Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Streets vs Roads

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

We currently have Category:Streets in Australia and Category:Roads in Australia. What exactly is the difference? Do we literally categorize by the name, ie Smith St goes in one, Jones Rd goes in the other? What about notable Avenues (Victoria Avenue, Perth), Terraces ((St Georges Terrace) and Places (Forrest Place)

For Perth at least, we have Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia - which I've proposed renaming - for those in the CBD, Category:Roads in Perth, Western Australia for others, with the former being sub-cat of the latter, so Streets in Perth WA is ultimately under Roads in Australia and Streets in Australia.

I can see the merit in having Category:Highways in Australia, because (presumably) "highway" is a specific grade of road, not just a name - although I was surprised to discover that we only have one article under Category:Australian freeways! I suggest that all of the "streets" and "roads" categories should be merged (or renamed if appropriate, example) so that there is some hope of a sane categorization tree. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a bit of mess. Starting at the bottom, that single "freeway" would barely fit my definition of one. It's primarily a tourist route, and is all of two kilometres long! "Freeway" itself is problematic, given that NSW calls them "motorways". But I agree on your main point. Apart from the name, there is no easily definable difference between a road and a street. A top level category of "Roads" which includes virtually all thoroughfares makes a lot of sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In the US, we tend to have "Roads" as the top-level, with either "State highways" and "Streets" as separate subcategories. Canada is similar, I do believe. Imzadi 1979 → 03:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Road classification is a bit of a can of worms, and at least verges on, if not crosses into, WP:OR:

Sometimes roads (in the general sense) are named as one type, but classified as another (eg Great Southern Highway isn't actually a "Highway", it's a "Main Road")
Different parts of a road can have different classifications (eg Marmion Avenue is a "Highway" south of Ocean Reef Road, but a "Distributor A" to the north)
Different states/territories have different classification schemes, with different type of classification (number of levels, and/or names, and/or descriptions)
Even within one state, there can be multiple different classification schemes

There has been some previous discussion on this topic, in relation to the type parameter for the infobox. Wikipedians using my definition of <road type> is part of the problem, but there isn't really an easy solution. And there shouldn't be many articles in the freeway cat, because freeways/motorways/etc would generally be in the appropriate category for their state. - Evad37 [talk] 03:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"there shouldn't be many articles in the freeway cat, because freeways/motorways/etc would generally be in the appropriate category for their state."
I agree that there wouldn't be many articles directly in Category:Australian freeways, but I expected to find other articles under it, indirectly via sub-categories - but there are no sub-categories. Either there should be subcategories (eg by state), or the category should be deleted. Presumably which of these options we should do depends on national definitions of "freeway" (eg vs motorway, highway etc). Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

General English usage is that streets are urban places lined with buildings, whereas roads include highways. As the discussion above has petered out, I went ahead and closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 6#Category:Streets in Perth, Western Australia. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm new to this WikiProject, and gradually returning to Wikipedia after a few years' break. I'm stumped by what constitute sensible references for "X is a road that starts at A, passes through B, C and D, crossing other roads E, F, and G, and finishes at H." Any hints? When I get to finding out about the history of the route, I'll do better. I'm also open to clues on shortcuts to populate a a great long chain of {{{SAint}}} templates with the necessary info? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For that type of route description information, you need to use maps as references. Government produced maps would usually be the best, but Google maps – preferably in satellite-view – can also be used, especially to describe the terrain a road passes through (see for example Great Eastern Highway#Route_description, a featured article). Another option that may work is to reference commercial street directory – for some areas, scanned pages are available at Street-directory.com.au including from Melway, Sydway, Brisway, and Street Smart (see for example Nerang–Broadbeach Road ref#2). We have a resources page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Resources (shortcut WP:AURD/R) that lists various sources that can be used, including maps. BTW, when you come to do the histories, make sure you don't use roadgeek sites.

As for the {{SAint}} and related templates, if not sure there really that many "shortcut" as such, but here's some advice:

I find it sometimes helps to (in a sandbox) just fill in the proper details for distance, destinations, and notes, temporarily using |LGA=. and |location=., and then fix up the LGAs and locations later.
You can get the templates to automatically link the LGA by replacing |LGA= with another parameter as defined at Template:SAint#Additional_Parameters, eg |LGAC=Mitcham will produce Mitcham in the table (due to space constraints of the table, it is usually suitable to drop the "City of ..." or "... City" prefixes and suffixes in the LGA Column).
For the |road= parameter, {{SAcity|location1|location2|location3|location4}} makes it easier to link to up to four destinations – which will automatically be piped links, ie [[location, South Australia|location]]
For proper formatting of the destination column, add |p=on – so that the code would be like

|road={{AUshield|<road route parameters go here>}} Road Name (Road Route){{SAcity|p=on|<locations go here>}}

or if the road isn't part of a road route:

|road=Road Name{{SAcity|p=on|<locations go here>}}

(Note that there is no space before {{SAcity as using |p=on will add a hard space and a ndash)

Make sure you are only including necessary junctions, see WP:AURD/RJL for guidance

Sorry if that is a bit of information overload, but I hope that helps - Evad37 [talk] 07:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall gradually improve the standard of the articles I create or have created and others I am interested in. I've noticed that in a couple of places you've fixed my infoboxes where I've used {{AUshield}} you added <small>(rt num)</small>. If this is required for accessibility, why not include it in the {{AUshield}} code? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it makes the coding quite complicated, when you consider that the template is used in infobox fields, road junction lists/tables, and elsewhere. It can take up to four routes at a time, may or may not require other text in between the graphic and the route number text, and the route number text may or may not need to be in small size depending on where it is used. In road junction lists it is especially complicated as {{AUshield|S|3|S|4}} may be used for "

Foo Highway (Sate Route 3 west / State Route 4 east)" or "

Foo Highway (State Route 3) west / Bar Road (State Route 4) east" or "

Foo Highway (Sate Route 3 / State Route 4) west / Bar Road east", or many other configurations. - Evad37 [talk] 14:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Lists of ...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Me again. Is there a style guide of any sort for "List of road routes in <state>" and "List of highways in <state>" articles? Every state appears to have one of each, but they don't seem to have clear separation of what elements should be in one or the other, nor when a particular road should be a route, highway, both, or something else. I'm looking mostly at the SA pair, but quick glances at other states haven't solved the conundrum for me. I'd propose merging each pair/triplet of articles (Victoria has a freeways list as well), but noticed that Tasmania's lists were only separated five months ago. Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

