Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:49, 9 June 2013

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Australian Roads Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Australian Roads, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to roads and highways in Australian states and territories. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Australian RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject Australian RoadsTemplate:WikiProject Australian RoadsAustralia road transport Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

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

Project Noticeboard

Article to-dos

• Convert all shields in articles to use {{AUshield}}.
• Convert all existing NSW highway shields to their alphanumeric shields by the end of 2013.
• Convert existing junction lists to be MOS:RJL compliant.
• Improve WP:ACCESS compliance across all instances (especially in relation to shielding).
• Minimise usage of roadgeek sites as citation sources. But reference them where used.

Recently created articles

Please add new articles at the bottom of the list.

• Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) - 17 May 2013
• Scott's Crossing Road - 2 June 2013
• <Your new article goes here!>

Article alerts

Article alerts

Redirects for discussion

• 09 Jan 2025 – T:IARD (talk · edit · hist) →Template:Infobox Australian road was RfDed by Utopes (t · c); see discussion

Project watchlists: Articles • Talk pages

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

D-class roadways in SA

Before I nom the pics for deletion, can anyone give an official source that D96, D95, and D83; are all official route designations in SA.

By proof of SA goverment official documents, or by photographic proof of it being used to mark the route. If it is not being used to mark the route, we should not have an image of it, though it could be mentioned that it is an internal designation for the road in article prose.

Ive tried google but it aint much help...

Nbound (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Files removed from articles. If no evidence can be found within a week or so, I will likely nominate said images for deletion. - Nbound (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest discussions are centre here, please discuss here also: Misplaced Pages:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#D-class_roadways_in_SA

Nbound (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Images proposed for deletion at: Commons:Deletion requests/SA D-class routes -- Nbound (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

AUshielding conversions

Rather than implement continuous {{AUshield}}ing conversions on all affected articles to bring them upto AS1743 (in most cases) or just more realistic markers. Is it possible we can use file redirects and link the other images to the correct ones. Aushielding should and would still occur, but can be at a more relaxed pace (given the multiple roads discussions in progress already, im sure most here have little time right now for conversions). AUshielding will still provide a large maintenance benefit for future changes in shielding. It is my understanding that many of the original images were reverted and protected after another editor updated theam earlier (probably as he didnt state why his version was "improved"), so perhaps this isnt an option and the conversions should take place on an article by article basis, as they have so far. Thoughts? (Dont particularly mind either way, just an idea of a way which might be easier) -- Nbound (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have access to the AS 1743-2001 : Road signs - Specifications, I'll need to take a look to make sure it is correct. Though the new NSW alpha-numeric signs shouldn't have been re-done. Bidgee (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

For what reason? (in regards to NSW) -- Nbound (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would the proposed file redirects be here on en.wikipedia or on commons?
• The relevant pages of AS 1743-2001 are 202 to 207
• I see no reason not to use the more accurate graphics that have recently been created - Evad37 (talk) 11:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It (NSW alpha-numeric shields) has been done based on OR on road signs (I've seen a few that are so wrong that the alpha-numeric has been covered back over with a plate with the old NATIONAL route shield). Bidgee (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Evad - On commons would be best IMHO, thats where they are all located at this stage AFAIK.
• Bidgee - Copying a layout from a sign does not constitute OR, its pretty much the opposite, you are basing it on a published source. Regardless, there were other sources aswell. . Which were used to refine the images further. What is clear at this point is there are no real-world examples of the promotional images used on the RMS roadnumbers website, and hundreds of examples of the "re-done" design.

Im assuming you arent aware (I dont know if this is the case), but most NSW alphanumerics are currently coverplated in exactly the way you suggest, to allow a quick rollout (they have been planning this for years - almost all new signs within the last few years have been "alpha-ready"), they wont be coverplated by the end of the year.

Nbound (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just like your knowledge of copyright, you have no idea what you're talking about. The signs have to be redone since the sizing/colour isn't per the RMS' requirements (not yet documented in the AS), roll-out started a few months ago. Again, the design based on road signs is OR. Bidgee (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Lets just keep to the topic at hand. The sizing is done per the diagrams, and per real world examples. Colour is per existing colours used by existing signs, but can be changed in light of new evidence, for example a newer revision of the standard. If these new images are OR, and therefore shouldnt be used, then what of all the existing images that arent AS, and have persisted for quite some time (and also warranted protection)? -- Nbound (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry but your actions elsewhere have me questioning your actions, which also apply here. Best diagram for the alpha-numeric sheilds we have is from the RMS' website. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore Misplaced Pages policy states: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. - Unless the contention is that these images introduce unpublished ideas or arguments (such as a contentious graph might) - Then its clear that WP:OR doesnt apply anyway. - Nbound (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Road signs are considered as unpublished. Bidgee (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds? Please clarify your statements so that the veracity of them can be checked. And regardless, they do not introduce an unpublished idea or argument, which is what the policy actually states. - Nbound (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Typical armchair lawyer statement. Really not going to waste my time with your stupid arguments. Bidgee (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Under US copyright law, simple text (like M1 or A25) is not copyrightable because it is just that – simple. Drawing a border around it does not make it any less simple, so they are in the public domain. –Fredddie™ 12:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Want to check your facts again? Where did I say they were copyrighted? Bidgee (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My facts are right. My point is OR or not, they are PD. –Fredddie™ 12:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping I didn't have to do this but where did I say that they were copyrighted? Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You did not specifically say they were copyrighted; but you did mention someone's knowledge of copyrights, I interpreted it to mean the files' copyrights were in question. For that I apologize. –Fredddie™ 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps its time we all consider a more formal approach, such as dispute resolution, a other opinions such as via the no original research noticeboard? - Nbound (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So you can forum shop and hope for more favourable "support" for your rush to change everything to suit the US Roads, who will then ignore us after it is done. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What do NSW alphanumeric shields have to do with US roads? Both of the methods i mentioned are official ways of helping to discuss issues, hardly "forum shopping". See here -- Nbound (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone wish to propose the deletion of the newer images, or their complete removal from[REDACTED] articles? There isnt any point discussing them here if nothing is likely to come of it. If noone is forthcoming with such a proposal, then perhaps discussion can continue along the original vein until such time as someone does. - Nbound (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Further to this I have asked for comment at the no original research noticeboard. Lets put this WP:OR claim to rest. - Nbound (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're never going to get a clear view there, since it is all opinion on WP:NOR/N. I have the documents but really not worth helping out, since US Roads highjacked Australian roads. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You cant make unilateral assertions that something is WP:OR without evidence as such. Your opinion is also just an opinion, and so far, its only one claiming WP:OR. I will reiterate that the policy largely doesnt apply to images. If there is an argument to be made on your side, then make it. Otherwise leave the thread in peace. -- Nbound (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The below is in reply to Bidgee's post below: "Your aggressive forcing..." -- Nbound (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already removed myself from the IR RfC a little while back, I am currently helping AussieLegend further improve IAusR over on its talk page and have stated its possible I would vote against the RfC. I wont be rejoining the RfC at any point to prevent any potential WP:COI if I do choose to vote against it either. Hell you may not even be aware that I shared reservations about US control of IR at one stage of the early debate too (halfway down before subtopics). You have been far too quick to make assumptions during this whole process (This quote of you is pre-RfC even starting). Now, it seems pretty clear to me that for whatever reason, that you dont like me, and thats fine, not everyone is going to get along, but it shouldnt affect the day-to-day running of the Wikiproject (Im going to gladly drop this if there is no support - but so far the discussion has been focused on a largely unrelated argument concerning WP:OR). Unfortunately, you may have to learn to let go, the encyclopedia content isnt owned by any editor, and if the mob wants to change, they will, whether you like it, or not. They'll also do things whether I like it or not. A good philosophy is just to not give a fuck, in the long run the encyclopedia will always improve, one way or another. Your decision to no longer contribute your photos is a petty one (Essentially "Listen to me or I'll..."). Regardless, pictures will be found or caputred in person by another, and articles will still improve... - Nbound (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I want to work with you!. Ive even re-suggested your gazettal idea over at IAusR. I hope we can continue in a constructive manner -- Nbound (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

