User talk:ClaretAsh/Roads

Closed

I've relocated this discussion from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board in order to keep it more impartial than it would have been being hosted either there or at WT:HWY. After reading the recent long, long TfD, a thought occurs. What about creating a new base-template on which regional roads templates may be built; similar to how {{Infobox music of}} is used as a base template for regional music templates. ({{Infobox roads of}} perhaps?) The downside is that it may be perceived by the roads people as going against their globalising policy (a return to regionalism). However, if done right, it should iron out the wrinkles from trying to squeeze every predominant road system into one template. Plus, the obvious benefit is that the various templates will be both standard in format while allowing for regionalisms. Admittedly, this idea is very alpha and will need a bit of work to expand. ClaretAsh 14:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Something like this should be discussed at WT:HWY, where the "roads people" will actually see it. --Rschen7754 19:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC) No, that's not the way to do it at all. We'll get this template up and running and then nominate Infobox road for deletion. The roads people can find out about it then. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Let's not antagonise them. We're already as much a thorn in their side as they are in ours. Perhaps this can be a peace offering? ClaretAsh 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) FWIW, I think that's a fair assessment of the situation. --Rschen7754 02:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Here's my take. {{infobox road}} is already the international template, having grown from a template originally designed to combine around 60 different US state-specific and subproject-specific templates together. Over the years, several other countries, like Canada, started using it. In 2010, we overhauled it, using a series of subtemplates for each country. Another 54 templates were merged in over the course of 2010. I asked WOSlinker at the start of this year about a set of Australia-related changes, since I knew he had coded for them at one point. The intent was that I would present that change and ask what else needed to be done. Another user, who is not a "roads person" nominated the template for a merger discussion. Things blew up from there. Now, let's start the conversation over regarding Australia. If the Aussies can point to a set of specific needs, we can work together accommodate them. Hopefully the list can be fairly static. (It might just be a perception of mine, but it has seemed that we'd be asked to do three things, do them, and then be asked to do three more. The goals kept shifting.) I'm sure there are some things that if brought to the table, will benefit other countries' usages. The tourist routes parameter from New Zealand is actually used in the US now. Something IR lacked before was added to accommodate one country, and produced an advantage for others. Something I will suggest is that the "permits" parameter of the now deprecated {{infobox Outback Track}} might be beneficial as an addition to the route information section of IR for places like Alaska. The allocation function of IAR might be accomplished using the section function of IR. Maybe it can't, and leaving the allocation in place is best. We already have ways to "lock" parameters, like cities, from appearing in the articles for certain countries. (The US deprecated anything below the level of states and counties from appearing in US articles because of subjectivity and abuse issues. Cities/towns/villages/etc still appear in other countries' articles.) So, can we get a concrete set of "needs" and a set of "wants" on the table to discuss? Each country is essentially "in charge" of what types they use. Those types are then used by the following Australian subtemplates: strings name shieldmain shield browselinks instances

No to generate the needed output. I can go into detail about each one, if desired, but some of those subtemplates probably aren't needed, like "translation". The "browselinks" subtemplate controls what is displayed at the end in the "Highway system" or "Road network" sections. (The latter is used on UK and Irish articles per WP:ENGVAR.) Do whatever is needed with the subtemplates to make it work, and ask if you have questions. Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC) {{Infobox road}} works perfectly on all seven continents (if you count New Zealand as Oceania, but even if not, that's still 6/7.) I see no reason to change to ClaretAsh's proposal above; that's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Australia is still the only country remaining that has not adopted {{Infobox road}}. You can take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Countries and at Template:Infobox road/doc/country to see how many countries use Infobox road. (Disclaimer: some countries have no infobox whatsoever; the statistics don't factor in those.) --Rschen7754 02:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC) How Wikipedia works Much of the above discussion, on both "sides", seems to derive from and to perpetuate the false assumptions that each country, or project that has an interest in a country, or in a topic, has its own articles, its own templates, and can make its own binding decisions. That's not how Wikipedia works. We are building one encyclopedia, with one manual of style, and should have coherent and consistent styling and inclusions in articles and templates. These issues are already covered by WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Acknowledging and adhering to such principles would avoid the otherwise inevitable clash when the purview of two projects, as in this cases, overlaps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC) That's why I suggested a system of one standard meta-template on which regional templates may be based. The meta-template standardises it and the templates built on it will allow for regionalisms. I agree that this is one