Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Scott's Crossing Road

Created a new article (I think it's IAusR's first non-testing "former road" infobox). I would appreciate any copyediting or advice. Someone should assess and tag it too. -- Nbound (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving Metroad 7 - 2

I have reproposed a move from Metroad 7 to Cumberland Highway. Please support or oppose with reasoning in Talk:Metroad 7. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road

I've now been through every one of the several hundred articles that were in Category:Australian road articles using deprecated parameters and have replaced the deprecated parameters with the new parameters. The category is now empty and there should therefore be no articles using deprecated parameters. I intend waiting a few days and will then remove the deprecated parameters from the template and documentation unless anyone has any objections. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job! I didn't expect anyone to go through every article in that category. I was intending to give a complete infobox change to these articles instead of just removing deprecated paramters. Also, I didn't expect anyone to remove the deprecated parameters from [[Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) becasue it may be merged and removed. Anyway, I appreciate your effort in going through all 300 plus articles!!! Marcnut1996 (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I have awarded AL a barnstar for his work on his user page :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road junction to use Wikidata for maps

Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rschen7754 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

KMLs and the Australian Road infobox

There is a discussion under way regarding the method of storing and displaying KML data used by Australian road articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Road examples

I'm trying to populate Template:Infobox Australian road/Examples with some good examples of the use of {{Infobox Australian road}}. Examples of the following are still needed:

  • Highway
  • City highway
  • Road
  • Rural road
  • Ring road

If anyone has some up to date examples, please let me know. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

State Circle is a ring road. (Yes, Canberra likes circles :P) - it needs work to bring it upto our standards though -- Nbound (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd looked at that one but haven't added it for that reason. We're really in no hurry, so I'm happy to wait until it's fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Ill add it to my things to do, if no word in a cpl of days, give me a buzz on my talk :) -- Nbound (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done Or Ill just do it now! enjoy! ;) -- Nbound (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it has been added to the examples. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Metroad 5 (Sydney) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metroad 5 (Sydney) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroad 5 (Sydney) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of a new name for M5 South Western Motorway

124.168.177.19 pointed out that the M5 South Western Motorway should be renamed to another name (eg. M5 (Sydney), M5 Motorway, Sydney) because the article actually talks about the whole M5 and not just the South Western Motorway. Please discuss here. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dropping shield images at the top on the "new" IAusR

NOTE: All infoboxes/templates, etc.

User:AussieLegend, has suggested in discussions about his upgrades to {{Infobox Australian road}} (IAusR), that the following discussion take place here:

If the new and improved IAusR code is approved to replace the current infobox, and IMO this is quite likely, what do the community wish to do in regards to the route shielding images section. There are a few problems with large shield image usage in all infoboxes for Australian roads:

  • The shields are sometimes too large in comparison to the infobox title text (ie. the road name), this is also regarded by some as too American.
  • The shields often dont accurately represent particular roadways, which often only traverse part of an entire "route", or have short stretches of various largely unrelated routes mixed in.
  • The information is often being duplicated in the |allocation= section, far more accurately.
  • We can instead also separate tourist drives with the |tourist= parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
  • We can instead ensure that all instances of a shield image comply with WP:ACCESS. In other words, for those who havent yet seen a converted infobox, a description is given:
Junction list: Pacific Motorway (M1) or, Pacific Highway (National Route 1)
Allocation: M1 <new line> (Hornsby to Hexham) or, National Route 1 <new line> (Hexham to Tweed Heads)


There may be occasions where the shielding is useful to have as images, and this is not a proposal to remove the option for that. The following are articles where images could still play a part:

  • Articles like Highway 1 (Australia).
  • Perhaps articles on a specific tourist route as a whole.
  • Articles on single routes as a whole. (including tourist routes). In other words, if it is titled by the route name.
This would not include a route named by its actual name (ie. BlahBlah Highway), even if a single shield was the only one used along its entire length.


For WP:AURD, this is essentially a revisit of the idea (to reconfirm our earlier choices and how they apply to IAusR specifically - if required). For everyone else, this is a chance to state your opinion, and potentially influence changes. The exceptions I am currently proposing have not been discussed at any point, I hold no particular opinion in regards to either exception, they are just ideas. Nbound (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The exceptions proposed seem okay, though they could probably be expanded to include any article that is on a specific route, rather than a specific road - such as Metroad 1.
I also think this discussion should be wider than just the infobox usage, as the accessability requirements also extend to road junction lists/tables, navboxes, and list articles. I think all of these should also be using the "<shield image> <Road Name> (<shield as text>)" format, if route markers are to be used. - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Changed exceptions - The WP:ACCESS requirements are non negotiable as they are part of the MOS. I do agree with your sentiment that they are to be included everywhere. The eventual conversions to MOS:RJL will fix that. -- Nbound (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added an exception to the exception. The route articles and roadway articles should not be confused. -- Nbound (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I see what you mean in regards to WP:ACCESS with other templates (such as the Hobart one below) - Agreed that this should cover those too. -- Nbound (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since the last comments. Unless anyone has anything else to say, I would suggest the following steps:

  • Mark parameters |route_image=, |route_image2= etc. as deprecated, and create a tracking category
  • Introduce a new parameter |top_image= to replace |route_image=, for the exceptions noted above
  • Update documentation and examples
  • Go through the tracking categories and update infoboxes

Thoughts? - Evad37 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There's already a tracking category at Category:Australian road articles using deprecated parameters and it's fairly easy to add more parameters to it. I must admit, I don't see the point in replacing |route_image= with |top_image=. Any parameter will still result in some editor somewhere adding more images than he should. Even experienced editors make such errors. Tightening the documentation will result in exactly the same thing as replacing the parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Im with Evad on this, its better to track it. Many editors, especially those uninvolved may not even read the docs and will likely C+P from another article. If we track it we can make sure it is being used correctly. Ideally we would make sure "top_image" usage is also restricted to appropriate articles. -- Nbound (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
We can track the parameter, in fact I've already started tracking route_image, but changing it to top_image isn't going to solve anything. I did a quick run through of 100 articles and the vast majority (over 90%) use route_image and/or route_image2-8. It's not a big job to go through with AWB and delete all uses of route_image2-8. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a point, we will have to keep a watch on route or top image regardless of name.. no point in an extra parameter. -- Nbound (talk) 23:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose we will have to watch the usage, no matter what it's called - no need for the new parameter (striked out above) - Evad37 (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AURD infobox mini-MOS

I think it would be worth it if we typed up some preferred usage guidelines for the IAusR docs, to give new and otherwise unrelated editors some tips when it comes to {{AUshield}}, {{plainlist}}, etc. This could eventually be merged with the template docs, or kept on its own. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
+1 on the good idea. We could use some of what we typed up for the Australia-specific Infobox road documentation [1]. If we made it on it's own subpage here, it could also be transcluded into the documentation. - Evad37 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered a few problems when updating the infobox in Hume Highway.

  • There is no route shield for NR 31 in {{AUshield}}.
  • The Victorian alpha numeric route shields are too big for default.
  • I have problem adding "plainlists" in the infobox.
  • I couldn't add Hume Motorway as the 3rd name.

