Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Revert Thent edits?

Given that Thent is blocked indefinitely, shall we revert whatever's questionable? Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. The NSW road routes list is a mess and he was starting to work on other states? Plus, we've already had a bunch of files deleted at Commons that he uploaded. Most of which were screenshots of Street View that he tried passing off as his own work. –Fredddie™ 04:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not touch the List of road routes in Queensland. Marcnut1996 and I managed to convince him to reverse some duplications that he had made, and I have since greatly expanded the Tourist Routes section that he started. If he and any alter egos are banned from editing I will start on reversing their many OR changes. Also take a look at user Life200bc, his “friend”, who is still making changes to Queensland road articles. Downsize43 (talk) 06:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you suggesting I'm in any way related to him. If you have any issues with my edits please tell me. However, I find it very offensive that you would one call me and them 'friends' and two another one of his sock puppets. If you don't like my edits tell me and I will stop. It is as simple as that. Just don't ever imply i'm someone I'm not. That's very offensive, especially given Thent's behavior towards me. Life200BC (talk) 08:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the precaution of saving a copy of the Tourist Routes section of the List of road routes in Queensland. I believe this should eventually be a separate article, but will await developments here. Downsize43 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have got to be honest, I am not sure how to undo the List of road routes in New South Wales. Should we just undo it to this revision while keeping selected edits that are useful, or should we just remove the duplicated entries (Thent and Thegwh duplicated each route in each direction). The information about past routes is useful (to me), but will need some cleaning up.Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Marcnut1996:

Remove duplicates. I do not like the lists especially as it is duplicated. It just adds up mess and little benefit. Lists themselves are unattractive and have little salience. The information about past routes in on it's way. The National Highway page is up and ready. Now, was my ping successful?

Please give me feed back as well for my article List of former national highways in New South Wales

Thanks, The Savannah Way (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And yes, I mean the style of it, not the content.

FWIW I tagged all of Thent1234's files on ENWP and had them deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Only one was in use in an article and I took care of that as well. –Fredddie™ 02:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Toowoomba Athol Road

To anyone who gives a fig for common sense.

A reviewer has changed this article to a redirect, but has not bothered to copy any of the information therein to the other article or to give me or anyone else the opportunity to do so.

This road is a major access to a major city, serving many residents of rural communities and interstate visitors. It’s importance was recognised by the Queensland Government in giving it a new name and a new route number.

It is actions such as this that make me question whether I should continue to contribute to Australian Roads. Downsize43 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Man if we redirected every road article in the US because it used to be something else, there would only be maybe 15 roads articles. That's hyperbole of course, but I'd find more sources and pad that article. –Fredddie™ 01:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Thanks for the sage advice. Unfortunately there are no other sources that I can access so I have decided to go with the flow and include the article text as the redirect target (after I worked out how to get a copy) IMHO actions like this by a reviewer show a lack of courtesy and should be verboten. Downsize43 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad I could "help". Yeah I thought it was a knee-jerk reaction to redirect it away immediately, but I like how you handled it on Gore Highway. –Fredddie™ 07:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Barkly Highway and the Georgina River

I am hoping someone here can help. I tried to add the Georgina River into the route map (to complement some text I added abou the new bridge) by copying the template used for the Leichhardt River but it didn't work. The entry is in the correct position vertically but not horizontally. Just for context, the river is to the immediate west of the town on Camooweel and within the City of Mount Isa. I don't normally edit these route maps so I am unfamiliar with the details of the templates used, but normally just copying something similar seem to work, but not in this case. Thanks in advance. Kerry (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: all done. Sometimes the templates can be a little esoteric, but the result looks nice. –Fredddie™ 05:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but I forgot to say it is in Queensland not on the border so I think it needs another tweak to get the first column empty (like the Leichhardt River further down). Kerry (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That is to say, it should be within the first column's Queensland span, if that makes more sense . Kerry (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries. Fixed it. –Fredddie™ 05:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly what I was trying to achieve! Kerry (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion requests for Australian road signs on Commons

Please see c:Commons:Deletion requests/files in Category:Australian state route signs and c:Commons:Deletion requests/files in Category:State Route shields of Australia. My point of view (and I think that of everyone in the discussion) is that we want to have the signs on Commons (as opposed to the English Wikipedia where they currently are now) - but we are concerned about the legality of doing this since we are not sure if the signs are copyrighted under Australian law. Further opinions and expertise would be appreciated. --Rschen7754 07:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

