Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Created a new article (I think it's IAusR's first non-testing "former road" infobox). I would appreciate any copyediting or advice. Someone should assess and tag it too. -- Nbound (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I have reproposed a move from Metroad 7 to Cumberland Highway. Please support or oppose with reasoning in Talk:Metroad 7. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion is now closed. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I've now been through every one of the several hundred articles that were in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Australian road articles using deprecated parameters and have replaced the deprecated parameters with the new parameters. The category is now empty and there should therefore be no articles using deprecated parameters. I intend waiting a few days and will then remove the deprecated parameters from the template and documentation unless anyone has any objections. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rschen7754 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion under way regarding the method of storing and displaying KML data used by Australian road articles. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to populate Template:Infobox Australian road/Examples with some good examples of the use of {{Infobox Australian road}}. Examples of the following are still needed:
If anyone has some up to date examples, please let me know. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
State Circle is a ring road. (Yes, Canberra likes circles :P) - it needs work to bring it upto our standards though -- Nbound (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metroad 5 (Sydney) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroad 5 (Sydney) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
124.168.177.19 pointed out that the M5 South Western Motorway should be renamed to another name (eg. M5 (Sydney), M5 Motorway, Sydney) because the article actually talks about the whole M5 and not just the South Western Motorway. Please discuss here. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
NOTE: All infoboxes/templates, etc.
User:AussieLegend, has suggested in discussions about his upgrades to {{Infobox Australian road}}
(IAusR), that the following discussion take place here:
If the new and improved IAusR code is approved to replace the current infobox, and IMO this is quite likely, what do the community wish to do in regards to the route shielding images section. There are a few problems with large shield image usage in all infoboxes for Australian roads:
|allocation=
section, far more accurately.|tourist=
parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
There may be occasions where the shielding is useful to have as images, and this is not a proposal to remove the option for that. The following are articles where images could still play a part:
For WP:AURD, this is essentially a revisit of the idea (to reconfirm our earlier choices and how they apply to IAusR specifically - if required). For everyone else, this is a chance to state your opinion, and potentially influence changes. The exceptions I am currently proposing have not been discussed at any point, I hold no particular opinion in regards to either exception, they are just ideas. Nbound (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been two weeks since the last comments. Unless anyone has anything else to say, I would suggest the following steps:
|route_image=
, |route_image2=
etc. as deprecated, and create a tracking category|top_image=
to replace |route_image=
, for the exceptions noted aboveThoughts? - Evad37 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
|route_image=
with |top_image=
. Any parameter will still result in some editor somewhere adding more images than he should. Even experienced editors make such errors. Tightening the documentation will result in exactly the same thing as replacing the parameter. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)I think it would be worth it if we typed up some preferred usage guidelines for the IAusR docs, to give new and otherwise unrelated editors some tips when it comes to {{AUshield}}
, {{plainlist}}
, etc. This could eventually be merged with the template docs, or kept on its own. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I have encountered a few problems when updating the infobox in Hume Highway.
{{AUshield}}
.Can someone help me out? Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
{{AUshield}}
. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)-- Nbound (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Enjoy! -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Fredddie will likely be do the non-NSW alphanumerics in the short-medium term future, at which point the shields will look more similar in size and colour to the NSW ones. And for shields that have been AUshielded we just change a single line of code in AUshield and they'll all get the new shielding. -- Nbound (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
type= | Description | Colours | Locations label |
---|---|---|---|
freeway motorway expressway parkway | Freeway-standard (controlled access) road | Text: Black Background: #D2E2F9 | Major suburbs / towns |
city highway | Highways within city/suburban areas | Text: Black Background: #E9F9D2 | Major suburbs |
highway | Highways outside of city/suburban areas | Text: Black Background: #E9F9D2 | Major settlements |
road | Major roads within city/suburban areas | Text: Black Background: #FFFFE0 | Major suburbs |
rural road | Major roads outside of city/suburban areas | Text: Black Background: #FFFFE0 | Major settlements |
street | Minor roads and streets, generally within a single suburb | Text: Black Background: #F9E2D2 | Suburb |
track | Outback tracks. These generally have restrictions (eg fuel) and/or require permits. | Text: Black Background: #FEE8AB | Primary destinations |
undefined | type either omitted or not specified correctly | Text: Black Background: #E6C4FB | Primary destinations |
uc_former= | Description | Colours |
---|---|---|
| New road that is under construction. Do not use for existing roads that are being extended/widened/etc | Text: Black Background: #FC6 |
| Roadway closed to traffic | Text: Black Background: #AAA |
Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{plainlist}}
Plainlist creates properly formatted and accessible lists while allowing information to be displayed neatly without any numbers or bullet points. Other formatting should be avoided where possible.