They cover completely different things, so I would oppose merges (The SA examples are probably some of the worst for Australia, but I'll come to that later). The definition of a highway varies from state to state, but basically is a type of named road, usually defined by a state road authority, perhaps through legislation. A road route is a numbered or alphanumeric route, with route markers posted along roads or on other signs, to help drivers navigate across a city/region/state. Highways can have multiple road routes (or none), and road routes can cover multiple roads, and not necessarily just highways. The highways lists are actually a bit problematic, and are or historically have been mostly unreferenced, with original research deciding what gets listed as a highway (basically if something was name "XYZ highway", then it was listed). It doesn't help that each state has different definitions as to what is a highway (or freeway, motorway, main road, etc), and some roads named "XYZ Highway" are not actually classified as highways (see Highways in Australia#Classification). The highway lists definitely do need some cleanup, but I would suggest that List of highways in Western Australia or Highways in New South Wales would be the better models to follow – listing the highways as defined by (and referenced to) the relevant government agency. List of highways in Tasmania isn't too bad, but it lacks the table format which gives more information, while List of highways in South Australia is problematic (and similar to what they all used to look like) as it conflates road routes with highways, and has a long list with no obvious inclusion/exclusion criteria, and no references for that list. The road route articles, on the other hand, are consistently formatted (more or less, allowing for variations between state numbering schemes), having been created or reformatted by myself over the last year or so, with at least general references for the route numbering systems. - Evad37 [talk] 07:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Move articles to bracket disambiguation

Latest comment: 10 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

WP:AURDNAME was accepted as a guideine on 15 July 2013, yet many articles that need to be disambiguated use the form <road>, <location> instead of <road> (<location>) as specified in the guideline. I propose moving these articles to use the bracket form of disambiguation, without changing the location used for disambiguation:

Redirects will be left behind so that links will not need to be updated. - Evad37 [talk] 05:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Inprinciple the shift isnt an issue but can the naming convention be clarified. Does Roads are to be named "<road> (<state>)" in other areas. actually require Stirling Terrace, Toodyay to become Stirling Terrace(Western Australia) and will Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle will become Queen Victoria Street(Perth) as per the Name(City) convention Gnangarra 11:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- This would not be the intention, the wording is probably due to there being few articles for roads outside of a city (which Fremantle is, at least according to our article) and in just one town. Better wording would perhaps be:

Roads are to be named "<road> (<city>)" or "<road> (<town>)" for roads entirely within a city or town".

And as with anything, there has to be a degree of common sense for some situations, such as different roads with the same name in the same city. - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, added to WP:AURDNAME - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose renaming these as you can link the names directly without piping. Using brackets will introduce a convention not used in prose. I agree with you about not changing the disambiguation location though, as a change in that will almost certainly introduce many errors. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, linking to the redirects left behind from the moves would still be possible, and redirects are cheap, so new ones can be created for new articles. But is bracket disambiguation really so hard to link to? Rivers use brackets for disambiguation, as do people, and a lot of other articles on the wiki; and it is quite easy to make a piped link using the wiki Magic: Typing [[Flinders Highway (Queensland)|]] automatically expands to [[Flinders Highway (Queensland)|Flinders Highway]] when you save the page. - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Magic works just as well with commas - [[Flinders Highway, Queensland|]] automatically expands to [[Flinders Highway, Queensland|Flinders Highway]] so this is not an argument either way. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the point, really – linking to the bracket form isn't any harder than linking to the comma form, especially since most times, in prose or lists, you don't want the disambiguation term anyway. - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered the number of wiki links that will be impacted, especially in the ever-growing population of intersection tables and lists? Downsize43 (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Very, very, few, if any, links will be impacted – the old titles will be redirects to the new titles, so that [[Flinders Highway, Queensland|Flinders Highway]] will still look like Flinders Highway, but readers will end up at "Flinders Highway (Queensland)" after clicking on the link. So there is no need to change any existing links. - Evad37 [talk] 00:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this proposal highlights something missing from the WP:AURDNAME guideline. A quick glance at Category:Streets in Adelaide, Category:Streets in Melbourne etc. show that the vast majority of articles in these categories are currently named as <street name>, <city>. I lean towards this being the more natural way of naming articles about city streets. I'm happy with <Road/highway> (State) where required. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Is that really the case in the real world, or this just what has happened on-wiki?
  1. Surely the "natural" way is by suburb, rather than city - eg "123 Example Road, Suburb [state] [post code]". Where would you find Road name, City rather than Road name, Suburb?
  2. For roads through multiple suburbs, ie if a road goes through Suburb A, Suburb B, and Suburb C, is it natural to say Road name, City?
  3. Having some roads disambiguated with brackets, and others by commas, seems a little odd to me. Its nicer to have some consistency, where possible.

- Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, many of the above articles do not require any disambiguation. If any change is made, why not remove the town etc name where it is not required for uniqueness?Downsize43 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that very few of the street names are globally unique. "Many" of them might be (currently) unique in Wikipedia. Some (probably most) of those will turn out to be the "primary use" of the street name, but some will just be because an Australian roadgeek happened to also be a wikigeek before someone from another city or country, or someone was completing a set. I favour the status quo, but one of the reasons I spent several years away from Wikipedia was related to naming conventions, so I'm trying not to get too attached to such trivia this time around. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a good point; I don't much care either way for whether a comma or brackets are used when disambiguation is required, however I'd prefer not to reflexively disambiguate article titles unless there's a need to do so. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Yes, I agree that in general, we should only disambiguate when necessary – but its not a big deal, especially for the common street names that will likely be found in other countries. For example, is it likely that South Road, Adelaide is the only notable South Road in the world? - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, so long as we don't end up moving articles like Anzac Avenue which are already disambiguated. Otherwise, I have no objections to your proposal. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC).