See also Category:Diagrams of Australian highway markers, if we decide to keep them on Commons, then those English Wikipedia local files must also be discussed, unless if there are enough good reason why duplicating Commons files are required, they should be deleted on enwiki. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

For now, @MGA73: prefer to keep them on Commons because "they are just shields and fonts used are also free", but @Fredddie: suggested to delete em on Commons because "they were created here years ago based off of AS1744", @Jeromi Mikhael: said "Consists of numbers only" but 117.136.54.27 said "beyond TOO Australia" (might be endorsed me), now, who said correct? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

NB: See also File:AUS Alphanumeric Route A1.svg, it was uploaded on Commons as c:File:Australian Alphanumeric Route A1.svg, deleted by @Fastily: per [1]. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: thank you for the notice. Yes I think that the signs are not copyrightable per Threshold of originality but the only way we can be absolutely sure is if we have the High Court of Australia to give us a clear verdict. The idea of putting signs up at the road is not new or original. The idea of adding white letters/numbers on blue background for example is not new or original (Denmark uses blue signs with white letters too). You can't copyrigt color so the color is not a problem. Even the font is free per Highway Gothic. So I really can't see anything brilliant or mindblowing or even just slightly original about those signs. At least as long as the signs are just a few numbers or letters. If they make a big info board with drawings, maps etc. then it is of course different. If it was me I would not delete or move anything from en.wiki to Commons untill the deletion request on Commons is closed. --MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Related OTRS ticket: ticket:2020081010004602. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MGA73, I'm afraid your rationales are wrong, really wrong, based on those points:

• @Downsize43:
• Yes I think that the signs are not copyrightable per Threshold of originality true in the United States but false in Australia as per Crown Copyright, the authors of those shields are under Crown Copyrights control, and yesterday I asked a UK.gov staff, they said yeah those Australian highway shields are copyrighted in the United Kingdom, the copyright holder is the Australian embassy in London. Just remember: anything that are copyright-able in UK are in general copyrighted in nearly all Commonwealth Nations.
• The idea of putting signs up at the road is not new or original. You think so, probably is because you're Danish, an European Union civil, while is is indeed true in European Union countries, this is no longer true for at least UK since Brexit, and hence IMHO not true for Australia, since Brexit, any newly put signs are considered truly new, since then those shields, if put, are generally newly signs. Also for your The idea of adding white letters/numbers on blue background for example is not new or original (Denmark uses blue signs with white letters too). per Brexit.
• The font is public domain yes, but it doesn't mean all logos, shields and else things are public domaindomain just by using public domain fonts, the newest Petronas logo, although another Highway Gothics user, has judged as copyrighted in Malaysia and hence has to fair use here.
• So I really can't see anything brilliant or mindblowing or even just slightly original about those signs. Now you can see why these shields are copyrighted.
• At least as long as the signs are just a few numbers or letters. Belarusian ONT logo is also having only 0 and H, but copyrighted as beyond their TOO
• If they make a big info board with drawings, maps etc. then it is of course different. If it was me I would not delete or move anything from en.wiki to Commons untill the deletion request on Commons is closed. No need to, the shields are copyrighted, hence everything related to those shields are also copyrighted. Also keep them here, Commons only allow them if and when public domain in both United States and Australia, to which only United States consider PD as of now.

--117.136.1.96 (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Another example where likely shields in New Zealand are deleted: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:State highway shields of New Zealand. --117.136.1.96 (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • New Zealand is not the same, see c:Category:State highway shields of New Zealand and how those images are tagged. --Rschen7754 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @MGA73: Fyi, how do you think about the concerns 117.* poked above (mostly said Crown Copyright and Brexit FWIW)? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: I think they are wrong.

For example the idea of putting up roadsigns... IF the idea is copyrightable then who has the copyright? If the idea was invented in Europe then Australia violate the copyright and have to take down all roadsigns... And just because they have never thought of putting up roadsigns in Australia does not mean that they can suddenly have the copyright. The idea of that makes copyright impossible. Example: A create something and claim the copyright. B says well you may have thought of it first but now I also thought of it so it is a new idea to me so now I have the copyright...

