Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

The KML map link method, and tagging articles with KML missing

I'm not sure how up to speed everyone on this project is on a KML method for creating map links for linear features & outlines. Now there's a proposal to tag suitable articles to add a hidden KML missing category where a KML map link is missing. Discussion here. Please join in and/or acquaint yourself with the KML method. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

problems with U.S. Route 48

Moved to WT:USRD#problems with U.S. Route 48 because this is US-specific. Imzadi 1979 → 22:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Article names

I couldn't find anything at Wikipedia:Article titles or here about titles of articles about roads. I think all the road articles in Category:Roads in the Republic of Ireland are misnamed. They have been pointlessly standardised at Mnn motorway (Ireland) or Nnn road (Ireland) or Rnnn road (Ireland). I think they should be as follows (using Rnnn for example, mutatis mutandem for the others):

Rnnn: if there is no other article called Rnnn
Rnnn (road): if there is no other article about a road called Rnnn
Rnnn (Ireland): if there is no other article about something in Ireland called Rnnn
Rnnn (Irish road): otherwise. (e.g. to distinguish "N17" (song) from N17 (Irish road)

The relevant policies being

WP:COMMONNAME (roads in Ireland are generally called "R101" not "R101 road")
WP:PRECISE "Be precise, but only as precise as necessary."

I was going to propose this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, but I thought I'd check here in case it could be couched or objected to in more general terms. jnestorius^(talk) 18:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If not already, surely there will be some military hardware, pesticide, or some other notable object in the world known as N17. As such, sooner or later a form of disambiguation will have to be standardized. You can learn from the past mistakes of the US Road's wikiproject by doing a little research now and avoiding the edit wars later if you can document why the adopted naming scheme was established.

The scheme needs to allow for the inevitable conflicts between similarly numbered highways in other provinces/countries/whatever as well as the inevitable uses of the abbreviation outside of roads. I will also say that the US Road's wikiproject always uses a fully disambiguated title, even when not necessary. For example, New Mexico State Road 6563 is the article title used, even though I'm pretty sure there is no wikipedia article for any other highway numbered 6563. This is done mostly for ease of template coding.

I'm not familiar with common terminology in Ireland, so I can't comment other than to explain how the disambiguated wikipedia naming convention came to be in the US, and you can judge if that logic applies to Ireland or not. In the US "Road, route and highway" are all used somewhat interchangeably with regional preferences for one of the 3. This resulted in some edit warring between editors where one of the three was favored. The problem was compounded as many wikipedia editors were using terminology borrowed from roadgeek websites, where it is common to use the state abbreviation as differentiators creating yet another standard. For example, many road geek websites use CA-1 for what Wikipedia currently titles California State Route 1, as a short hand way of differentiation from the other Highway 1's in the USA. The problem is, almost nobody outside of the roadgeek world uses that term for a highway; CA-1 is more likely to be associated with California's 1st congressional district outside of roadgeek circles. The highway is colloquially known just as "Highway 1"; however hundreds of other highways share that colloquial title. The official title used by Caltrans is "State Route 1" with an abbreviated form of SR 1, but again, at least a dozen other highways have that same official title. After numerous rounds of edit wars and straw polls the current naming scheme was established. With that said, I myself would have preferred "State Route 1 (California)" for a disambiguated title but have resigned myself to the accepted scheme.

Hope that history lesson helps. =-) Dave (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

In Michigan, our state highways are numbered with the form M-n (and have been since 1919). Our articles on M-6 or M-28 are at M-6 (Michigan highway) or M-28 (Michigan highway), respectively. Since "highway" isn't part of the official name, it is in the parenthetical so that readers have some idea what the subject is (a highway) and not just where it is (Michigan). There aren't other items currently numbered M-185, so M-185 redirects to M-185 (Michigan highway). (M28 is also a Messier number for a galaxy someplace, and there are M6 motorways, etc.) All of the articles are consistently titled with the disambiguator even though its strictly not necessary for two reasons. It won't break templates like the infoboxes, or {{jct}} that generate the links, even if the redirect could have been reversed so that the disambiguated form is the redirect. (It wouldn't matter if the templates point to the redirect, really.) Second though is that the title describes what M-185 is as I mentioned above.

Personally, I'm used to this naming convention which has been in use since 2006, and I would suggest that you copy it for Ireland in some way, but that's just my 2p. Imzadi 1979 → 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

One final thought, to clarify what has been expressed by Imzadi and myself. Road articles tend to make heavy use of templates. (infoboxes, junction lists, etc.) If you stick with the proposal of having 4 different naming schemes for the same set of articles, (depending if disambiguation is necessary and to what degree) you are setting yourself up for a nightmare scenario in coding the templates. That's why the US Roads always uses a fully disambiguated title, even if not necessary; to have a single naming scheme that is guaranteed to work for all articles in the set. Dave (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think you'll find some pushback from editors in the UK about renaming the Irish motorways to "Mnnn motorway". I recall some kind of kerfuffle a few years ago over naming the motorway articles. Long story short, UK editors got their way and have the primary topic for "Mnnn motorway". I don't agree or disagree, that's just how it is currently. I think South Africa uses the Nnnn nomenclature, too, so we need disambiguation there. As far as I know, the R numbers in Ireland are unique, but I could be (and probably am) wrong. I would probably name them "Rnnn road".

Just remember, redirects are cheap. As long as the reader gets to the content, ridiculous links and titles like County Sligo's Most Excellent Ribbon of Pavement N17 are fine. –Fredddie ™ 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback all. This comment:

You can learn from the past mistakes of the US Road's wikiproject by doing a little research now and avoiding the edit wars later if you can document why the adopted naming scheme was established.

I was kind of hoping this Wikiproject would have documented this kind of thing somewhere so each new editor/country wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel. jnestorius^(talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Account. You could also read the poll itself, parts one and two. The ArbCom case is probably not relevant to your interest. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 13:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Scott, you're too modest. =-) Jnestorius, this got so bad back in the day it even made WP:LAME (do a search on that page, you'll find the above mentioned dispute). You don't need to read it, but you might get a laugh or two. Dave (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

