Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Imzadi1979 (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 22 April 2013 (→Infobox: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Australian Roads and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability Shortcut WT:AURD

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Australia Project‑class
WikiProject Australian Roads is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Highways: Oceania Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. This article is supported by the Oceania Highways Task Force.

Project Noticeboard

Recently created articles

Please plus new articles at the bottom of the list.

• Highway 1 (Western Australia) - 18 March
• Highway 1 (Northern Territory) - 19 March
• Highway 1 (Queensland) - 20 March
• Highway 1 (New South Wales) - 21 March
• Highway 1 (Tasmania) - 22 March
• Highway 1 (Victoria) - 23 March

Article alerts

Article alerts

No Article alerts at this time.

Project watchlists: Articles • Talk pages

WikiProject Australian Roads
Project home (WP:AURD) Talk page (WT:AURD) Portal (P:AURD) Assessment (WP:AURD/A) Resources (WP:AURD/R) Article Standards (WP:AURD/AS) Discussions Library (WP:AURD/L) Advanced Permissions (WP:AURD/P) The U Turn (newsletter) (WP:AURD/NEWS) Parent projects Wikiproject Highways (WP:HWY)  • A-Class Review (WP:HWY/ACR)  • Chat (WP:HWY/IRC)  • Route markers (WP:HWY/RM) Wikiproject Australia (WP:AUS)  • Notice board (WP:AWNB)

Some guidelines

I think it would be a good idea to list what areas we should aim to cover for any article. This would be a generic thing as some may not be applicable to some roads, and others there may be enough information to go beyond these guidelines.

Obviously the existing GA's would be a good start to make this listing off, until we have a few FAs it should be treated as a WIP.

If others agree we can add it to the todo list on the main page...

Nbound (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

USRD has a good new user orientation page that pretty much will apply no matter the country. (Yes, it's quite general to get people started.) The project has also developed a standards page incorporating several years' worth of reviews through FAC, ACR and GAN. Something like that probably can be adapted and localized. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi that the guidelines/ standards/advice at WP:USRD does apply to all roads in general, but with some specific adjustments needed for each country - the way I got our two GAs was by following that guidance. Also note that the standard section the apply to B class articles worldwide (per WP:HWY/A) are History, Route description, and list of junctions (would be called intersections and/or interchanges in our articles). - Evad37 (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the structure of articles is explained at WP:HWY#Structure_of_articles. We can still write our own guidelines, advice, and examples, but we should keep in mind the experience of the other projects - Evad37 (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Which standard will we using for interchange/intersection tables; the US/UK ones are different to whats in use already on multiple AU road articles? Use UK or US? Use current? Create our own better one? The North/South paradigm also obviously does not apply to AU roads. Nbound (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:RJL has been adopted as a worldwide guideline, and is in use on all the Australian road GAs, as well as almost 50 US and Canada road FAs. We are currently in discussions regarding removing the UK format, as it does not comply with several provisions of MOS. As far as north/south, I believe the way Evad handled it in Western Australia was to use inbound/outbound instead. --Rschen7754 10:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what I have been using for direction is major centre to minor centre, such from Perth (capital city) to Bunbury (major regional centre). Also, I can easily set up templates for all states that create MOS:RJL compliant tables, such as is used in Mitchell Freeway#Interchanges - Evad37 (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good in theory but what about through roads, for example Parkes Way in Canberra. It starts at an interchange, approaches, passes, and leaves the CBD and before finally changing name (both areas are essentially unpopulated, though one is a nature reserve while the other is defence buildings, the continuations of either end both also eventually reach large population centres via other roads ). Orbital and ring routes would also present problems under an in/out convention. Extreme examples would be State Circle and Capital Circle which both circle Parliament house, where does a circular road start and end? North? Furthermore roads linking cities of equal size (Syd-Melb?), it would be hard to designate an in or an out without being partisan towards one city or another.