Wikipedia but it can't be denied that different regions are different, with different backgrounds, different values, different views and different priorities. And these differences all apply to the transportation aspect of a region's economy as much as to that region's culture. In a nutshell, a highway isn't always a highway. Example: In his work, my partner has driven on most of the major highways in Australia, knows them inside out and can name them all; what he can't do is identify their alphanumeric road number. The road numbering system is a mystery to him, as it is to a lot of Australians. Hence, an example such as this, where the number is in primary place on the infobox, is simply inappropriate in an Australian context, unlike here where the name is given emphasis. Another example: The "To-From" debate. I can understand why people in most other countries don't want to use loaded terms such as "from" and "to" in their roads infoboxes. It doesn't make sense elsewhere where urban centres are scattered around a country. In Australia, though, the vast majority is squeezed into the southeast-east corner. There are other towns elsewhere but, due to the dominance of that highly urbanised corner, there is a definite "to-from" aspect. People don't drive "between" Sydney and elsewhere; they drive "from" Sydney "to" elsewhere. I admit it's parochial but that's the way it is here. To not emphasise the "from-to" aspect of Australian roads is to give equal significance to those towns outside the southeast corner as to those inside that region. I get the logic behind wanting to standardise roads infoboxes across WP and I agree with it. It makes sense that people who've seen one would expect to find the same information in the same locations in similar articles. However, I'm afraid that, in trying to incorporate everything and allow for every possibility, IR has simply gotten too cumbersome and too unmanageable. I find myself overwhelmed by it. The various "if" variations ("If the road is located in X, then Y") make it difficult for me, the end user, to figure out exactly what parameters I need to include to create an infobox for such-n-such a road. When it comes to usability, IR is no {{Infobox officeholder}}. I should emphasise here that I don't mean to suggest we should go through WP and redo every occurrence of IR and IAR. All we need do is create the meta-template, base the AU roads template on it (to begin with), see how it works and give other regions the chance to do the same. I mentioned {{Infobox officeholder}} above. May I suggest that if my meta-template suggestion doesn't gain traction, then, at the very least, IR is made usable to those who've never used it. IR was apparently designed by those who use it a lot, and it shows. ClaretAsh 23:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) But it works for just about everywhere else in the world; this is still something that you have yet to respond to. Why do we need to change the infobox for highways in South Africa if the infobox works perfectly for them? As far as "from" and "to", this is something that could be done; however, you're promoting regional bias here by doing that. That violates WP:NPOV. --Rschen7754 00:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC) ??? I thought I answered that in the second-last paragraph of my last comment. To repeat, though, what I'm proposing is a chance for IAR to be integrated with IR while still retaining what is essential for an Australian infobox. As for NPOV, my view (as I also stated above) is that regional bias will be promoted by not using "from" and "to" in Australian infoboxes. ClaretAsh 00:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC) "To not emphasise the "from-to" aspect of Australian roads is to give equal significance to those towns outside the southeast corner as to those inside that region." - this promotes metro Australia over rural Australia; this is regional bias. Furthermore, "what is essential for an Australian infobox"? Can you give a definitive list? --Rschen7754 00:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC) I don't want to argue the point. An argument will only force us both to defend our respective positions and I, for one, don't have strong convictions about it. My comment was only an example (and probably not a very good one). Just going to say that this is what we're up against. LauraHale wanted end_a and end_b, but you want from and to. Well, which is it? (Not trying to be inflammatory, but trying to express our frustration with the process of dealing with the whims of these editors. It seems that we have to resolve an infinite list of "gripes" with Infobox road before the Australians would be willing to switch infoboxes. The list keeps growing, because they don't want to switch, no matter what.) --Rschen7754 17:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Why *should* we switch? That's never quite been answered, beyond that it's your agenda and those on the Roads projects (who don't do an ounce of work to maintain any of the Australian articles, and seem to have never considered the extra workload being imposed on our editors) to do so. We don't speak the same variety of English and this is accepted on Wiki. We don't use the same units of measurements, this is also accepted on Wiki. Why on earth should the final outcome always be your preferred one of a unified infobox that tries so hard to do everything that it spreads itself too thin and does none of it well? If this was coming from a group who read and edit Australian roads articles, I'd actually give it the time of day, but I feel this is simply a bad faith push for control from the outside. And don't give me the "it works perfectly for everyone else" argument - I know for a fact that it doesnt but that if anyone in those countries was to challenge you they wouldn't have a community our size to back them up. You'd be amazed the level of support I've got by private email from places like Canada and random parts of Europe since this arose - there's actually people looking for support for an ArbCom to get rid of Andy and sanction the rest of you, and hoping to use this recent