I agree that just because you use a PD font in a work then it does not mean the work is PD. For example if I write a book using a PD font then the book is of course not PD. But just because I used the font in a work that is copyrighted does not men I now have the copyright to the font and can prevent everyone else from using that font.

So if you take the roadsign and remove the font that is PD and you remove the color that is also PD then what is left? The idea of putting up signs on the road.

About Brexit then I do not think it is releant. Copyright is regulated by Berne convention and WIPO etc. Not the EU.

But as I say only the High Court of Australia can give us the answer to the question if a roadsign is enought to make the Court impressed. Personally I think it would give them a problem because in Denmark we have blue signs with white letters so if the High Court of Australia says that it is copyrightable then they also say that Australia violate the copyright of Danish roadsigns. --MGA73 (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And I forgot to comment the OTRS. The ticket say that they can't give an answer for all signs. We have to ask the specific entity that is the owner of the sign if it is copyrighted. --MGA73 (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: I'm afraid "So if you take the roadsign and remove the font that is PD and you remove the color that is also PD then what is left?" Not only the idea can be left, but also the shields, where you didn't explain why it can't be copyrighted, by what 117.* pointed above, it looks like during Brexit, UK government has also withdrawn some of the Berne convention terms? Also I see no reason why asking High Court (or even the Supreme Court) is required, 117.* said that the copyright holder can be every embassies of Australia in every countries, their "in London" looks like just an example, and you even didn't reflect the Crown Copyright issues, which I would rather believe the Your Majesty's permissions are still required when reusing in Commonwealth (this is the reason why UK road signs are not Public Domain, although they are nowadays covered by the OGL). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226: Even if UK exited Berne convention that would still not affect Australia? --MGA73 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would it? Australia is not bound by what happens in the UK. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@MGA73: And, with @Magog the Ogre:'s revert, the actual status are still conflicted. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Can anybody here actually link to the clauses of Australian Crown Copyright law that define the threshold of originality as being above or beyond that which is set out under the Berne Convention? All I'm seeing is anecdotal statements and the incomparable issue of the privately designed Aboriginal Flag. Intellectual copyright versus crown copyright is apples and oranges. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Thent1234: You may also be interested in it, because AFAIK you created several File:AUS Alphanumeric Route AXXX.svg local description pages with {{PD-ineligible-USonly}}, e.g. File:AUS Alphanumeric Route A36.svg (on Commons). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Liuxinyu970226: I doubt that user will be replying any time soon. –Fredddie™ 01:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Fredddie: Unless banned by WMF, it's also possible to contact them via e-mail, then transfer any responds, either publicly (if and only if they agree), or to the OTRS (if I do so, I will transfer it to Commons OTRS). --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  I'm just questioning why we would want the opinion of an editor who, if you read other threads on this page, has made a real mess of NSW road articles and doesn't have a grasp of copyrights. –Fredddie™ 01:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Fredddie: As their Commons DRs are kept, I boldly nominated those description pages as {{db-fpcfail}}, i.e. WP:CSD#F2, please revert me if I did wrong. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

  Whoops, that user "has not specified a valid email address.". --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Are there having any news on this topic? The problem still exists, that both Wikipedia and Commons own several AUS road signs, and still not sure if they are PD-ineligible in both AUS and USA, or USA only. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The second batch nomination of deletion has closed by @JuTa: as kept, but nothing happened on the first. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also confused that why @Magog the Ogre: did the revert, is this meaning that they want to judge Commons files are copyvioed? --117.136.54.120 (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The file fails WP:F8 anyway as it is not an exact equivalent. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 11:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamre Road

Just a FYI since the article alert hasn't come up yet. --Rschen7754 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Coomera Connector

I have started a draft for Coomera Connector. My aim is to have some secondary sources (news articles), interchanges in infobox, and perhaps a RJI table before publishing as an article. Anyone, especially Gold Coast locals, is welcome to contribute to the draft. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the article from draftspace into mainspace. Feel free to continue contributing to the article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Mordialloc Freeway

Some editor (with a history of copyediting and unsourced information) has recreated Mordialloc Freeway. While I agree that it should be a separate article from Mornington Peninsula Freeway, it was done poorly by the editor, including copy pasting from the Major Road Projects website and from the Mornington Peninsula Freeway. I have cleaned up both articles as much as I can, but I need assistance regarding some of the citation relating to older plans. I will also need assistance to developing the new article as a proper article, including RJI and further history about it. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that Jermboy27 never really left after the round of blocks that occurred last November. If you do a little digging, there are a few usernames (this one included) that stick out to me and the quality of the work seems to match what we were dealing with last year. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