Im not deliberately trying to scuttle debate, but just playing devils advocate Nbound (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)One possible solution for rings roads is to just decide to use either clockwise or anticlockwise as the direction. Roads within cities are a more complicated matter, and the a "North-South" and "East-West" type system may work better. No matter what system is chose, there will always be some exception, such as those that have both an east (or west) end and a north (or south) end. I would suggest trying to contact the relevent road agencies for the start point of roads that are complete circles, as they will have chosen a point for there internal usage - Evad37 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In the US, we use the west-to-east, south-to-north or clockwise conventions because that's how the milemarkers were standardized on the Interstates, and the other highways followed suit. Of course, there are exceptions. If you can, I'd suggest contacting the relevant agencies to determine their practices and emulating them. Imzadi 1979 → 12:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

New userboxes

I've created new userboxes, at WP:AURD/U. There are six designs to choose from, but more can be added upon request. Adding a userbox will categorise your user page into Category:WikiProject Australian Roads members. - Evad37 (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review proposed changes

There are proposed changes for the A-Class review for WP:HWY, to deal with situations where there are several opposes, and when the nominator has failed to respond to the comments. Your input is welcome at WT:HWY/ACR. --Rschen7754 05:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Progress report - Day 1

Its been 24 hours since the main project page was created (in project namespace, rather than user sandbox). In that time about 90% of the project has been set up:

• Assessment and other project categories, and their talk pages, have been created
• Road project parameters have been added to the {{WikiProject Australia}} talk page
• A bot to automatically add these parameters to all articles in Category:Roads in Australia has been coded, and is awaiting approval at WP:BRFA (Theo's Little Bot 4 to be operated by Theopolisme)
• Userboxes are now available at WP:AURD/U
• Article alerts have been setup, and will appear in the project noticeboard at the top of this page once the assessment categories have been populated
• Recognised content (for this project, rather than WP:HWY/O) has been set up, and again is waitning on the assessment categories to be populated
• There are now four project members (a 300% increase in 24 hrs), and the project has been advertised across various talk pages of other projects
• External resources have been added
• This talk page has seen its first threads, including the start of a discussion about guidlines
• Wikiproject Australia and WikiProject Highways have been updated to include Wikiproject Australian Roads

I would like to thank the Wikipedians who gave me valuable advice, Rschen7754, Imzadi 1979, and sats, as well as everyone else who has contributed in any way to this project. - Evad37 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)   (PS: I do not intend to write project updates every day - will probably be more like every 1-2 months)

Followup: Theo's Little Bot 4 has been approved by the WP:BAG, and hill hopefully begin operating soon - Evad37 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A-Class nomination

Mitchell Freeway has been nominated for promotion to A-class. You are are welcome to participate in the discussion. - Evad37 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Stub sorting

I've been thinking that each state should probably have its own stub sorting template / category, rather than the general {{Australia-road-stub}} / Category:Australia road stubs (this has already been set up for WA, which has {{WesternAustralia-road-stub}} / Category:Western Australia road stubs). What does everyone else think? - Evad37 (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd normally say "good idea" but I've recently run afoul of an editor who cites WP:WPSS, which says stub categories should contain no less than 60 stubs, which is a lot and incongruous with normal category practice. The templates seem a good idea, but the categories may be an issue. Some of the cats I created for the Hunter Region are now at CfD because they have less than 60 articles in them. A look at Category:Australia road stubs reveals that any categories created may be in dager of having less than the magic "60". --AussieLegend (✉) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Back in the old days (2005!), the stub sorting WikiProject really got on your case if you created a stub type without getting it approved first. For the first few years we really drove them mad when we created a bunch of improperly named and ill-scoped tags. Stub sorting isn't as big of a deal as it was back then though, so things may have changed (I don't think there's a SFD process anymore). --Rschen7754 09:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