{{plainlist|*Item 1*Item 2*Item 3*...}}
Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{AUshield}}
{{plainlist|*{{AUshield|S|2}} Foobar Highway <small>(State Route 2)</small>*{{AUshield|None|S}} Example Road*{{AUshield|None|S}} Fake Street*{{AUshield|N|1}} Test Freeway <small>(National Highway 1)</small>}}
{{plainlist|*{{AUshield|S|2}} State Route 2*<small>(Point A to Point B)</small>*{{AUshield|R|41}} National Route 41*<small>(Point B to Point C)</small>*''Nil''*<small>(Point C to Point D)</small>}}
{{plainlist|*{{AUshield|Met|2}} Metroad 2*<small>(1974-1999)</small>*{{AUshield|R|96}} National Route 96*<small>(1999-2011)</small>}}
The route shields displayed at the top of the infobox should only be used on articles about a route itself. This includes articles such as Highway 1 (Australia) and A8, Sydney; but not standard highways and roads such as Westlink M7 or Oxley Highway, even if the roadway has a single shield over its entire length. This is for a multitude of reasons
|route=
section, far more accurately.|tourist=
parameter. And give them the same accuracy.Promotional logos can and should be included at the top of the infobox (taking into account copyright considerations), see Majura Parkway as an example of this.
As part of the upgrade process, there are many parameters that were once used, but are no longer recommended. The following is a basic infobox for a non-complex route without locator map, including usage notes:
{{Infobox Australian road| road_name = Do not include alphanumeric allocation.| road_name2 = Common alternative names only.| state = | state2 = | route_image = Route shield (very limited articles only)| photo = Can also be used for a logo| photo_alt = | caption = | photosize = | type = See table| uc_former = See table| length = | length_rnd = Generally should be 1 or greater, if required.| length_ref = | est = date road originally opened| closed =| gazetted = | gazetted_ref = | built = Company that built the road| maintained = Organisation that maintains the road (Local council, State transport authority, etc.)| history = ''Very basic'' history of route if required. See [[Parkes Way]]| route = see guidelines| former = see guidelines| tourist = see guidelines| direction_a = Direction at which end exists (use abbreviations for directions other than North, East, South, and West)| end_a = Roads at end A| exits =| direction_b = Direction at which end exists (use abbreviations for directions other than North, East, South, and West)| end_b = Roads at end B| region = | lga = | through = | restrictions = Seasonal closures, vehicle requirements (4WD, Snow chains, etc.)| permit = Permit for access legally required (Generally for aboriginal lands)| fuel = Only used for outback roads, where there is a high likelihood of running out of fuel if not correctly managed. If fuel is available nearby to a route in multiple locations, this should also not be mentioned| facilities = Only used for outback roads, where there is a likelihood of running out of supplies if not correctly managed.| show_links = Show links section at bottom of infobox, generally only used on highways and freeways}}
Let me know what you think, likely requires proofreading and editing. -- Nbound (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The mini-MOS has had little further changes over the last while... I think, if others agree we should look at a merge into the docs or as a link from the docs (the later is probably a bit less unwieldy) -- Nbound (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- ...