@Gnangarra, Graeme Bartlett, ScottDavis, Downsize43, and Lankiveil: (or anyone else): Do you have any further comments? - Evad37 [talk] 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Also pinging @AussieLegend: - Evad37 [talk] 12:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I favour the status quo, and updating the text of the guideline to match the practice. To address several of the comments above in no particular order, streets are different to highways. Arterial suburban roads are different again, but they are notable because of the city they are in, not the specific suburbs they pass through. In fact, I could not accurately recite the full set of suburbs I drive or cycle through on a trip using main (Wikipedia-eligible) roads from my outer suburb to the city centre or another outer suburb at least half way round the city.

I'm trying to occupy my efforts with improving content, not getting too attached to naming and style conventions, as that is what turned me off of making significant contributions to Wikipedia for several years. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO most people "expect" a street or road address to be in the form "Name, Location". Why change something that works just because someone else thought it would be a good idea? Downsize43 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

List of highways in Queensland

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does anyone have a tool to change each image in this article to AUshield? Downsize43 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I just used the standard search-and-replace function (with some manual cleanup afterwards) - Evad37 [talk] 12:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Downsize43 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

crash lists

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Dukes Highway article has a Major road accidents section which appears to list a few few specific incidents in a small time span, and make some sweeping generalisations. Is there a guideline about sections like this and how to make them reliable? A complete list of casualty crashes on 200km of major highway would likely be unwieldy, so it needs to be either removed or curated, and the generalisations made specific to this road, and cited. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

In general, crashes should not be included per WP:NOT#NEWS, as unfortunate as each crash is, we are not here to report the news. The exception is crash/es that have significant impact on the road, eg causing a redesign or giving a section a widely-used nickname, but only if a reliable source makes the connection for us so we aren't engaging in original research. - Evad37 [talk] 23:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I've removed the list of 2008 crashes and added some cited information about frequency, cause, and mitigation treatments. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yorke Highway has no Talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See subject. Downsize43 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Done: Talk:Yorke Highway. Feel free to create any other missing ones you come across per WP:BOLD - Evad37 [talk] 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to ACR

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see WT:HWY#Change of outlook at ACR for a discussion on a proposed change to how ACR works. Rschen7754 (delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

Which table are we using for junctions?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've seen a lot of road articles which use junction tables like the one at Metropolitan Route 40, Melbourne#Major intersections and suburbs, but a few also seem to be like the one at Tullamarine Freeway#Exits and interchanges. Which one are we supposed to be using? (I personally prefer the green and black one...) -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 08:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In short: Like at Tullamarine Freeway. We actually have a guideline for these junction list, MOS:RJL, as well as Australia-specific advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/Standards/Australian road junction lists. The ones with the old-style green tables are tracked, via the talk page banner, at Category:WikiProject Australian Roads articles with a junction list needing attention, but each one requires manual work to convert to the MOS:RJL format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evad37 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I saw that page before, but it might be handy to have an example somewhere on the page just to demonstrate what it should be like. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 07:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have added some examples - Evad37 [talk] 08:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_30#Template:Infobox_Australian_road

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_30#Template:Infobox_Australian_road – proposed merging of {{Infobox Australian road}} with {{Infobox road}}. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move for Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have requested a move for Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane). I have listed the reason in the article's talk page. Please take part in the discussion and give your stand, thanks. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ACTinttop and Template:NSWinttop

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:ACTinttop and Template:NSWinttop have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. Evad37 [talk] 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move for Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have requested that Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW) be moved. The move discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Forrest Highway FAC discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Forrest Highway/archive1. Thanks. Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Australian lists of roads table

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Australian lists of roads table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Evad37 [talk] 10:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Another editor has decided that "F3" was never actually the route number of the former F3 Freeway simply because route signs were never used on the road. We've been discussing this on my talk page, but he's decided to edit-war at the article, so I've moved the discussion to the talk page to formalise it and get some more input. The discussion may be found here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

propose merge from Adelaide–Crafers Highway to South Eastern Freeway

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please visit Talk:South Eastern Freeway#2015 Merge proposal for a new proposal to merge these two articles as it appears the government now considers it to be all one road. As there will be quite a bit of work, I decided to consult before being bold. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of road terms

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I started Draft:Glossary of road transport terms. Feel free to fill in where you see fit. –Fredddie ™ 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata maps

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Category:Infobox road maps for Wikidata migration I created this category yesterday so we know how many maps need to be migrated over to Wikidata. Ideally, there should be a bot that can do this for us, right? –Fredddie ™ 22:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots have been migrating everything else over to Wikidata so I don't see why we can't get these done. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Some cases probably can't be handled by a bot – including maps with PD-USonly elements (route markers) that are hosted on en.wikipedia instead of commons. Some of these may have a different version (without route markers) on commons – so we probably want a "different map specfied on wikidata" category to track these cases. - Evad37 [talk] 09:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to attend the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bandiana Link Road: B400 or B410?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In preparation for updating Victorian roads using the new state alphanumeric route numbers, I've noticed that when the Bandiana Link Road (effectively completing the eastern half of the "ring road" around Wodonga) was first built in 2011, it was initially allocated B401, then B410, with the Murray Valley Highway (and the B400 route) assigned along the old route through Wodonga (Melbourne Road, Elgin Blvd, High Street, Thomas Mitchell Drive). It appears since the B400 has been re-aligned along the Bandiana Link Road, effectively displacing the old B410 route (paper maps, like the VicRoads Country Directory of Victoria, show this, as does Google Maps).

My question is, is there an authoritative source citing the change of route? I'm not able to find anything at VicRoads or online that states as such, and I don't want to delete the entry for the B410 (which exists on multiple Victorian Road wiki articles as its use was deeply entrenched as the B410) without being entirely certain it has been replaced and now therefore no longer exists. Call me nit-picky, but understandably I like to have proof before I make possibly contentious edits.

