanation here needs to be made on the project page very clearly in words of one syllable sats03:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thanks for info on the bot... sure takes the anticipation of repetitive strain injury of my keying fingers down a few rungs... sats08:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is at WP:HWY/ACR. It's hopefully going to get promoted out of there in the next few days. Then it's headed to WP:FAC in an attempt to get the article promoted in time (which is short) to be a WP:TFA on the centennial of the system on May 13, 2013. If you're willing to look over the article and just make sure things look ok from a basic standpoint, that would be appreciated. We have one review just about complete and a second due tomorrow evening (American time). I think we have the third and final reviewer lined up for ACR, but any comments on prose and copy editing are always appreciated so we can polish this article as much as possible. Imzadi 1979→06:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I've implemented fixes to all but the map. I can do that in a couple hours when I'm back at my regular computer. If I missed something, or I did a fix the wrong way, just comment on the ACR page. Our goals with ACR has always been to have a forum for a good level of scrutiny, like FAC, but without the drama and deadlines of FAC. We do try to be quite collaborative when we can... and since this is an article on a system, not a specific highway, we don't quite have the formula down yet. Imzadi 1979→09:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mitchell Freeway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caissons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
USRD has its own newsletter, The Centerline, and this quarter's issue will have some mention of the founding of AURD. Would you like to write up a paragraph or two and post them in our newsroom on the project? I put a placeholder at the moment in our "state updates" section, but ideally it will run as a feature. Imzadi 1979→04:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be compiling the features and things into the issue here shortly. Today's project on my day off is to drive up to Lansing, Michigan, to photograph Interstate 496 to help illustrate that article while its at ACR, and do some research at the Library of Michigan. If you would like, as as contributor to the issue, I can add you to the mailing list when we publish the issue after I get back. Imzadi 1979→13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, you might as well add me. I remember reading a previous issue with a feature on KML that was quite interesting... I think I saw the link on someone's talk or user page. - Evad37 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, hope to be back to full steam next week. As it turned out this was only a semi-break due to the infobox discussion at WP:AURD. As I mentioned in my notice above, my low activity level on WP is only due to stuff IRL. - Evad37 (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
just outta curiosity - do you use main roads distance charts at all? i have located an old paper copy... any use in the overall scheme of things at all? sats11:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean something like this [1]. I haven't so far, though thinking about it, it would be good reliable reference to how far away locations are from Perth or other locations... something for my to-do list. - Evad37 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that the paper version has some damned good info re distances on alignments of roads that were current in the 90's - there are always good usages - might create a subpage offline first from what i have found - will let you know how it goes sats15:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Evad37, thank you for the invitation to join the project. I will give consideration to your request, but need a few days. My inclination at this stage is positive, will get back to you. cheers, Summerdrought (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi I have design a new look in sandbox for main page it has the same content but in a different look and looks newer it has some content from your proposal for the main page in 2012 please visit Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox but I made some adjustments to it by adding colour Paladox2014 (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
As I've told you before, there is little point in creating new Main Page designs based on what you think looks good, rather than what the Wikipedia community wants. If we are patient and follow the process outlined here, there is a chance of the Main Page being improved. - Evad37 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi do you know how to change a photo slightly because I would like this to have the circle around it on this And this and this please Paladox2014 (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Within the green bar at the top of the page, there is a "New request" link (at the right-hand side). Click that and follow the instructions. - Evad37 (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I know the RFC has only been posted for a day, but I find the feed back thus far to be very positive and helpful. I hope that this redesign fosters an environment where we can be creative while we collaborate, and generate something fresh. --NickPenguin(contribs)14:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem to be going well so far, with good ideas posted. I particularly like the idea of a design that doesn't require balancing or use tables - it should probably be a design requirement. - Evad37 (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.
{{help me}}
Can someone who is already subscribe to the WikiEN-l mailing list post a notification for the main page RFC? This was previously suggested as a place to advertise the RFC (Wikipedia talk:MPR#Advertising), but I would prefer not to have go through the process of signing up to the list and then unsubscribing just to post a message. The content of the message would just be something like:
The Wikipedia community is invited to comment on the main page's design, content, and purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:2013_main_page_redesign_proposal/RFC
Have you tried asking at Wikipedia talk:Mailing lists? I only suggest this because it seems like not many who are monitoring the IRC helper channel are a member of that mailing list despite it spamming the channel with notifications. Just a thought. Mkdwtalk05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Good news Evad37! User:Ushau97 was able to post it and it is now awaiting approval by a moderator for the mailing list. I guess asking in the open helped others to respond. Mkdwtalk05:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope you get some gold medals from somewhere for what youre doin on the roads... could you do your magic tricks vis a vis roads at my newbie freo stub Mouat Street - i promise ill watch to see if i can learn something.... :) - sats09:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Trove newspaper search can be a goldmine, for anything pre 1950s - though there are a lot of results only tangentially relevant. Finding a relevant ref from Trove should protect the article from people looking to CSD or AfD.