For an alternate method, you might want to consider coding a separate banner template for AURD similar to what USRD and CRWP have. Those banners track the state(s) or province(s) through which a highway passes, and then each populates assessment categories as appropriate. That's what allows the bot to update the tables on WP:USRD/A/S and WP:CRWP/A/P with each state/province's assessment data, including Stub-Class counts. (Those tables also have been the subject of some friendly competition to see which states in the US could be improved, which ones need improvement, etc.) Just a thought. Imzadi 1979 → 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Just another thought that pops to mind, but many of the US states' stub sorting templates no longer populate separate categories. For instance, {{Michigan-road-stub}} populates Category:Midwestern United States road stubs along with the templates for Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, etc. You might be able to create separate templates, but use a single category. Each templates's "What links here" list would still show the tagged articles for an individual state then. Imzadi 1979 → 09:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor in question doesn't have a lot of problems with the templates, it's the categories he doesn't like. I see Evad37's proposal as positive, as it allows us to easily identify stubs associated with a particular state, but the stub project seems to be fixated on having cats with more than 60 articles, which means most of our articles will end up remaining in Category:Australia road stubs. If we aren't going to have appropriate cats, there doesn't seem much point in creating the stub templates. I see what Imzadi is getting at but it seems messier than having individual cats. After all, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub rationales says these cats are for editors. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what Imzadi's getting at is that in practice we in the US don't really use the stub categories (as in the WSS kind) that much anymore, now that we have the WP 1.0 system that's more detailed. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with using the WSS stubs though. --Rschen7754 09:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that creating state based stub lists would still be a good idea, even if they just sorted into Category:Australia road stubs. We could then see if any states are passed the magic 60 number by looking at the transclusion counts, and then create the relavent categories, if any. It might also be possible to modify the WP:AUS banner to categorise articles into roads-by-state categories, based on a both the road and state wikiproject parameters being set. I might have a go at coding such a function later. Creating a AURD specific banner would probably necessitate removing the banner for WP:HWY/O banner, or each article talk page would have (a minimum of) three banners on it. - Evad37 (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The normal practice is that once a country has a project with a proper banner, HWY stops tracking those articles. So if a separate banner is set up, I'd say that the HWY one should be dropped. Imzadi 1979 → 10:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have set up {{WikiProject Australia/sandbox}} with code for A-Class review and automatic assessment of quality/importance by state (based on presence of a parameter for a state/city/region wikiproject or task force). Is there anything else a "proper banner" should have? - Evad37 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

IRC

Don't forget that there is an IRC channel for roads editors. WP:HWY/IRC has all the information you need to get started. The channel is fairly active, so you can pop in and ask a question any time of day. –Fredddie™ 22:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Majura Parkway

Redone/cleaned up an existing article a fair bit today (compare previous: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Majura_Parkway&oldid=545382908)...

• Thoughts/ further improvements?
• Use of the non-free logo justified?
• Any ideas for a route map as I assume the image here (Page 3-4) is out of the question, as would be a trace?

Once initial roadway alignment works are completed and satellite images updated, then it can be traced by a project such as openstreetmap and reworked for inclusion here. But until then...

• Likelyhood of being able to add in either of the pictures here?

Note: Applicable copyright notice for all above non-free material here: http://www.majuraparkway.act.gov.au/legal/copyright
Note 2: Solar Farm and Historical sections were moved to new articles.
Nbound (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thoughts/ further improvements:
  • The Route section is very short (and should probably be called "Route description") - try expanding with where it starts, what direction it goes in, what it passes along the way, where it ends.- Fixed - Nbound (talk)
  • The lead contains many details not in the rest of the article - the article should be able to read without the lead (the main purpose of which is to introduce the topic and summarise the article)- Fixed - Nbound (talk)
  • Intersections/Interchanges: Refs don't really belong in the section header, maybe introduce the table with a short sentence which can have with the refs at the end of it. Also, the table isn't WP:MOS compliant (specifically, MOS:RJL, MOS:BOLD, MOS:ITALIC, WP:COLOUR)... but I'll need to set up some templates before this can be easily rectified - Fixed - Nbound (talk)
• Use of the non-free logo justified?
  • Probably, but I'm not an expert on non-free image usage.
• Any ideas for a route map...?
  • Data from OpenStreetMap can be reused (licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0) - Not Accurate (Majura Parkway on OSM is only a very rough alignment) - Nbound (talk)
  • Crop/modify File:Locator map Australian Capital Territory parkways.PNG (CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence) - Not Accurate (Doesnt actually follow alignment) - Nbound (talk)
  • - Workaround - artists impression of alignment using a modified freely licensed image, full route to be added when OSM data updated. Have also externally link to Google Maps if readers wish to follow my route description there - Nbound (talk)
• Likelyhood of being able to add in those pictures
  • Unlikely, as it would fail WP:NFCCP #1. However, you can link to them using {{external media}}, or include the link to the gallery in the external links section. - Added to external links - Nbound (talk)