We all know that there is behind the scene's discussion are going on. The only people with OWN issues is the roads project, whom ignore those who are not members of Roads or don't agree with them, just to get IR to be the ruling template. Really, you haven't seen the amount of photographs I've contributed to the project; which didn't exist or lacked coverage. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a few minutes to reflect, you are pushing this conspiracy theory in a thread that is in no way related to IR, or US roads for that matter. And you are threatening to stop contributing if you dont get your way. If you want to discuss behavioural issues further, it should be done in the appropriate channels, not by derailing this thread. - Nbound (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Short memory? You never bothered to ask my input, even after the effort I put in to create File:Australian alpha numeric route shield (M23).svg. It's very well known how US Roads act to get what they want. Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox discussion was left in WP:AURD until:

• It was clear this was something that WP:AURD members wanted (any other group or editor can also propose such a thing of course)
• We had a good proposal rather than present the community with an idea that would be rejected for not meeting Australian requirements (as it had been previously).

It is WP:OWNership to expect to be asked to a random wikiproject discussion. It is also WP:OWNership to expect that WP:AURD will run every single one of its discussions through WP:AUS. Ironically, you are making a similar argument against WP:HWY or USRD, potentially having oversight on IR template edits. You are more than welcome to join WP:AURD or watch the page if you feel you can contribute more than the average editor as far as Australian roads content is concerned, as is any existing member of WP:AUS or[REDACTED] in general.

I also contacted several hundred editors in regards to IR (and specifically not USRD, also non-AU members of WP:AURD have chosen (without being asked) not to comment in the RfC, presumably due to potential COI issues) once the proposal had been readied for greater discussion (and with all decisions being open to challenge, as stated in the proposal). This group of people invited included you and probably most editors who have had significant contributions to IAusR and Australian Roads in general.

If you truely believe there has been inappropriate discussion between myself and USRD members in regards to either the shielding, or either template, or that I am a sockpuppet of a USRD member (all are easily proven/disproven using[REDACTED] records), then make a complaint via the appropriate channels, and we'll see how well this theory stacks up, otherwise stop making completely unfounded complaints. -- Nbound (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, you failed to even ask me, not even asking for my view. I think it's clear on what your view is and no wonder why no other editors (including listed members) have given up. COI is also so clear (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Mitchell Freeway). I've put far more time and effort than you ever will. Bidgee (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

You dont actually own the decision whether Misplaced Pages decides to use it in articles or not. Besides there hasnt been any complaints other than your own, so it would seem that most people are happy with the new changes, if they werent the process would have stopped long ago, and a discussion had. Given that the ACR discussion mentioned is at WP:HWY, and most members there are from USRD, if anyone there believes there is actually any COI, Im sure they will call me out on it, and I would likely rescind my support. Funnily enough, I actually don't like to make potentially undeserved changes as far as quality rating changes go, insofar as I wouldnt promote one of my own articles to B-class a little while back (see bottom). Perhaps, Mitchell Freeway just a damn good article? (read it!)

This has gone on long enough and I wont be putting up with the wild accusations levelled at me throughout this thread, I will be seeking admin intervention -- Nbound (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing has nothing to do with USRD, so please stop bringing up that project. I offered my skills as someone who makes SVG shield graphics and I take pride in getting it right. If you actually read the NSW alphanumeric discussion above, you can see the constructive discussion where we (myself, Evad, and Nbound) sought actual drawings to create accurate images. To their credit, they found them and I went to work. I created a file showed it to them for their approval; when it wasn't quite right, I fixed it. When they found the official color specs, I corrected files I had already uploaded. My point is that the work I have done has been for the benefit of AURD under the direction of AURD. Any insinuation that AURD is doing things for the pleasure of USRD is baseless, offensive, and assumes bad faith. –Fredddie™ 23:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nbound (talk) on this. Bidgee (talk) is a truly nasty piece of work. Throwing around legalisms sounds a lot like WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. TheSyndromeOfaDown (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There wasnt actually any legal threats, TheSyndromeOfaDown. Regardless of the thoughts of all editors involved this discussion has been done with for a couple of days now. Lets all, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move away from the carcass of this off-topic discussion :). -- Nbound (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Bidgee has posted an apology on my talk page, and I have accepted it without any reservations. For anyone who wishes to view, it will be left on my talk page for 12-24 hours before being deleted. Lets all get back to the business of roads edits! :) -- Nbound (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