Google maps can give be a source for length and route description: Get directions from one end of the street to the other, the click the "link" button at the top-right of the directions pane to get a url for the directions
Also, the sections of a road/street article are usually ==History==, ==Route description==, and either ==Intersections== or ==Interchanges== or similar (though perhaps not so relevent on such a short street) - Evad37 (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
very very useful - thanks - i agree about trove it can be my second home when not tagging talk pages... nah i was intrigued in the past by your kml tricks as much as anything... other info still very useful - thanks sats10:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
hi could we also host Wikipedia 2013 main page redesign on simple englash because it also needs a new main page desgn Paladox2014 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Paladadox. It isn't really appropriate for the English Wikipedia to be redesigning Simple English Wikipedia's main page (or any other language Wikipeida, or any sister project). You are of course free to suggest they consider a redesign (eg at simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk), and they are free to take and modify for there own purposes any designs that we, or any other project, come up with. - Evad37 (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
wow - for todays work - thank you for that - the weight of the tagging confirmed articles issue has been lifted - thanks and cheers sats08:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
IAusR
Its looking pretty clear to me that Aussie does already have a plan in regards to IAusR. Do you think we should open up the survey at this point? (If you agree, feel free to open it btw). I do agree its likely that the eventual outcome would be a good candidate for future deletion (or probably merger) under various policies, of course thats another set of hoops to jump through. From what I can see at this stage anyway, its significantly more complex to use than IR. The already created code is visible by editing the page. -- Nbound (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Nbound, what appears to be clear to you is not clear at all. You are completely misconstruing the work that I have been doing. Please wait and don't go off half-cocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Re Nbound & AussieLegend: So there's been some wikidrama going on while I've been away from the computer today. I know we all want to improve wikipedia, it is obvious from our contribution histories. Accusations of bad faith, implicit or explicit, do not help. For the record, I have no problem with any user experimenting with templates in their user pages (I did so, before the RfC began). With regards to the RfC, lets just continue the status quo, waiting for interested parties to comment so we can discuss their concerns, and find solutions to problems. - Evad37 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have offered AussieLegend an unreserved apology if he beleives I have portrayed him negatively, on my talk page. Nbound (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
I would like to nominate it soon, but not just yet. I would actually like to try to expand the history section paragraph "Several stages were built...", and it would be good if the proposed IAusR infobox update occured prior to nominating at FAC. Plus I have exams coming up in the middle of June... so probably after that - Evad37 (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
{{NSWcity}}
I assume that you wrote {{NSWcity}} for roads use, but it seems to me that it would be a useful template for all AU geographical articles, for all states. I'm thinking that maybe {{NSWcity}} can be modified to become {{AUcity}}, with wrappers like {{QLDcity}}, {{VICcity}} etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did write that template, as well as others in that series: {{WAcity}} (the original template), {{SAcity}}, and {{ACTcity}}. It's not really that hard to make new ones - the most time consuming part is copying the documentation over and updating it with local examples. Since as its not that complicated to create new ones, and half already exist, I'm not sure how much benefit it would be to have a core template with wrappers. It might also be more complicated to have hard coded exceptions to the general pattern, such as {{WAcity|perth}} linking to Perth (suburb). Making the ones that don't yet exist is on my to do list, I've just been a caught up in other things. Oh, and yes, they could be useful in geo articles, or any other article for that matter - Evad37 (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Flyby comment, but the exceptions should be changed to match "<City>, <State name>". Natural disambiguations are preferred to using a descriptor in brackets. What few exceptions that still may exist for various reasons, such as being very notable, could still be fixed by adding a redirect at the currently blank "<City>, <State name>" page -- Nbound (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there are exceptions that can't be made to match the rule. Perth (suburb) is only a very small part of Perth, which until around 1 year ago was located at Perth, Western Australia (which is now a redirect to Perth). I believe there are also cases in at least one of the states (Victoria?) where there are locations in the state with the same name, which need to be dab'ed by LGA and state. - Evad37 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! So basically what I'm proposing is that we let the infobox matter drop for a while. We'll go ahead with the conversion of {{Infobox road}} to Lua, and incorporate as much Wikidata functionality as possible (the devs are a bit slow). Then we can revisit the issue in a (probably sitewide) RFC.