Can someone help me out? Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered problem, is that there is no route shield for NR 15 in {{AUshield}}. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Have bought the infobox there upto standard per the below mini-MOS. diff is here if want to study: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hume_Highway&diff=557796480&oldid=557788831
  • We dont have all former shields yet, only those existing on the old wikipedia sets that were redone by Freddie, and a few extra that I have made. I will make up a ones for both mentioned routes in the next day or so :).
  • If your plainlist doesnt work it usually means you forgot the "}}" at the end (I do it too sometimes!) :)
  • Former section was removed as too complex for infobox, if you want to type it up do it in the prose. If you need the code back its still in the page history but I can get it for you in a few hours if you are having trouble.
  • Removed M5/A28 thingy. It goes via the A28 only as far as I am aware.

-- Nbound (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I have already made a new subsection Hume Highway#Former route allocations in the article. Thanks for reminding me about "}}". Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy! -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

NICE!!! Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fredddie will likely be do the non-NSW alphanumerics in the short-medium term future, at which point the shields will look more similar in size and colour to the NSW ones. And for shields that have been AUshielded we just change a single line of code in AUshield and they'll all get the new shielding. -- Nbound (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Especially in New England Highway, the non NSW alphanumeric looks so weird and wrong! And also, the national non NSW alphanumeric shields are fine and perfect, so no need to redo them. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah the NSW ones will be left alone until one of us can get their hands on the new NSW signage standards, at which point they would be redone only to more accurately fit the exact plan. (Which would result in only minor on-wiki changes as its already quite close). If they were really close, we might not even bother, or just put it on the backburner. -- Nbound (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Parameters to adjust settings:

  • type: the type of road the article is about. This parameter changes the infobox colour scheme used for headings, and the label used for locations. The following are options are available:
type= Description Colours Locations label
freeway
motorway
expressway
parkway		 Freeway-standard (controlled access) road Text: Black
Background: #D2E2F9		 Major suburbs / towns
city highway Highways within city/suburban areas Text: Black
Background: #E9F9D2		 Major suburbs
highway Highways outside of city/suburban areas Text: Black
Background: #E9F9D2		 Major settlements
road Major roads within city/suburban areas Text: Black
Background: #FFFFE0		 Major suburbs
rural road Major roads outside of city/suburban areas Text: Black
Background: #FFFFE0		 Major settlements
street Minor roads and streets, generally within a single suburb Text: Black
Background: #F9E2D2		 Suburb
track Outback tracks. These generally have restrictions (eg fuel) and/or require permits. Text: Black
Background: #FEE8AB		 Primary destinations
undefined type either omitted or not specified correctly Text: Black
Background: #E6C4FB		 Primary destinations
  • If a road traverses both rural and urban regions you should generally set the road type to the rural version of the road type.


  • uc_former: Used to override the above colour schemes for certain types of roads. The allowed values are:
uc_former= Description Colours
  • under construction
  • uc
 New road that is under construction.
Do not use for existing roads that are being extended/widened/etc 		Text: Black
Background: #FC6
  • closed
 Roadway closed to traffic Text: Black
Background: #AAA

Plainlisting

Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{plainlist}}

Plainlist creates properly formatted and accessible lists while allowing information to be displayed neatly without any numbers or bullet points. Other formatting should be avoided where possible. 

{{plainlist|
*Item 1
*Item 2
*Item 3
*...}}

AUshielding

Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{AUshield}}

  • Route shields should be limited to the Infobox, Road Junction list, and as images to accompany the text (if required).
  • Route shields should never be used within the text itself.
  • Route shields should always have an accompanying descriptive text for accessibility reasons, and also to aid understanding for international readers.

Junction list

  • Foobar Highway (State Route 2)
  • Example Road
  • Fake Street
  • Test Freeway (National Highway 1)
{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|S|2}} Foobar Highway <small>(State Route 2)</small>
*{{AUshield|None|S}} Example Road
*{{AUshield|None|S}} Fake Street
*{{AUshield|N|1}} Test Freeway <small>(National Highway 1)</small>}}
  • Shielding should be spaced from the left margin (as above) if other shielding is present. Only space for a single shield if there are any duplexes present. Editors should apply their own discretion, in applying spacing. When spacing is used generally it would follow the shield above. In other words, just go with what looks best as far as spacing goes, sometimes it will look neat if spaced, and sometimes it will look odd.

Allocation (Route)

  • State Route 2
  • (Point A to Point B)
  • National Route 41
  • (Point B to Point C)
  • Nil
  • (Point C to Point D)
{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|S|2}} State Route 2
*<small>(Point A to Point B)</small>
*{{AUshield|R|41}} National Route 41
*<small>(Point B to Point C)</small>
*''Nil''
*<small>(Point C to Point D)</small>}}
  • This section should only be accurate to the suburb/locality level, if the allocation is complex enough to require further explanation, it should occur within the article itself (a diagram may help also).
  • Towns should be linked to appropriate articles if they exist. State borders should be denoted by their postal abbreviation.

Former

  • Metroad 2
  • (1974-1999)
  • National Route 96
  • (1999-2011)
{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|Met|2}} Metroad 2
*<small>(1974-1999)</small>
*{{AUshield|R|96}} National Route 96
*<small>(1999-2011)</small>}}
  • Periods without shielding should only be mentioned if they occur between periods with shielding.

Route shields section of infobox

The route shields displayed at the top of the infobox should only be used on articles about a route itself. This includes articles such as Highway 1 (Australia) and A8, Sydney; but not standard highways and roads such as Westlink M7 or Oxley Highway, even if the roadway has a single shield over its entire length. This is for a multitude of reasons

  • The shields are sometimes too large in comparison to the infobox title text (ie. the road name).
  • The shields often dont accurately represent particular roadways, which often only traverse part of an entire "route", or have short stretches of various largely unrelated routes mixed in.
  • The information is duplicated in the |route= section, far more accurately.
  • We can instead also separate tourist drives with the |tourist= parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
  • We can instead ensure that all instances of a shield image comply with WP:ACCESS

Promotional logos can and should be included at the top of the infobox (taking into account copyright considerations), see Majura Parkway as an example of this.

Example infobox

As part of the upgrade process, there are many parameters that were once used, but are no longer recommended. The following is a basic infobox for a non-complex route without locator map, including usage notes: 

{{Infobox Australian road
| road_name                = Do not include alphanumeric allocation.
| road_name2               = Common alternative names only.
| state                    = 
| state2                   = 
| route_image              = Route shield (very limited articles only)
| photo                    = Can also be used for a logo
| photo_alt                = 
| caption                  = 
| photosize                = 
| type                     = See table
| uc_former                = See table
| length                   = 
| length_rnd               = Generally should be 1 or greater, if required.
| length_ref               = 
| est                      = date road originally opened
| closed                   =
| gazetted                 = 
| gazetted_ref             = 
| built                    = Company that built the road
| maintained               = Organisation that maintains the road (Local council, State transport authority, etc.)
| history                  = ''Very basic'' history of route if required. See [[Parkes Way]]
| route                    = see guidelines
| former                   = see guidelines
| tourist                  = see guidelines
| direction_a              = Direction at which end exists (use abbreviations for directions other than North, East, South, and West)
| end_a                    = Roads at end A
| exits                    =
| direction_b              = Direction at which end exists (use abbreviations for directions other than North, East, South, and West)
| end_b                    = Roads at end B
| region                   = 
| lga                      = 
| through                  = 
| restrictions             = Seasonal closures, vehicle requirements (4WD, Snow chains, etc.)
| permit                   = Permit for access legally required (Generally for aboriginal lands)
| fuel                     = Only used for outback roads, where there is a high likelihood of running out of fuel if not correctly managed. 
                             If fuel is available nearby to a route in multiple locations, this should also not be mentioned
| facilities               = Only used for outback roads, where there is a likelihood of running out of supplies if not correctly managed.
| show_links               = Show links section at bottom of infobox, generally only used on highways and freeways
}}