The article is definitely much better than before you started working on it, and I hope you continue to do so - Evad37 (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evad37, will definately continue my work on it, will be re-doing as many of Canberra's arterial roads as I can (My goal is to get as many of them as I can to B class status ). I will make your suggested improvements in the coming hours/days. If anyone else has any additions to Evad's, Im all ears :). Nbound (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now created {{ACTint}}, which will help with creating a MOS:RJL-compliant junction list. Let me know if you need any help with it. - Evad37 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nicely done - Nbound (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

After browsing that, I dont know how well suited it is to the purpose. Ill explain further under a different thread once Ive gotten this article upto scratch. :) - Nbound (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Your ideas (excluding junction list), have been fixed, let me know what you think. - Nbound (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

CWill do. I intend to take a look and reply later today or tonight. - Evad37 (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I just corrected the section order (External links goes after the References per the MOS) and inserted links to the portals in the See also section. Based on my experience with the articles on the highways in Michigan, Portal:Michigan Highways has been consistently in the top 10 or top 20 most viewed pages for the state's highways since I put a portal link in the see also section of every article. Maybe in the future WP:AURD will set up its own portal, but for now we should be driving potential page views to our portals. Imzadi 1979 → 00:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi1979, much appreciated :) - Nbound (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good effort - I have reassessed the article as C-class and Mid-importance (per our assessment page), though it is probably close to B-Class. The main issue I see is the junction list (which we're discussing in the thread below), but some more ideas to improve the article:

• Try to expand or combine short paragraphs (those with only 1 or 2 sentences) - Largely Fixed - Nbound (talk)
• the lead is probably a bit short - probably needs more details from the history section - Not sure what I could add that would pad it out without being overly verbose - Nbound (talk)
• "These can be accessed via the external video links to the right" troubles me. First, this isn't always accurate, as the display differs for different screen widths, and is different in mobile view, and the phrase is meaningless for printed versions of the page. Secondly, the external videos box is actually quite prominent - people are likely to cast their eyes towards it before reaching this sentence. A possible alternative to removing it entirely is referencing the previous sentence to a government website that links to these videos.- Added references, left ext media box intact - Nbound (talk)
• Use {{wide image}} template for the big image - will be more accessible for those with small screens- Fixed - Nbound (talk)

- Evad37 (talk) 06:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyeidt Evad, ive further modified the junction list in the same vein as your edits. A later editor removed the "rural area" locations, I wonder the thoughts of editors here, Id prefer to keep it if the rest of you beleive its use is ok (I have reverted it for the time being), I feel some location is better than a blank box? . Evad is it necessary to have the airport icon next to the Monaro Highway shield, it would be better next to Pialligo Rd as its the only one of those roads that gets anywhere near it (I have also changed this back to Pialligo Rd while I was there) - If this violates junction listing rules, I will happily change it back. - Nbound (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

MOS:RJL does actually have specific guidance on these issue:

"Location: The municipality or equivalent within which the junction lies, whether it be a town, city, or village. If the location is indeterminable, or if the junction lies in unincorporated territory, this should be left blank"

and

"Route marker graphics should always appear at the beginning of the line, per the principle behind Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not use icons in general article prose: "Icons should not be used in the article body...This breaks up the continuity of the text, distracting the reader.""

(same principle applies to airport/hospital/etc graphics)

Also, if the chainage begins at Monaro Hwy, why is it at the bottom of the table? - Evad37 (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All sorted (table flipped, edits reinstated), I also put the airport shield before the B23 shield (was previously between B23 and Monaro Highway). Reads a bit better now. - Nbound (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

New Junction listing

I would prefer it if the junction listings would differentiate (by colour or icon) interchanges and intersections, and also if the intersection was a roundabout and/or is signalised (all are common on main roads throughout australia). I realise this might not be workable, so consider it a wish, more than a problem.