Cheers, LS (Lordstorm (talk) 11:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC))

The best sources for citing routes are those published by the responsible state/territory government agency, in this case VicRoads. As changes to route numbers usually aren't directly discussed (by any reliable sources, let alone the best sources), the way to cite change in routes is by citing both a new map and old map – ideally consecutive editions, but otherwise as close as possible. That way the date of the change can be said to be in the range of the two publication dates. A recent map of all routes in Victoria is available in "Chapter 10 - Direction Signs and Route Numbering (non-Freeway)" of VicRoads' Traffic Engineering Manual Volume 2, (pages 25–31), available at https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/business-and-industry/technical-documents/traffic-engineering-manual-volume-2 - Evad37 [talk] 07:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Found what I needed, thanks for the link: VicRoads own route-numbering map, as of 2013, marks the Bandiana Link Road as the B400. Will probably help me with other difficult-to-chart routes to document. :) Cheers! 10:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordstorm (talk • contribs)

Nomination for deletion of Templates ACTcity, NSWcity, etc.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Templates ACTcity, NSWcity, NTcity, QLDcity, SAcity, TAScity, VICcity, and WAcity have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Evad37 [talk] 23:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Directions

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Did we end up with a definitive decision on direction of highways (I have looked but not found it)? To me it looks quite odd to describe the Calder Highway as extending from the Abbotsford Bridge to Ravenswood South rather than saying it goes from Melbourne to the state border past Mildura. I'd like some consensus before I even consider trying to turn it around.

The secondary question here is how to handle historic "highways" that are progressively being upgraded to bypass the towns that used to be necessary stops en route, and in the process the "<thing> highway" is being renamed to the "<thing> freeway". --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

When NSW decided to confuse everyone by simultaneously creating two "M1 Pacific Motorway"s, we decided to keep the directions constant, i.e. Sydney-Newcastle = S-N = Ewingsdale-Brisbane, but at the RM earlier this year there seemed a preference for "large-small", which would support "Melbourne-Mildura". --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the norm in the real world seems to be "big place" to "little place". I assume the M1's northern chunk is named as it is because the NSW govt think it will eventually run from Sydney to Brisbane so are keeping the direction consistent in the meantime (which is WP:CRYSTAL of course but the NSW Govt is not constrained by that!). But, if we have the reverse direction as a redirect, a reader is likely to find what they want, which is surely the most important thing.

By the same reasoning (helping the reader), I'd be inclined to say in the lede that the Calder Freeway is the first sector of the route from Melbourne to Mildura via Foo and Bar (so the reader knows if it's the article they are looking for) and let the rest of article be more precise about exactly where it starts and stops and what it bypasses along the way and what the subsequent chunks of it are called. Again, I think we can use redirects to provide alternative names (more-or-less precise) to accommodate what readers might call the road and, indeed, what editors of other articles (who might not be experts on our road naming conventions) might refer to it as. I note that MOS:INTRO says to avoid "over-specific descriptions" in the lede as an accessibility issue. So on that basis, it's hard to justify Calder Highway's lede describing it as starting at the redlinked Ravenswood South without any mention of it being a continuation of the Calder Freeway from Melbourne to that point. In contrast the Calder Freeway's lede is much better in terms of making it clear that, together with the Calder Highway, it will get you from Melbourne to Mildura. I understand the desire to have separate articles about the precise details of both the Calder Freeway and the Calder Highway but we should not do so in a way that confuses the reader who is just trying to get from Melbourne to Mildura; I think a well-written lede that matches likely reader expectations and explains the role of the two articles in relation to those expections provides a balance between these opposing tensions. Kerry (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Bowen Developmental Road

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have discovered an article on the Bowen Developmental Road in the German Wikipedia. Is there someone out there who can translate it into English? Downsize43 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a start. I think I have the text moved across but they use their own kind of infobox with German field names that's more of a challenge. Kerry (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I have done as much as I can (not an expert with {{infobox Australian road}}). The German article had a lot of exits, which I faithfully copied over, a lot more than similar Australian articles. Might need some judicious pruning. Kerry (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kerry. If no one else jumps in first I will try to tidy it up a bit in the coming days.Downsize43 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Suttor Developmental Road

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Suttor Developmental Road is also in de.wikipedia. Translation would be appreciated. Downsize43 (talk) 01:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just special somehow, but when I look at German Wikipedia articles, they translate into English for me after a second or two of showing in German. I use Chrome as my browser so maybe Google translate is doing it. That is how I did Bowen Developmental Road - just copied the translation for the article (excluding the infobox) and then did a little copyediting to smooth the English. Kerry (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I have a question for the road experts. When I look on Google Maps, it is looks like State Road/Route 11. But when I look in the list of road routes in Queensland, that number is assigned to a route through Marshall Road in Brisbane (which bears exactly the same logo (blue shield with the number 11) as does the Suttor Development Road. So what's going on here, can they both be S11? Kerry (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Queensland does double up (or triple up) on some route numbers, hence why that list has State Route 10 (Brisbane) as well as State Route 10 (Gold Coast), and State Route 24 for Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Regional - Evad37 [talk] 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, even if the situation is as dumb as toast! Oh well, I'll call it State Route 11 (Regional) in the list. Kerry (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I've done the best I can with the artile; it needs road experts now. I rewrote some of the description as what I read didn't match what I can see on a map (east/west swapped etc). Kerry (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Stub articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

Having reviewed the blurb on stubs, and some of the articles so categorised, I have formed the view that, where the following conditions are met the stub tag should be removed regardless of the amount of text in the article.

RJL is present in correct form
Infobox is present
Text is all that is easily verifiable from known sources

Downsize43 (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Downsize43: There are some other points to consider:

There should be some level of sourcing provided, particularly for the claim of significance/notability.
The article should be more than a "rough collection of information" – i.e. the article is structured: has some sort of lead and at least one prose section such as ==Route description== (which can be sourced to maps)
An infobox should really be irrelevant with regard to stub status, as it is (or should be) only a summary of the article. If there is unique information present in the infobox, it can/should be restated in the prose to boost article length (which may reduce ambiguity as to whether it should be a stub)
If all that is available information is not very much at all, then there may be a case for merging a group of similar articles into a list-class article such as Major roads in the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia or Tourist Drives in Western Australia.

Do you have any particular examples you are thinking of? - Evad37 [talk] 02:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Evad37: An example is:

Brisbane Valley Highway

It has structure and sourcing - lead could be split to provide one prose section, eg. ==Future plans==
A prose route description could be added, but is really a repetition of info already present
Grouping with other articles of this type, eg. Minor Highways in Queensland is not really practical

Downsize43 (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It has never been quite clear to me whether tagging an article with a stub template at the bottom has exactly the same nuance as marking it as "stub-class" in the talk page. Should an article have either both or neither of these stub annotations, meaning that the stub template is removed if-and-only-if the article is rated to at least "start-class"? This seems to be implied in the penultimate sentence of WP:DESTUB.