Let me know what you think, likely requires proofreading and editing. -- Nbound (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The mini-MOS has had little further changes over the last while... I think, if others agree we should look at a merge into the docs or as a link from the docs (the later is probably a bit less unwieldy) -- Nbound (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems all right, but the order of parameters seems a bit off. Wouldn't it make more sense to have them listed in the order they will appear, such as
  • ...
  • |direction_a =
  • |end_a =
  • |exits =
  • |direction_b =
  • |end_b =
  • ...
for example? - Evad37 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, ill sort out the order tomorrow, unless anyone beats me to it -- Nbound (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

re-ordered, also some minor updates to mini-MOS to reflect current changes. -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

Hey guys,

Im in contact with the owner of Ozroads on another website and he has mentioned that he sees alot of information here (especially former shield related) that goes unattributed from his site. While the usage of roadgeek sites is generally discouraged, especially if there is any contradictory evidence. We need to remember to attribute our sources. We of course shouldnt stop at Ozroads, and should do the same for any information pulled from Expressway as well, or any of the other roadgeek sites.

In general we should also be attempting to find sources for everything that so far has none. Some of our pages were written way back when articles were a little more sloppy, and anything that cant be sourced should really be removed.

Nbound (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles without any sources (as well as a lot of other issues) can be found in the cleanup listing - Evad37 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Would it be possible to generate a list of aritcles using roadgeek sources. In the mid to long term we should be looking at replacing as many of those references as we can. -- Nbound (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The cleanup tags {{Self-published}}, {{Self-published inline}}, and {{Self-published source}} could probably be used - Evad37 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Metroad 2 future

Discussion in regards to the future of Metroad 2 are taking place at Talk:Metroad 2 -- Nbound (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Leading "the"

In Kwinana Freeway, Mitchell Freeway, Roe Highway and perhaps other articles, we are not always consistent as to whether we refer to it "Kwinana Freeway" or "the Kwinana Freeway" etc. We should be consistent. Personally I think "the" is not required - if it is, how do we decide what roads need it? The Kwinanay Freeway, the Albany Highway, the Stock Road, the Henry Street? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I generally defer to normal spoken English, which often does appear inconsistent. "Drive down the Henry Street and turn left onto Kwinana Freeway" is not conventional, "Drive down Henry Street and turn left onto the Kwinana Freeway" is. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Its generally only highways, freeways and equivalent roads roads that get the "the" prefix. If we had to choose one way or another I would drop "the" on all roads, but unless there is reason to do so, I would stick with the regular way of saying that roads name. If there is inconsistency within an article it should get edited out either before or during its first PR/GA nomination. If (I doubt it, but if) this is odd compared to the rest of the world, it should fall under WP:ENGVAR anyway. -- Nbound (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pacific Motorway (New South Wales)

The article Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per page moves specified here: Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Sydney–Newcastle)#Move_Proposal. Article now contains redundant information as Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) now exist, and a disambiguation page will be created at Pacific Motorway. All information here has been merged into the appropriate articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: There is 7 days remaining on the deletion template for us to remove any remaining information (if required) -- Nbound (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) for discussion. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Pacific Motorway has been created as an disambiguation page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I moved it to AfD so that it can appear in the deletion log as well as having a place for any discussion. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is only needed if deletion is contested, and I don't this would have needed any. Still, it's done now. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

NO B89 shields!

Help!! There is no B89 shield NSW in the wiki. Can someone (eg. Freddie) create one for me? See Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle)#Interchanges for where a B89 shield should exist. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

- Woo! :D -- Nbound (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Templates

We have 2 more old templates I have recently found:

Still both in limited usage: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Australian_road_routes_table and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Australian_road_routes_table_extended

What do we want to do with them? -- Nbound (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there usage in list articles should be replaced by tables, like I did for List of road routes in Western Australia, and there usage at the end of articles should be replaced with a navbox, like {{WA road routes}}, which is now used for Western Australian roads instead of those templates. - Evad37 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Its a shame we dont have a QLD editor who can get these up-to-date and put them in a table -- Nbound (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: WP:AURDNAME as a guideline

I would like to invite the members of this wikiproject to comment on a proposal to promote WP:AURDNAME (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) to guideline status. Please visit the WP:AURDNAME talkpage and discuss.

-- Nbound (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

NSW road name changes

I have proposed move changes at:

Please visit and discuss - Nbound (talk)

Let me put a timeframe so this can be archived. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Group Initiative: Working Bee

I'd like to propose a working bee on Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) to at least get it to GA status. With bonus points for a passed ACR.

Why?

  • We have a fair few editors which cover NSW and/or are active on the particular article.
  • There is a fair bit of information and imagery around for this road.
  • Its largely unreferenced despite being a rather large article
  • It'll be good practice
  • Evad is making the eastern states look bad with his great articles! :P


How?

  • Delegate tasks to particular editors
  • Provide oversight on each others additions
  • Glean more information from sources that would be used to back up existing statements

Just testing the water with this, but if we can get a few volunteers (say at least 4, preferably more), we can move discussion to the articles' talk page and go from there.

-- Nbound (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Metroad Redirects and Old Metroad Navbox

With the alphanumeric conversion of the Metroads, not all Metroads have a 1-to-1 relationship with any singular successor article. For example Metroad 2 is covered by the Lane Cove Tunnel, M2 Hills Motorway, Old Windsor Road, and Windsor Road. Rather than providing an disambiguation page for each Metroad it may be better just to redirect to the Metroad article and explain it there in a single location.

Now would be a good opportunity to delete the {{Sydney Metroads}} navbox, which now would appear to have little or no value to us.

-- Nbound (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Princes Highway East (Melbourne) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princes Highway East (Melbourne) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princes Highway East (Melbourne) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The following pages are also included in this discussion:
Princes Highway, Geelong
Princes Highway, Melbourne
Princes Highway, Wollongong
Princes Highway, Sydney
-- Nbound (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No need to delete because merging everything together makes the current Prince Highway article too cramped. Especially route and former allocations. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
There's no point opposing here. You'll need to register your opinion at the AfD page. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, you will need to list your opinion at the deletion discussion, the main article listed is a stub (this explanation in parenthesis is actually longer than its only sentence!). The remaining articles can be easily summarised and merged into Princes Highway. Even if they were merged word for word, Princes Highway would still be shorter than some other important routes. -- Nbound (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of National Highway A2, Queensland

The article National Highway A2, Queensland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Individual roads are far more notable than the route itself. If anyone wants to retain what information is here it should be merged into the applicable highways. The route itself can be listed on an applicable statewide route listing article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I beleive this one to be a fairly uncontroversial one so have PRODed it instead. Let me know if there are any concerns :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

New shields department

I have created a Shields department at WP:AURD/S for any shield requests for existing sets. New sets should still be discussed here (until decided otherwise) where they will undoubtedly get wider coverage. The main purpose of WP:AURD/S is the non-controversial expansion of existing sets.(until decided otherwise) -- Nbound (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We have 3 options as to what we want the department to be able to do.

  1. Leave as I have created - Only non-controversial additions.
  2. Allow Shields to recreate former shield types (old capital freeway shields for example) without wider discussion.
  3. Allow Shields to recreate any and all shields. - Essentially move all shield related discussion there.

Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be in favour of moving all shield/route marker discussions over to the new department - this talk page seems busy enough as it its without the sometimes lengthy new shield type discussions. We could leave a section here noting which shield types / proposed types are under discussion. - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
In that other project that shall not be named, the shields department handles everything and requests are archived manually upon completion. Simple. –Fredddie™ 03:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Im also for the shields department to handle everything shield related -- Nbound (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Have made minor modifications to the department texts as noone has suggested it may be a bad idea to separate -- Nbound (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Should we bother archive unnotable shields requests (ie. we are missing a A999 marker, gets created as part of an existing set, done and completed)? Ill also create a General discussion area for anything related to shield maintenance on the WP:AURD/S page shortly... -- Nbound (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AURD Library

I have now also created a library (WP:AURD/L) which will contain direct links to important AURD discussions. This will help us in future discussions amongst ourselves or with others.

  • It will reduce the need to rehash old arguments.
  • Reduces the need to search or trawl the talk page archives (or occasionally other pages, which may be forgotten).
  • Would help future new members understand some of the reasoning behind important AURD guidelines.

I will attempt to do up a table of important discussions in the next few days, but I would also appreciate any requests (no need to be absolutely specific) in the mean time which I will also include. A rough listing so far would contain:

  1. The various {{infobox road}} adoption discussions.
  2. The various road naming discussions.
  3. Infobox guideline discussions.
  4. The various {{infobox Australian road}} upgrading discussions.
  5. Various discussions on what direction to follow in route description / infobox / junction list - though nothing concrete has come out yet, the discussion raised a number of possibilities for a future guideline (some discussion here, at the infobox talk page, and in the WT:WA archives)
  6. Discussions regarding junction lists standards (MOS:RJL was amended last year following discussion at WT:WA and its talk page)
  7. <Your request here>

Shield discussions should be available from the Shields page instead IMHO. -- Nbound (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Library is open for business, feel free to add any other major discussions to it. -- Nbound (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Major Junctions" and "Former shields" infobox section problems

Major Junctions Theres quite a few of these that say something along the lines of: "For a full list of exits and interchanges see section". This doesnt need to be said, its already the "Major Junctions" section. All exits (within reason^) should be listed in the junction listing..

^: There isnt much point in listing every side road on very long roads, common sense should be applied.


Former Shields Theres quite a few of these that are getting quite verbose with previous shielding. The infobox is a summary of information only. If its complex enough, so as not to fit within a small number of lines, then save it for the article prose, either merged with the history section* or in its own section. So, if a whole length of road had a few shield changes, thats fine (or anything else that can be adequately described in a sane number of lines), anything more complex should be added within the article.

*: Keeping in mind icons shouldn't be used as part of a sentence.


Hopefully Im not the only one that feels this way? Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with the points you made above. There shouldn't be links to article sections within the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function".
  • I also agree on the size aspect, but would take it beyond just the former shields. The less information the infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose (also per MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox). If we don't want to have huge long lists in the infobox, then we should probably have (soft) limits of around 10 items for the major junctions and suburbs/towns lists within the infobox, and make sure that only one of the map image (preferably) or coord locator map or photo are shown in the infobox (extra images can go in the body of the article as thumbnails). - Evad37 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, a limit of 10 sounds good for major junctions/towns, and say 3 former shields and dates. If the road doesnt have a continuous shield along its length. Then it should be left for the article. Im sure we'll get good faith edits to try and fix this, so perhaps it should be standard practice to write a comment in the code along the lines of "Please dont add former shielding to this infobox, it is too complex, and should be added to the article itself if it does not already exist"? -- Nbound (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

QLD alphanumerics

QLD alphanumerics are now operation using the old code, or the new type which can be seen at Template:AUshield on the docs :)

Remaining alphas should be operation in the coming days/weeks -- Nbound (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Odd Deletion Closure

For those who want to propose delete or merge in the future, despite what the closing editor stated for the deletion, it is quite ok to propose one similarly to the recent Princes Highway one. Speedy Keep #1 only applies if deletion wasnt an option at all. It also saves us taking it to proposed mergers, then back to deletion if discussion goes that way. (of course articles which are definite keeps should go straight to proposed mergers instead). I have let the closing editor know, so hopefully future deletions wont have any issues. -- Nbound (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the nomination said "deleted, merged or preferably userified" - two of the options were not delete and the nomination seemed to prefer "userified". A prod or bold redirection would have been a better first step, the latter preserving the article content, which admittedly is only the infobox, which really shouldn't be merged to Princes Highway. National Highway A2, Queensland was prodded and it has a lot more content than Princes Highway East (Melbourne). --AussieLegend (✉) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The closing editor has agreed it wasnt a speedy keep as originally suggested. In hindsight, I agree that I probably should have PRODed Princes Highway East (Melbourne) separately. Oh well :) -- Nbound (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Formalisation of roadway naming

I beleive we should formalise our roadway article naming scheme (see Wikipedia:PLACE#Australia or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)).

Essentially the consensus formed so far is:

  • Roadways named by current official name, instead of route number. (Princes Motorway instead of F6 or Southern Freeway; Federal Highway instead of M23/A23 (NSW/ACT), etc.; Kwinana Freeway instead of WA State Route 2; M2 Hills Motorway instead of M2)
This is as opposed to the common name, or to the internal name of the relevant transport authority.
  • Routes that follow an unnamed or multi-named route can be named by route number. (A8, Sydney).
The multinamed route exemption only applies to routes where most of the individual roads are relatively short and/or unnotable (only 1 of the A8s component roadways has its own article).
  • Roads are named as "<road> (<city>)" in cities (if required). Use common sense.
  • Roads are named as "<road> (<state>)" in other areas (if required).
  • Roads are suffixed as (<point a> — <point b>) if split. (This is based on a discussion between myself and AussieLegend regarding the Pacific Motorway)
  • Interstate roads that require disambiguation are disambiguated by country [ie. "<road> (Australia)"]

I have created a sandbox page here which lists the above a little more formally with examples. There is also some basic guidance of usage in the lead and infobox.

Support/Oppose/Thoughts?