- |direction_a =
- |end_a =
- |exits =
- |direction_b =
- |end_b =
...
Sounds good to me, ill sort out the order tomorrow, unless anyone beats me to it -- Nbound (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
re-ordered, also some minor updates to mini-MOS to reflect current changes. -- Nbound (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys,
Im in contact with the owner of Ozroads on another website and he has mentioned that he sees alot of information here (especially former shield related) that goes unattributed from his site. While the usage of roadgeek sites is generally discouraged, especially if there is any contradictory evidence. We need to remember to attribute our sources. We of course shouldnt stop at Ozroads, and should do the same for any information pulled from Expressway as well, or any of the other roadgeek sites.
In general we should also be attempting to find sources for everything that so far has none. Some of our pages were written way back when articles were a little more sloppy, and anything that cant be sourced should really be removed.
Nbound (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Discussion in regards to the future of Metroad 2 are taking place at Talk:Metroad 2 -- Nbound (talk) 04:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
In Kwinana Freeway, Mitchell Freeway, Roe Highway and perhaps other articles, we are not always consistent as to whether we refer to it "Kwinana Freeway" or "the Kwinana Freeway" etc. We should be consistent. Personally I think "the" is not required - if it is, how do we decide what roads need it? The Kwinanay Freeway, the Albany Highway, the Stock Road, the Henry Street? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitch Ames (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Help!! There is no B89 shield NSW in the wiki. Can someone (eg. Freddie) create one for me? See Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle)#Interchanges for where a B89 shield should exist. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
We have 2 more old templates I have recently found:
{{Australian road routes table}}
, and{{Australian road routes table extended}}
Still both in limited usage: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Australian_road_routes_table and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Australian_road_routes_table_extended
What do we want to do with them? -- Nbound (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to invite the members of this wikiproject to comment on a proposal to promote WP:AURDNAME (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) to guideline status. Please visit the WP:AURDNAME talkpage and discuss.
-- Nbound (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I have proposed move changes at:
Please visit and discuss - Nbound (talk)
Let me put a timeframe so this can be archived. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a working bee on Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) to at least get it to GA status. With bonus points for a passed ACR.
Why?
How?
Just testing the water with this, but if we can get a few volunteers (say at least 4, preferably more), we can move discussion to the articles' talk page and go from there.
-- Nbound (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
With the alphanumeric conversion of the Metroads, not all Metroads have a 1-to-1 relationship with any singular successor article. For example Metroad 2 is covered by the Lane Cove Tunnel, M2 Hills Motorway, Old Windsor Road, and Windsor Road. Rather than providing an disambiguation page for each Metroad it may be better just to redirect to the Metroad article and explain it there in a single location.
Now would be a good opportunity to delete the {{Sydney Metroads}}
navbox, which now would appear to have little or no value to us.
-- Nbound (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Princes Highway East (Melbourne) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princes Highway East (Melbourne) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
The article National Highway A2, Queensland has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I beleive this one to be a fairly uncontroversial one so have PRODed it instead. Let me know if there are any concerns :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have created a Shields department at WP:AURD/S for any shield requests for existing sets. New sets should still be discussed here (until decided otherwise) where they will undoubtedly get wider coverage. The main purpose of WP:AURD/S is the non-controversial expansion of existing sets.(until decided otherwise) -- Nbound (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We have 3 options as to what we want the department to be able to do.
Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have now also created a library (WP:AURD/L) which will contain direct links to important AURD discussions. This will help us in future discussions amongst ourselves or with others.
I will attempt to do up a table of important discussions in the next few days, but I would also appreciate any requests (no need to be absolutely specific) in the mean time which I will also include. A rough listing so far would contain:
{{infobox road}}
adoption discussions.{{infobox Australian road}}
upgrading discussions.Shield discussions should be available from the Shields page instead IMHO. -- Nbound (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Major JunctionsTheres quite a few of these that say something along the lines of: "For a full list of exits and interchanges see section". This doesnt need to be said, its already the "Major Junctions" section. All exits (within reason^) should be listed in the junction listing..