stoush to gain my and other editors' support. I'm not in favour of that simply because it seems like a manifest waste of time for all concerned, but if this sort of behaviour continues, it might be the only way to resolve the impasse. Orderinchaos 14:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) One infobox for all roads means consistency can be kept, and updates can be made across thousands of articles with relative ease. Yes, you do speak the same variety of English, just with regional variations (as with every English speaking country in the world). Yes you do use the same units of measurement as the rest of the world (do you measure in gunters chain down there or in nautical miles? No, miles and kilometres). Regardless, the infobox changes language variations depending on the country (though those variations are generally avoided in the first place by opting for universal terms). That we do or don't edit "Australian road articles" doesn't change the fact that we want road articles for the whole world to be good articles, and not the gunk of the encyclopedia (that's not insinuating Aussy roads are, just that in general there are way too many bad road articles). I don't edit Aussy roads because I've never been there and I don't have a personal connection to the roads (nor do I with the roads in Manitoba, Quebec or New York State). That doesn't mean I can't look at the articles and wonder why they look completely backwards to most other countries that actually have a good base set of editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason in itself, so please give us some substance to work with here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Moving on, then... My reason for beginning this discussion was to offer a solution that (I hoped) would satisfy both "sides" but it seems I've only succeeded in restarting the debate. I think, then, there's three directions in which this discussion could go. Discuss my first proposal of a meta-template solely on its own merits or lack of them. Discuss my second suggestion of communicating IR in as user-friendly a manner as {{Infobox officeholder}}. Restart the original IAR→IR discussion by means of the Australians simply and clearly listing exactly what they want from an infobox. I think from how this current discussion has developed that Option 1 won't get much traction. Option 2 is something I'd like to see implemented and can be included in Option 3. Perhaps Option 3 is the way to proceed then. My goal here is to end this debate once and for all as I think we've all got other things we'd rather be doing here on WP. I think the way to achieve that is to identify each point, lay them all out on the table and tackle each one. ClaretAsh 08:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC) One comment on the from–to issue. There are two ways the termini/ends are handled by the template. (Note, the "terminus_a" and "end_a" parameter names duplicate each other now.) If you specify |end_a=Sydney and |end_b=Someplace Else, then the infobox will list From: Sydney and To: Someplace Else. If you also specify |direction_a=Southeast and |direction_b=Northwest, it will instead say Southeast end: Sydney and Northwest end: Someplace Else. The only thing that was changed was to create aliased parameter names so that "terminus_a" and "end_a" are synonymous to the template. It's very possible to mix and match the direction names (north and south, east and west, even north and west if the highway curves) or omit them. For loops, the termini/ends aren't even required, if you look at M-185 (Michigan highway) when you can specify that a roadway loops around a feature or city. Imzadi 1979 → 09:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Why restart a discussion that's already been had? All that will happen is the same arguments from the same people, which will result in a more intractable dispute after what was an incredibly divisive and bad faith TfD (which I'll note was started on New Years Eve after 16 months with no attempt to discuss) and will reward the bad behaviour of those opposite. Certainly, that's what some in other communities want so they can use it as an excuse to begin ArbCom proceedings against some of the Roads people. The lack of participation at this page by all but the furthest ends of the debate shows that the majority of the Wikipedia community is giving this one a miss, suggesting that it's not a huge priority to "move forward" for them. A better solution would simply be peaceful non-engagement - that if a country's community is actively maintaining its roads articles and is big enough to maturely maintain a template, it can do so. We don't have Walmart in Australia, we don't have Twinkies, and even Starbucks and Krispy Kreme kind of failed here after a less than stellar start. Why? Because Australia already had companies doing those things that better understood Australia's conditions and didn't try a "one size fits all". An Australian supermarket looks different to a British or American one. So there's no reason that we "need" to accept that a global infobox is "naturally" superior. In fact, the problem here is that the Australian infobox is superior to the global one and for the Australians to accept anything less is a significant downgrade which is completely unnecessary for both editors and readers. Orderinchaos 14:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC) "Certainly, that's what some in other communities want so they can use it as an excuse to begin ArbCom proceedings against some of the Roads people." - ArbCom is not the first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; there are several other places to go first. Any submission to ArbCom at this stage would likely be rejected. Furthermore, we have acted within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines, and the case would also be dismissed as frivolous. Not going to comment on the rest as it seems like soapboxing. --Rschen7754 20:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC) Well, I tried to resolve this dispute. No one can say I didn't try... ClaretAsh 14:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)