-- Nbound (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Full support. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Thought: I have a serious problem with the phrase current actual name. Does this mean the current official name, or the current common name, particularly if these two conflict? Distinctions of this sort are the source of most of the longer debates at WP:RM. The word actual doesn't seem to add anything here, in fact I think it's counterproductive. It's ambiguous, and in this ambiguous sense it is forever appearing in these debates, generally as a synonym for official. If it means that here, let's say so, and if not let's leave it out, or better still, resolve any ambiguity by saying common instead (with in reliable sources understood). Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The actual name is the official name. To remove ambiguity, I have edited the proposal as such. -- Nbound (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Constructive edits to the sandbox page are welcomed - Nbound (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted there are a handful of roads that for one reason or another have been grandfathered/merged into other articles. These should be split (though some minor coverage in other articles may be appropriate).
The stringing above seems a little strange, but what I most want to reply to is the actual name is the official name. This to me begs the question. Yes, what you mean by actual name is the official name, but that's a key issue. In terms both of modern linguistics and of Wikipedia policy, the actual name is decided by usage, not by decree. To decide usage we look at all reliable sources, including official ones of course.
The discussion at Talk:Sydney–Newcastle Freeway#Move Proposal, which led to this discussion, is a case in point. The rationale for moving to Pacific Motorway (suitably disambiguated), and the subsequent discussion supporting the move, is all based entirely on a decision and program of NSW Roads and Maritime. We need to also look at other sources, otherwise we are violating the crystal ball policy. This official rename may well become common usage in time, but we should not assume this. Andrewa (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The common name for most Motorways for example is "M-something or other", it will be a mess of ugly disambiguated pages if we name by common name... and as stated, it wouldnt follow the informal naming conventions already established, (and literally dozens on dozens of names would likely have to be changed). The US roads project doesnt list their roads by common name either, for pretty much the same reason, and this has been accepted as par for the course here too, now we have a need to codify it, and I am attempting to do so. Even Canberra, which doesnt even number its internal roads, would end up with some really odd road names if we went down this route. And each time a common name is mentioned anywhere it would have to be explained for non-local readers anyway: "The road then joined onto the north end of the F3 (Pacific Motorway)". It would also have to be listed correctly in any RJL created for any article about a road which just happens to cross it. Furthermore, if we ignored it in the RJL in the case of the F3, it would require us to write it as " F3 (M1)" or " F3 (National Highway 1)" in any infobox or RJL where it is mentioned. People searching for the F3 will still be redirected to the appropriate article under what I am proposing we codify into a guideline. -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Disagree with much of this.
The common name for most Motorways for example is "M-something or other"... well, sort of... but we were particularly talking about the F3. Agree that the common names of many roads are designations such as F3, M7, etc.. Important point.
it will be a mess of ugly disambiguated pages if we name by common name... Disagree. F3 (New South Wales) is not in any sense messy or ugly, IMO. We should have either a disambiguation page or a hatnote (as currently) at Pacific Motorway, and various redirect pages, all linking to the article on the F3, of course. And articles can and should link via these redirects, and/or via piped wikilinks, where that improves the readability of the article, particularly for non-local readers. Having the correct common name as the article title helps these non-local readers, by helping them understand sources that use this common name (and these sources must exist, because that's what common name means).
Has the US project codified their naming convention? Interested in it and the discussion that produced it, if we can find it. Why reinvent the wheel?
Support your attempts to codify. Andrewa (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes: WP:USSH. I will note that that was the result of an arbitration case and a very contentious poll, so any attempt to resolve this issue with less than that would be welcome. --Rschen7754 02:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The US project's naming conventions, directly, wouldnt be appropriate for Australian Roads as you can probably now see Andrewa (The US uses a route focused system, while Australia uses a generally name focused system with visual and quality cues). We werent discussing the M-roads directly at the requested move, but if we decide to support a common name approach we would have to consider them under that approach, which would then end up with "M<number> (<City or State>)", as in each city the common name for the road is usually "M<number>". So while F3 might be reasonably simple to disambiguate from other roads, many will not be. -- Nbound (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Example? Andrewa (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Google "M<number>" and a city and search for news articles to use the example I have been using thus far. We would require articles like "M4 (Sydney)", "M<something else> (<city>)". A disambiguation mess. -- Nbound (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I just thought I should pop my head in and say, generally all looks good. I can see all points in the discussion above and am watching, but don't have anything really to contribute at this point. When we get closer to formalising the draft I'm happy to review it and comment but I'm busy with other matters outside Wikipedia (mainly my 88 year old mother) so I have minimal time at the moment. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll just point out that the official name is not always the name we want - eg officially, Karrinyup Road and Morley Drive are part of the Karrinyup–Morley Highway, a name which is not ever used outside of Main Roads WA (other examples at List of highways in Western Australia. So you might want to clarify official name to be something like official public name, as used on road signs. Otherwise, seems fine. - Evad37 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to modify with some better wording if you like (otherwise ill give it a go later). Its not going to be a catch all, but it should streamline the process of naming hopefully. -- Nbound (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Draft

Below are formal conventions for the listings of Australian roads. These guidelines largely formalise pre-existing conventions in regards to Australian roads. As always use common sense when applying these guidelines.

Article titles

  • Roadways are named by their current public official name as listed in the appropriate government gazette [preferred], or as otherwise used for general administrative purposes, and not their common name, or their internal name according to the relevant government department.
  • Princes Motorway, as opposed to F6, Southern Freeway, Freeway 6, Freeway Route 6, National Route 1 (Waterfall — Yallah), M1 (Waterfall — Yallah), Main Road 6006, etc.
  • Sometimes the signposted name may also be preferable if the official name has no non-administrative usage (these circumstances are generally rare)
  • Routes which consist of a majority of non-notable roads are named by secondary name (if one exists), or by a route number. (Secondary name preferred)
  • Former Metroad 10, is now A8 (Sydney), as the route is notable as a whole, but most of its component roads are not.
  • M1/A1 through Sydney, which is made up of notable roads, that have their own articles.
  • Former Metroad 7 (previous to the M7), is made up of largely unnotable roads, but had the secondary name "Cumberland Highway", which is preferred to "A28 (Sydney)"

Disambiguation

The following apply only when an article needs to be disambiguated:

  • Roads are to be named "<road> (<city>)" in cities.
  • Roads are to be named "<road> (<state>)" in other areas.
  • Interstate roads are to be named "<road> (Australia)".
  • Split roads with separately notable sections are to be named as "<road> (<point a> — <point b>)".

Infobox

  • "road_name" is the article title, excluding disambiguation.
  • If the road is a notable split road, then the disambiguation should be included)
  • All common names are to be included in "road_name2" and separated by " / ", this includes both public common names and those used in reputable sources. (Soft limit of 3 common names based on approximate popularity)
  • Any other road names may still be mentioned elsewhere in the article if inclusion is appropriate.

Lead

  • All common names are to be included in the lead, this includes both public common names and those used in reputable sources. (Soft limit of 3 common names based on approximate popularity)
  • Any other road names may still be mentioned elsewhere in the article if inclusion is appropriate.


Note: I apologise for the Sydney based examples. Please feel free to add/modify to represent a wider selection of roadways.

Here is what Im considering as the draft version. If this stays reasonably stable (and wihout major opposition) for a few days Ill consider it as having consensus, and publish a final version of it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads). -- Nbound (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally there are no real problems, although it did need a few tweaks to comply with the MOS and general writing pracices. I'm not too sure about using "<small>", that might be a MOS:ACCESS issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes AL :). Im not aware of any issue with the small tags. The MOS page doesnt explicitly say anything about it, but implicitly mentions it by: "Use <small> and <big> semantic tags to change font size, rather than setting it explicitly with the font-size= style attribute.". Citations, inline templates and notes are all written in small text too, wikipedia wide, so i doubt there is any issue with it specifically. That said, if people want to rewrite without the small tags im definitely not against it. -- Nbound (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Still nothing, moving page now, further discussion should now occur on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Australian_roads) -- Nbound (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I will be opening an RfC on it shortly so we can make it an actual guideline :) -- Nbound (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

HKRD

There's a new WikiProject, WikiProject Hong Kong Roads. Help is appreciated.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

alphanumerics and all non-NSW M, A, B shields

Now that the B-set is complete the SA functionality for AUshield is operational. As we now have complete M, A, and B sets, I have linked them to the new images, but conversion of those to state based AUshielding shouldnt occur until the remaining C set shields are completed. This affects TAS, VIC, and NT. If shields arent eventually converted to state based AUshields, and in the future one state goes rogue with their own shield set, it could be a bit harder to convert over the shields.

The C-set is the largest set by some measure, so it could take some time to complete (a couple of weeks most likely).

After this point the M, A, B, and C parameters will be removed from the AUshield docs All old alpha sets excluding the C-set have been removed from {{AUshield}} docs. There will likely be a generic "AN" (or similar) parameter added to cover cross-border alpha roads between SA/NT and SA/VIC.