So back to the original topic, which approach do other users here think would be best suited, in summary:

• Redirects to show new image on all pictures, and gradual AUshielding. (all images updated in short term, merged into maintenance/usability tool (AUshield) in the long term) (example here (Gold Coast Highway shield fixed via redirect at a test location)
• Aggresive AUshielding (images merged into AUshield as discovered by editors) - (Aggressive meaning at a faster rate than the above only)
  

Are there any benefits or pitfalls which arent being considered? -- Nbound (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your aggressive forcing (not just the shields but the IR also) of what you want is a disgrace to the project. You're not going have current shields redirected to suit you and as far as I'm concerned, I'll no longer be contributing any road related photographs. Bidgee (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The comment above was originally posted here, but previously moved above the horizontal rule, though the editor has objected to its placement there. Anyone planning to tidy it up, do not move it again (or get permission) -- Nbound (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

This also affects all pre-existing shielding, not just the NSW shielding mentioned above. - Nbound (talk) 11:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Something to consider: Would the proposed file redirects be inline with policy on Commons? - Evad37 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Im not aware of any policy for or against (just to make it clear - we would move existing images to other locations - not delete or somehow hide them behind a redirect). These file moves alone could be a big enough task for this to be not worth considering. -- Nbound (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Dropping shield images at the top on the "new" IAusR

NOTE: All infoboxes/templates, etc.

User:AussieLegend, has suggested in discussions about his upgrades to {{Infobox Australian road}} (IAusR), that the following discussion take place here:

If the new and improved IAusR code is approved to replace the current infobox, and IMO this is quite likely, what do the community wish to do in regards to the route shielding images section. There are a few problems with large shield image usage in all infoboxes for Australian roads:

• The shields are sometimes too large in comparison to the infobox title text (ie. the road name), this is also regarded by some as too American.
• The shields often dont accurately represent particular roadways, which often only traverse part of an entire "route", or have short stretches of various largely unrelated routes mixed in.
• The information is often being duplicated in the |allocation= section, far more accurately.
• We can instead also separate tourist drives with the |tourist= parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
• We can instead ensure that all instances of a shield image comply with WP:ACCESS. In other words, for those who havent yet seen a converted infobox, a description is given:

Junction list: Pacific Motorway (M1) or, Pacific Highway (National Route 1)

Allocation: M1 <new line> (Hornsby to Hexham) or, National Route 1 <new line> (Hexham to Tweed Heads)

There may be occasions where the shielding is useful to have as images, and this is not a proposal to remove the option for that. The following are articles where images could still play a part:

• Articles like Highway 1 (Australia).
• Perhaps articles on a specific tourist route as a whole.
• Articles on single routes as a whole. (including tourist routes). In other words, if it is titled by the route name.

This would not include a route named by its actual name (ie. BlahBlah Highway), even if a single shield was the only one used along its entire length.

• Roadway logos (eg. Westlink M7, Majura Parkway)

For WP:AURD, this is essentially a revisit of the idea (to reconfirm our earlier choices and how they apply to IAusR specifically - if required). For everyone else, this is a chance to state your opinion, and potentially influence changes. The exceptions I am currently proposing have not been discussed at any point, I hold no particular opinion in regards to either exception, they are just ideas. Nbound (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The exceptions proposed seem okay, though they could probably be expanded to include any article that is on a specific route, rather than a specific road - such as Metroad 1.

I also think this discussion should be wider than just the infobox usage, as the accessability requirements also extend to road junction lists/tables, navboxes, and list articles. I think all of these should also be using the "<shield image> <Road Name> (<shield as text>)" format, if route markers are to be used. - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed exceptions - The WP:ACCESS requirements are non negotiable as they are part of the MOS. I do agree with your sentiment that they are to be included everywhere. The eventual conversions to MOS:RJL will fix that. -- Nbound (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added an exception to the exception. The route articles and roadway articles should not be confused. -- Nbound (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean in regards to WP:ACCESS with other templates (such as the Hobart one below) - Agreed that this should cover those too. -- Nbound (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for some input and/or alternative ideas (Hobart Infrastructure Template)

Hello all. I encourage everyone (especially those with knowledge of Hobart) to give some input into a new Hobart Road infobox I have created. I've explained the reasoning in greater detail on the page in question. Much appreciated, Wiki ian 20:01, 25 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. --Rschen7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Taskforce: NSW Alphanumeric Conversions.

<To be filled once IAusR code updated (including improvements)>

Shielding Discussion Revival

Excuse the thread necromancy! - Revived per discussions with Fredddie (talk · contribs) -- Nbound (talk)

Current Shields

Tourist drives

The design for the tourist drives can also be improved using the standard, and I know there are several missing shields for WA routes. - Evad37 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Here's the list (WA and others):

• 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 32, 33, 34, 38, 40, 42, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360

Thats a WA only list so far... correct? May as well do all routes in other states while we are here... Thankfully Im pretty sure NSW doesnt skip route numbers, so should be easy enough if we can find highest number. - Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

NSW has 56 tourist roads on the books, Ive seen images of numbers at least as high as 30.... but 56 is in SA, which means Im wrong. Should we just do 1-99 + extras? - Nbound (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the WA ones are the 2xx and 3xx routes. TD2 is in Victoria, others came from this page for NSW and this page for QLD. I haven't found any information regarding other tourist drives. - Evad37 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The TD pages there definately dont list all routes perhaps a range of 1-50 or 1-60 though most numbers below 40ish are coming up with google image search hits. - Nbound (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The ones above 50ish seem to be in SA - Nbound (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TD75 is in Victoria . And TDs 61, 62, 63, 67 are around Echuca, Victoria. (6MB pdf - Spam filter is blocking the link). I don't think there's anything prevent states from using the same numbers for tourist drives, it just seems to happen much less often than with the state routes. - Evad37 (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There would almost have to be, if NSW does have 56 in total (minus specially shield routes), and you would imagine reasonably similar numbers in VIC (even minus the ones that got alpha numeric routes), and not too far off in QLD. Though im pretty sure the 3-digit ones will be WA only -- Nbound (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go with your idea above, so:

• Routes required: 1 to 99, 200 to 207, 250 to 259, 350 to 360.