With that being said, you run the risk of having objections over the infobox at any FACs in the meantime, and in my opinion (which you are free to take or leave) it would be safer to convert articles going to FA to Infobox road. I believe that there may be comments or even opposes solely over the fact that the article is using {{Infobox Australian road}}, and it's always a gamble to see what the delegates do in situations like that. But meanwhile it means that we're not fighting over this for the next two months. Does that sound good? --Rschen775403:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at WT:FAC#External links for context, where a FAC regular expressed concern over the separate infobox... there may be unknown MOS deficiencies (one of which was found just now) but again, people may oppose solely over the separate infobox. --Rschen775403:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with that. It probably coincides with the watchlist notice expiring. Feel free to go ahead with the next steps, I will likely be busy IRL for the next week. - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Highway; National Highway 94 western terminus; National Route 1 concurrency terminus (continues south-west as Canning Highway; [[Interchange_(road)#Other.2Fhybrid_interchanges_2|Hybrid]]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Armadale Road may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* {{AUshield|S|13}} Lake Road (State Route 13}}, [[Forrestdale, Western Australia|Forrestdale]] (to [[Champion Lakes, Western Australia|Champion
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scarborough Beach Road may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* [[Hutton Street]], [[Osborne Park, Western Australia|Osborne Park]] – to [{{WAcity|Tuart Hill}}, to [[Mitchell Freeway]] (State Route 2)
Road, [[Doubleview, Western Australia|Doubleview]] – to [[Karrinyup, Western Australia|Karrinyup]])
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Karrinyup Road may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
* {{AUshield|S|2}} [[Mitchell Freeway]] 9State Route 2), [[Gwelup, Western Australia|Gwelup]], [[Innaloo, Western Australia|Innaloo]] and [[Stirling,
Could we have a thank you message and a note to participate in the next stages of the discussion sent out to all participants in the RfC when we finalize how to carry forward with the process?
That's a good idea... maybe a bot could go through the page to pickup all the users that participated, and then deliver a message to their talk pages? - Evad37 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I believe the Edwardsbot can do the deliverng if we populate a list, so all we need is a bot to go through the page and make a list of participating users. I suggest using the Page history or something similar to check, as some of the new users will have added to the conversation without a proper sign.
Also, before that, we need to finalise and set out on the exact procedure we'll follow for the next step. Given the mess the RfC has been, I'll be much more comfortable with dealing with a procedure with prior designs.
+1 on the kudos for the photos. So Ferres Drive was originally part of Tonkin... you learn something new everyday (especially if you hang out around wikipedia). Once I've brought the route descriptions up to scratch, I plan to take another look at the history section, especially recent history - I'll see if I can come up with any good sources on Tonkin Hwy shifting, otherwise an old plus a recent map reference will do. And once the article is a bit longer, I'll add some more photos from commons:Category:Tonkin Highway. And as you may have guessed, this is the next article I plane to take to GA status (and beyond). - Evad37 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
First the diff page and now that... not sure it is a good idea, will take a lot to convince me I think... as long as the default to old stuff remains, ageing brain might cope... sats08:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Infobox road
Hi! It seems that some of your changes [3] fell through the cracks and never got integrated into the template. Happy5214's going to copy the current version and try and merge it because he needs to use the sandbox, but after that if you want to take a look I can see about making it go live. Sorry about that! --Rschen775408:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
For the maps on wikivoyage - appreciate them - is it possible to ask for some more if the articles are created? sats03:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, I can make more maps - putting them on wikivoyage was actually an afterthought, after I'd made them for there articles here. I do intend to make maps for more road articles, now that I have a relatively good dataset that is licensed as CC-BY, but I can do others if you want. (The ones I've already done are in commons:Category:Road maps of Australia) - Evad37 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I have arranged a script to be written which should allow these to be copied across (and changes to licensing/description made on the fly). If you want more details pop onto IRC and we can discuss specifics :) (too slow on here). -- Nbound (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems basically okay. However: The source could specify the page numbers (202–207). The rest of the source line "and/or other applicable standards/diagrams (or approximated)" seems a bit too vague - it would be better to actually identify the other standards and diagrams used, for the relevant images. Same goes for the sources for #4,6,8. The author field should also be split between those with Standards Australia as the original author, and be less vague than "applicable state transport/roads department (or equivalent)" for the others. - Evad37 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I dont know/have that information, Id appreciate some help in figuring that out (if you dont mind) :) -- Nbound (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Sources should be in the shields archive - the photos and documents we linked to during discussions. Identifying the author shouldn't be too hard, eg for NSW alphanumeric markers it would be the RTA, and for ACT Tourist drives it would be TAMS, etc. - Evad37 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The road maps shouldn't be done as a whole category, only the ones with PD-ineligible-USonly shields need to be moved (see list below). And their licencing should stay the same, but add {{Do not move to Commons}} and a note "Route marker images are public domain in the US (PD-ineligible-USonly), but may not be so in Australia or other countries."