Please let me know ASAP if you find any missing alphas in the mean time, either notify me on my talk page, or list them here, and I'll try to create one ASAP. (Of course anyone is welcome to create their shields themselves aswell)

-- Nbound (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Please Note: NT shields have now been released, and a generic AN tag is now available for cross border highways -- Nbound (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Disabling VisualEditor

Users annoyed by VE should consider adding the following script to their preferences to revert to the previous buttons: User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js

This can be done by invoking it on your personal common.js file - Example:User:Nbound/common.js -- Nbound (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There is now a gadget to disable (hide) it - go to Prefrences → Gadgets → scroll down to Editing section → tick "Remove the VisualEditor from the user interface" → save. - Evad37 (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Nice, that wasnt there a few hours ago, striking the above -- Nbound (talk)

Proposed deletion of State Route 40 (New South Wales)

The article State Route 40 (New South Wales) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No longer a current route, covered in other articles, permastub.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the PROD notice from this article. It has previously been prodded,[2] so it can't be prodded again. It was the subject of a subsequent AfD for which the result was "keep", so it needs to go to AfD for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks User:AussieLegend, I wasnt aware of that convention. Have nommed at AfD instead. See topic below:

Nomination of State Route 40 (New South Wales) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article State Route 40 (New South Wales) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Route 40 (New South Wales) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Nbound (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any Sydney roads needing photos?

Per the suggestion by Nbound (talk) to post this here, though this is short notice. I'm planning to be in Sydney tomorrow for the day, is there any article that needs a photo or updated photo? Bidgee (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of my suggestions already have images but arent great ones. I dont mind if you cant get any of these at all, its probably going to depend where in Sydney you are travelling to. I'll appreciate any good roads image :) -- Nbound (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggested Roads

Note: Please tag with <small>~~~</small>

Australian Alphanumeric Markers

All Australian Alphanumeric Markers are now redone, representing the largest highway marker update thus far by WP:AURD. Please advise of any missing shields at WP:AURD/S. This set contains all of the existing shields from the current set, plus a few others (mainly the NT ones). {{AUshield}} should be used where possible to link to the correct shield, and ease future maintenance.

The set can be found here: Commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_alphanumeric_route_markers (Total - 420 images)

-- Nbound (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please update any shields found using the older syntax types (M, A, B, C, QM, QA) to the current standards. -- Nbound (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

News: WP:AURDNAME is now an official guideline

This should be quite helpful for page moves and the like. -- Nbound (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Finally something that can convince others who have named the articles wrongly or wants to have the article renamed. Good job! Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Lua conversions

I have began converting some of our templates to use Lua. The main advantage of Lua is that it is faster than parser functions (which currently power the bulk of wikipedia's templates), it is actually reasonably easy to read, and there is more functionality.

As its mainly been something I have been working on in my spare time to learn the language over the last few days, none of the templates I have created are likely ready for an immediate swap with their current parser based versions.

The first two implement two subfunctions of Infobox Australian road.

These two require some more extensive testing (I have ran through dozens in my own testing but I probably cant think of everything), and perhaps some code improvements if any of our other coders can spot anywhere that could be more efficient (especially as they were the first two I did).

The final one is a Lua implementation of AUshield.

This one has about 95% functionality compared to our current one, and would require design choices to be made to decide as how to implement the remaining shieldsets (in other words - theres a few different ways we could handle a future transfer). The list of currently supported types is in the code and even quite readable to those who cant read Lua at all. In addition, further testing is always appreciated.

While these were written largely written by me, other editors occasionally offered assistance with design choices.

-- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Windsor Road (Sydney) created

I have created a new article Windsor Road (Sydney) because I think the road is quite notable in Sydney. Hopefully you do not mind that I was bold to create the new article. However I need some suggestions to where I should put the information about Old Windsor Road?

If you do not mind, would anyone assess the new article for me please, and edit it. Thanks. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I happened to be passing by and saw your note. I fixed the template at the bottom and then added Windsor Road to it. I also added links to the article from various related articles. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I have assessed the article as stub class / low importance. It really needs some more content, and enough reliable sources to establish notability, to move up to start class (more info on our assessment page, WP:AURD/A). By the way, our resources page (WP:AURD/R) contains useful stuff for starting off new pages, such as all the navbox templates, links to external resources, and relevant wikipedia guides and essays. Anyway, thank you for the new article, and I hope you continue to work on it! - Evad37 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We should use separate articles. As they are related roadways, Old Windsor Road still deserves some mention on the Windsor Road page though. -- Nbound (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

On a partially related note, if possible we should be using a source other than Ozroads, if the article is ever up for GA, and definitely for ACR/FA, it may be failed because of it. Id be surprised if you couldnt find anything in Trove's massive archive of newspapers and other sources. - Nbound (talk)

Old Windsor Road created

Please note that Old Windsor Road has been created and assessed. Feel free to edit. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Have added to it and nominated for DYK Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-automated tool for this

I honestly don't know how to set it up (maybe @Rschen7754: does), but there is a bot that will find and list new articles found under a certain list of parameters. That way you don't have to list them here when you create new articles. Check out User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch. Here is the USRD page if you want to see what the output is like. –Fredddie™ 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Review Request

Moved to Talk:Snowy Mountains Highway
 – Evad37 (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

LegendRJL change

A proposal is underway to modify LegendRJL to allow an Australia specific (at this stage) colour to denote when a shield start/stops or joins/leaves on a roadway. Any input from editors is appreciated. -- Nbound (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Associated jctbtm changes

The above legendRJL proposal passed (though is no longer just AU specific), input is requested on the ordering to be used for items shown in the legend of jctbtm (now the current preferred template). -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
(further background: currently the display of legend items is opt-in (for each individual item), using the {{jctbtm}} template, and the rough plan is to deprecate {{legendRJL}} in future [so for the few roads with MOS compatible AU RJLs, these should be changed to jctbtm - which now has greater functionality]). -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I just realized AURD was already notified about this. Apologies, as I was notifying WP:HWY and all active subprojects of this discussion and did not see the notice four threads above. TCN7JM 09:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

M2/A2 or just M2?

I think the M2 (Sydney) should be renamed M2/A2 (Sydney) as I don't think it's a good idea to create another article eg. A2 (Sydney), just for the non-motorway when what we want to do is an overview page. 07:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the page should just be an overview page or disambig page too, all sections have articles already -- Nbound (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK after some further discussion on my Talk page, I think this warrants some further discussion. For context, numbered routes may fall into any of the following categories:

  1. Routes containing a single identifier (NSW example: M31)
  2. Routes with multiple segments with the same route number but different importance, but no more than one segment with each identifier (NSW examples: M2/A2, A4/M4, M23/A23/B23)
  3. Routes with multiple segments with the same route number but different importance, with multiple discontinues segments reusing the same identifier (NSW examples: M1/A1/M1/A1/M1/A1/M1/A1)