While I share the same sentiments as you, I also don't want to be accusing an innocent editor to be a sockpuppet, when it could be possible that the editor just has not understood how Wikipedia editing works. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Someone left a message on the article's Talk page saying new signs had been erected at the ramps to the new freeway, clearly denoting them as M11 Mornington Peninsula Freeway and not M11 Mordialloc Freeway on the Governor Road and Lower Dandenong Road exits/entrances. I took a look myself recently, and found they are indeed signed as claimed, including the Centre Dandenong Road ramps as well. It appears the road has changed names between announcement and now: can the article just be merged back into its parent once the project is completed and the freeway is opened? Lordstorm (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Vicroads mess

Earlier tonight (my time) I downloaded GIS data dated 1 April 2021 from Vicroads just to see what the current alphanumeric routes are. What's troubling to me is that there are more routes in the list than the GIS data show that are uncited or if there is a citation, it's to a Google Groups posting from 2019.

What should we do? I am certainly willing to pare it back to what is in the Vicroads data. –Fredddie™ 05:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Fredddie: Where is this GIS database found? I wish there is a PDF or website database of alphanumeric routes and route numbering for Victoria. As a non-Victorian, this is a major obstacle for me to edit Victorian articles as I am not familiar with the route numbering. And Google Maps is not always correct. Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is all of Vicroads' data: https://vicroadsopendata-vicroadsmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/search?collection=Dataset and I was using the Statewide Route Numbering Scheme specifically. –Fredddie™ 16:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on this very issue for months at List of road routes in Victoria. Using the Talk page to explain my process, earlier this year I managed to pare down the listings using GIS as a source, but within a month it had been heavily edited (mostly fanciful or unsourced) and I had to step in recently again to correct it (see that article's Talk page). The GIS is very handy, but unfortunately it's somewhat out of date and hasn't been updated recently; so I've allowed clearly-photographed signs and a detailed description of where it was sighted (either photos or Google Street View) to verify its physical existence, before listing it. This isn't helped by the Melbourne route system in the middle of a change-over from one system to another. Not really sure what else to do unless we find another suitable government/RTA source: apologies if this has caused problems, happy to discuss alternatives. Lordstorm (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Caroline Springs Boulevard

Hi all, I have submitted a draft for review under the name of Draft:Caroline Springs Boulevard. Any chance somebody could review it to see if it can be released into the Article Name space? Cheers, √I.Osiar ^{(Talk with me)} 06:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Incentv Osiar: As pointed out by the reviewer on your talk page and the draftspace, there is only citation for some timeline history of the road, but no citation for anything else. Google Maps is only useful as citation as a length reference (how long the road is), but otherwise I would not count it as valid reference.

Additionally, 4km of suburban road is not notable in the Wikipedia context, unless it has some super historical or heritage significance. Many of the newly created arterial roads in Victoria in the recent weeks are also not notable. A proposed or existing motorway is a lot more notable.Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Aright then, I’ll keep that in mind next time I think about starting a new article. √I.Osiar ^{(Talk with me)} 21:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Incomplete lists

Most list articles are by their very nature incomplete, and the “incomplete” tag is used to encourage contribution. Having it as a head topic in the cleanup list is rather pointless. Downsize43 (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Epping Road, Melbourne

Some editor (with a history of copyediting and unsourced information, and of unjustified template removal) has created Epping Road, Melbourne, and has done the usual thing of copy-pasting information from a Vicroads site and breaking non-commercial licencing. The road delineation has also been confused and doesn't conform either to the sign-posted limits of the road, nor the Vicroads-declared limits. While I have tried to correct this (removing information from non-licenced source) and correct which delineation they wish to use - and adding in notability and onesource templates, as the article currently has little noteworthy information - this user simply reverts these edits to restore to the version they evidently prefer with no action on issues raised....and keeps doing this each time I try to re-correct this. I hate to have to bring it up here, but the issue is in danger of devolving into an reversion edit war, and that's not what I'm trying to do here. Is there a way some corrective action can be taken on this article without it being perpetually reverted? I am available for any information or questions taken on this issue. Cheers. Lordstorm (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I am also quite unsatisfied with the edits of the said editor in many Melbourne road articles particularly Mornington Peninsula Freeway and related roads. Unfortunately, the lack of response on the editor's talk page means the editor either does not care and/or does not know how to check the talk page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