We can do the maps by hand then I reckon (just upload with a slightly different name on WP, then delete Commons version). We can use Commonist for bulk uploads to en.wiki aswell. Seeing theres no bulk upload web interface for en.wiki. Its easiest for the script just to handle whole categories apparently, and there is only a hadnful to be moved really, so I'll let legoktm know we are good to go, and we'll see what happens. -- Nbound (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
@Nbound: Any progress or potential timeframe for the moves? - Evad37 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I asked lego yesterday and he's been busy but will work on the script soon, Ive suggested he move the former shields first as it doesnt stuff things up much if the move goes pear shaped -- Nbound (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Girl Peace Scouts (Australia)
Are you planning to write Girl Peace Scouts (Australia). If not, then your edit to Scouting and Guiding in Queensland should be reverted as the earlier link does at least lead somewhere where the reader can see something about it. Even if you are planning to write that article, your edit should be reverted until the article has been written. I doubt whether there will be enough good sources to make that topic notable, but I could be wrong. --Bduke(Discussion)08:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted my edit, but it is not ideal to link to a disambiguation page (I found it while going through Australia-related topics with DAB solver) - Evad37 (talk) 08:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up, I've modified Module:LegendRJL to have a new colour for an "allocation terminus", (see: Module:LegendRJL/sandbox). A discussion on merging this can be found here.
It was one of the downloads from here [4] - I think it was 1:5 million. Imported relevant shapefiles from the GIS data into QGIS. Colours and line thickness were initially based on what WP:USRD/M has, but then I adjusted it somewhat to suit. It's from 2004, so some things are obviously outdated, but the only big projects in WA in the last 10 years have on existing alignements, or within the Perth metro area. The dataset covers the whole of Australia, but I'd have to check and manually separate national routes from national highways, and in NSW/ACT, correlate old route numbers to new alpha routes. Also, I've been taking a break from making map images until the shield copyright situation is sorted out would seem strange to claim here the shields are PD-USonly, while they are still tagged as PD-self or CC0 on commons. - Evad37 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Im having trouble keeping in contact with legoktm about the script, and last I heard it still wasnt started, it'd be a big job but we can do it by hand if need be. The files would need new names on WP and then the existing ones on commons tagged for deletion. As mentioned previously the required changes (unless there are any further chanegs required) are here, with the addition of the maps you have created with the new shields aswell. Tools like Commonist should help. -- Nbound (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I have been in contact with another person with scripting skills, so we'll see how this pans out first :) -- Nbound (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should start a thread to draw up the standards for AU mapping, we should do this now before we have too many new maps which use different schemes. Presumably it would be mostly based of your choices anyway. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Sound reasonable. Later tonight I'll look through the settings I used and post them here, and then we can take it from there. - Evad37 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is the settings I'm using:
Regional/Statewide/Multi-state maps
Derived from Geoscience Australia GIS data (2004) [CC-BY-AU]. New roads can be added if a KML file exists.
Background colours:
Land: RGB 245,245,231 = HTML #F5F5E7
Water: White = RGB 255,255,255 = HTML #FFFFFF
Borders: RGB 213,213,213 = HTML #D5D5D5; width 0.26
Roads:
Highlighted road: RGB 255,0,0 = HTML #FF0000; width 0.5
National Highway and National Route: RGB 255,170,0 = HTML #FFAA00; width 0.4
Other highways / major roads: RGB 140,140,140 = HTML #8C8C8C; width 0.2
Cities and towns: Marked by circle with fill colour RGB 255,255,0 = HTML #FFFF00; border colour black = RGB 0,0,0 = HTML #000. Size and border width vary
Capital city: Font size 20px / marker size 15x15 px; border width: 2.00px
Large regoinal city: Font size 17px / marker size 12x12px; border width: 1.40px
Made from traced maps (OpenStreetMap) [CC-BY-SA], not GIS data (which isn't accurate at these scales)
Background colours:
Land: RGB 255,255,208 = HTML #FFFFD0
Water: RGB 190,232,255 = HTML #BEE8FF
Borders: none
Roads:
Highlighted road: RGB 255,0,0 = HTML #FF0000; width 3
Freeway: RGB 56,168,0 = HTML #38A800; width 3
Limited access highway: RGB 119,170,255 = HTML #77AAFF; width 3
Other urban highway: RGB 255,170,0 = HTML #FFAA00; width 3
State Route: RGB 255,170,0 = HTML #FFAA00; width 2
Other road: RGB 156,156,156 = HTML #9C9C9C; width 1
Cities and suburb centres: Marked by circle with fill colour RGB 255,255,0 = HTML #FFFF00; border colour black = RGB 0,0,0 = HTML #000. Size and border width vary
Capital city (CBD): Font size 20px / marker size 15x15 px; border width: 2.00px
Major suburb: Font size 17px / marker size 12x12px; border width: 1.40px
Minor subub: Font size 14px / marker size 10x10px; border width: 1.28px
Note: Not all my maps will comply exactly with the above, I've been king of developing it as I go, based on what I've needed to do for each map. - Evad37 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Ive held off with a few maps like you until the shields move is sorted. But I do have one non-shielded very local map here for Majura Parkway, (which got GA'd today :D). Most of mine were OSM traces so I might look at redoing some with QGIS. Luckily for me, there is accurate data at city level view for the ACT (pays to have Geoscience Australia HQ here i guess :P), though it is a few years old. Those settings are pretty similar to what I had used on my maps too (most were region/state level). I do think it would be good to continue to experiment (within reason) for at least the time being and see what colour schemes we can come up with, but its good we at least have these as a starting point for some reasonably consistent maps and anyone else who wants to get involved can also look at these and create something relatively nice looking straight out if they like. -- Nbound (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Congrats on that GA! I guess we are one step closer to the project goal of at least GA status for each state/territory. Regarding the colours, we'll probably need to differentiate M, A, B, and C routes. Something like M = green (supposed to be freeway/motorway standard), A = orange (per current National Highway / Highway 1 routes in WA), B = grey (as less important routes), and make alphanumeric national highways thicker (ie, equivilent to National Highway routes in WA) than ordinary alpha routes. - Evad37 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