The question is whether we should have topics for a route as whole (even if its identifier changes) or a topics for each uniquely identified section. The former option (e.g. Marcnut1996's suggestion of a topic for M2/A2 (Sydney) will work for all routes, however in my view it will result in ugly page titles that will limit discoverability. For example if someone is interested in finding more about the M2, they won't necessarily know or care that there is an A2 section elsewhere. The latter option will avoid this problem, however it won't be practical for routes in the third category. However these are so rare that I think it can be treated as a special case, and indeed this has already been done with Highway 1 (New South Wales) and similar topics. Looking forward to hearing some more views on this. Ausmeerkat (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll just point out that discoverability isn't really affected as redirects are cheap: we would just need to ensure that, for the M2/A2 example, M2 (Sydney) and A2 (Sydney) are both redirects to M2/A2 (Sydney). I'll also note that we could just leave this to be decided on a per-route basis (most roads are at their road name, if notable enough on their own). Another option, if a significant majority is under one importance letter, is to use that for the title, but discuss the whole route in that article, bolding both alphanumeric combinations in the lead, and creating appropriate redirects. - Evad37 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As per previous talkpage discussions with Ausmeerkat and Marcnut1996, I am for the combined titling along singular routes/numbers. redirects are cheap, and it eases disambiguation. It will also ease redirects from the previous metroads, its unlikely we will need to provide overview pages and the like for many other routes (eg. there doesnt need to be an M23/A23/B23 combined page, as its never been notable as a whole). -- Nbound (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Rightyo, I'm OK with the combo articles if that's the consensus, especially if we redirect the individual route numbers. Re M4/A4, I see Marcnut1996's point but on balance I think we should consistent across affected routes. If we do this, I presume we should also rename Highway 1 (New South Wales) to M1/A1 (New South Wales). I'm not across content from other states so that may or may not be a controversial change. Ausmeerkat (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
We can make Highway 1 (New South Wales) a redirect to M1/A1 (New South Wales) or vice versa. Then M1/A1 (Sydney) will be a redirect to the main article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Highway 1 is a special case, and the redirect should be from M1 (New South Wales), and A1 (New South Wales), to it. Highway 1 is notable as a route number in its own right. It may require moving in future of course. -- Nbound (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


M4/A4 vs M4 vs A4

I think for M2/A2, M2 consists of two parts and A2 consists another two parts, so they should have one big overview page M2/A2 (Sydney). However for Metroad 4, M4 consists of only one part and A2 consists of many parts, so I will prefer an overview page A4(Sydney) rather than M4/A4 (Sydney) since M4 itself already has one article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

New Project Newsletter

In case anyone missed it, we now have a new project newsletter, The U Turn. The first issue was published on Sunday, and can be read at WP:AURD/NEWS. - Evad37 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Highway 1 infobox

The Highway 1 (Australia) infobox has a hidden note asking for the junctions listed to be limited to three per state. This is for two reasons:

  • This article is meant to be a general overview, the specifics such as all major junctions should go in the relevant state article
  • The infobox will be enormous otherwise. Even just 3 per (mainland) state, ie 18, is quite large, compared to the soft-limit of 10 that has been discussed previously.

There junction list numbers now include 7 (!) junctions in NSW, and 4 each for Victoria and Queensland. Unless someone seriously wants to argue that every state should have 7 junctions listed (42 total, just for the mainland section), then I propose we trim down the junction list to what was listed as of 23 March 2013, plus Tablelands Highway in Balbirini, NT (as NT only had two listed before). - Evad37 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Editors are always going to add junctions regardless of the note because there are more than 3 per state and how do you decide which 3 are worthy of being included without resorting to OR? I think the best option is to create a section in the body of the article listing the junctions and include only a link to that in the infobox. It's the only way to stop creep. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • We could drop the major junctions altogether for that box, they are going to be covered in each state specific Highway 1 article anyway. -- Nbound (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Dropping them altogether might be the best option, avoiding duplication with the state-specific articles. As an overview article, it is probably more important to note and link highways that make up Highway 1, and let those articles and the state articles go into more specific details. It would be nice to get this top-importance article to a GA or higher rating, anyone up for challenge? - Evad37 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Evad37 has removed the exits but the infobox now contains no indication that the road is a split road as it did before. I feel we've gone from having way too much information, to not enough. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I've added a map caption, which should have been there anyway, including a short description of the route that notes the separate section in Tasmania - Evad37 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. The article itself needs some expansion (with "main article" links to each state), but im sure we'll get around to that at some stage -- Nbound (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been considered an issue to limit the number of junctions in the infobox for any of the various US articles that have gone through FAC/ACR/GAN. I wouldn't call it OR to use editorial judgement in what gets covered in an article, or an article summary like the lead and infobox. In fact, that's one of the things we have to do as editors around here: distilling our coverage to the pertinent details without undue balance based on the sources we have. U.S. Route 50 is a 3,008-mile (4,841 km) highway running coast-to-coast in the US, yet the GA about it has only 10 total junctions plus the termini in its junction list; no issues there since September 2007. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We can revisit the issue if/when this article gets to the GAN/ACR stage, but for now I'll just note that Trans-Canada Highway doesn't list any junctions either (though it is just a C-class article) - Evad37 (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the TCH article actually gives us an interesting option, It might be better to list the major cities at this level. Say the capital + two regional cities.
Example list:
  • Newcastle
  • Sydney
  • Wollongong
  • Traralgon
  • Melbourne
  • Geelong
  • Mount Gambier
  • Murray Bridge
  • Adelaide
... and so on (all wikilinked of course)
To me, that gives a much better idea of where the route goes rather than picking ~10 highways arbitrarily. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

Hi all, I've created three new templates: {{traffic volume top}}, {{traffic volume row}}, and {{traffic volume bottom}}, that can be used for creating tables of traffic volume data, as seen in the new A-Class article Kwinana Freeway and relatively new GA Tonkin Highway (which were previously hardcoded). I've written the documentation and WP:TemplateData. These have been coded using parser functions, but I imagine the logic can be executed using a WP:Lua module (I haven't yet learned to code in Lua). - Evad37 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross-posted to WikiProject Highways and other road wikiprojects. Please reply at WT:HWY#New_templates

Rural Roads and Highways

While converting AURD articles to MOS:RJL I have noticed that MOS:RJL isnt quite appropriate for rural routes. While sometimes information can just be not used, this can often leave out important things. Some of these also apply to non-freeway arterial roads in cities aswell.

  • Strongly geared towards grade-separated roadways.
  • Hard to describe intersections where the highway/road in question needs to turn.
  • Hard to describe non-standard intersections.
  • Discerning the direction(s) of a side-/cross-road is largely left upto knowing local geography.

About the only easy thing I can think of to fix these issues is a large map with inserts at appropriate points. But that could also get big really fast, or perhaps a small image in the list as part of each junction. If we come up with that or something else interesting/good we can then get further comment from those at MOS:RJL (assuming they dont have this page watchlisted. and arent on IRC when I link this there). As an aside it would also be good to clarify which roads we should include in each state and territory. Though Australian routes are wildly varied even within the same state, and it may be better to leave such things upto the editor (but still basing it of another source, or a particular set of rules)