If we assume that equivalence, then the question is really "What is the minimum standard for an article about an Australian Road to be rated as start-class?" The Quality Scale tends to be written about what is not in or not good in an article, rather than what is good about an article, so the focus is on not over-rating articles. I would expect a start-class article to contain an infobox (with meaningful info) and a junction list (irrespective of style). It would also describe the kind of road (dry-weather-only dirt track to 6-lane freeway), its location, and what longer journeys it is a key component of. I'd expect at least half of the significant paragraphs to have references. History, former routes, significant upgrades (past or future) could be mentioned.

"Easily verifiable from known sources" is not measurable, so can't be used for objective criteria, as I might know a source you don't, or use different keywords for a search in Trove. Criteria might also say something about maps and photographs (but I'm not sure what). I would also welcome "promotion criteria" for re-grading articles up the scale (or initiating them at a higher level). It's also not clear to me whether I should up-rate articles I have worked on, or wait for someone else to notice and reassess it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the current guidelines don't require an infobox until B-Class, you're definitely raising the bar with your expectations of start class! I tend to see stub/start/C as essentially about growing the volume of content (assuming it all sounds plausible enough), whereas start/C/B is about increasing verifiability of content, and C/B/A is about presentation (infoboxes, those road junction diagrams, dashes being the right length, and all the other spit-and-polish). Or to put it another way, first write it, then validate it, then make it look pretty. It also roughly matches how editor's abilities tend to develop: new editors can write words, then they learn to add a naked URL as a citation, then ... they become experts at debugging templates. One of the good things about roads (compared to a lot of topics) is that validation is not as dependent on citation because lots of people know about each road from everyday use, so errors are likely to be spotted and fixed even by the most occasional of contributors, whereas other topics are much more citation-dependent for their accuracy and hence require greater research ability and technical editing skill and policy knowledge which limits the involvement of occasional contributors. I think there is a danger here of only "A-class" editors being involved in this discussion and hence setting the bar unrealistically high for the others. Kerry (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, the correct use of the semicolon is an entirely different matter. Misuse should result in article deletion and instant and permanent banning of the offending editor. :-) Kerry (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the standards as they are written need to be updated for the the way Wikipedia is written now. I would not write a stub article without at least one each of a reference, a category, and a wikilink to an article about something mentioned in the article that could reasonably also have a link to this article. Maybe @Downsize43: is right, and what is needed is a mass-review and rerating of Category:Stub-Class Australia road transport articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree. But I think there needs to be different criteria for road articles (which are about connecting place A to place B) and street articles (where the focus is more about the places/events along the street). For example, we have a lot of CBD street articles which are not interesting in terms of connection, but are full with heritage buildings and where the annual XYZ parade occurs etc. Road junctions are not so important for streets but they are important for roads because of the connectivities they facilitate. Kerry (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We currently have 464 articles in Category:Stub-Class Australia road transport articles and a total of 335 in Category:Australia road stubs and its subcategory. Let's try to agree on the minimum required for promote them to Start- or C-class, then make a push to either review and re-rate or improve the articles to reduce the size of these categories. If we need two or three sets of parallel details for roads, streets and junctions, that's fine. Articles tend to get rated within a day of creation, and rarely are the ratings revisited, so having clear minimal standards gives editors a standard to work towards. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps first we should decide how we want to use the classification system. If we make sure we agree on the broad principles, it will be easier to get clearer standards for assessments. My suggestion, in broad terms, is: Stub = Way too short; Start = Better than stub but missing obvious content; C-class = Substantial, but key sections incomplete or there are other major issues; B-class = Complete apart from minor issues, should only require polishing to reach higher assessment levels - Evad37 [talk] 07:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with that set of broad principles, but they need refining to provide objective criteria that are meaningful for determining when an article deserves to be raised to a higher category. What is obvious to someone else presumably wasn't obvious to the author who didn't include it at the time they wrote the rest. I have produced or worked on several road articles that I think pass Downsize43 standard for better-than-stub, and maybe Kerry Raymond's for better-than-start, but might still only be "stub" for Evad37 at the point when I have answered what I wanted at the time, so I moved on rather than obsess over trying to meet my perception of what someone else might think is obviously missing. The article rating is not very significant to me, so I tend not to rate articles, and leave that to the people who care. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just tossing out a little information from the US and Canada on assessment to provide food for thought. We follow the idea of the "Big Three", and to summarize WP:USRD/A, it basically goes like:

Stub = 0 or 1 sections separate from the lead
Start = 2 sections
C = all 3
B = all 3 mostly complete and cited.

The Big Three are a route description, a history and the junction or exit list. Of course many articles have additional sections (future plans, historic bridges, related routes, memorial highway names, etc.), but we've found that the basic expectations for a road/highway article encompass those three sections with a lead and infobox.

Also, some articles in the US at times may technically warrant Start-Class, but because they're too short on text, they might have a stub-sorting template. For that reason, we do remind people once in a while that Stub-Class ≠ Stub; while they're connected, the former is the bottom rung of a scale, and the latter is a measure of article length. Having said that, if a section is very deficient against expectations for that class and length of highway, we wouldn't necessarily count it toward the assessment. Imzadi 1979 → 16:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That is a more useful list of what is in an article instead of what is not in it yet. By that measure, I think Barossa Valley Way just falls over the line to C-class at present? I would have to look at other examples to work out what other kinds of things would belong in the history section of that article, rather than the history of the Barossa Valley or whether there should be more description of the route or scenery? --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably peg that as a Start for the moment because we don't have any sorts of dates for the history. Then based on some dates, I could gauge if I'd expect more historical detail than that is provided. (As a side note, length of existence isn't always the best determinant of expected content length in a history section because some highways just haven't been changed at all, like M-67.) At a minimum, a few dates would be required to call that history section non-deficient and to count it under the USRD/CARD "Big 3" assessment analysis. Imzadi 1979 → 14:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. It seems that I have started a wildfire when all I was seeking was a light under a bush :>) Guess I'll stick to familiar things and leave stubs to others.Downsize43 (talk) 07:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Downsize43: To me, you started the conversation that has given some guidance on what things to focus on to improve many of the articles I have contributed to so that they have a chance of being rated as C-class (I had only ever aimed for Start as I didn't know how to aim higher). I've been distracted by the election and politics articles, but intend to return to railway and road articles at some stage, and now have some direction. Thank you, and thanks to others who contributed to the discussion. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential changes at FAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal at WT:FAC#FAC nom preparedness to potentially require a Peer Review or A-Class Review before nomination. The idea is that would the change streamline the reviews at FAC to push articles through there faster by requiring more of the advance prep work to be done before an FAC was initiated. Such a change would mean revitalizing and using WP:HWY/ACR more in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a smaller challenge for your field of focus if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 5 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Highways and Freeways

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I see I am kind of continuing a March discussion above...