More generally, I think some points -- certainly the one about template usage -- warrant being made in the general Wikipedia:Article titles. After all, Wikiproject guidelines are meant to supplement the general policies, not override them. If the general rule is defective in a particular project, it is probably so in other projects and needs a general tweak. The wisdom of the projects should feed back up. jnestorius^(talk) 14:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the template situation could be resolved in another fashion using redirects. Let's assume for a moment that Michigan's M-n articles weren't all at "M-n (Michigan highway)", but some, like M-185, were at the bare highway designation only. We could still point a redirect from "M-185 (Michigan highway)" to "M-185", and the jct template, the browser section of the infobox and the like would all still point to the correct article through the redirect. The downside is that we would lose the benefit of the article title including a bit of an explanation of what the subject is. (Note that in the US, most states name their highways with some form of "State Highway/Road/Route n", so Michigan is an anomaly in not indicating that its highways are highways in the naming scheme used.) Imzadi 1979 → 18:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The name of the current page shows in bold rather than as a wikilink. If a transcluded page links to the page (as templates should) this work, but if it links to a redirect ot the paage it doesn't. That's one drawback of relying on redirects. OTOH, I don't believe an article title needs to explain its topic (that's what the opening sentence is for) unless for disambiguation. jnestorius^(talk) 19:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what you want to avoid is, (let's use Imzadi's Michigan example) is having templates that could point multiple titling schemes depending on if the article needs disambiguation and to what level. All of the US Roads templates when passed a number and the state of Michigan will link to the article "M-xxx (Michigan highway)". So next week when Proctor and Gamble introduce their new organic shampoo, M-185, and as such M-185 now requires disambiguation, the templates will still work. However were the templates coded as such, "if nnn=6 or nnn=28 link to M-nnn(Michigan highway) else link to M-nnn" we would have to add yet another clause in the template every time a new article encroaches on one with a similar title a highway number. I'd advise to pick a naming scheme like Nxxx (Ireland highway), or similar, that can be used for template coding that is guaranteed to work even if McDonalds introduces a revolutionary new hamburger filling called the N-17 (or North Korea launches a new missile the N-17, whatever). If a country only has 30 highways, the if-else template coding may be manageable; however, some of the templates used by the US Roads project are used in 20,000+ articles, you can see the futility of trying to manage templates without a standardized naming scheme in place. Dave (talk)

Well, we're talking about two kinds of templates here. Navboxes (which USRD tends to avoid) have to list to whatever the actual title is. Taking the Interstates in Michigan, for a moment, I-375 is titled "Interstate 375 (Michigan)" because there is another I-375 in Florida. I-496 is just "Interstate 496" though because there are no others. The {{I-75 aux}} has the state name(s) in parentheses as needed, but I-575 in Georgia doesn't as it's unique. We're talking about things like {{jct}} that create the "<graphic><link>" constructions used in the infobox junction list and the junction list section of the article.

USRD tends not to use navboxes that list every highway in a state preferring instead to link articles together by the lists and categories. Once a navbox gets big enough, it's going to "pollute" the "What links here" list for an article because every highway links to it. It's hard then to know which articles are discussing it. (For instance, M-28 has no connection to M-73 or M-69 in a physical or historical sense so those two shouldn't appear in the list of incoming links.) The other concerns are that larger navboxes take up a lot of screen space, and they even slow down the loading of the page. For that reason, USRD tends to restrict their use to compact groupings, like I-75 and its auxiliary highways, instead of larger groups like every Interstate or even every highway in one state. (Michigan has 200+ highway articles reflecting the current and former designations in use, and even more designations in use that redirect into another article, like Connector M-44 which is a section of the M-44 article.) Imzadi 1979 → 19:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit to template:jct

To all interested editors: I have proposed an edit to the protected template {{jct}}. It is a minor edit that simply passes {{{country}}} through to the subtemplate {{jct/statename}}, so that the subtemplate can differentiate between states that have the same abbreviation, namely Western Australia and Washington, and the Northern Territory and Northwest Territories. You can view the edit at the sandbox, and comment at the talk page. - Evad37 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (The proposed edit has been made) - Evad37 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Feedback request: Guidelines for intersection tables for Western Australia's freeways/highways/main roads (WP:RJL-compliant)

Your comments are requested regarding the new WP:RJL-compliant intersection(junction) tables for Western Australia's freeways, highways, and main roads. Please leave feedback at WT:WA - Evad37 (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Road P (Ukraine)

Template:Road P (Ukraine) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

GAR

There is a GAR at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Delaware Route 17/1 that could have ramifications on the articles in this project. Dough 48 72 00:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (geographical features)

A draft proposal of a notability guideline for geographical features is under development. The wording of a concise section regarding roadways is currently under discussion at its talk page and would benefit from additional input. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"Road n" redirects needed?

Hallo, I've just stub-sorted a whole batch of Iranian roads like Road 14 (Iran). Whenever I stub-sort anything with a disambiguation, I check that it's linked from the undisambiguated term, via a redirect, hatnote, or dab page. Most of these aren't. They are linked from List of highways numbered 14 etc, which have incoming redirects from Highway, Route, State Road and various other variants, but not from Road 14.

Could I suggest that someone create a batch of redirects, either just from the numbers for which there's already a stub Iranian road article, or (better?) for each and every one of the "List of highways numbered n" family, from "Road n" to that list? It's good that the creator of these stubs had the wit to use a disambiguation, but some future editor might not be so alert and we might end up with "Road n" articles for some country in future, unless the redirects to the highways lists are already in place. (Yes, I know, WP:SOFIXIT, and I made a link for the first one I sorted, Road 49, but this is quite a large job - there was such a batch of these stubs that I very unusually used AWB to stub-sort them. I thought a roads person with the tech ability to mass-produce some redirects might like to take it on!) PamD 11:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

New barnstar suggestion for Roads

Hi guys, I thought of suggesting this new Barnstar for contributors who edit a lot of Road related articles. It can be for roads, highways, etc. I tried creating a sketch, but couldn't. However, the idea of my sketch was a three-dimensional road pattern like the logo on the top left corner of this page in the shape of a star. What do you guys suggest? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There is the road construction barnstar... would that serve your needs? —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Errr, perhaps we could have an updated [version 2] barnstar? I was thinking of a general barnstar for road articles, not just construction of articles. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

After some discussion on IRC, I came up with File:Highway barnstar 2.svg. The idea is that it's transparent in the center so you can do things like this: –Fredddie ™ 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Original Barnstar	Editor's Barnstar	Minor Barnstar	Barnstar of Diligence

Brilliant Fredddie. Not what I had in mind, but would suit the purpose! --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, you know, you could just use the star by itself. :) –Fredddie ™ 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Freddie, your star is brilliant. We should propse this on the WP:BS talk page now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. –Fredddie ™ 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Help: Transport in Tanzania

There was a "Caution" about content on the roads section of the Transport in Tanzania article from November 2011 until today. (The caution was transferred to the talk page per Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles.) However, the issue didn't go away. That roads section needs attention, and not just for currency. There seems also to be agreement that there needs to be a summary/detail division between that section and a Road transport in Tanzania or Roads in Tanzania article. (I'm not sure of your entitling protocols.) I was wondering if you folks could help? --Bejnar (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Africa's road articles as a whole are not in good shape right now, because a) the roads themselves are not in good shape and b) there are not many good sources that we are aware of. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Countries for a list of all the other countries and the road articles that we were aware of when we last checked in 2011. Generally there should be a Roads in Tanzania article, and then individual articles for each notable road. --Rs chen 7754 21:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Right-of-way prose is scattered