As usual the ACT will need its own way of organising route colours (due to near absence of shields), while most people can tell you which roads are of freeway standard, its OR. I was actually considering proposing a switch to basing the colour off the legal definition of the road when added (Australia-wide, but definitely in the ACT), its not a major issue now, but Im assuming you'll want to FA an article at some stage. I dont think there would be too much issue continuing maps based off shielding importance in the other states though (as most consumer maps arent bothered with the legal status too much). -- Nbound (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Largely based off your system above. Monaro Highway now has a map. No matter how its rendered it wont ever be visible in the infobox. So Ive made it look nice on close examination, rather than from afar. The system Ive roughly worked out is: -- Nbound (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
M roads that are fully controlled access - Green
M roads - Blue
A roads - Orange
B roads - Pink
C roads/other roads - thin grey
In full resolution it looks good, but it doesn't seem to scale down well. Maybe you could try exporting to a ~700px wide PNG and upload that. Also, the town markers, text, and route markers seem a bit small, if you compare with my maps - its much better if the map can be read in the infobox. If too much detail gets lost, you can always link from the description of the infobox map image to a full-size map. - Evad37 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Tonkin Highway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber(talk)00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I suppose I should. Is the process similar to ACR? Is there anything I should know/be worried about? (I'll probably look in to this tomorrow - its getting late here, past midnight local time) - Evad37 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty similar.
Most people are going to concentrate on prose, like ACR.
Unless you changed some images, the ACR's image review will normally get rubber stamped, as long as someone remembers to link to it in their comments. (Although that isn't to say you won't get a question on a license or caption.)
Since you've never nominated at FAC before, you'll need to have a source spotcheck done, but the one from the ACR should substitute. (They only require spotchecks every year or so; I went 18 months between them, and that was before we mandated them at ACR.)
Someone will need to do a source review, which isn't required at ACR. That's usually a check of both source reliability/quality and of footnote formatting. (Honestly, we should be looking over those sorts of things at the ACR stage, either formally or informally.)
The only other different thing is that FACs don't have a minimum number of supports needed. Most/all of the ACR reviewers will likely show up early to offer a support in the FAC, which is something we started doing after M-553 languished without comments for a month before being archived. I was given permission to renominate, the ACR reviewers all chimed in on the new nomination page, it attracted some additional reviews, and it was closed successfully within a few days.
The FAC delegates are all helpful, and you may get a couple of comments from one of them when things look near to a potential promotion so that they can make sure that everything has been checked. You might want to double check if there are duplicate links in the article (I was just pinged on that on the I-75 FAC, but some relinking is actually A Good Thing™, IMHO.) I've been through the process several times, so if you have questions, let me know. Each FAC is different, but there are some regular patterns to it as I've noted above. Imzadi 1979→21:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Usually it's best to let them support by themselves, or otherwise it may be misinterpreted as canvassing (I suppose that neutral notices to projects or past reviewers may be okay, but then I usually like to play it on the safe side)... there's usually one or two stragglers anyway and the FACs still tend to get passed. --Rschen775405:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beaufort Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inquirer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks for adding the church to the Freopedia page. What is the criteria? I see you have Ed Davies the Mayor... we have just created his brother George Alfred Davies ... but I can't see how you Qcode it unless there is a sculpture or painting of him ... or you put a picture of him in the Norfolk Hotel. When we have done this before we have had literally hundreds of articles that were just off the target - which is great because it means that browsers can browse and still find articles on related particles. Sorry long ramble! Victuallers (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I'm not really to involved with the actual process of selecting articles - the best person to ask is probably User:Gnangarra. As far as I understand, the lists on the main WP:Freopedia page (and categories populated by the talk page banners) are just suggestions of articles with a connection Fremantle, and hopefully a reasonable chance that a plaque with a QR code can be installed somewhere in Fremantle. For more detail on selection criteria for the confirmed articles (Wikipedia:GLAM/Freopedia/Articles), probably best to speak to Gnangarra. I imagine it would involve collaboration with the Fremantle Society, and getting permission from owners of buildings etc. Cheers, - Evad37 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The selection process is very open, I chose a selection of articles and published that list on a sub page of WP:Freo and then asked for input from Wikipedian participants. The plaques were selected for variety and distribution to maximize impact with the funding we had available. QR codes are created at the time of creating the artwork so there