Thoughts? - Nbound (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts:
  • The problems aren't really specific to MOS:RJL compliant lists. Other types of lists would either encounter the same problems, or leave out relevant information.
  • I think the main problem deciding what to include and what to exclude. Some are obvious: grade separated junctions, junctions with numbered routes, bridges over rivers should be included, while an uncontrolled intersection with short road, that leads to a couple of farms and a dead end, shouldn't be included on a major intersection list. One practical way of deciding may be to only include roads which have a big green directional sign at the intersection (rural areas, which can generally be checked in Google Street View) or intersecting at traffic lights/roundabout (urban arterial-type roads), or every junction can be listed for very short roads with only a few intersections.
  • Another thing to consider is that the RJL should be read in conjunction with the route description, where more detailed explanations of junctions can be given, and the direction of travel of the main road can be given. In terms of intersection description, the notes column should just contain short notes, and not necessarily every detail.
  • For the T Junctions you one option is to describe it as "T Junction: <road> forms the southern and eastern legs", with "<intersecting road> north – <destination>" in the destination column.
  • Images or photos or diagrams or the like wouldn't solve everything, there are readers with text-only browsers / accessibility issues... text-based descriptions would still have to be written for alt-text and captions. There will be situations / junctions where they can help illustrate the situation, but I don't think this is practical for every junction.
  • In what way are they "Strongly geared towards grade-separated roadways"? All road junctions will have a location that can be described with the location columns, a distance from the starting point, at least one intersecting road/destination, and may or may not need notes in the notes column.
  • These problems don't sound that unique to Australia, we should check how other countries deal with these situations. - Evad37 (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • To your final point - Ive asked the USRD guys on IRC. Alot of these things dont come up as the roads are generally of higher standard, and they usually list routes, rather than road names, which confuses the situation in this particular case.
  • Even from your list of whats included, rivers vary from creeks to mighty flows. Creeks in some areas are bigger than rivers in others. I dont think short roads to farms should be included either. Fingerboard signage isnt great either, for example the Monaro Highway has a normal green sign to a homestead, a few localities, and a few places I cant even find on the Geographical names board - these are not tourist destinations either.
  • Not every example is as easy as your T-junction example. Consider the intersection where the Monaro and Snowy Mountains Highways meet in Cooma.
  • You do need to write alt text for imagery. But it wont clutter up the tables. Readability becomes less of an issue. But this is a good point - what exactly does a non-sighted user hear / text browser see when it comes to a current RJL anyway? It would probably be an improvement to give them a description in sentence form.
"The <ROAD> turns east at this <intersection type>, with <OTHERROAD> forming the western roadway" vs. "T Junction: <road> forms the southern and eastern legs", with "<intersecting road> north – <destination>".
Lets not also forget that they get more clutter than that once you add the AUshield, WP:ACCESS requirements, and direction (in parenthesis/brackets also - as some roads are actually named with directions in the name)
  • In regards to your grade separated rebuttal, Im not saying the table is the problem. The way the information is expected to be presented is. The main issue is any intersection where the roadway turns. A map was suggested as an outside the box option, not as what Im pushing for (I have nothing specific in mind, just something better!).
  • Im only offering Monaro Highway examples as they are all relatively fresh in my mind - the Monaro Highway isnt special by any means
-- Nbound (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we're overthinking this a bit - have a look at M-28 (Michigan highway), a featured article. If you look on Google maps, you'll see there are "odd" type intersections with US 41 (Covington), Front Street (Marquette), US 41 (Harvey), and H-58 (Munising). None of them have any mention in the RJL of the highway turning through an intersection. - Evad37 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
M-33 (Michigan highway), a good article, also has a number of turns at crossroads/T junctions, which aren't mentioned in the RJL. - Evad37 (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • An example of an "odd" type intersection is: this one (thats not even the only one of its kind on the road - cant not include it, as far as traffic volume goes it also makes all the non-ACT intersections look like nothing).
  • The US standard is only to include grade separated and state highway interchanges, which would of course be largely pointless here.
  • California State Route 75 is an example that does include a turn at an intersection. It also illustrates one of the reasons why this should be included. A declared highway may have an intersection with a road which carries the same name as the highway itself. (In Cooma the Monaro Highway (as Bombala Street), comes to a roundabout: south - Bombala Street (Monaro Highway); west - Sharp Street (Snowy Mountains Highway), north; Bombala Street - local street; east- Sharp Street (Monaro Highway). Ive written that RJL so far as south to north only, to save on space, despite the fact it needs to be written both ways before I should consider GA-ing it (and havent even started ACT yet).
  • The RJL at the very least should cover intersections mentioned in the rest of the article, to provide context. Generally turns are mentioned in the RD.
  • In good faith I am going to wittle down the list to declared roads, former alignments (where known), and intersections with turns (and grade separated interchanges when ACT gets added). But as stated earlier, the issue im most concerned with is how we should display the information.
-- Nbound (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with your points on turns being mentioned in the route description, and those roads being included in the RJL. I'll just point out a couple of things, and then try to approach this from a different perspective.

  • MOS:RJL gives guidance on what to do with multiple names, such as with Snowy Mountains Highway being Sharp Street in Coorma, and designated B72: The highway designation, any applicable names or both shall be linked as appropriate to an article on the intersecting roadway. List the predominant name or number first followed by any alternate names in parentheses. So you could have
Sharp Street (Snowy Mountains Highway, B72)
or Sharp Street to Snowy Mountains Highway (B72)
or similar, depending on what official sources call the road
  • Route numbers/alternate names should be in (parentheses), not [brackets] – is specified in MOS:RJL
  • Directions should not be in parentheses. There was a discussion on this some time ago at WT:MOS (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Road_junction_lists/Archive_8#Formatting_of_directions here), where we came up with directions may be expanded to read as northbound instead of north as needed, for any situations where the direction would be confusing (ie Morley Drive eastbound, to avoid confusion with the similarly named Morley Drive East). For roads with route numbers, the direction is further separated as it appears after the route number.
  • If a road comes to a four-way intersection from the south, and turns east, aren't the intersecting roads the ones to the north and west? If you include the eastern road as an intersecting road, then why not the southern road? Excluding both the east and south road, and mentioning that the highway is known by the other names in the notes column sounds easier to me. (Note that for the California SR75 example, the road names north/south and east/west of that intersection were the same)

How about we approach this from another direction. If we go back to basics for the RJL, the critical information is the intersecting road. Anything or everything else can be omitted, and it could still be called a junction list. Add location and distance columns, and there is basically enough information to satisfy MOS:RJL. The notes could then be used to note either grade-separated or at-grade junctions (for example), based on which occurs less frequently, perhaps with a note above specifying most junctions are at grade/grade separated. Anything that is more detailed than that should be saved for the route description, leaving just the basic information for the table. If the road in the article has sections with other names, it can be mentioned in the notes column for an intersection, or in a cell that spans both the notes and destination columns. If an intersecting road has multiple names, follow MOS:RJL. If an intersecting road leads to a more notable road, the form Some Road to Another Highway or Some Highway via Another Road can be used (the template actually has this coded in). I don't think we have to make it too complicated. Complicated stuff is probably better explained as text in the route description, with perhaps photos or diagrams displayed as thumbnail pictures for really complicated cases. - Evad37 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I was pinged to this conversation earlier on IRC while I was studying. (Today/Monday is the first day for me returning to college after 14 years.) My approach is simple: treat the subject road as running straight through in the same direction as a single linear object. The RD will expand on the directions and turns, but the RJLs are based on the concept of an internal DOT route log or a straight-line diagram, which just blindly lists each junction/feature and its distance from the starting point. Unlike those logs, we expand upon them with appropriate notes and supplemental items like the directions in a more reader-friendly standardized format.
Just to take an example, I have paper logs for 2 of the 5 WisDOT regions. On U.S. Route 2 in Wisconsin, the first page of the log covers the first mile of the highway's route across the Bong Bridge because it lists the location of every overhead light and other items. Obviously, we limit to major intersections worthy of inclusion, otherwise the RJL would be tedious and long. Imzadi 1979 → 03:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Monaro_Highway#Junctions has been updated to something better, and something I hope we can all be happier with. I note that Imzadi1979 is still not completely happy with directionalising every road, but I think it helps visualise the road a great deal. For comparison - [3] was the state of the article before today -- Nbound (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads/Archive_3&oldid=1142661969"