Former ShieldsTheres quite a few of these that are getting quite verbose with previous shielding. The infobox is a summary of information only. If its complex enough, so as not to fit within a small number of lines, then save it for the article prose, either merged with the history section* or in its own section. So, if a whole length of road had a few shield changes, thats fine (or anything else that can be adequately described in a sane number of lines), anything more complex should be added within the article.
Hopefully Im not the only one that feels this way? Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough, a limit of 10 sounds good for major junctions/towns, and say 3 former shields and dates. If the road doesnt have a continuous shield along its length. Then it should be left for the article. Im sure we'll get good faith edits to try and fix this, so perhaps it should be standard practice to write a comment in the code along the lines of "Please dont add former shielding to this infobox, it is too complex, and should be added to the article itself if it does not already exist"? -- Nbound (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
QLD alphanumerics are now operation using the old code, or the new type which can be seen at Template:AUshield on the docs :)
Remaining alphas should be operation in the coming days/weeks -- Nbound (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
For those who want to propose delete or merge in the future, despite what the closing editor stated for the deletion, it is quite ok to propose one similarly to the recent Princes Highway one. Speedy Keep #1 only applies if deletion wasnt an option at all. It also saves us taking it to proposed mergers, then back to deletion if discussion goes that way. (of course articles which are definite keeps should go straight to proposed mergers instead). I have let the closing editor know, so hopefully future deletions wont have any issues. -- Nbound (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I beleive we should formalise our roadway article naming scheme (see Wikipedia:PLACE#Australia or Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)).
Essentially the consensus formed so far is:
I have created a sandbox page here which lists the above a little more formally with examples. There is also some basic guidance of usage in the lead and infobox.
Support/Oppose/Thoughts?
-- Nbound (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Below are formal conventions for the listings of Australian roads. These guidelines largely formalise pre-existing conventions in regards to Australian roads. As always use common sense when applying these guidelines.
The following apply only when an article needs to be disambiguated:
road_name
" is the article title, excluding disambiguation.road_name2
" and separated by " / ", this includes both public common names and those used in reputable sources. (Soft limit of 3 common names based on approximate popularity)Note: I apologise for the Sydney based examples. Please feel free to add/modify to represent a wider selection of roadways.
Here is what Im considering as the draft version. If this stays reasonably stable (and wihout major opposition) for a few days Ill consider it as having consensus, and publish a final version of it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads). -- Nbound (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a new WikiProject, WikiProject Hong Kong Roads. Help is appreciated.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that the B-set is complete the SA functionality for AUshield is operational. As we now have complete M, A, and B sets, I have linked them to the new images, but conversion of those to state based AUshielding shouldnt occur until the remaining C set shields are completed. This affects TAS, VIC, and NT. If shields arent eventually converted to state based AUshields, and in the future one state goes rogue with their own shield set, it could be a bit harder to convert over the shields.
The C-set is the largest set by some measure, so it could take some time to complete (a couple of weeks most likely).
After this point the M, A, B, and C parameters will be removed from the AUshield docs All old alpha sets excluding the C-set have been removed from {{AUshield}}
docs. There will likely be a generic "AN" (or similar) parameter added to cover cross-border alpha roads between SA/NT and SA/VIC.
Please let me know ASAP if you find any missing alphas in the mean time, either notify me on my talk page, or list them here, and I'll try to create one ASAP. (Of course anyone is welcome to create their shields themselves aswell)
-- Nbound (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Please Note: NT shields have now been released, and a generic AN tag is now available for cross border highways -- Nbound (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Users annoyed by VE should consider adding the following script to their preferences to revert to the previous buttons:User:Matma_Rex/VE_killer.js
This can be done by invoking it on your personal common.js file - Example:User:Nbound/common.js-- Nbound (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The article State Route 40 (New South Wales) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nbound (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article State Route 40 (New South Wales) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Route 40 (New South Wales) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.-- Nbound (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Per the suggestion by Nbound (talk) to post this here, though this is short notice. I'm planning to be in Sydney tomorrow for the day, is there any article that needs a photo or updated photo? Bidgee (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: Please tag with <small>~~~</small>
All Australian Alphanumeric Markers are now redone, representing the largest highway marker update thus far by WP:AURD. Please advise of any missing shields at WP:AURD/S. This set contains all of the existing shields from the current set, plus a few others (mainly the NT ones). {{AUshield}}
should be used where possible to link to the correct shield, and ease future maintenance.