M4 source for West Gate Tunnel

Hi all, I'm not officially a member of this Project but have been editing and fixing up road articles when I can the last few months. One topic of discussion is the M4 designation on the West Gate Tunnel. I'm of the opinion of following the rules that Lordstorm has highlighted numerous times (follow the SRNS, if not possible source GSV images and cite, and proposed/unopened roads should not have route markers displayed until opened) however M4 has been cited on the current edition of Melway. It has been observed that Melway is possibly a reliable secondary source but I'm still hesitant to add the M4 designation currently, at least until the road is open. Just wondering what everyones thoughts are? Cheers Zach386x (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You already know my viewpoint, I won't repeat it here. :) Lordstorm (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Large shields in infoboxes

An IP editor has addsd large shields to infoboxes in many articles. I reverted one yesterday but he seems not to have got the message. Any other bright ideas? Downsize43 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted them all back to original state, without them. This isn't the first time they've swooped to do a needless or incorrect mass edit that needed mopping up afterwards, sadly.... Lordstorm (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lordstorm: Thanks and congrats. From the timeline of your reverts I'm guessing you have some "automated" process or very fast fingers. 8) Downsize43 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Downsize43: The latter, mostly. :) Seems all I'm doing is reverting persistently incorrect or irrelevant edits from anonymous/IP users these days, getting tired of all the gatekeeping.....

I've noticed quite a few Sydney and NSW road articles also sport large shields in their infoboxes.....should these be removed as well? Lordstorm (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe so. This is part of the "infobox changes" task in the "progress indicator" table above. Downsize43 (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Australian road/cleanup

Template:Infobox Australian road/cleanup has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

When a partial fix is scarcely better than none

An enthusiastic IP editor has been changing a large number of Australian Road articles by fixing a small number of the many incorrectly used hyphens in each article. This seems like a blatant attempt to score a large number of edits with no concern for the overall quality of the articles changed. Someone who has the time and inclination might care to follow up and complete the job. Currently I have more important (to me) projects in hand, so am not volunteering. Downsize43 (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Small text

Infobox Australian Road specifies small text for the location of start and end points for a road, and this is the case in multiple articles. Recently an editor removed the small text from the Inforbox in Windsor Road, quoting MOS:SMALLTEXT as his justification. Clarification is needed for editors working in this space. Downsize43 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@MB: I guess the absence of a response to the above indicates that either nobody else looks here for queries by road editors, or that nobody who does look can bother to reply. I am sorely tempted to change the guidance in Infobox Australian Road - maybe that will get somebody’s attention 8) Your thoughts? Downsize43 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Downsize43 MOS:SMALLTEXT is a project level guideline based on accessibility. It would be really hard for a local project to justify not following it. I would go ahead and just change the documentation. I have been removing small text from infoboxes for years and have never had an objection. MB 06:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@MB: Thanks for the prompt reply. I will wait a while before making any change to the template documentation. Meanwhile I will omit small text from any new articles I write, and will update my recent publications as I review them. Downsize43 (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Communication tools

(cross-posted to all HWY subprojects)

The road projects have faced some challenges over recent weeks. While we remain separate projects, I believe we need to be able to work together during this time. Thus, I wanted to highight three recent changes to the methods of communication and collaboration that we have available to us.

1. Template:HWY Announcements - this template lists important discussions as well as certain cleanup categories used across all the road projects/
2. WP:HWY/AAA - this is an Article Alerts page that will be updated with every AFD, GAN, FAC, etc. in every road project. Please consider watchlisting this to stay on top of important discussions.
3. Discord - When Wikimedia IRC on Freenode was shut down, we chose not to migrate to the Libera IRC server. We use the #wpengineering channel on Discord, a more modern chat platform. (It is possible to read the channel history so that you do not miss out on conversations when not logged in, unlike IRC. But for that reason, please consider anything you say there to be public).

Regards, Rschen7754 20:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Give Elizabeth Drive its own article?