Is there a a good reason to have separate <Thing Highway> and <Thing Freeway> articles? The example above is Calder Highway and Calder Freeway. The one I have today is that we have a Goulburn Valley Highway Article that documents two distinct road segments, with a separate Goulburn Valley Freeway article that connects the segments together. Is there any good reason not to propose the merger of articles like these?

My Goulburn Valley example has the Highway article with a map drawing that shows the whole route, and the Freeway article contains sections about future upgrades to sections that are currently in the Highway article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should do what the reader expects. To my mind, most readers looking for a road article are likely to be expecting one article that covers a significant route between two big places (regardless of highway/freeway/motorway status changes along the route, all of which can be explained in the article) rather than two or more articles that cover parts of that journey based on freeway/highway/goattrack status. From the practical point of view of contributors, a single article (with appropriate redirects) makes updates to the article easier as upgrades occur compared with rewriting two articles to have different endpoints as upgrades occur. If we do keep them separate, then the lede in each article should make the relationship with the other article(s) very clear. At the moment, Calder Freeway's lede explains its relationship to the Calder Highway, but Calder Highway's lede describes a highway from the redlinked Ravenswood South to Mildura without any mention of the Calder Freeway until the bottom of the route section. However, the map in Calder Highway article shows a road from Melbourne to Mildura (there's no map in the Calder Freeway article). If we want to keep them separate, then someone has to undertake to keep updating the maps etc to reflect what the article is saying, because otherwise it's just confusing to the reader. Kerry (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I have put proposed merge tags on the article pairs for Goulburn Valley, Calder and Western freeway/highways. Some still need RJL updates/creations before the actual merges. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As a non-Australian, I agree that merging them together would make the most sense for readers. Imzadi 1979 → 16:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have merged all three examples to Goulburn Valley Highway (includes some of the Victorian part of Melbourne-Brisbane), Western Highway (Victoria) (Victorian part of Melbourne-Adelaide) and Calder Highway (Victorian part of Melbourne-Broken Hill). I would appreciate any comments on ways to improve them further. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LGA should be removed from road/junction tables

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists and it was suggested I raise it here, so here goes: LGAs (Local Government Area) have no place in tables Australian highway/freeway articles. In Australia, they're simply never (or as good as never) used when referring to geographical locations. To take the example in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists, no one travelling from the 4th entrance to the last would say, "I'm travelling from South Perth council area to Murray Council area"; they'd say "I'm travelling from Como to Ravenswood". The LGA just adds clutter to road junction tables, for no gain. LGA should probably be removed from Template:AUSinttop and (IMHO) should definitely not be recommended at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists. Adpete (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Pinging some project members (and some others who've commented in recent discussions): @ScottDavis, Linkqer, Marcnut1996, AussieLegend, Kerry Raymond, and Rangasyd:. I commented earlier today at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#LGA_should_be_removed_from_Australian_example, but it would be good to get some comments and opinions from other users. (BTW, I'll be away for a few days with limited or no internet access, so may not be able to look at this again until Sunday 8th Jan) - Evad37 [talk] 12:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Evad37's comments at WT:RJL. The LGA is normally the maintenance authority for non-State/Federal roads and road signage usually identifies borders between adjacent LGAs. In NSW LGA borders are the official borders for cities. If someone says "I'm driving to Newcastle", they are actually referring to somewhere in the City of Newcastle LGA, not a specific destination. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Our road network is not just a bunch of strips of bitumen that randomly go from place to place. It is exactly what its name suggests, a network. This is how it works. Each state government provides a system of "main roads" that interconnect the states and which connect the LGAs within their state. The state government maintains (pays for!) these "main roads". Each LGA provides a local road network to provide connectivity within the LGA (for which the LGA pays). This is the primary reason LGAs exist in the first place (putting the decision to build local streets/roads in the hands of local people at their expense). While you will occasionally find "main roads" within a single LGA (e.g. Moggill Road is a 27km road within the City of Brisbane), but that is usually the consequence of a subsequent LGA amalgmation (e.g. Moggill Road originally connected Town of Toowong, Shire of Taringa, Shire of Indooroopilly and Shire of Moggill). The roads that typically have Wikipedia articles tend to be main roads and hence LGAs do matter. Kerry (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that in normal speech we do tend to say that a road goes from town/suburb to town/suburb and not from LGA to LGA. However, just at the moment, I am writing the article Shelly Beach, Queensland (Townsville) which has that name to disambiguate it from Shelly Beach, Queensland (Sunshine Coast), which are 1277 kilometres apart and hence best not confused with one another when driving, and therefore need to be disambiguated by LGA. And our official place name databases do use LGA as the disambiguator of such names. Your comment elsewhere about not using LGAs in postal addresses is true, but that relies on the separate system of postcodes to disambiguate them. I am unaware of any use of postcodes in the disambiguation of the road network; there are no "Welcome to postcode 4551" signs and nobody ever uses them in general speech to disambiguate "Was that Shelly Beach 4551 or Shelly Beach 4810 you were trying to get to?". The other thing to be aware of in sparsely settled rural areas is that the shire names do get used in everyday speech "out at the Barcoo" "up in the Burdekin" in a way that is not so common within the large urban areas. Kerry (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Summary. LGAs matter to roads so we need to have the capability to talk about them. Since I gather from a previous comment that the LGA can be suppressed when not needed, then we have a way to deal with the situation where the LGA information is irrelevant. Kerry (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Well said - I agree with all of the above. Fwiw here are a few points for consideration:

Some localities with road junctions are small, obscure places with no WP article, while others are very small (in population and importance) In these cases the LGA name may be of assistance to the reader, particularly where it corresponds to the name of a larger town. (See Gregory Highway for some examples)
Main Roads districts (at least in Queensland) do not have WP articles, and there is probably no reason why this should change. They are unlikely to ever replace LGA names as a point of reference to a district for either locals or travellers.
The "Welcome to (LGA)" and similar signs have greatly increased in number and quality as regional councils have devoted more funds to tourism promotion. Downsize43 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

The maintenance issue seems to me an argument against the inclusion of LGAs, because LGAs typically don't maintain highways.
Ambiguous names (like Shelly Beach) are (a) very rare, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis, and (b) not always resolved by LGA anyway. SA has two Kingstons (Kingston SE and Kingston on Murray, South Australia), and the LGA is no help disambiguating them, because one of them is in Kingston District Council and one is not.
It is true that the local council "works" when talking of a large regional city like Newcastle, but it doesn't work for the capital cities (except Brisbane), which have multiple councils per metropolitan area; and it doesn't work for small towns, where the council includes a large surrounding area. So it only works for, at a guess, a dozen regional cities at most; and that shouldn't dictate every article. Anyway, the way to handle them is to mention the city centre in the "Destinations" column. For instance, using Western Highway (Victoria) as an example because I know it better than Newcastle: there are multiple exits for Ballarat, but the ones which lead to the actual city of Ballarat should be labeled as such - as they are on the physical highway signs. As it stands, we have the confusing situation where the article doesn't correctly say which exits do and don't lead to Ballarat. Furthermore, when you get to a smaller town on the same highway like Horsham, there are multiple exits for Horsham LGA listed in Western Highway (Victoria), despite the fact that some of them do not lead to Horsham suburbs at all. This lack of clarity would be fixed if the "Destinations" column was used correctly instead of relying on the LGAs as a guide.
If some people really do refer to rural shires in everyday speech, that is certainly not the case Australia-wide, and so our style guide should not recommend a blanket usage based on that.
All the examples in Gregory Highway have a blue link in the "Destinations" column, and information can be found that way. Again I think it's not enough to warrant the style guide and template recommending LGA inclusion in every article.

Now at this point some of you are probably thinking, "Why don't you just remove LGAs in the articles you're familiar with?" (which in fact I've already done at Southern Expressway (South Australia)). The problem is, someone inevitably is going to go and put them back in - not because they make any sense in suburban Adelaide, but because the style guide and template say so. So at the very least the style guide and template documentation should make clear that LGAs are not always appropriate. Adpete (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

LGAs typically don't maintain highways. - This infobox is not just used on highways. It's used for all roads, as well as junctions. As already explained, maintenance responsibility for many roads lies with the LGA.

it doesn't work for the capital cities (except Brisbane) - So you'd exclude use of LGAs in a huge number of aticles because the use doesn't work in a handful?

This lack of clarity would be fixed if the "Destinations" column was used correctly instead of relying on the LGAs as a guide - Apples and oranges. Destinations are destinations. The infobox instructions for LGAs says "List of LGA(s) through which the road passes". These are not destinations.

Note that |use_lga_map= relies on |lga= so that a map of the LGA can be used instead of a much larger map, to provide for better identification of the location of a road than a state map does. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

On your first point, just because LGA might be appropriate to some road articles, doesn't mean it's appropriate to all.

Your 2nd point quoted me out of context. I said "it doesn't work for the capital cities (except Brisbane), ... and it doesn't work for small towns ... So it only works for, at a guess, a dozen regional cities at most". So it's the direct opposite of what you're arguing: I want to exclude LGAs (or at least have the option to exclude them) because in the vast majority of cases it's unhelpful.

On your 3rd point, I was replying to the notion that LGA is helpful in the table because people say things like "I'm driving to Newcastle", i.e. the notion that it helps identify destinations. My point is that by and large it doesn't, and the few times it does (like multiple exits to a single regional city) can be handled without a specific LGA column. Adpete (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I don't see a problem with including the LGAs in Southern Expressway (South Australia), surely some readers will recognise them even if some of us won't (I won't). But I don't see why mysterious LGA names in SA constrain what we do in other parts of Oz. In Queensland, we *don't* have our cities split across multiple little LGAs and some of our LGA names are very well-known, e.g. Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast are LGA names (and are not used for towns/suburbs/localities). LGA names like Toowoomba Region, Gympie Region, Rockhampton Region, Mackay Region, Cairns Region are pretty obvious in terms of guessing where they might be. I just don't see that anything is lost by including LGA names, but something may be lost by excluding them. 12:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

just because LGA might be appropriate to some road articles, doesn't mean it's appropriate to all. - Nobody said the LGA was. If iot's not, just leave it out.

it doesn't work for small towns - I'm sorry, I missed that. It most certainly does work for small towns. Typically, small towns don't have major roads running through them and their roads are maintained by the LGA, so it helps to have the LGA in the infobox. In the case of towns that do have a road that passes through 2 or more LGAs, that's not a problem, it still helps to include the LGA name.

I want to exclude LGAs (or at least have the option to exclude them) - You do. It's not mandated that they have to be included in the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

OK it's obvious by now this is a losing battle, so I'll just make a couple of last points:

"I just don't see that anything is lost by including LGA names" - article quality, and accessibility. A cluttered article is a poorer article, IMO. But also, wider tables are less accessible on some devices. More than once I've visited articles (not road articles in those cases) on my phone, and been unable to read parts of the tables because they're too wide. So too-wide tables should be avoided, and needless columns should be removed.
"It's not mandated that they have to be included in the infobox.". By my reading, it is. Template:AUSinttop says, "To turn off the column, for roads within a single LGA, use |noLGA=yes" ; so the only exemption is if it's all within one LGA. (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC) (Removed some repetition Adpete (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC))
- What about the State column in the tables in articles such as Calder Highway? It serves somewhat more use in Mallee Highway and Sturt Highway. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  - I'd definitely advocate keeping the states column (for interstate roads), because states are used to identify geographical regions in Australia. Adpete (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggest we resolve this discussion by a vote