I was attempting to coordinate the right-of-way language between 3-way junction and Uncontrolled intersection. (I.e. language for an "uncontrolled 3-way junction" in both.) I found that Traffic contains most right-of-way related prose, including in a section called Traffic#Intersections which points to a "Main article" Intersection (roads); rather than being a summary of that article, it contains a significant amount of unique content. It also splits some of the "right-of-way" discussion into the "Intersections" section, and some into Traffic#Priority (right of way). Priority to the right and Boulevard rule appear to be important concepts in this discussion, but do not refer to each other, and of the articles I've mentioned, are only referenced by "Traffic#Intersections" and they in turn refer to "Traffic#Priority (right of way)". All of this seems like it should be cleaned up and consolidated, but it seems a bigger can of worms than I have the time for. I'm just putting this out there for some brave & ambitious soul... :) --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion: List of road routes in Perth, Western Australia and List of road routes in rural and remote Western Australia

The above articles, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been proposed to be merged into a single article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. - Evad37 (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More discussion on Perth and WA road related lists and navboxes is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WA; feel free to join in. - Evad37 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

USRD crosspost about ACR

A discussion is taking place at WT:USRD#ACR where we're discussing potential changes to the ACR process. Your input is welcomed. –Fredddie ™ 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:HWY/IRC

Just a reminder that we have an IRC channel where anyone can come and ask questions about highway article writing! There's usually someone active most of the day. --Rs chen 7754 07:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to mark WP:HWY/PR historical

See WT:HWY/PR. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles containing redlinks

There is a collection of articles in Category:Articles with missing files that need attention. Note the the articles starting with "Jalan" are also of interest to you lot. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Urgent - disambiguation help needed!

Today, a large number of road related pages registered as new disambiguation pages. Incoming links to these pages require expert attention, as they are not pointing to the articles to which they refer - please help if you can. The list follows. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: many of these are now done, thanks to the diligence of this project. The following are what is left. bd2412 T 03:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Michigan Avenue popped up on my watchlist earlier when a bot added a template about the large number of incoming links, and I took care of it already. The items with one or two links are probably intentional links that can't be "fixed". We'll see what we can do though. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Intentional links should be routed through a disambiguation redirect, like [[M3 motorway (disambiguation)|M3 motorway]]. This will prevent them from showing up as errors on the lists maintained by disambiguators, so they will not try to fix them. bd2412 T 03:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have alos found a number of so-called links are the result of poor over-linking, for example a non-notable "London Road" in some village somewhere. In such cases, I have removed teh Wikilinks. Martinvl (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I found similar, and did the same. Apparently, some people thought that if the link turned blue, that was the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" needed to use the link. In any event, congrats and thanks to everyone for their help! Imzadi 1979 → 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Excellent job, many thanks to all involved! bd2412 T 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Roads by year of opening

There is currently a CfD about categories that classify roads by year of opening (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 18). Input from people active on road articles is obviously welcome. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated M62 motorway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rs chen 7754 19:46, 25 March 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. --Rs chen 7754 05:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Autoroute signs up for deletion

Several autoroute signs are up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_April_23 -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

China toll roads outdated

The list of toll roads in China is badly outdated - it seems to cover only certain parts of the country. I do not know where the information can be found. 202.101.72.17 (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

Nbound (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested articles

There are some articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Transport#Roads that could be started (whether actual articles or just redirects) and incorporated into the Project. Hopefully, there are editors here that are better at some of this type of thing than I am. If so, I am proposing (and asking nicely) that you help out. Thanks! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: WP:AURDNAME as a guideline

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) 05:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 37

The above review has been inactive for 30 days, and this is the required notification of that effect, per WP:HWY/ACR. Interested editors are encouraged to enter "Keep" or "Remove" declarations, or continue working on the article to ensure that it will remain at A-Class standards. If no attempts are made to work on the article, and a net 3 Remove declarations have not been entered, the article will remain at A-Class. --Rs chen 7754 23:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road proposal

There is a proposal to use Wikidata for displaying a map in Infobox road, only if both the map_custom= and map= field are blank. Your input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox road. --Rs chen 7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

West Coast Electric Highway

Not sure of the proper capitalization (so feel free to fix it), but would a network of charging stations for electric vehicles be within this project's scope?

—EncMstr (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Since that's in the US, it might be in the scope of WP:USRD. The Highways project doesn't tag stuff specific to one country if there is a full sub project for that country, like the US, Canada, the UK or Australia. Imzadi 1979 → 05:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll ask there. —EncMstr (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

World Digital Library

A few days ago, I was sent an invitation to join the World Digital Library by User:SarahStierch‎‎. I didn't see any resources for U.S. Roads on their site when I looked, but she said she would give me a heads up if anything fit, although there might be some resources that you guys could use. Hopefully, it can be a good resource for editing. Just thought I should let you guys know. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Switching to Wikidata for maps

This is a notice that the |map= parameter in {{infobox road}} is soon becoming obsolete. The parameter will be supported by Wikidata projectwide in the near future. This has been tested and proven to work, but the parameter is only supported by Wikidata on a handful of articles, most pertaining to roads in the United States, as of June 2.

This works by using the map property on Wikidata. To complete the example above, here is the item for CA 78 on Wikidata. Notice how in the "road map" property is File:California State Route 78.svg, which is the map that infobox road now links to, to use as the map in the infobox. If you have any questions, I'm willing to answer them. T C N7JM 06:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposal which I and others agreed to at Template talk:Infobox road#Use Wikidata for map field does not make the parameter obsolete, but offers Wikidata as an alternative if and only if the parameter is not used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Functionally, there's no difference; there's little point in adding the map to the infobox if it's tagged on Wikidata. The only instance in which you might want to do so is if the map that Wikidata has contains some sort of deficiency. To most users, however, using the map parameter will be no longer necessary. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be preferable, convenient and sensible to use a map from Wikidata in most cases; but that's far from declaring the parameter "obsolete". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I love how on this site people get upset over one word you say and not the actual content of the notice. Does it really matter whether or not the word "obsolete" was correct? You get the general idea. Move along, please. T C N7JM 18:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want people to object to the controversial things you say, don't say them. It's not the word that's the problem, but the idea of obsoleting a parameter with no discussion; and when there are good reasons to keep it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but I didn't think typing that one simple word would get somebody so upset. It wasn't meant to be a controversial message, just a notice. T C N7JM 20:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road junction to use Wikidata for maps

Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rs chen 7754 21:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

KMLs and the Australian Road infobox

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] 04:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: UK road junction lists

There is an RFC underway here to modify MOS:RJL and to harmonise the guidance for road junction lists in the UK with that of other countries.--Nilf anion (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

HKRD

A new subproject, WikiProject Hong Kong Roads, has been created. Help is appreciated. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 00:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Punjab Highway Patrol.jpg

image:Punjab Highway Patrol.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

LegendRJL change

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)

A further proposal to only show relevant color keys, and merge {{LegendRJL}} with {{Jctbtm}}, is being discussed at Template talk:LegendRJL#Display_only_relevant_color_keys. Your comments would be appreciated. - Evad37 (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

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. T C N7JM 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

"Autopista AP-6" article (Spanish Motorway)

Hi! I'm the author of the same article in Wikipedia in Spanish (on PDF format has 8 pages). Here, we have an article above the "Autopista del Noroeste" (Northwest Highway), not above the AP-6 Tollway, simply, because the AP-6 is only a part of all. I wrote for you more details at your article, but I considered your title "Autopista AP-6" only above the tollway portion between Villalba (Madrid) and Adanero (Avila). I see your WikiProyect Highways, it's a very good idea, a I can help you with our highways if you want. Needly and very important to know in Spain, all of roads look like a highway don't highways. Do you know the spanish word, "Autovía"? It's diferent than "Autopista" that means, Highway or Motorway). Most of the spanish roads of this types are "autovías" and the motorways are a minority.

Sorry for my English! I'm trying.

Best wishes from Spain!!!

See the article es:Autopista del Noroeste on Wikipedia in spanish.37.11.43.33 (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

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) 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Can they be adapted to build the table at Highway 401? That's the only case I know of in the articles I watch where the traffic data is presented in a table format... but it contrasts several years of data, not just one - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

They can currently take upto 4 years of data, but they build the table with each location as a row rather than as a column. I can have a look at building a table for Highway 401 using the templates tomorrow, so you can see what it could look like. - Evad37 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried out the new templates here. It seems to work pretty well.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 20:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Floydian: Here's the Highway 401 table using the templates. There are some style choices I made that could be be changed, but this gives the general idea. - Evad37 (talk) 3:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Traffic volume on Highway 401
Location	Volume
Location	1969^[1]	1988^[2]	2008^[2]
Windsor: Dougall Parkway – Essex County Road 46	9,550	13,200	16,700
London: Highbury Avenue – Veterans Memorial Parkway	17,450	33,800	64,500
Woodstock: Oxford County Road 59 – Highway 403	16,700	35,100	67,100
Cambridge: Highway 8 – Highway 24	19,900	19,900	125,600
Mississauga: Mississauga Road – Hurontario Street	28,450	97,100	177,300
Toronto: Weston Road – Highway 400	106,850	319,600	442,900
Oshawa: Park Road – Simcoe Street	29,000	79,000	120,700
Belleville: Highway 62 – Highway 37	13,750	22,500	43,500
Kingston: Frontenac County Road 38 – Sydenham Road	12,000	20,700	45,400
Brockville: Highway 29 – North Augusta Road	10,050	15,300	29,100
Cornwall: Highway 138 – McConnell Avenue	10,300	12,900	18,400
Volume: Average annual daily traffic Source: Department of Highways (1970) / Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (2008)

({{reflist}} needed so page doesn't show errors)

^ ref1 goes here
^ ^a ^b ref2 goes here

Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Baltimore–Washington Parkway

Per the requirements at WP:HWY/ACR, this notice is being left to inform you that this candidate for demotion from ACR has gone 30 days without any activity. If there is no clear consensus (3 votes) to keep or demote after 7 days, and no attempt to continue work, the review will be closed as keep. --Rs chen 7754 10:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sections

For the last several years, it has been a widely accepted standard that a highway article should have 1) some form of route description, 2) a history of the route, and 3) a junction list, even if the name of the section is not the "standard" one that the US standards use. Depending on the route, sections for "Future", "Services", "Tolls", "Auxiliary routes", and "In popular culture" have generally been accepted, and are used on several road FAs and GAs. Generally, this is not in dispute.

What has come into question, however, is the inclusion of some sections such as "Environmental impact" and "Traffic volumes." There has been some controversy over their inclusion, and I am starting this discussion so that we can provide some better and more consensual and uniform guidance on the matter. Of course, there are other "nonstandard" sections that are on many articles, and I don't want to necessarily limit the discussion to them. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I will express that in my own comments below. --Rs chen 7754 05:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is my logic behind my comments in that FAC. The details of the Environmental impact section, a section which was only added during the FAC, were of a historical nature. They impacted the planning and construction of the roadway, and in my opinion, fit best when worked in with the other historical aspects that produced the modern highway.

As for the Traffic volume, there's a fine line between specialist and generalist information. Other than answering the question "who uses the road?" with the simple "between X and Y cars on average each day", traffic counts are meaningless in a generalist context. It takes some specialist knowledge to know is 10,000 vehicles per day high or low? A variety of factors go into interpreting raw traffic counts, and without a specific source to provide that interpretation, we shouldn't attempt such a thing on our own. That's why, even though I advocate including some traffic information, I don't recommend more than highest and lowest counts. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Imzadi1979 to a limited extent.

As far as the traffic volumes: All I have to add is that one of the points of WP:NOT is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't know if it really benefits us to copy the traffic volumes table verbatim, when we already link to it. And writing it in prose puts the reader to sleep and makes it highly unreadable. Giving the highest and lowest gives just enough information to put it into perspective.

As far as the environmental impact: I don't particularly like sections like that, but I don't feel strongly enough to "prohibit" them either. As far as the length of that particular section, we do have to remember that what we write about has to be notable, which extends to the facts we decide to talk about: we are WP:NOT a news source, and we don't talk about most accidents, or repaving the road, or routine route maintenance. The same level of consideration should apply to all sections of an article. --Rs chen 7754 04:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Don Valley Parkway has both pieces of information. The traffic volumes are in a table in the route description, and the environmental impacts are detailed between the RD and the History sections. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to change anything. Those sections shouldn't even exist. Who cares. except during construction about envrionmental impact. Cover in history, good enough. As for traffic volumes I'm already opposed to anything lower than an arterial boulevard getting any mention of traffic volumes at all. Smaller the road gets, the dumber it seems. We're just over explaining that this road is underused. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 23:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the major problems with such a prescriptive approach is that the proponents will often differ. Even amongst these posts there are varying opinions, take into account the vast majority of editors who have not supported this at all, they probably dont agree which each other on everything either. Thats kind of the point. Overly prescriptive approaches only serve to allow singular viewpoints a free run, they alienate editors, increase combative behaviours, and all other sorts of fun nasties we dont need ruining the goal of creating better roads articles for all editors involved. Think about it, we dont have omniscience, its going to be hard to decide whats valid for inclusion on any road we are not familiar with, the less familiar we are, the less links we have with the road, the less likely we are to understand why the information is being presented the way it is. I have written a relatively comprehensive essay on the subject here: User:Nbound/RoadsEssay -- Nbound (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