It would also be good if we could colour code road types similarly to the UK. This would be particularly good in the ACT where main roads dont have shields (except the NSW highways) and can be called pretty much anything (xxxxx Parkway, xxxxx Avenue, xxxxx Way, xxxxx Glen, xxxxx Drive, xxxxx Circle, xxxxx Circuit, etc.), A non-local wouldnt know that Yarra Glen is a major thoroughfare without clicking on its (not yet existent) wikipedia link. If anyone else can think of other AU junction list problems. We can work towards a better listing while mostly retaining the look and feel of the UK/US ones. - Nbound (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What's handy about the so called "US format" is that it includes a Notes column, which allows you to enter any relevant information such as the type of intersection or interchange, or if there's a roundabout - take a look at Reid Highway for an example of a road with both intersections and interchanges. Too many colours can become confusing and/or unsightly, and the problem with icons is that our road signs are not internationally recognised symbols, and the English Misplaced Pages needs to cater for readers from around the world. Not sure about how to differentiate ACT main roads... I believe the UK editors gets their colours from government designations of Motorway, Primary A road, or Secondary A road. - Evad37 (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The other issues are that we have to remain accessible for those who are visually impaired, and conveying information solely by color or icon does not help to meet this goal. --Rschen7754 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Evad, re: the UK, yes, and that coloration only applies to the header at the top of the table. That header, btw, is one of the items to be deprecated and phased out if the UK-specific items are removed from MOS:RJL. Imzadi 1979 → 00:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough :), any ideas on how we could differentiate main roads, in areas like the ACT that dont use shields. Or will we rely on main roads having their own wiki pages (and therefore being links). Of course, this would still cause a lesser problem in the ACT, as there are quite a few notable roads that arent major thoroughfares, being related to heritage, government, or being scenic. We could attempt to align them to the classifications listed here. For the majority of roads it would be a simple process. But, i assume it would fall under Misplaced Pages:No original research, as I am unable to source any map which lists roads accordingly (though will continue to search for it, or similar). Nbound (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Having thought about, I think that differentiating between main roads and other roads should be done on the pages for each linked road - maybe some stubs should be created for notable roads missing articles. The main purpose of the shield is visual representation of the route type and number (which should also be included as plain text for accessibility reasons). The fact that they would usually reflect the importance / function / standard of road is secondary. And if there is no reliable source / only OR, then I don't see how we can include such information. - Evad37 (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Redone using the correct junction list, is it possible to change the LGA column (and field in template) heading to say District. It is similarly used for land administation, of course in the ACT there isnt any actual Local Government (its all handled by the territory government), so LGA would be a misnomer. See here - Nbound (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done: Use {{AUSinttop|sub1=District}} - Evad37 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Evad :) - Nbound (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I have added code to this page to enable automatic archiving. The current settings are:

• Archive threads older than 30 days (since last response)
• A minimum of 4 threads (plus the project noticeboard) to remain on this page
• Archiving to occur when at least 1 thread meets these conditions

These settings can be adjusted at any time should the need arise - Evad37 (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Assessment Templates

It would be good if we could have our own templates to rate on our own scale rather than reusing WP:Highways or WP:Australia ones. Just a thought - Nbound (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I set up the road parameters within the WP:AUS banner was because every article within our scope is also within the scope of WP:AUS - it cuts down on duplication. Importance can already be assessed independently via the |road-importance= parameter. Would there actually be any situation in which quality assessment would be different between WP:AUS and us...? - Evad37 (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I see that now, might be worth making it a bit more clear. Many other readers will skim the page like I did and not realise that the main mechanism for our project's assessments is to use the WP:AUS template... The reasoning you gave above would be a good explanatory note - Nbound (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

If the WP:AUS template will handle the ACR coding at some point, the HWY template should be removed from AURD's articles. Once this subproject was formed, the articles stopped falling under HWY/O and started falling under AURD. (India is the only HWY subproject where HWY still tags the articles because the INR project uses the national project banner at very limited functionality.)

Personally though, I'd rather see AURD have its own banner template, even if AUS has a template as well than have AURD use AUS's template. You still might have two banners (AURD, AUS vs. AUS/AURD and HWY), but it clarifies, IMHO, that this is its own subproject. In the US, we have articles tagged for state-level and USRD projects (or the US project because the state-level was merged into that one, but that's another mess).