no need to worry about that part add any articles you create to the Freopedia page as soon we have funding sorted for the next round I'll select articles from there and again request input for editors as to the final list. How we decide on where to place them, with people we consider what connection they had, they necessarily need to have a monument of them it could be placed with other associations examples; at their primary residence - Lionel Samson, at a place named after the person Frank Gibson reserve - Frank Gibson, where they are buried - Bon Scott, at a monument - John Curtin, at the prison - Moondyne Joe, place of sporting achievement - John Gerovich or place of work - Hubert Hoover. sorry if I spelt any names wrong. Please keep writing articles our aim is for there to be plaques across the City of Fremantle, we'll find places for them all be it a building, a tree, a road, a person or an event... Our greatest challenge has been in funding them but now we have all the production issues resolved, something physical to show and article stats to backup that up it this too should get easier. Gnangarra23:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please lift the item from my talk page and place it at Freopedia - I am doing a really dumb shift at the moment and am brain fried. thanks sats09:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a note to let the main editors of Kwinana Freeway know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 22, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 22, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Kwinana Freeway is a 72-kilometre (45 mi) freeway in and beyond the southern suburbs of Perth, Western Australia, linking central Perth with Mandurah to the south. It interchanges with several major roads, including Roe Highway and Mandjoogoordap Drive, and is the central section of State Route 2, which continues north as Mitchell Freeway to Joondalup, and south as Forrest Highway towards Bunbury. A 4-kilometre (2.5 mi) section between Canning and Leach highways is also part of National Route 1. The northern terminus of the Kwinana Freeway is at the Narrows Bridge, which crosses the Swan River, and the southern terminus is at Pinjarra Road, east of Mandurah. Planning began in the 1950s, and the first segment in South Perth was constructed between 1956 and 1959. The route has been progressively widened and extended south since then. In early 2009, the section north of Pinjarra Road was named as part of the Kwinana Freeway, with the remainder named Forrest Highway. The freeway has been adapted to cater for public transport: bus priority measures were introducted in 1987, and in 2007, the Mandurah railway line(pictured) opened, constructed in the freeway median strip. (Full article...)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Australian Roads for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any problem including heritage properties and the like, but it should probably go in a sub-section of Route description, rather than a separate subsection. It could be good for buildings that may not really have enough info for a standalone article – info would still have to be sourced, but notability/deletion wouldn't be as much of a concern. - Evad37 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Extended discussion, hatting in good faith with agreement of Nbound
Well, Im sure you'll wake up this morning and be slightly annoyed that your ACR will very likely stall.
I apologise for this outcome, though I had no intention of "crashing" your ACR. Its certainly unexpected, and I hope that it can be rectified at some point.
If no progress happens in this regard in the short/medium-term I would recommend taking the article straight to FAC. I am happy to provide a review either inside or outside the ACR structure if you would like that; alternatively I would suggest Peer Review or requests for informal reviews from some other more active AURD members.
I am quite happy to discuss this further either here, on IRC, or via email.
Nbound, if you would retract your comments, I would be happy to review the article as the (apparently) third reviewer. But with your comments in place threatening to oppose if I do something you don't like, I cannot in good faith review the article. --Rschen775402:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
We dont need to all agree 100% on reviews (this is why ACR/FAC both require input from multiple reviewers) we all have individual viewpoints, it seems a little odd to me that I have no right to oppose an article once someone has given an opposite opinion; once the first opinion or support has been given, are all reviewers then required to follow suit? Of course not. As I have stated elsewhere, I am quite happy to discuss your concerns . I do believe it would also be good if we centralised this discussion. -- Nbound (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You have the "legal" right, but basically saying "I will oppose if you ask that the nominator do X" is quite rude. I don't think you realize the devastating effect that the particular way you chose to express the concerns has on people who are giving of their time to review an article that they quite frankly, may not even care about. For me, reviewing an article at the ACR level takes at least 30-60 minutes, and more if I wind up spotchecking - and if my comments are not going to be well-received, that's a complete waste of my time. Remember, this is a volunteer effort! --Rschen775402:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Im quite open to discussing your concerns. As I stated the reason it was bought up the opening comment was to save needless to and fro editing. In essence, you knew where I stood in regards to this prior to continuing your review, Im sure you would have felt you had wasted your time more so if you had completed the review, and then I finally mentioned my opposition. Then it may have been up to you (depending on the nominators decisions) to rescind your support or not, in either case I would have respected your decision (though similarly would be open to discussion). I would not expect you to support articles you do not agree with, similarly I wont support those I disagree with. -- Nbound (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I am quite open to discussing your concerns. Similarly Evad was awaiting the outcome on any discussion before making up his mind on how to apply this. -- Nbound (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see how a productive discussion can take place, if you will just oppose at ACR should you not like the outcome. I personally think it would help to de-escalate matters if you chose to retract your comments at the ACR. But I've said all I have to say on the matter here. --Rschen775403:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we obviously disagreed... that being said, we eventually worked it out on IRC (</plug>) and came to a solution for the "political" issues. As far as the headers, I think that we'll need to have some sort of larger discussion to provide guidance on the issue though, for this and future articles. But we've agreed to try and work things out before opposing. --Rschen775405:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