"Even amongst these posts there are varying opinions, take into account the vast majority of editors who have not supported this at all, they probably dont agree which each other on everything either." For one, that's patently false - of the four other people who have commented here, not one has supported the inclusion of the controversial separate sections. I forgot to mention that California State Route 52 does include information on the environmental impact, but integrates it into the history, because it is a part of the history. There's nothing awkward about it at all. --Rs chen 7754 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Theres the opinion of Dr.Blofield who requested an EI section, and of Mitch Ames who protested the removal of traffic volume, Ive supported generalised control by stewarding editors, rather than particular groups. Evad has stated he is awaiting the outcomes of the discussion before deciding whether this is appropriate, Floydian has shown an article where sections have been semi-merged as subsections, in fact he has a subsection quite similar to the ones under discussion. Imzadi recommends no more than high and low traffic counts. You do agree on that, and have stated you dont feel strongly enough to ban an EI section. Mitch states he finds most of this stuff all boring, and gives another differing standard of inclusion traffic volumes. If there is a fixed consensus between editors so far, Im failing to see it. If there is truly to be a "rule" of this kind, what are its conditions, what are its exceptions, who arbitrates on it, who polices it - If there was a fixed consensus I wouldnt need to ask those questions. Needless to say this is hardly the crux of the argument, just an observation, more serious concerns are within the essay -- Nbound (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, at this discussion, nobody has supported including those sections as their own Level 2 headers, and Dr. Blofeld never indicated that he was unhappy with the information being moved elsewhere. As far as your essay, a lot of those same arguments could be made against various portions of the MOS, or using infoboxes (note the recent arbitration case), etc. and yet for road articles, those are both widely accepted. --Rs chen 7754 03:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As noted in the essay, even I dont support that we should be sectioning everything. Dr. Blofield's silence does not indicate a like or dislike of the final product. The MOS is defined by the community as a whole, infobox usage on roads are again defined by the community as a whole (theres noone arguing that infoboxes shouldnt be used on roads articles). Neither is in any way comparable. -- Nbound (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, from WP:WIAFA: "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of... appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." So concerns about the organization of the article are certainly valid at FAC. --Rs chen 7754 03:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Noone is arguing for widespread sectioning of everything. Regarding the WP:WIAFA criterion- concerns should be noted, but keep in mind that criterion does not necessarily support your viewpoint, nor does it support the opposite. I pointed this out when it was mentioned at the FAC discussion at the top of the page. Nominators should take these viewpoints into account, but they certainly do not become laws for writing articles. If there is differing opinions, its upto the nominator to weigh them up. -- Nbound (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have to realize that the outcome of every FAC is determined by the delegates, who read through to see if there is consensus regarding the promotion of an article - so it's how the reviewers choose to interpret the criteria and the strength of those arguments that makes the difference. --Rs chen 7754 03:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Definitely, though this has little bearing on the discussion - If a roads article with 6 level two sections makes FA, that doesnt mean we now follow a six section rule. Each road is different. Again, definitely take the complaints into account (either way, and within the context of an article). -- Nbound (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think rather than try to prescribe or proscribe certain sections in all scenarios, WP:HWY should have vague guidelines that, if followed, cause the writer to answer several basic questions (like "Where does the road go?", "Who uses the road?", etc.). We should probably write down those questions anyway. Then the local WikiProjects would define their standards in terms of the greater WP:HWY standards (such as, "We have an infobox to tell the reader at a glance where the road goes.") As far as "non-standard" sections go, I think we, as reviewers, need to ask better questions. Instead of requesting a change because the section is "non-standard", we need to ask why that section is better than a more conventional way. I will elaborate more on this later. –Fredddie ™ 05:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree. I think this is the underlying message that the people who have commented here are trying to convey - we're not opposed to these particular instances just because they are "nonstandard." (Disclaimer: I know people have used "nonstandard section" as their only justification in past reviews, though they usually are criticized about it later). --Rs chen 7754 05:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I also agree, this in many ways parallels the points Ive been trying to put across. A prescriptive approach is not going to work very well. Editors should be given some free reign to setup articles as he/she/they see most appropriate to a particular road, whilst giving the basic information that is integral to most WP articles (who, when, where, what, why, how, etc.). There is not going to be an approach that is necessarily right or wrong. There is going to be a range of views on most content and structure decisions. The wide range of existing FAs across Wikipedia more than adequately illustrate that. This doesnt mean that a reviewer cant suggest an optional change based on their own opinion, go for it! Chances are, it might be acted upon. If not, then perhaps the nominating/stewarding editor has a differing opinion and perhaps good reason to not do it. At the very least, remember there is more than one way to skin a cat! -- Nbound (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

But do all of the possible methods work / are they the most effective ways to do them? I write every FA a little bit differently, and I'm bound to get it wrong one of these days (such as the one I'm working on right now, Interstate 805... there's certain aspects that I'm not comfortable with, but I'll take it through ACR and see what happens). --Rs chen 7754 05:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Its going to depend immensely on who you ask. Excluding fill/padding on very small articles, most things have been included for a reason, or structured that way for a reason. Like I said above, if you believe an article may be better served with a different structure, by all means mention it... allow it to be weighed up... and it'll either make the cut or not. Prescribing a singular viewpoint as the only standard is inappropriate when articles will be so varied across a range of different measures. Again im not saying we should be just placing new sections everywhere, just that its inappropriate to apply to particular standard as required. Even amongst my own articles I have followed a relatively conservative approach. For example: All the four articles I have at GA or GAN stick to a relatively traditional/conservative approach to sectioning/content (and they dont make any mention of EI*, or traffic volumes either).

Note (*): excluding Majura Parkway which has focus on EI integrated within its history section much like proponents of this scheme would codify, when discussing the chosen alignment.

That doesnt mean Im necessarily right or wrong with this approach. I am more than happy to acknowledge that there may be other ways to approach the same problems. I am open to pointers on them in either direction. I have structured those articles the way they are because it makes sense given the content I have so far integrated. It may change with more, it may not. For all the reasons outlined within this discussion and within the essay, a prescriptive approach to this is not the way to go.