The set can be found here: Commons:Category:Diagrams_of_Australian_alphanumeric_route_markers (Total - 420 images)
-- Nbound (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Please update any shields found using the older syntax types (M, A, B, C, QM, QA) to the current standards. -- Nbound (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This should be quite helpful for page moves and the like. -- Nbound (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have began converting some of our templates to use Lua. The main advantage of Lua is that it is faster than parser functions (which currently power the bulk of wikipedia's templates), it is actually reasonably easy to read, and there is more functionality.
As its mainly been something I have been working on in my spare time to learn the language over the last few days, none of the templates I have created are likely ready for an immediate swap with their current parser based versions.
The first two implement two subfunctions of Infobox Australian road.
These two require some more extensive testing (I have ran through dozens in my own testing but I probably cant think of everything), and perhaps some code improvements if any of our other coders can spot anywhere that could be more efficient (especially as they were the first two I did).
The final one is a Lua implementation of AUshield.
This one has about 95% functionality compared to our current one, and would require design choices to be made to decide as how to implement the remaining shieldsets (in other words - theres a few different ways we could handle a future transfer). The list of currently supported types is in the code and even quite readable to those who cant read Lua at all. In addition, further testing is always appreciated.
While these were written largely written by me, other editors occasionally offered assistance with design choices.
-- Nbound (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have created a new article Windsor Road (Sydney) because I think the road is quite notable in Sydney. Hopefully you do not mind that I was bold to create the new article. However I need some suggestions to where I should put the information about Old Windsor Road?
If you do not mind, would anyone assess the new article for me please, and edit it. Thanks. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
We should use separate articles. As they are related roadways, Old Windsor Road still deserves some mention on the Windsor Road page though. -- Nbound (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Old Windsor Road has been created and assessed. Feel free to edit. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know how to set it up (maybe @Rschen7754: does), but there is a bot that will find and list new articles found under a certain list of parameters. That way you don't have to list them here when you create new articles. Check out User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch. Here is the USRD page if you want to see what the output is like. –Fredddie™ 14:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
A proposal is underway to modify LegendRJL to allow an Australia specific (at this stage) colour to denote when a shield start/stops or joins/leaves on a roadway. Any input from editors is appreciated. -- Nbound (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
{{jctbtm}}
template, and the rough plan is to deprecate {{legendRJL}}
in future [so for the few roads with MOS compatible AU RJLs, these should be changed to jctbtm - which now has greater functionality]). -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the M2 (Sydney) should be renamed M2/A2 (Sydney) as I don't think it's a good idea to create another article eg. A2 (Sydney), just for the non-motorway when what we want to do is an overview page. 07:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
OK after some further discussion on my Talk page, I think this warrants some further discussion. For context, numbered routes may fall into any of the following categories:
The question is whether we should have topics for a route as whole (even if its identifier changes) or a topics for each uniquely identified section. The former option (e.g. Marcnut1996's suggestion of a topic for M2/A2 (Sydney) will work for all routes, however in my view it will result in ugly page titles that will limit discoverability. For example if someone is interested in finding more about the M2, they won't necessarily know or care that there is an A2 section elsewhere.The latter option will avoid this problem, however it won't be practical for routes in the third category. However these are so rare that I think it can be treated as a special case, and indeed this has already been done with Highway 1 (New South Wales) and similar topics.Looking forward to hearing some more views on this. Ausmeerkat (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think for M2/A2, M2 consists of two parts and A2 consists another two parts, so they should have one big overview page M2/A2 (Sydney). However for Metroad 4, M4 consists of only one part and A2 consists of many parts, so I will prefer an overview page A4(Sydney) rather than M4/A4 (Sydney) since M4 itself already has one article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