Technically, A-Class assessment from HWY does not apply to other projects, so if an article from AURD is promoted to A-Class, it would normally remain at GA-Class for AUS. Imzadi 1979 → 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Some good points there Imzadi1979 - Nbound (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The latest update to the banner does allow the banner to handle ACR, via an |ACR= parameter that only activates if |road=yes is present. However, you make a good point about this not being solely a subproject of WP:AUS. I am taking (or attempting to take) a short wikibreak, but do not mind if one of you wants to make/ask someone to make an AURD banner (just make sure the same quality/importance categories are used) - Evad37 (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I can work on hammering one out at some point. I might do it on my days off next week if no one gets to it by then. Imzadi 1979 → 01:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: using {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} I started {{WikiProject Australian Roads}}. There's still customization to do, so please don't think it's a finished product yet. I need to modify the code related to the Canadian provinces to refer to the Australian states, but the project should be done in a day or so. If anyone has suggestions on modifying the wording, I'm all ears. Also, we can change the icons for a few things around as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Update #2: I just have to finish customizing {{WikiProject Australian Roads/taskforce}} to handle the by-state coding so that the banner will handle the assessments of articles by the state(s) indicated in the banner. Just a quick note, but for the purposes of simplicity, the parameters will be named "state" or "state#", but they will handle the territories as well. I know they aren't states, but we run into the same issue in the US with Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, etc and in Canada with Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I'm off to work in about 30 minutes, so I'll pick up the project after work. Imzadi 1979 → 02:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thats not a big deal, in real-life forms/paperwork and the like they would normally only write state, when they want to know your state/territory of residence.- Nbound (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The subtemplate should be updated, and the banner should be ready for testing in a sandbox. I'll look at testing it after work in the morning. Imzadi 1979 → 03:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I realise this is a contentious issue; but it will need to be addressed at some point, what are our thoughts on converting to {infobox road}? Even if the functionality can be duplicated? - Im personally not qualified to cast judgement on it yet as I wasnt around during the previous discussions to see the major problems, so at this stage I wont. {infobox australian road} seems to perform relatively well, but im not necessarily against migration, depending on what the problems are. - Nbound (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not against {{Infobox road}} as a concept - it does in general provide more functionality and flexibility than {{Infobox Australian road}} - however I believe it requires further work to customise it for Australian roads. I am willing to discuss the issue further when I'm back from wikibreak (which I am going on, despite these last two posts) - Evad37 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The rest of us can continue the discussion while you are gone, and see if a consensus can be reached here and with other affected editors on WP:HWY and WP:AUS :) - Nbound (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that I'd like to see the migration happen. Now, lest my comments be a lightning rod here for some criticism, Some time ago I was working with WOSlinker to see if he could make whatever changes were needed to make a smooth transition possible. Someone else saw some of that discussion and nominated the template for deletion prematurely. So to do this in an orderly fashion, let's discuss, discuss, discuss up front, then sandbox stuff and test it. I think we'd all like a rational discussion, so let's learn from, and move on from, the past animosity.

The older infobox for tracks that was merged into IAusR had parameters for indicating permits/etc. A variation on that concept was implemented in IR with |restrictions=. I've already used that in a trio of FAs: Brockway Mountain Drive is closed to vehicles in the winter as is a section of H-58 (Michigan county highway). A segment of Interstate 696 has a restriction on trucks with hazardous materials. So a roadway that would require a special permit could be noted as |restrictions=Permit required or similar. Limited fuel services could also be notated in a similar fashion, |restrictions=Limited fuel services, and any combinations of those restrictions could be indicated together . In any case, I'd suggest that the text be succinct as a good infobox is a summary of, and not a replacement for the full text of the article. Anyways, this is a case where an Aussie situation was imported to American articles and improved them. I'm sure there could be others.