-- Nbound (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what the concern is here but at the FAC I saw that the environmental implications of the highway were covered in numerous publications and I felt that the article should have a comprehensive section on it. I can;t see why removing such a section would improve the article or exactly why this is problematic. As far as I can see he's done a great job on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The concern is whether that material should have a separate section. --Rs chen 7754 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And when it's all details tied into the development and construction of the modern highway, why are we separating them from the other details of the development of the construction of the modern highway in the history section? Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well no, its not about whether we should have a separate section per se. Its about whether we'll be free to structure an article the way we prefer given the road. In many roads there is no EI due to age, some barely a mention, but a few have relatively interesting and pertinent EI sections and could benefit from a separate section at an editor(s) discretion. There is more than one way to set up an article. In the case of Kwinana two sections had information removed before being merged. Pretty much all articles on WP could be theoretically merged into a 'description' and 'history' section, but it is not done for good reason. Whatever the personal position on the specific circumstance, we should not be prescribing a standard based on a singular viewpoint. Of course, if a reviewing editor has an opinion on structure, by all means, let the editor/nom know, its quite possible the advice will be followed. Advice is fine, but enforcing personal opinion, not so much. -- Nbound (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, reviewing is all personal opinion; the standards that MOS is based on, and even our naming conventions are all arbitrary. The problem I have with a separate EI section is that it fragments the history and makes it much harder to follow. I think the other thing missing is that Wikipedia is bound by consensus; when a consensus of reviewers makes a recommendation, that is simply not something the nominator can ignore. --Rs chen 7754 22:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And no one has said we can't tease out EI information as a subsection of the history. The modern environmental impact studies and such are core stage of the overall development and construction of a modern highway, so there's no reason that can't be used as a subsection, placing those studies in their historical timeline after proposals and before construction. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Usually, environmental impact is only one of the reasons why a road is opposed, and the debates happen at the same time; to separate environmental impact out makes the article harder to follow. --Rs chen 7754 22:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes and no, you review content based on the criteria, not based on your own opinion (people judging articles by opinion is generally why articles goto review). As shown by the multiple discussions in regards to this there is hardly a consensus, as I mentioned earlier; even the "proponents" of the prescriptive approach have not yet presented any kind of rule for consideration. If there is a fixed consensus between editors so far, Im failing to see it. What are its conditions? what are its exceptions? who arbitrates on it? who polices it? - If there was a fixed consensus I wouldnt need to ask those questions. Similarly, take some of Imzadi1979's articles, he has sections on "Historical Bridges" and various other things that are traditionally merged into the History or the Route Description. If and when another example of this appears, should another editor request it removed, should he be forced to remove the section? Im sure he'd argue that it was justified for one reason or another. Why not extend other editors the same courtesy? Now, I dont have a problem with those sections, Im sure in the context of Michigan and that road's history they could be important, despite whether or not I find the section boring, "out of place", or whatever else. I realise Im not qualified to make that judgement. Its certainly going to be the case in reverse cases aswell. Advice is welcomed, rules; not so much. -- Nbound (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not intended to be some political thing; this is not intended to be a prescriptive approach. I'm certainly not advocating for that, and I don't think anyone is. However, in this specific case, four road editors have advised against the specific use of the headers that started this discussion. To readd the headers in this particular circumstance comes dangerously close to ignoring a developing consensus on the matter. --Rs chen 7754 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Theres the opinion of Dr.Blofield who requested an EI section, and of Mitch Ames who protested the removal of traffic volume, Ive supported generalised control by stewarding editors, rather than particular groups. Evad has stated he is awaiting the outcomes of the discussion before deciding whether this is appropriate, Floydian has shown an article where sections have been semi-merged as subsections, in fact he has a subsection quite similar to the ones under discussion. Imzadi recommends no more than high and low traffic counts. You do agree on that, and have stated you dont feel strongly enough to ban an EI section. Mitch states he finds most of this stuff all boring, and gives another differing standard of inclusion traffic volumes. Fredddie has stated he would like a question based approach. Hardly consensus. Now you say you dont want a prescriptive approach, well great, lets get back to editing roads! I dont mind whether Evad37 adds them or not, that is not what I have argued at any point in this thread, but I would suggest he settled upon the original article structure for a reason, much in the same way that Imzadi1979 decided to separate his historic bridge sections, and much in the same way that most articles have little need at all for extra sections. -- Nbound (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And again, nobody has said that environmental impact information should be removed entirely from the article. Frankly, this is starting to sound like molehill->mountain. I think you're nitpicking a little bit too much here - neither I, nor Imzadi1979, nor Floydian, nor Mitchazenia support the controversial sections the way they were. But to clarify this matter...--Rs chen 7754 23:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Viridiscalculus, in your stroll poll response below you said that "Level 2 sections are supposed to be able to stand alone or mostly alone." Can you provide a link to the MOS (or other) guideline that supports that assertion? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that "traffic volume" information may not always be appropriate in articles, eg on the grounds that it is meaningless without interpretation (violating WP:OR) or that is "indiscriminate collection of information". These are valid points, and perhaps the specific numbers are not useful to the average reader, but I can assure you - as regular user of both the Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways - the traffic volume does matter from a practical standpoint. Although the actual number number of cars per hour may not mean anything, what does mean something is:

The level of traffic congestion is a major problem for commuters, so much so that
Many (most? all?) local radio stations broadcast traffic reports each weekday morning and afternoon to give road users some forewarning of the problems
During peak times (several hours, twice a day) the freeways' usage exceeds capacity and so there is significant variation in the travel time - minor incidents can create major unpredictable delays.

Obviously the above is Perth- (and sometimes freeway-) specific, but it seems likely that it applies to other major roads was well. Perhaps our major road articles need a level 2 section not just on traffic volume (the number don't mean much to anybody) but "traffic volume and congestion", describing more the practical outcomes of the volume. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, but now we're coming close to travel guide material... which is also included in WP:NOT. --Rs chen 7754 09:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Mitch, there is a basis for some volume/congestion data [AADT, avg speed] on major roads (Kwinana and Tonkin are quite major roads in a WA context, probs not much by US standards though). It certain fits under the "How?" question - How is it used? is it coping? (overused/underused). No editor intends of giving a day by day account of road conditions as you would expect from travel advice. None of the information presented in these sections is useful as actual travel advice beyond very generalist terms (much like some of the non-controversial "restrictions" information presented on some roads). In essence - you cant plan a holiday based on AADT values :). -- Nbound (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we include day-to-day details of congestion (as we don't list day-to-day traffic counts), but the surely it is notable that the there is significant congestion every weekday - ie rather than focusing on the traffic counts (as we currently do) report the fact that the traffic volume regularly and consistently causes problems. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That should certainly be mentioned if it can be reliably sourced. Automobile associations like NRMA, RACQ, (not sure of the WA association but you would be) often publish pieces with such information - It may also be cited from newspapers occasionally when they do similar pieces. Roads are more than just the physical objects. Similarly it gives context to why extensions/duplications/extra lanes and other improvements may be planned/under construction - This kind of information was requested for Majura Parkway as stating a road was replacing another didnt explain why it was happening. There is figures for the current road, a future projection for the replacement roadway, and a cited prose evaluation of the current road's inability to handle the volumes. Theres not enough traffic history for it to require its own sub/section (it article follows the 'conventional' structure as noted earlier), but its not hard to imagine other roads requiring a subsection or section dedicated to it. -- Nbound (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Similarly Mount Lindesay Highway was decommissioned in NSW some time ago, the parallel route into QLD via the New England Highway was much more popular. This was much to do with the condition of the road, but some traffic stats of the era would also collaborate this (if available), again giving some context to the why?. -- Nbound (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll

Note: this straw poll is only used to reflect and clarify what the consensus is so far.