In case anyone missed it, we now have a new project newsletter, The U Turn. The first issue was published on Sunday, and can be read at WP:AURD/NEWS. - Evad37 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
The Highway 1 (Australia) infobox has a hidden note asking for the junctions listed to be limited to three per state. This is for two reasons:
There junction list numbers now include 7 (!) junctions in NSW, and 4 each for Victoria and Queensland. Unless someone seriously wants to argue that every state should have 7 junctions listed (42 total, just for the mainland section), then I propose we trim down the junction list to what was listed as of 23 March 2013, plus Tablelands Highway in Balbirini, NT (as NT only had two listed before). - Evad37 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
It hasn't been considered an issue to limit the number of junctions in the infobox for any of the various US articles that have gone through FAC/ACR/GAN. I wouldn't call it OR to use editorial judgement in what gets covered in an article, or an article summary like the lead and infobox. In fact, that's one of the things we have to do as editors around here: distilling our coverage to the pertinent details without undue balance based on the sources we have. U.S. Route 50 is a 3,008-mile (4,841 km) highway running coast-to-coast in the US, yet the GA about it has only 10 total junctions plus the termini in its junction list; no issues there since September 2007. Imzadi 1979 → 08:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I've created three new templates: {{traffic volume top}}, {{traffic volume row}}, and {{traffic volume bottom}}, that can be used for creating tables of traffic volume data, as seen in the new A-Class article Kwinana Freeway and relatively new GA Tonkin Highway (which were previously hardcoded). I've written the documentation and WP:TemplateData. These have been coded using parser functions, but I imagine the logic can be executed using a WP:Lua module (I haven't yet learned to code in Lua). - Evad37 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
While converting AURD articles to MOS:RJL I have noticed that MOS:RJL isnt quite appropriate for rural routes. While sometimes information can just be not used, this can often leave out important things. Some of these also apply to non-freeway arterial roads in cities aswell.
About the only easy thing I can think of to fix these issues is a large map with inserts at appropriate points. But that could also get big really fast, or perhaps a small image in the list as part of each junction. If we come up with that or something else interesting/good we can then get further comment from those at MOS:RJL (assuming they dont have this page watchlisted. and arent on IRC when I link this there). As an aside it would also be good to clarify which roads we should include in each state and territory. Though Australian routes are wildly varied even within the same state, and it may be better to leave such things upto the editor (but still basing it of another source, or a particular set of rules)
Thoughts? - Nbound (talk) 10:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree with your points on turns being mentioned in the route description, and those roads being included in the RJL. I'll just point out a couple of things, and then try to approach this from a different perspective.
How about we approach this from another direction. If we go back to basics for the RJL, the critical information is the intersecting road. Anything or everything else can be omitted, and it could still be called a junction list. Add location and distance columns, and there is basically enough information to satisfy MOS:RJL. The notes could then be used to note either grade-separated or at-grade junctions (for example), based on which occurs less frequently, perhaps with a note above specifying most junctions are at grade/grade separated. Anything that is more detailed than that should be saved for the route description, leaving just the basic information for the table. If the road in the article has sections with other names, it can be mentioned in the notes column for an intersection, or in a cell that spans both the notes and destination columns. If an intersecting road has multiple names, follow MOS:RJL. If an intersecting road leads to a more notable road, the form Some Road to Another Highway or Some Highway via Another Road can be used (the template actually has this coded in). I don't think we have to make it too complicated. Complicated stuff is probably better explained as text in the route description, with perhaps photos or diagrams displayed as thumbnail pictures for really complicated cases. - Evad37 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)