We create more later if required. - Evad37 (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) -- Nbound (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ive found a plan from NSW for signs 1-99 - G8-9-2 - though it was presumably in the AS1743 docs that we've got aswell. - Nbound (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are specs in AS1743 - Evad37 (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Something to think about with these, here in the US, county roads are signed with pentagonal shields much like tourist routes. What we did, or rather are still in the process of doing, is created the specific shields for routes that will have articles or mini-infoboxes and also created generic shields for junction lists. Compare:

The rationale behind it was that at 20 pixels high, you couldn't read the text on the specific shield, but you could read the number just fine. I'm thinking the tourist route shields will be the same way, but I'll let you all decide what to do. –Fredddie™ 02:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Australian ones will be used for larger images aswell, as the articles will be about the routes themselves we will use a big shield up top, and also used on list pages for Tourist Drives in each state and so on. I beleive the US cases above use the jct template, which correct me if Im wrong, isnt resizable (or not easily anyway). Seems like a duplication of effort to create both sets for our cause anyway. But, to play devils advocate, most states remove the "Tourist Drive" writing when in the presence of the words "Tourist Drive" as part of a larger sign (only ACT always removes them), so a reasonable rationale for removing it could be created if the consensus is for the simplified signs. Also be worth considering if AS1743 has specs for the removed words version that can be copied (Different font required, etc?) -- Nbound (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

ACT tourist routes

The ACT ones could do with correct font, and possibly work on the proportions (seems pretty close though). Examples: TD5 (Solid Border Type) TD4 (Fancy Border Type) Nbound (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Found the colour specifications here (page 30):

- Evad37 (talk) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The text colour section of the table is incorrect. White on sunflower, or white on light blue... TAMS has done it again... haha -- Nbound (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

TD3 Black on Blue - Nbound (talk)

Turns out they did stuff it up the way it is in the table at one stage! TD3 WHITE on Blue

Corrected in above table - Evad37 (talk)

Thanks :) - Nbound (talk)

and added rgb codes for them, based a PDF catalogue of vinyl colour samples from - Evad37 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Satin Alumininum is too dark TD6TD6(2). I had based mine off an actual white one I'd seen, but ill go with the lighter satin aluminium. All the rest of your colours appear to be good improvements. - Nbound (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Satin Aluminium looks too dark. Should the new files be square with a pentagon overlaid (like the pictures Nbound posted the next line up) or just the pentagon? –Fredddie™ 22:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are used, the pentagon type is the one used on most signage, the other one is just used on trailblazers, I would prefer the pentagon type. -- Nbound (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I did a search for Satin Aluminium (interestingly aluminum and aluminium gave me vastly different results) and I kinda like this color:      #eef1f3. It is 25% lighter than "Volkswagen Satin Silver". –Fredddie™ 23:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks pretty good - Nbound (talk)

According to (p4), the colours are "3M Scotchcal" Colours:
SHEETING COLOUR / COLOUR NUMBER

• Black / 12
• Satin Gold / 131
• Burgundy / 58
• Peacock Blue / 77
• Royal Purple / 38
• Bright Orange / 14
• Satin Aluminium / 120
• White is as per AS1743 (retroflective)

The only conversion I have found so far isnt accurate to real life examples. But someone familiar with the Scotchcal colourset may have a better idea. - Nbound (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise the colourset suggested earlier (plus corrected aluminium colour) should suffice reasonably well. -- Nbound (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. After a little break, I have these done and ready to upload. The ones Nbound created are here on ENWP, so I will upload the new ones to Commons and then tag the old files to be deleted under WP:CSD#F8. I'll give Nbound all the proper credit due and all that fun stuff, too. –Fredddie™ 22:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:ACT Tourist Drive shields –Fredddie™ 22:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, looks like the real deal, and dont worry about crediting me in future for simple PD stuff like shields. -- Nbound (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Alphanumeric routes for other states

Just starting a new section here, noting that these should also be redone. About half of them are currently PNGs, and lettering, spacing, colours vary between them. - Evad37 (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Would these be in the same style as the NSW alphanumerics? –Fredddie™ 02:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Similar, but without the white outline, and I think the font series varies with the number of digits, as per the national highway shields. I'll see if I can find any specs. - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or they might use the same font for each route number, based on some of the photos I've looked at, eg

The QLD document linked above () has the font as series E (page 56). There is no specific guidance on spacing required around around the text - maybe measure the (inside) spacing dimensions from Figure 4.3 G8-11-2 (free standing reassurance marker) on page 59?

Aside from the font, G8-11-2 looks a lot like the NSW alphanumericals, doesn't it? –Fredddie™ 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but only NSW uses the outline on their directional signs, as well free-standing markers - Evad37 (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. When I get around to doing these, I'll probably give them rounded corners like the NSW signs. They'll look better that way. –Fredddie™ 04:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats sounds fair enough, with an alpha channel background like NSW too im guessing - Nbound (talk)

M routes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 79, 80, 420, 780

A routes: 1, 2, 2 (ALT), 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 32, 52, 55, 66, 71, 79, 87, 200, 300, 420, 440, 780, 790

B routes: 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 91, 96 100, 101, 110, 120, 140, 160, 180, 200, 201, 210, 220, 240, 260, 280, 300, 320, 324, 326, 327, 340, 360, 380, 400, 410, 420, 460, 500

C routes: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 24, 80 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 109, 111, 114, 115, 118, 123, 124, 126, 127, 129, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 156, 164, 165, 166, 167, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 178, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, 203, 206, 207, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 227, 231, 234, 236, 238, 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 251, 252, 256, 453, 255, 256, 257, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277, 283, 283, 285, 287, 291, 292, 294, 296, 301, 305, 307, 311, 312, 313, 314, 314, 316, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 329, 330, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 351, 352, 353, 355, 357, 358, 359, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 373, 374, 376, 377, 378, 381, 382, 383, 384, 391, 402, 404, 405, 407, 411, 412, 413, 415, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 431, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 441, 442, 444, 452, 453, 454, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 462, 463, 464, 469, 473, 475, 476, 476, 478, 482, 483, 484, 485, 496, 501, 505, 506, 507, 508, 511, 512, 515, 516, 518, 521, 522, 523, 527, 528, 529, 531, 533, 534, 536, 537, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 607, 608, 615, 616, 701, 702, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 729, 739, 743, 754, 777, 781, 782, 783, 784, 787, 788, 789, 791, 792, 793, 794, 798, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805