we need to have a conversation aboutthe commons roads in australia category tree sometime, and btw thanks for shortcuts...satusuro03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's unexpected... would have completely missed it you hadn't seen it – no mention on my Commons talk page, and no edits to the file or its (non-existent) talk page. Still, nice to get some main page exposure/recognition - Evad37 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I actually went around Canberra today with my dashcam too (a bit older than yours - lower res) - got home, checked the vids. Apparently the mount must have been slightly loose, coz every shot bounces like I was driving down this road XD -- Nbound (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Template editor
Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I have re-read the wheatbvelt railway line article and have issues with the re-arrangement, if you wish to query any issues, I would prefer an off-wiki communication please. I have let Mitch know that I am not impressed by the 'tidyiness' issue. I have tried to get sense of the re-arrangement and it simply is not factually in contect any more. Hope you understand. Please contact if you need to. satusuro07:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Evad37. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I was wrong, the issues are not so much the re-editng of the article as my lask of a grasp of the complexities of the issues of the early history of things. My apology.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dandenong Valley Highway may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 4 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Great Eastern Highway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber(talk)13:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
sheesh - that is better than any other publicly written material about the subject, what a standard to keep up to! Which highway next? sorry i didnt see the 'future' didnt think it started in the 1970's though :) strange paradoxical section that satusuro10:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, and the extra info/source for the article. I was about to leave a message on your talk page when I noticed this. And yes, a future section dating back some 40 years is a bit odd, but as it seems that it may happen at some point (hopefully within the next 40 years), that's where it belongs in the article. As for what's next, there's Forrest Highway, which I've nominated at WP:GAN, and I might have a go at getting Great Southern Highway - which was originally going to be the name for Albany Highway, before someone realised that Albany Highway was a simpler name for the highway leading to Albany (theres quite a few articles on Trove about the naming). Cheers, Evad37[talk]10:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and do you have a page number for that source? Probably not important for getting it to GA, but would probably be needed for FA. - Evad37[talk]10:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
the only trove item i added was referring to the whole text, no page number was referred to... btw have things on the clackline bridge (somewhere...) it was a complicated site - the new road bridge didnt help... satusuro13:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
yes, and I can actually see it on Google Maps now that I know what to look for. I dare say there's more odd/quirky/notable stuff in and around Clackline, maybe we could get a Clacklinepedia going ;) - Evad37[talk]14:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Forrest Highway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento(talk)09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
So far your sandboxed article seems to be looking pretty good, but I would advise fulfilling whatever content policies and notability requirements (since I'm not even familiar with them) and going through first whatever approval processes like AFC before publishing the article. Of course your decision in the other discussion is "assuming [the redirect] is turned into an article". If the deletion decision goes through you're free to recreate it as an article, no caveats or anything because G4 only applies to identically recreated pages, and the article is much different from the redirect. If on the other hand, someone disagrees with your replacement article and AFDs it, the deletion discussions could get messy. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 06:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe it passes the WP:GNG, so I replaced the redirect with the article, per WP:BOLD & WP:IAR. This should help clear up the RFD discussions. If does get nominated, and then deleted, at AFD, the redirect can be deleted with then. - Evad37[talk]08:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
strictly speaking as far as i can tell caves road does not pass through anywhere apart from dunsborough - yallingup and margaret river (even the tortuously expanding megalopolis suburban style spreading out into the countrysideof what used to be nice little margs) I didnt think could be linked to the caves road route. That is depite the nomeclaturally incorrect usage of margaret for everything and anything that is fixed or moveable within 100km in any direction from the margs PO... (sigh) satusuro09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, not the townsites, but it does go through the localities. Map 11 here shows Caves Road going through Yallingup, and Streetsmart maps, visible at http://www.street-directory.com.au/ (at some zoom levels) show Caves Road going through the locality of Margaret River. The interactive maps from the Shire of Augusta-Margaret River [5] confirm this, searching for Lot 201 Caves Rd shows that that address is in Margaret River. - Evad37[talk]11:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
That is really sad, margs used to be over there at the bussel highway, and that was it.