I'm all ears on other updates and improvements. Some of the subtemplates for IR have been rewritten in Lua by Happy5214 (talk · contribs), so I'll ping him to see what he can offer in terms of support for coding solutions. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could support some thing like "Limited fuel (and/or facilities), please see {this section} in article". And list them there... There isnt really any cut-off as to when fuel becomes limited of course (ie. its arbitrary), but its probably safe to be left upto common sense. There are multiple roads that are closed for snow in the Australian Alps aswell, so it could be of use there too... - Nbound (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your "migration plan" of sorts outlined above is reasonable Izmadi, if you wouldnt mind could you go through the previous discussions and list the points of contention. Or just link them here, and I will do it. :) - Nbound (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear/see how a circular road like State Circle, could be implemented using {{Infobox road}} aswell - Nbound (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We have generally used a "zero milepost" where the numbering starts. For example, see Interstate 495 (Capital Beltway). --Rschen7754 06:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looking for a better example. --Rschen7754 06:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Its worth noting that I have picked an arbitrary point as the start of the junction listing on that page. - Nbound (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) M-185 (Michigan highway), a FA on a "highway" that loops around Mackinac Island. Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems workable; Ill also note for others I like the use for split sections as per here, http://en.wikipedia.org/Highway_1_%28Australia%29 with the separate mainland and tasmanian listings. - Nbound (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It might also be worth noting for your State Circle example that IR has the |tourist= option for denoting tourist routes. We use that in the US for things like the Lake Superior Circle Tour or the Great River Road. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan has an example of how it's used for different types of tourist routes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been sandboxing and found a few problems/queries so far: (User:Nbound/sandbox):

• No way to add a date of completion for roads that are under construction (Using the "established" option outputs something like "2016-present").
• Heading is too small; Australian roads with very few exceptions are identified by their name, for some roads the average person couldnt even tell you the highway number. (The ACT has even taken it to its logical extreme in its internal road network and does not even number roads at all (excluding a few highways from New South Wales).) In my sandbox, the unnumbered route for State Circle's main junctions is much higher quality than the other two
• It would be good if you could provide link templates for individual states (the bit at the bottom), either blanked, or just copies of the current one, to be modified.
• A documentation rewrite will be required for Australian users as the un-numbered road template is of more use for most roads here than the numbered one, and other australian specific problems will likely arise through mine and others suggestions.
• "Major Junctions" should be replaced with "Major Intersections/Interchanges" or similar wording. Here only railway lines have junctions.
• Needs provision to diplay on the infobox something like... "Roadway type: Grade separated parkway", "Roadway type: Grade separated dual-carriageway", "Roadway type: Partially grade separated dual-carriageway", "Roadway type: Single-carriageway, with limited sections of dual-carriageway" - this would be very useful in the ACT.
• How do i code a split loop road? (confused?... see here: Capital Circle, Canberra - Google Maps). To help you get a idea, the larger part is a 3-lane wide oneway roadway between commonwealth avenue (southbound) and adelaide avenue (westbound), the smaller part is the same but travels from adelaide avenue (eastbound) to commonwealth avenue (northbound). I have tried, but it looks pretty sloppy.
• If a road is a loop, but it doesnt loop around anything in particular. How do you code that? (All ACT Tourist Drives are loops)
• I cant change the table heading colours (which are tied to type) without it trying to link to a shield (non-existent in ACT).
• It would be handy to have somewhere to put the former shield (ACT/NSW is converting to alphanumeric shields this year) - could use photo caption as per australian road box though, but the new infobox doesnt display it if there is no picture!.

Im only testing ACT related roads at this stage. Others will likely have more; and may disgaree with some of my thoughts/ideas too - Nbound (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments in reply

• Use |history=, see Interstate 696 for an example. It takes a freeform input to allow more detailed histories instead of X-Y dates (with "present" for current highways).
• The heading stuff was customized for Australia, but I'm sure we can do more tweaking with it to a point. That point would be some consistency issues with other articles in other countries.
• There is a separate subtemplate that handles that, for Australia it would be {{infobox road/browselinks/AUS}}. All of the US states are handles through a single national subtemplate, so the output is quite customizable.
• Documentation can be adjusted.
• For the US, we used to use "Major intersections", but we standardized on "Major junctions" for some commonality with the UK. Just as the UK uses "Road network" and the US uses "Highway system" for the bottom, we could insert a switch to swap the text around for labels/headings.
• No other country displays a roadway type, and I'm a bit hesitant to insert that. Further discussion and opinions should happen first.
• That case is something truly unique that I've never seen an analog in the US. Since there isn't an analog elsewhere, TMK, we'll have to develop a solution.
• Short of taking the easy answer out with "Loop around Canberra" or "Loop around the ACT"... not sure... I had to have the "Loop" option added (we only had Beltway or Orbital) so that M-185 (Michigan highway) would make sense since that isn't really a beltway around the island. If you have a specific idea, we can implement something specific too.
• |marker_image=none will shut off the marker image, but I think appropriate shield subtemplate can do the same automatically for |country=AUS |state=ACT. I know we have some roadway types in the US set to not display a marker.