Notes: ALT A2

I would like to suggest that we either combine all of these into a single switch (eg.{{AUshield|AN|C123}}), alternatively we may also wish to use individual states as we have with NSW/ACT, which will (at this stage), all link to the one set of images (eg.{{AUshield|VIC|C123}}). Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any advantage to having extra switch values such as VIC? While technically easy to code, I would think that simpler is usually better. If the files are named appropriately, we could even just use S for both standard state route shields and alphanumeric markers. - Evad37 (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From a management view it makes any future change easier to manage. No need to redo every affected AUshield, just recode the state and you are set. - Nbound (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that NT is also partway switched to alphanumeric. page pic - Nbound (talk)

I am currently in the process of challenging the validity of D-class route marker images, as Im fairly certain they dont exist in the real world. - Nbound (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The D-class shields are currently up for deletion at Commons - Commons:Deletion requests/SA D-class routes -- Nbound (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The D-class shields have been deleted and are no longer required in the re-do. -- Nbound (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(D-class also removed from above list)

Former Shields

Not yet created

Old Brisbane Freeway Routes:
Imagery: mockup Photo 1 Photo 2 Photo 3

• Unknown, presumably at least F-3

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Bris|F3}}

Three photos and three different styles... is the dash supposed to be there? - Evad37 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont know, the smaller ones look alot like the "pre-interstate style" ones used in NSW aswell. - Nbound (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Melbourne Freeway Routes:
Imagery: super closeup, front on comparison to state shields

• F80, F81, F82, F83, F87, F90, possibly others

Proposed usage: {{AUshield|Mel|F83}}

Pre "Interstate-style" Freeway Routes:
Imagery:

• F1-8 (but only a subset of these would be used - if anyone specifically knows which, that would be great)

Proposed usage:{{AUshield|Syd|OldF1}}

. In this page, it seems AUshield one is used in road signs, while a particular white shield is used in a Gregory Maxi Street Directory 1987. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think thats just a styling choice of the book itself (kinda like how Google Maps sometimes has odd looking signs) -- Nbound (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

NSW road name changes

I have proposed move changes at:

• Talk:Sydney–Newcastle_Freeway#Move_Proposal
• Talk:Southern_Freeway

Please visit and discuss - Nbound (talk)

Too many variations of alpha numeric shield (for NSW)

Pardon me if this has been mentioned above, because I do not want to read the big chunk above especially the AUshield section. I have seen quite a few variations of alpha numeric shields in different articles. Take for example the M1 shield:

• May 2013: File:NSW alphanumeric route M1.svg by Freddie
• March 2013: by Bidgee
• 2006:
• 2006:

I think we should standardise which type of shield we should put in the NSW articles. I personally prefer the design by Freddie, becasue all other route numbers have this design available, meaning it is readily available when updating articles to alpha numeric shields. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The May 2013 set is the only complete set and the current defacto standard*, and is also designed as close to the real thing as possible (based off diagrams and real life photos). The other files are redundant and may be deleted at some future point when they arent used at all, though none of us here are that I am aware of are actively seeking that (most redundant images seem to stay on commons unless their usage becomes a problem). Bidgee's images could have a use on any future article concerning the conversion aswell (they are based on the promo set).

*: The preferred method for shielding uses {{AUshield}} (eg. ) - this allows easier maintenance of shielding when future changes occur. A minority of articles have been AUshielded at this stage.

The sets are for the other states that use alphanumeric shielding (TAS, SA, VIC, and QLD), as they use a common standard that is different to NSW. It should also be noted there are some alphanumeric national shields too for those states. The non-NSW alphanumerics will be redone soon. Any AUshielded instance will not need to be updated by hand :)

-- Nbound (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussions in relation to the May 2013 shields (and quite a few of the others) can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads/Archive_2#NSW.2FACT_Alphanumeric_Shields

Similar cases of multiple types of images also occur with the other shield types. The {{AUshield}} types are the preferred (and many are even based off official specs such as those found in AS1743 and similar publications)

For cases when hardcoding an image is required for whatever reason - links to the commons categories containing the latest shield sets are located at WP:AURD/R (Resources)

-- Nbound (talk)

Thanks. I have understood. I will know what shield to add in to the articles as the alpha numeric project is progressing. Marcnut1996 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A8 NSW and AUshield

Hi Guys, I would like to make a few points about A8 and {{AUshield}}.

• The road names for the major junctions in the infobox of A8 is unaligned. Will it be better if the {{AUshield}} is put behind the road names?
• Is it necessary to include the name of the route after the {{AUshield}}. For example: " (A8)"?
• Should we make it default for ALL {{AUshield}} to have links and have a bigger default size like 30px or 40px? For example , which is 45px looks better than which has a default size of 20px. The link which tells you info stating the author and details about the shields, is also added to the 45px shield.

So should we make this changes? Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Generally icons go before their descriptions, but it might be worth making a 'blank' shield that just spaces out the wording to keep it aligned. Of course on most highways, non shielded routes arent major junctions. MOS:RJLs are the mechanism used to provide full junction lists (see Majura Parkway, Kwinana Freeway), and its usually acceptable to drop minor intersections even on those if the list is already large. The A8 article could quite possibly go without the other major junctions (Im not familiar with the road, I just performed a quick conversion).
• Yes it is necessary for those using[REDACTED] who cant display images (or use a screen reader) (See WP:ACCESS). It also helps the other shield types to have meaning overseas. doesnt mean National Route 1 to someone outside of Australia. could mean that for all they know, even though its just a relatively unimportant Tourist Drive in the ACT.
• Using larger shields in the infobox and RJLs make them unnecessarily large. Only a few uses require the larger size. The default size can be changed, but was chosen not to unnecessarily expand the infoboxes/RJLs. We couldnt get around this in every circumstance so a trade-off was made for ALT (and similar) shielding.