also tourist drive 201 - the western longer part of the john forrest drive seems to be permanently closed these days. satusuro09:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Any reliable sources? As much as I trust you, there is that whole "verifiability not truth" thing... - Evad37[talk]
Like everything related to the tourism related pages on wp en - very poorly managed and developed - scenic route has themed route somehow folded in and in general is a usa article - maybe 3 to 4 sep arts should emanate from a crappy little stub... grr to limited imagination us centric stubs that overgrow there limted views satusuro15:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
More people will see if you post a message on WT:HWY and/or WT:USRD. And yes, there's plenty of general road topics that could use globalisation, but I think its mostly a case of no-one being bothered to add information for countries other their own. - Evad37[talk]15:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
My initial plan is to get up a skeleton page, with mostly stub-type entries for each ... Example Road is a road from A to E via B, C, and D ... and then move to mainspace, and add other stuff later. The idea is to be able to cover the roads without having to worry about deletionists/notability, and to end up with a substantial list article rather than 40 or so stubs (if any sections end up being big enough for their own article, they can be expanded out, with a summary left in the list). So, that the plan, but feel free to add any info you have or come across to sandbox 6. I'll probably do them for the other regions as well, but I thought I'd start off in the wheatbelt to complement your WP:WHEATBELT project :) - Evad37[talk]10:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if they should be merged or not. On the one hand, they are similar concepts, and a single article could perhaps avoid some duplication, but on the other hand, what would you call such an article, as neither of the current titles would be appropriate for a merged article. Anyway, I've tried to improve Five southernmost capes a bit, and reclassified it as a list article. - Evad37[talk]03:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
the current awb on steroids (if I have a watch list of 14,000 + I guarantee he or it or whatever has been everywhere on that lisrt recently, maybe they/it/whatever is on crack or ice or something) has been there already... reverted already.
times likme these having a very large watch list is not a pleasant experience - the awb freaks edits flow across the screen like a cloud of australian politicians flying home to roost on the electors... satusuro07:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for the delay in this answer. As soon I read your message I immediately stopped the bot in order to fix the issue. The problem was caused by the new template {{Ndash}}, I was not aware of it. This template looks like an unneeded complication and in my opinion it should be discouraged within section headings and links... Nevertheless I will obviously improve my scripts in order to properly recognize it. Thank you for your feedback. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 13:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
hmmm the possible puns, template, temper-late, geeze I think I could work out how to go crazy on that one.
There is a template of dutch explorers names - was wondering if you werew interested in helping start a french one- the main first catch is clairault, freycinet etc down in the capes region - and a good book (i dont own at the moment) is marchants france australe -Marchant, Leslie Ronald (1998), France Australe : the French search for the Southland and subsequent explorations and plans to found a penal colony and strategic base in south western Australia 1503-1826, Scott Four Colour Print, ISBN978-0-9588487-1-8 even just a start of the baudin names along the coast - any thoughts on the easy create and expandable template - the lack of template on the baudin stuff feels like a major lack in good australian maritime history... any help, ideas would be appreciated. cheers satusuro06:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
A lot of Western Australian places still have French names today: Baudin Beach, Peron Peninsula, Faure Island, Gantheaume Point. is a bloody understatement - viz Marchants book detail satusuro07:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
How about something like this [7]? It's quite simple to expand/add to the list, as the wikicode is the same as for a standard bullet list. - Evad37[talk]07:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks great! adaptable for adhoc irregular additions - thanks for that - could you put it up please?
over time it will need coastal regions as well - but for the moment that issue is a rather strangled duck somewhere on the swan river.... satusuro07:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
incompeetent me - am changing wtwawr 2013 and have amde an abominable mess of the outreach template - as always hoping you might help... braind dead on hot day - should be immersed in shark water me thinks... satusuro07:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thanx v much - very interested in trying to start a sub-art from the main shark art (there have been some very very odd animal attack arts that got blasted out of wp space some time ago) but not sure whether to even try starting... keep finding many wp article and etc sins from the past that wont be able to atone before the new year - sigh satusuro10:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the feeling. There's a tonne of stuff I'd look to do just with various road articles/lists on wikipedia, plus there's so much more yet to be even started on wikivoyage and wikidata. Any way, good luck with your projects, and maybe next time you should stick to regular candles rather than then pentagram-shaped ones ;) - Evad37[talk]14:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
yup they burn the bloody tablecloth, carpet, and give the smoke alarm sneezes, as well as sending the cat crazy... not only that I am thinking of creating templates for the Kimberley (sigh...), and a few other places... thanks for your help so far... satusuro14:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Next week's TAFI selections
Do you want me to generate the next weeks 10 articles to be voted on? I was just going to do the closing for last weeks, but you beat me to it. --NickPenguin(contribs)01:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed - Evad37 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
. You can always drop me a note here if you need any help. - Evad37 (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Done - Evad37 (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
to have the circle around it on this 
And this 
and this 
please Paladox2014 (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Evad37 (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
; see Talk:Tonkin Highway for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Casliber -- Casliber (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Like Good work! –Fredddie™ 17:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Highways in Australia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
that being said, we eventually worked it out on IRC (</plug>) and came to a solution for the "political" issues. As far as the headers, I think that we'll need to have some sort of larger discussion to provide guidance on the issue though, for this and future articles. But we've agreed to try and work things out before opposing. --Rschen7754 05:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
; see Talk:Forrest Highway for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Moswento -- Moswento (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