Imzadi 1979 → 04:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I only just edited in the former shield bit, you probably missed it preparing your own post, any ideas on that one? - Nbound (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The tourist option also doesnt work for AUS (or I am using it wrong) - Nbound (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm making a request to have an admin fix a subtemplate. As for the former shield/number... I'd suggest in the |alternate_name= field, or maybe leaving it out altogether? In the few cases where I've had a highway that's been renumbered, it's been inserted in the browsers at the bottom. So M-119 (Michigan highway), which was previously M-131 has M-131's browser line, and then in the history section, I added a {{infobox road small}} for M-131. Imzadi 1979 → 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

alternate name displays above the current shield (where it should), but thats not where you want a former shield to be. Its unlikely that AURD would use the browser section as its of little to no use in Australia. And a new box seems a little too much for something that is likely to only have a sentence of information in the text. The history section could possibly be used, but it then is less usable if any actual history is meant to go there for the same particular road. -- Nbound (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I'd just leave it out of the infobox if its only going to get a sentence in the body of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Remote outback highways where part or all of the route is unsealed (and may be little more than a dirt track), could also benefit from a "roadway type" section I suggested above. (See Gunbarrel Highway, Anne Beadell Highway, and Buntine Highway, the latter being a partially unsealed numbered route. It could also be of use to the ice road routes over lakes in the northern winter. I do agree we should see what others think though - Nbound (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it not possible to allow the photo caption section to display without a photo like the australian road one? Many AURD articles also use this section to show future shield changes too. Specific coding for it would have been the preferred option though - Nbound (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Im still unsure how to switch off the marker image aswell (see my sandbox from the link further up - ive left it the way it stays if i set the road to being M-class ) - Nbound (talk) 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To override the marker image (or "shield"), the parameter is named |marker_image=. To shut off that image, use |marker_image=none. Shield isn't really an appropriate term as not all markers are shield-shaped, hence the more neutral, "marker". Imzadi 1979 → 06:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You cant turn it off for all ACT cases as your edit back up a bit further suggests as a possible option, as there are roads in the ACT which are part of numbered routes (eg. Canberra Avenue, Northbourne Avenue, State Circle. :) - Nbound (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I might be worth pointing out that for the US, we do make a distinction between state highways and city streets. For the latter, we have {{infobox street}}. IR is aimed more at state or national highways and other major roadways. Maybe some of the cases you're looking at would fall under the purview of that template more so that the one we've been discussing?

The distinction doesnt apply here: Highways are merely a collection of other shorter routes here. For example you wont find an article on Highway 23, but you will find Federal Highway, Northbourne Avenue, Commonwealth Avenue, State Circle, Canberra Avenue, and Monaro Highway articles. Canberra Avenue for example is longer than the GDE, and has two separate shields due to different allocations along its length as opposed to the GDE not having any. infobox street, last i checked was for streets of note for one reason or another (tourist, historical, design, etc.), not parts of highways. And it would just move a whole heap of other problems there too. We are meant to be trying to combine into one infobox for consistency, if the option is to use two separate completely different infoboxes, then why should I move from the single box solution Im already using? Its not perfect, but it can also still be changed to precisely meet our needs. - Nbound (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone documented the various code sections/templates (and where to find them) for infobox road aswell? Then either now, or in the future, the australian roads group can modify its own areas. - Nbound (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any interstate users feel free to chime in aswell... if its any consolation Imzadi1979, the other states may be a little easier to bring under the infobox road wing- Nbound (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There is full documentation on the various subtemplates. Template:Infobox road/doc/tech lists the technical inner workings, and Template:Infobox road/doc/country links to the subtemplates for each specific country. Imzadi 1979 → 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Australia pages
• NA-importance Australia pages
• WikiProject Australia articles
• Project-Class Highways pages
• NA-importance Highways pages
• Project-Class Oceania road transport pages
• NA-importance Oceania road transport pages
• Oceania road transport articles
• Project-Class Road transport pages
• NA-importance Road transport pages
• WikiProject Highways articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• WikiProject Australian Roads