Hi all, I'm a member of WP:WikiProject Australian Roads and an avid editor to highways and motorways, especially in NSW and ACT. This debate could go back and forth forever. In order to bring the matter to conclusion in a timely manner, I suggest that Adpete succinctly propose the arguments in favour of removing the LGA from MOS/Rjl in a format similar to {{Template:Merge to}}. Then each person may respond in the format of either Support or Oppose and state the reasons for their case. After say, ten days (given the time of year when many people are on breaks), there should be a count of the for and against votes and then a decision made on whether we include LGAs or remove them. Finally, the best place for this vote to occur is not at this page or at Talk:MOS/Rjl – it is at Template talk:AUSinttop. That's my comments for the time being. Rangasyd (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't like that idea. See Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia works by consensus, not vote. I'll add, I think I've had 4 editors speak against me and none in support, so unless I get some support then this is going to wind up very quickly by consensus anyway. Adpete (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Rangasyd may have meant the form of vote that we use in RfCs. e.g. for or against removal followed by a rationale. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days, so catching up on this conversation, which seems to have forked or replicated to at least three pages. I think I have picked the right one to respond at. I have been involved in converting old-style Junction Lists to current MOS-compliant RJLs, so I guess I have a vested interest in making the job simpler. I find the hardest thing to get right is the distance column, and the next-hardest is the LGA, especially for junctions in a state I am not familiar with the right source for. The Western Highway (Victoria) still has the distances wrong in some places (only by a few km), and I guessed LGA at about four junctions too (I didn't know a reliable source for the LGA(s) of junctions that are between towns in different LGAs in Victoria). That said, I think the LGA does add information not contained elsewhere. The roads that are subject to articles are usually maintained by the state, but the roads noted at intersections might be maintained by an LGA, and the destinations could well be in the next LGA, especially for junctions that are not in a town. I believe the "correct answer" to Is the LGA column useful in RJLs?" is "sometimes". To make an objective guideline, I'd say it's around about "yes, if there are at least three". --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a situation that varies from state to state. In Qld, we have a set of Google Earth layers (known as the Queensland Globe) which boundaries for suburb/locality, LGA, electorates state/federal, postcodes,etc. So with that I can follow the route of the road and know precisely where any junction is. I think this may be the Victoria equivalent, but I have no experience with it. Kerry (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

"Local expert" needed for Melbourne/Victoria

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there someone from Melbourne or Victoria able to read through the articles about freeways and highways, especially in the Melbourne area? I have found a number of articles that talk about upgrades proposed to be done by 2014, but the references are often dead links, and I don't know what is actually happening/happened. I "feel bad" just tagging them for update and moving on, but I'm not familiar with the right sources if the Vicroads links are dead and Google Streetview is too old. Examples include Ballarat Road, Western Ring Road, the Shepparton bypass of Goulburn Valley Highway, the new interchange near Bendigo on the Calder Highway... I've tried to update some of them, but not always sure what was done and what wasn't, so not sure if I'm getting them right. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Stub articles revisited

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Harking back to the now archived discussion on stub articles, I request that any interested parties review the Moonie Highway article and offer their opinion on its suitability for progression. Downsize43 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've uprated it to Start-class. To go further, it needs a section with history of the route. I'd also like to see the map show all of the cross-routes mentioned in the text (probably with smaller route symbols than the ones on it now). I'd also like to see descriptions of where I might be coming from and going to if I was travelling the whole route (eg Route 49 is the main route from the Sunshine Coast to Broken Hill and Adelaide or wherever are better targets), coordinates to look at an external map (or wikiminiatlas) and links to the oil and gas fields with an indication of where they are - they're mentioned in the lead but not further down. --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It's looking much better than it was a week ago! I pretty much agree with what Scott said above. One thing to watch out for is to not make it too much like a travel guide. Points of interest and the like are fine to mention if it helps describe the route the road takes, or it's history, etc. ... but ideally they should be integrated into the prose/paragraphs, rather than added as a separate list. E.g. compare Wikipedia's article Eyre Highway with Wikivoyage's travel guide voy:Eyre Highway. There is some overlap, but the encyclopedia article is more from the 'about the road itself' point-of-view. Anyway, thanks again for your efforts (and Wikivoyage's coverage of Australian roads could definitely use some improvement, if you're ever in the mood). - Evad37 [talk] 05:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Or you could use the See also section to link to tangentially/indirectly related articles – that's part of of it's purpose - Evad37 [talk] 05:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The bulleted list of "Kumbarilla points of interest" really belongs as prose in Kumbarilla, Queensland which is a red link in the junction table. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I have created Kumbarilla, Queensland. Somewhat minimal at this point but I'll work on it a bit more this afternoon. Kerry (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback. I have passed the comment re the map to its author, user Summerdrought. Downsize43 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Importance

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

for the template, how important does an item need to be ? Wiki noteable important or culturally historically significantly important ? coming up for 200 years of continuous in-use but low ?Lansdowne Bridge Dave Rave (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Importance is always in relation to the specific Wikiproject. For this wikiproject, the importance scale is defined at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Australian_Roads/Assessment#Importance_scale, as linked from the template. "High", which is what you rated it before, is for "Articles of national importance. Typically includes National highways and major interstate routes. Example: Princes Highway". Regardless of the amount of history, its hard to imagine a single bridge, typically in one location or connecting two locations, fitting that criteria. For comparison, Wikiproject Bridges has criteria here, with "High" being "Famous bridges, well-known bridges, or bridges that cross a major waterway that carries a major (rail)road/ Examples: San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge"; Wikiproject Australia has criteria here where "High" means "Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Example: Labour Party (UK)". - Evad37 [talk] 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I would say in my 10+ years of being a Wikipedian, I think the "high importance" articles were pretty much all substantially written long before I arrived. I think only a handful of the thousands of articles I have started were even rated as "mid importance" (by any project). It's really only "new things" that can be new "high importance articles", e.g. a new Prime Minister. I note that even the Sydney Harbour Bridge (which I think is the most famous bridge we have in Australia and which is also very important as a piece of transport infrastructure) is only of "mid importance" to this project. Kerry (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)