Compare:

• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road

and

• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road

Now imagine that on a complex long route. :)

-- Nbound (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marcnut1996. First off, I'll just point out that {{AUshield}} is also used in road junction lists, which should be inline with the Manual of Style for road junction lists (most of the roads which currently have such a list do not conform, but check out, for example, Mitchell Freeway#Interchanges). Regarding the position of the route marker icons, one of the points in the MOS is

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

And I think the same logic applies to infoboxes. Also, even if the road names were to be aligned, the icons would then not be aligned, which would probably also look odd.

Including the name of the route as well as the image is necessary for two reasons - accessibility, and for people not familiar with Australian route shields. With regards to accessibility, MOS:ACCESS#Images requires that...

• Images should contain a caption, either using the built in image syntax or a secondary line of text. The caption should concisely describe the meaning of the image, the essential information it is trying to convey.

A road name by itself is not an adequate description of the meaning of the image, which is the route number. The alt text and image link can be removed, since the caption provides the alternative for readers with a screen reader or images turned off, and the link isn't needed since the images are PD, or released under a similar waiver such as CC0.

The default size of 20 pixels in height ensures that the images only take up a single line of text, and is inline with MOS:RJL, which specifies "If route marker graphics are used, generally, they should have a height of 20–25px." Also, in infoboxes, larger images would means taking up more space (as Nbound demonstrates above), when width is limited, and having really long infoboxes are undesirable. - Evad37 (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added blank spacing images to A8 infobox so that the text lines up. Something similar could be coded into {{AUshield}} - Evad37 (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Its slightly the wrong colour, needs to be a light grey. I propose {{AUshield|NO|Shield}}. Or its own unrelated template like {{NOshield}}. Im pretty sure both IR and IAusR use the same background colour, both being based on {{infobox}} at some level. -- Nbound (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake... used File:Blank.gif instead of File:Transparent.gif. And I was thinking something like {{AUshield|none}} or {{AUshield|+|space}} or similar... but the size needs to be adjustable based on the width of what's used above/below - Evad37 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

{{AUshield|none}} sounds good to me. I would also propose that we use the shield above to go off for shield width. We will need to make a table of widths, or hardcode individual sizes depening on a second parameter (ie. {{AUshield|none|<prev shield>}}), with <prev shield> switching the size used (rather than linking to an actual image of different size). -- Nbound (talk) 08:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want blank SVGs, File:No image.svg and File:No image wide.svg exist. –Fredddie™ 12:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I have implemented basic spacer functionality in AUshield. Usage: {{AUshield|none|size=*px}}. "None", "none", and "0" are all acceptable type parameters. At this stage you need to set space width manually. default is 20px. -- Nbound (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road
• Foobar Road

Now automated, using presized blanks (ewwwy but easiest) - Usage: {{AUshield|none|<shield>}}, with <shield> being the shield you want to approximate.
<shield> inputs accepted:

• N
• N Alpha
• R
• S
• Met
• NSW Small
• NSW Mid
• NSW Large
  

Will wait for the new sets for any others.
Former shielding is never used in lists and is therefore not needed.
Nbound (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Testing Purposes Only, code may change and things may break! - Nbound (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Evad! I didnt see your talk messages until I was done anyway :). As always, all other editors feel free to modify as you desire. -- Nbound (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

M1 A1 shield looks weird

The M1 and A1 shields used for {{AUshield}} looks so weird, the dimmensions are wrong, especially when compared with other alpha numeric shields (See below or Pacific Highway infobox as a example). What can be done? These are default sizes.

The bottom 2 are of the same px (30px), yet they look different.

Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought this previously too, but they are different sizes in real life... see following image - A41 is noticably different in size to A20 despite having the same number of characters. -- Nbound (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

See also M1 and M2 -- Nbound (talk)

Its quite possible, that the exact sizing is wrong for these, as there are no released specs yet. If there is any major problems once this happens, they can be redone again. -- Nbound (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

But how about height? In all the pictures you provided they have the same height. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

For resizing, you will get better results using x30px, which will size adjust via the X axis (height) (not specifying uses the y-axis ):

The images will have the same height as long as the height axis is the one used for the image resizing

Nbound (talk)

Moving Metroad 7

I have proposed move changes at Talk:Metroad 7, for Metroad 7 to be renamed to A28 Cumberland Highway. Please show your support (or oppose) at that talk page. Any comments should be written in that talk page too. Thanks. Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

We should just make it "Cumberland Highway" IMHO, no need for the prefix. It should also be noted that part of the A28 is the Hume Highway aswell (between A22 and M31). -- Nbound (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense... but I think we should let anyone searching for A28, Sydney to redirect to the new page. According to your opinion, naming it with prefix A28 or adding redirect of A28 isn't a good idea.... So how? Marcnut1996 (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that redirects are cheap and easy. –Fredddie™ 12:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And disambiguation pages can be used if there are multiple roads with the route allocation - Evad37 (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the redirect would be justified, just not the prefix on the article itself (and even if there werent any problems at all, would we want to create a precedent for other even more complex routes). The existing Metroad 7 article could be split between the Westlink and Cumberland articles, as well as bits from Metroad 6, and James Ruse Drive (SR40) if required. Its also unclear whether there will be a full A40/A28 duplex where James Ruse Drive and another street form part of the Cumberland Hwy, or if one will be the only allocation in that area. The old Metroad pages could become disambig pages between the various new routes that have been made from them. -- Nbound (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I know redirects are easy. But anyone searching for A28, Sydney is looking for the Hume Highway section is unlikely. So there is no wrong in adding the prefix A28 as hardly anyone will search for the Hume Highway section. They would have searched for Hume Highway instead. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, at no point did I state I was against A28, Sydney as a redirect to Cumberland Highway. Just no A28 on the Cumberland Highway article itself :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So if you do not mind redirect what is wrong with adding a prefix? Anyway to everyone, who agrees with either of these options:

• Name: A28 Cumberland Highway, redirected from Cumberland Highway, included in Metroad 7 disambiguation page.
• Name: Cumberland Highway, redirected from A28, Sydney, included in Metroad 7 disambiguation page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The second one is the one Im suggesting so I support it :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for no prefix is: WP:COMMONNAME/WP:NATURALDIS/WP:PRECISION. The only roads IMHO that should have it are those referred to it as part of their name (Hills M2, Westlink M7, M5 East). People will call this the Cumberland Highway, or the A28, but not both. And given that the A28 also includes a bit of the Hume, no point doubling up on the articles. We could have an article on the A28 itself, but there is an existing less ambiguous name. If Metroad 10 had a shared name along its route, I would have made the WP:BOLD move to that name rather than A8, Sydney :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone else please make your choices. Depending on the number of supports or opposes with good reasoning, I may change the name of the proposed new page. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote for Cumberland Highway. I would have also made the link A28 (Sydney) and A8 (Sydney), but I'm not going to argue. –Fredddie™ 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think Cumberland Highway, per Nbound's reasoning. Also, given that it is a statewide numbering system, you could also have a A28, New South Wales redirect/dab page. - Evad37 (talk) 02:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Partially offtopic to the original discussion, but some here might be interested, there will be a full A40/A28 duplex on part of the Cumberland Hwy... theyve taken down the coverplates recently:

https://aussie-highways.googlegroups.com/attach/b510312fa638bf0f/IMG_2484.JPG?view=1&part=4

Oddly sized shields too... Enjoy! -- Nbound (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:AURD infobox mini-MOS

I think it would be worth it if we typed up some preferred usage guidelines for the IAusR docs, to give new and otherwise unrelated editors some tips when it comes to {{AUshield}}, {{plainlist}}, etc. This could eventually be merged with the template docs, or kept on its own. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 on the good idea. We could use some of what we typed up for the Australia-specific Infobox road documentation . If we made it on it's own subpage here, it could also be transcluded into the documentation. - Evad37 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered a few problems when updating the infobox in Hume Highway.

• There is no route shield for NR 31 in {{AUshield}}.
• The Victorian alpha numeric route shields are too big for default.
• I have problem adding "plainlists" in the infobox.
• I couldn't add Hume Motorway as the 3rd name.
  

Can someone help me out? Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have encountered problem, is that there is no route shield for NR 15 in {{AUshield}}. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Have bought the infobox there upto standard per the below mini-MOS. diff is here if want to study: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hume_Highway&diff=557796480&oldid=557788831
• We dont have all former shields yet, only those existing on the old[REDACTED] sets that were redone by Freddie, and a few extra that I have made. I will make up a ones for both mentioned routes in the next day or so :).
• If your plainlist doesnt work it usually means you forgot the "}}" at the end (I do it too sometimes!) :)
• Former section was removed as too complex for infobox, if you want to type it up do it in the prose. If you need the code back its still in the page history but I can get it for you in a few hours if you are having trouble.
• Removed M5/A28 thingy. It goes via the A28 only as far as I am aware.

-- Nbound (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I have already made a new subsection Hume Highway#Former route allocations in the article. Thanks for reminding me about "}}". Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy! -- Nbound (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

NICE!!! Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fredddie will likely be do the non-NSW alphanumerics in the short-medium term future, at which point the shields will look more similar in size and colour to the NSW ones. And for shields that have been AUshielded we just change a single line of code in AUshield and they'll all get the new shielding. -- Nbound (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That's great. Especially in New England Highway, the non NSW alphanumeric looks so weird and wrong! And also, the national non NSW alphanumeric shields are fine and perfect, so no need to redo them. Marcnut1996 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah the NSW ones will be left alone until one of us can get their hands on the new NSW signage standards, at which point they would be redone only to more accurately fit the exact plan. (Which would result in only minor on-wiki changes as its already quite close). If they were really close, we might not even bother, or just put it on the backburner. -- Nbound (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Parameters to adjust settings:

• type: the type of road the article is about. This parameter changes the infobox colour scheme used for headings, and the label used for locations. The following are options are available:

• If a road traverses both rural and urban regions you should generally set the road type to the rural version of the road type.

• uc_former: Used to override the above colour schemes for certain types of roads. The allowed values are:

Plainlisting

Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{plainlist}}

Plainlist creates properly formatted and accessible lists while allowing information to be displayed neatly without any numbers or bullet points. Other formatting should be avoided where possible.

{{plainlist|
*Item 1
*Item 2
*Item 3
*...}}

AUshielding

Specific instructions on the template parameters can be found at the following link: {{AUshield}}

• Route shields should be limited to the Infobox, Road Junction list, and as images to accompany the text (if required).
• Route shields should never be used within the text itself.
• Route shields should always have an accompanying descriptive text for accessibility reasons, and also to aid understanding for international readers.

Junction list

• Foobar Highway (State Route 2)
• Example Road
• Fake Street
• Test Freeway (National Highway 1)

{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|S|2}} Foobar Highway <small>(State Route 2)</small>
*{{AUshield|None|S}} Example Road
*{{AUshield|None|S}} Fake Street
*{{AUshield|N|1}} Test Freeway <small>(National Highway 1)</small>}}

• Shielding should be spaced from the left margin (as above) if other shielding is present. Only space for a single shield if there are any duplexes present. Editors should apply their own discretion, in applying spacing. When spacing is used generally it would follow the shield above.

Allocation (Route)

• State Route 2
• (Point A to Point B)
• National Route 41
• (Point B to Point C)
• Nil
• (Point C to Point D)

{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|S|2}} State Route 2
*<small>(Point A to Point B)</small>
*{{AUshield|R|41}} National Route 41
*<small>(Point B to Point C)</small>
*''Nil''
*<small>(Point C to Point D)</small>}}

• This section should only be accurate to the suburb/locality level, if the allocation is complex enough to require further explanation, it should occur within the article itself (a diagram may help also).
• Towns should be linked to appropriate articles if they exist. State borders should be denoted by their postal abbreviation.

Former

• Metroad 2
• (1974-1999)
• National Route 96
• (1999-2011)

{{plainlist|
*{{AUshield|Met|2}} Metroad 2
*<small>(1974-1999)</small>
*{{AUshield|R|96}} National Route 96
*<small>(1999-2011)</small>}}

• Periods without shielding should only be mentioned if they occur between periods with shielding.