1) A prescriptive approach should generally not be used in road articles: in other words, we should not "ban" or "prohibit" particular sections being included solely on the basis that they are nonstandard.

Yes. --Rs chen 7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I would say "ban" is a bit strong. I see nothing wrong with discouraging nonstandard sections. However, this should usually be done at the national level, not globally. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes - though if USRD wishes to form their own consensus on the matter per Scott5114 - I wouldnt necessarily be against that. Assuming it was a strong consensus. For something to be "banned" it should have a consensus level approaching that of the usual "required" sections -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If solely on the basis that they are nonstandard, then yes. T C N7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Do not prohibit or even discourage particular sections solely for being nonstandard. V C 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We should not "ban" sections from an article - the idea is ridiculous. Guidelines that suggest certain information be in certain sections (environmental impact in History, for example) are a good idea, but "prohibiting" editors from diverging from the "one true layout" seems not to be consistent with the idea that "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. -happy 5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes absolutely, every article is different, and if something like environmental impact has had extensive coverage for a road then it should be encouraged. It would be wrong in encyclopedic terms to make such a general decision. Environmental impact is often one of the biggest factors anyway in the decision to build highways or not, I can think of one such local highway leading to Cardiff Airport from Culverhouse Cross which was proposed and dropped because of extensive environmental lobbying and if you did research on such a road, environmental discussion and assessment would be a major factor in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but to a point. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

2) However, "nonstandard" sections should be evaluated on the basis of whether this is the most optimal way to organize the relevant information, as opposed to the "standard" method.

Yes. --Rs chen 7754 23:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. T C N7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. V C 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of consistency but I'm not comfortable with this use of "nonstandard", implying as it does that the absence of such a section is the defacto best approach. I think the "standard" layout needs to allow for optional sections for material (such as traffic volume) that is likely to occur in many road articles. (The preferred ordering of optional sections should probably be defined in the guideline, much as WP:LAY does.) Whether the material should be included in a separate section or not will then depend on the specific material and article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. -happy 5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the decision to include something should be based on coverage in reliable sources. The Perth highway has a wealth of coverage on environmental impact and a truly great article would not ignore this. I agree that each article should be assessed differently, but if a road has extensive coverage on environmental impact then documenting it in its own section should not be discouraged. Only if the info is very sparse and not comprehensive should it be merged IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes with conditions. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

3) Where appropriate, information on traffic volumes and environmental impact should be included in road articles.

Yes. --Rs chen 7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously. T C N7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Granted, "appropriate" is open for interpretation. V C 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree. -happy 5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes agreed, especially if traffic volume and environmental impact has had extensive coverage then it should be encouraged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
ONLY and ONLY in history for environment and traffic counts need to be restricted to boulevards, freeways and larger. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

4) However, including separate Level 2 sections for "Traffic volumes" and "Environmental impact" in articles like Kwinana Freeway is suboptimal, in that the information can be included elsewhere in the article, and makes the article more understandable.

Yes. --Rs chen 7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- Clarifying that I tend to agree with Scott5114 overall. I intended this to be more specific than general, which apparently I failed to make clear. :S --Rs chen 7754 01:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. –Fredddie ™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Depends on the context. The vast majority of the time environmental concerns are only relevant during construction. In this case, I would rather the environmental concerns be covered in the history (as on Creek Turnpike). If environmental issues remain ongoing after the highway is built and opened, then it would be appropriate to have a standalone section. Traffic counts should generally not have their own section, since including so much of this information that a standalone section is warranted would overwhelm the reader with overly technical details. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I personally would not include them in the majority of articles. -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Not always, per Nbound.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Traffic volumes should never get their own Level 2 section in my opinion. Either put it in a Level 3 section at the end of the route description or stick it in a section lead at the beginning of it. As for environmental impact, my views seem to be aligned with those of Scott5114. T C N7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Level 2 sections are supposed to be able to stand alone or mostly alone. Traffic volumes and environmental impact can almost never stand alone in road articles. They need to be presented in context in answering the the 5 W (and How) questions. V C 03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Sometimes separate sections are appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how traffic counts can have a separate Level 2 section in any circumstance. Not even on Ontario Highway 401. In regards to environmental impact, I second Scott's view. -happy 5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Not neccesarily, depends upon the context. If environmental impact and traffic volume have had extensive coverage then I think it is feasible to have separate sections on them. In the Perth highway case I see too much coverage in reliable sources and information to make it feasible to merge or even remove the info. In some cases however coverage of these may be minimal and might then be feasible to merge into longer section, each article should be assessed differently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
NO levels 2s that aren't standard/status quo. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no, the information can be included elsewhere, but is it necessarily better or more understandable? Leaning towards yes for EI, but not sure about traffic volume. - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Officially pinging User:Imzadi1979, User:Mitchazenia, User:Floydian, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Nbound, and User:Fredddie to clarify where their opinion falls in the above options. --Rs chen 7754 00:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Also pining User:Evad37 and User:Mitch Ames - both have had opinions on associated pages -- Nbound (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Important

As I note question 1, 2, and 3 are still relatively open to interpretation (ie. Q1 doesnt explore the "ban" question for alternative reasons than non-standard), Ill just put this out there too:

We need to keep in mind that there is no precedent for codifying any of these ideas and opinions on inclusions. Wikiprojects dont have any power as far as the MOS/FAC goes, and they dont overrule it. Its quite possible that an article which breaks any of the wikiprojects guidelines or rules will pass at FAC as long as the article is well-written and comprehensive. Even stuff we term as "required" such as infoboxes arent enforceable (its only the acceptance of this rule by everyone that "enforces" it - as its actually just a recommendation). Passing a rule even if it had only had a minority (the straw poll above actually shows a relatively mixed response) is support just likely to alienate those editors. If an editor loses faith in the system they may just go straight to FAC, and lose whats often quite valuable observations at ACR. Needless to say enforcing something at ACR which isnt enforcable at FAC is pointless. -- Nbound (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is enforceable at FAC, if a consensus believes that the article fails criterion 2b at WP:WIAFA. --Rs chen 7754 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Its upto the delegate to weigh up that up actually (and it also presumes that even amongst those here - all of which are likely to be seen at FAC - there would be a consistent support/oppose position, but I digress). Again, a look at FAs will show that most articles have larger numbers of sections than most roads articles (its not uncommon for road FAs to include them too!), despite almost all being able to be merge in very similar ways. Placing a "rule" on anything is unlikely to convince them if the nominating editor has a good reason - which is generally the only reason why an article nom'd for FA would have extra sections. Its unlikely an article would be failed for a lack of infobox (as the only reason) for example. One of the most worrying things in the preceeding discussion threads (Kwinana, and Tonkin) was that noone asked the nominator why the thing was done, within what context, and perhaps to work upon providing that context in the text for non-local readers (if citable). Instead it was just ruled as being 'wrong', and the second - a completely different road - was referred to first. The idea that there is one single ideal approach to any article is laughable. -- Nbound (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, the nominator never offered that information either... --Rs chen 7754 22:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

As i pointed out earlier, do we really want to down a combative path? Where well meaning editors are required to consistently defend their choices, and are guilty until proven innocent... Sounds like fun... Im sure we'd see little drama with that approach :S -- Nbound (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

(Going off on a tangent here, but...) I'm just going to say that from my experience watching USRD's FACs, in at least half of them we do have to defend something, if not several somethings. At FAC, articles tend to get picked apart, and the process can be somewhat brutal (and by several factors more than HWY/ACR can be). At every FAC (even those that have nothing to do with roads) you should be confident in what you have written, and be ready to defend anything in the article, or you will not be successful. --Rs chen 7754 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

(a somewhat arbitrary break)

While I agree with much of the above, I'm not entirely convinced that the route description section is the appropriate place for traffic volume information. The route description section answers the basic questions: What is it (a road), Where is it (the path it takes), How does it travel (details such freeway/dual carriage, speed limits, etc). The history section deals with the When question (construction and opening dates, etc) and Why question (eg to bypass congestion). For Kwinana Freeway's traffic volume information, I previously had it in a separate section because its not just related to the route description, but also the history - traffic volume for 2006/07, or any other period, is by definition historical data, and not necessarily appropriate for the route description section, which details the current route. In essence, there is a Who question – who uses it – but the answer can only be given in relation to a time period: In XX year, there were YY vehicles at point ZZ. So is it more appropriate to have it in route description section, or history section (or neither), and under a level 3 heading, or integrated in with the rest of the section? Maybe different approaches would work better in different articles, but in essence, if the rest of the route description deals with the current route/conditions, does traffic volume belong there? - Evad37 (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this was asked at some point, but I assume there was no data that was more recent? --Rs chen 7754 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not that I could find. The information may exist in a computer system somewhere, but doesn't appear to have been published. - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, even in the route description, some of the "current" sources do tend to be a bit dated. I know of several California route descriptions where the published map I used was published in 2008 or 2009. --Rs chen 7754 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that if any editor chooses to add these extras into the RD, especially beyond a brief mention, it probably shouldn't be called the "Route Description" on road based articles (as opposed to route based). If you talk about the route of a road, you are talking about its alignment. To Rs' point above, there is online AADT data (in NSW at least) as far back as 1970. Given that this may be needed to collaborate other text on the increasing importance of a road, declining use, etc. this again may make it not suitable for integration straight into an RD. -- Nbound (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WT:HKRD#Articles to be PROD/AFD

There's a discussion about a large amount of streets in Hong Kong to be AFD/PROD.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

A4 motorway (Cyprus)

Hi, I was 'directed' here by Talk:A4 motorway (Cyprus) so I hope this is the correct place. I noticed that A4 motorway (Cyprus) was missing the sign image so I created one. However I then realised I should have checked it did match the style of A3 image and wasn't different for some odd reason. So I went looking to check and could find no reference to this road, and it's not marked on Google maps or Bing maps. There is also no A4 on the greek wikipedia [1]. The article was created by an anonymous user, and has no sources, so I'm wondering if this road actually exists or not? Anyway just thought I'd bring it to the attention of this group :) KylieTastic (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking at OpenStreetMap and Google Maps, I think A4 is actually B4. -happy 5214 13:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Happy. I got hits searching for "B4 Larnaca" but none for "A4 Larnaca". Also, the Larnaca International Airport article says B4 and A3 make up the airport's road network. –Fredddie ™ 15:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

highway photos up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 6 where many highway photos are up for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY

I would like to propose that we create a shields requests page here at WP:HWY, that would connect editors from around the world who want high quality route marker images created with those who are skilled at creating such images. There are already similar pages at some of the projects – WP:USRD/S, WP:AURD/S (now has no participants), WT:WikiProject UK Roads/roadsigns (inactive since Dec 2011). It would be up to those projects to do decide whether to shift over to the HWY page(s) or keep their own, though much like the A-Class reviews, I see no need for each project to have separate pages. - Evad37 (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support, I really don't see a need for separate ones for each subproject.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 03:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I would not support the US merging into this shields department, but if the other projects want to get together and see if anyone will field their shield requests, I have no problem. --Rs chen 7754 03:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I am with Rschen here. I have no problem with a shield request program under WP:HWY, but don't support merging WP:USRD/S there. While we're at it, we should probably do the same for maps. –Fredddie ™ 03:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. I have no issue with a HWY-based page, but leave the subproject pages where there are. Imzadi 1979 → 03:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Support a separate page for the HWY project which can also serve other projects without their own shield task force such as CRWP. The USRD shield task force should remain separate though. Dough 48 72 03:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Support for both maps and shields. In both cases this would make experienced editors available to all countries on creation of shields, maps, and the accompanying copyright issues. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Support for both maps and shields, like Scott. T C N7JM 03:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Created Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Route markers (as route marker is the more general/international term) - Evad37 (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Created WikiProject: Russia Roads

Says it in the title. But do you guys have any pointers for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This, along with the recently created page for a German Roads project have been userfied. I have advised the creator on his/her talk page to open discussions first about the idea before pursuing recreating them. Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Opinions requested

I was looking into the possibility of converting the "Use in North America" section on the diverging diamond interchange article from a bunch of disorganized prose into a cleaner/sortable table, and was looking for some opinions. I've started a talk page topic on the matter, and I would appreciate all input and help in this quite tedious task, so I figured this would be the place to ask. Thank you! Jon (aka Blurred203) holler 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] ref1 goes here

[r2-2] ref2 goes here

[1]

[2]