Currently if you type in 'Elizabeth Drive' into Wikipedia, it redirects to the M12 Motorway page. Since Elizabeth Drive is an important arterial in Western Sydney, should it get it's own article? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

A34 (Sydney)

What's going on with this article? Considering its former state (one reference, little info in article), it was moved to Draft space two weeks ago, only to be yanked back a week later. It was then proposed for deletion yesterday, only for that banner to disappear under a claim it was a major road in a major city (which hardly justifies Notability, in my opinion, but I may be wrong). I reverted this - possibly incorrectly, apologies if so - considering very little as been done to improve it (the sole addition of one extra reference), only to have it removed again. Rather than risk an edit war, I figured I'd raise it here. Considering the state of the article, I thought letting it grow in Draftspace would be the right thing to do until it passed Notability to move back, but it appears I might be mistaken. Thoughts? Lordstorm (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Once a WP:PROD is removed it cannot be restored and must go to AFD if someone still wants it deleted. This is related to various aspects of the debate in the thread above. Unless there is something I am missing (I am aware that sometimes numbered roads in Australia are really collections of other named highways that are better covered in their own article) - it is a major numbered route that should be covered with the other A roads and we can expect to find other sources on it. --Rschen7754 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sadly this article does meet WP:GEOROAD but the sources used do not demonstrate the article passes WP:GNG. Rschen7754 is correct in saying that PRODs should not be readded after they have been removed so if you want to delete the article, I suggest taking it to WP:AFD. Steelkamp (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, again apologies for the incorrect reversion. Lordstorm (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"Sadly"? Garuda3 (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I had wanted to create an article for at least 7 years but just have been putting it off, so glad to see someone create one. I have added some history of the route allocation in the article. I think it is notable in that it is an "A" route and all other A routes in Sydney (which is not that many) already have an article about them. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

New Greater Project

For those interested in transport in Australia other than roads i suggest checking out Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Australian Transport NotOrrio (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion relevant to this project

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Roads that is relevant to this project. –Fredddie™ 04:59, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Time for a reality check

Having read the above discussion I have derived the following bits of useful information:

• Some reviewers regard maps as a primary resource.
• Some reviewers regard text derived from a map as original research.
• Some reviewers regard road articles where most of the information is derived from a map as rubbish.
• Some reviewers require at least one reference for each paragraph, even when a whole section is derived from a single source such as a map.

My reaction to this is: Why bother writing road articles when people with these attitudes are the appointed reviewers? Downsize43 (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So far every AFD of a state highway (yes, I know that classification doesn't work as well for Australia) has closed as Keep/no consensus. But I can't promise that will always be the case. --Rschen7754 01:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Road infrastructure in Melbourne navbox

Hey all, the Melbourne navbox has been annoying me for quite some time now and I think it needs a revamp. Currently about 80% of the links are contained in the "Highways & Arterial Roads" section, and this also includes a lot of excess that really doesn't need to be there as well as road double ups (example being both Hoddle St and Punt Rd as links, despite linking to the same article). I've had a look at the other capital cities articles and whilst each city does have slight differences they seem a lot more coherent. I'm just trying to figure out what might be the best way to clean it up for the Melbourne one. Some potential ideas:

• Listing roads based on the Declared name (eg. Hoddle Highway for example mentioned above)
• Listing roads based on route number (eg. Metro Route 29 for same example)
• Listing roads based on the primary constituent part (eg. Hoddle Street)

None of these are foolproof and there are issues with each one, but how it currently looks is quite excessive and messy so it would be nice to clean it up. In addition I'm wondering if it's better to split this section into 2 subsections similar to other states, such as Highways/Main Roads and Arterial/Other Roads? This will also better reflect the current Declared Roads by VicRoads (which has a different category for Arterial/Highways and Arterial/Other.) Any better ideas please share!

Also apologies if there are guidelines for Navboxes and I have missed it, but I haven't been able to find anything, cheers. Zach386x (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zach386x: Be not surprised at the lack of response. It seems that those who have nominated themselves as members of the project are not interested in attempting to help such as yourself. If I were you I would make the split as envisaged, keep the alternate names, and ensure that all relevant article names are included. As a suggestion, alternate names could be placed in a separate section titled "Roads described in other articles". Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Personal preference would be to list them by route number and its constituent road articles. Some declared names, while official, are not very well known. Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)