Route shields section of infobox

The route shields displayed at the top of the infobox should only be used on articles about a route itself. This includes articles such as Highway 1 (Australia) and A8, Sydney; but not standard highways and roads, even if the roadway has a single shield over its entire length. This is for a multitude of reasons

• The shields are sometimes too large in comparison to the infobox title text (ie. the road name).
• The shields often dont accurately represent particular roadways, which often only traverse part of an entire "route", or have short stretches of various largely unrelated routes mixed in.
• The information is duplicated in the |route= section, far more accurately.
• We can instead also separate tourist drives with the |tourist= parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
• We can instead ensure that all instances of a shield image comply with WP:ACCESS

Promotional logos can and should be included at the top of the infobox (taking into account copyright considerations), see Majura Parkway as an example of this.

Example infobox

As part of the upgrade process, there are many parameters that were once used, but are no longer recommended. The following is a basic infobox for a non-complex route without locator map, including usage notes:

{{Infobox Australian road
| type                     = See table
| uc_former                = See table
| road_name                = Do not include alphanumeric allocation.
| road_name2               = Common alternative names only.
| state                    = 
| state2                   = 
| route_image              = Route shield (limited articles only)
| photo                    = Can also be used for a logo
| photosize                = 
| caption                  = 
| photo_alt                = 
| location                 = 
| location_alt             = 
| coordinates              = 
| kml                      = 
| length                   = 
| length_rnd               = Generally should be 1 or greater, if required.
| length_ref               = 
| direction_a              = Direction at which end exists (use abbreviations for directions other than North, East, South, and West)
| direction_b              = As above
| end_a                    = Roads at end A
| end_b                    = Roads at end B
| exits                    =
| est                      = 
| closed                   = 
| gazetted                 = 
| gazetted_ref             = 
| maintained               = Organisation that maintains the road (Local council, State transport authority, etc.)
| history                  = ''Very basic'' history of route if required. See ]
| route                    = 
| former                   = 
| tourist                  = 
| region                   = 
| lga                      = 
| through                  = 
| restrictions             = Seasonal closures, vehicle requirements (4WD, Snow chains, etc.)
| permit                   = Permit for access legally required (Generally for aboriginal lands)
| fuel                     = Only used for outback roads, where there is a high likelihood of running out of fuel if not correctly managed. 
                             If fuel is available nearby to a route in multiple locations, this should also not be mentioned
| facilities               = Only used for outback roads, where there is a likelihood of running out of supplies if not correctly managed.
| show_links               = Show links section at bottom of infobox, generally only used on highways and freeways
}}

Let me know what you think, likely requires proofreading and editing. -- Nbound (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving Metroad 7 - 2

I have reproposed a move from Metroad 7 to Cumberland Highway. Please support or oppose with reasoning in Talk:Metroad 7. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is now closed. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Scott's Crossing Road

Created a new article (I think it's IAusR's first non-testing "former road" infobox). I would appreciate any copyediting or advice. Someone should assess and tag it too. -- Nbound (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road

I've now been through every one of the several hundred articles that were in Category:Australian road articles using deprecated parameters and have replaced the deprecated parameters with the new parameters. The category is now empty and there should therefore be no articles using deprecated parameters. I intend waiting a few days and will then remove the deprecated parameters from the template and documentation unless anyone has any objections. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job! I didn't expect anyone to go through every article in that category. I was intending to give a complete infobox change to these articles instead of just removing deprecated paramters. Also, I didn't expect anyone to remove the deprecated parameters from

I have awarded AL a barnstar for his work on his user page :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Formalisation of roadway naming

I beleive we should formalise our roadway article naming scheme (see Misplaced Pages:PLACE#Australia or Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(U.S._state_and_territory_highways)).

Essentially the consensus formed so far is:

• Roadways named by current official name, instead of route number. (Princes Motorway instead of F6 or Southern Freeway; Federal Highway instead of M23/A23 (NSW/ACT), etc.; Kwinana Freeway instead of WA State Route 2; M2 Hills Motorway instead of M2)

This is as opposed to the common name, or to the internal name of the relevant transport authority.

• Routes that follow an unnamed or multi-named route can be named by route number. (A8, Sydney).

The multinamed route exemption only applies to routes where most of the individual roads are relatively short and/or unnotable (only 1 of the A8s component roadways has its own article).

• Roads are named as "<road>, <city>" in cities (if required). Use common sense.
• Roads are named as "<road>, <state>" in other areas (if required).
• Roads are suffixed as (<point a> — <point b>) if split. (This is based on a discussion between myself and AussieLegend regarding the Pacific Motorway)
• Interstate roads that require disambiguation are disambiguated by country

I have created a sandbox page here

Support/Oppose/Thoughts?

-- Nbound (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Full support. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thought: I have a serious problem with the phrase current actual name. Does this mean the current official name, or the current common name, particularly if these two conflict? Distinctions of this sort are the source of most of the longer debates at WP:RM. The word actual doesn't seem to add anything here, in fact I think it's counterproductive. It's ambiguous, and in this ambiguous sense it is forever appearing in these debates, generally as a synonym for official. If it means that here, let's say so, and if not let's leave it out, or better still, resolve any ambiguity by saying common instead (with in reliable sources understood). Andrewa (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual name is the official name. To remove ambiguity, I have edited the proposal as such. -- Nbound (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Constructive edits to the sandbox page are welcomed - Nbound (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted there are a handful of roads that for one reason or another have been grandfathered/merged into other articles. These should be split (though some minor coverage in other articles may be appropriate).

• Compare Hume Highway which also covers the Hume Motorway (NSW) and Hume Freeway (VIC); with Calder Highway, and Calder Freeway; or Princes Highway, Princes Motorway, Princes Freeway, and South Eastern Freeway. -- Nbound (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road junction to use Wikidata for maps

Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rschen7754 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

Hey guys,

Im in contact with the owner of Ozroads on another website and he has mentioned that he sees alot of information here (especially former shield related) that goes unattributed from his site. While the usage of roadgeek sites is generally discouraged, especially if there is any contradictory evidence. We need to remember to attribute our sources. We of course shouldnt stop at Ozroads, and should do the same for any information pulled from Expressway as well, or any of the other roadgeek sites.

In general we should also be attempting to find sources for everything that so far has none. Some of our pages were written way back when articles were a little more sloppy, and anything that cant be sourced should really be removed.

Nbound (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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↗ 04:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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