Template talk:Infobox Australian road/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Post-implementation issues

Aesthetic:

• It would be ideal if we could force IAusR to the same size width as IR (IIRC 300px). Perhaps even a little wider at 310 or 315.

Usability:

• It would be good if the code example didnt include the deprecated usages (and even better if there was separate ones for split and non-split roads)
• It would be good if the code example placed related terms together (like direction_a and end_a, etc.)

Route Markers:

• I also propose, as the silence has been deafening over at WP:AURD, that we dont use large shields for most articles (only on articles about a route (Tourist Drives, Highway 1, etc.). And therefore using allocation instead. Further to this the former section could be labeled and moved to just below allocation to prevent whats dont on the IR box at A8, Sydney. Its going to be best to decide this now before we've migrated too many away from the deprecated code.

Nbound (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Width has been forced to 300px - MOS recommends this size as the maximum. Deprecated parameters have been removed from the blank example. Fields have been reorganised direction_a, direction_b, end_a and end_b. Sectioned parameters are still grouped by section below the parameter that turns on the sections. Direction_a and direction_b result from splitting deprecated parameter "direction" while end_a and end_b relate to "from" and "to", which are also deprecated. It's probably best to leave them this way while infoboxes are being migrated. I'll look at creating separate field lists, but this may result in some inconsistencies later on in the event that one blank is updated and the other isn't. The suggestion regarding placement of "former" isn't anything that can't be fixed on the fly. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why, it's a brand new section isnt it? Can we just delete it, and recreate a new labeled section below allocation with the same "Former" name. Theres only a handful of articles this would affect at this stage, correct? -- Nbound (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I swear that said "that can be fixed on the fly"! -- Nbound (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me know when its done and ill do a few more conversions and messing about... So far has been pretty uneventful as far as massive bugs go :D - Nbound (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Done, although I note that some articles don't limit the contents to "former" information. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess we should decide on the extra terms for "Freeway", did we want to add equivalents (with no functional template difference), for Expressway, Parkway, Motorway, etc. Or do we want to use the generic Freeway term Australia wide? -- Nbound (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

through suburbs/settlements

According to the instructions, the through parameter is a list of "suburbs and other settlements". Leach Highway; for example, uses this parameter, and the infobox displays as "Major settlements". I suggest that it would be more appropriate to describe Leach Hwy as passing through suburbs, not settlements, but it's not obvious to me how to change the display label from settlement to suburb. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mitch, change "|type = highway" to "|type = city highway". There is a work-in-progress example of the preferred usage of this info box at Wikiproject Australian Roads -- Nbound (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasnt been updated so Im assuming you went offline, I have made the change on your behalf :) -- Nbound (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Is the intent to update the template docs to state in the through parameter section that the description is based on type parameter? The user ought to be able find all of the usage information on the doc page, independently of whether there are links to "preferred usage guidelines". Mitch Ames (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The template documentation is a lot more detailed now than it was previously,[1] and there is a point at which you can document something too much, resulting in readers missing important information because the documentation is filled with unnecessary minutiae. The label in question is not manually set so there's little to be gained by documenting how the template works. If you get the type set correctly, which it wasn't in Leach Highway, then there's no need to know what the label will be. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mitch, the preferred guidelines are a work-in-progress, which is why they arent yet linked in the docs. Once some time has elapsed they will likely be merged into or (more likely) linked from the main documentation. AussieLegend does bring up a good point in that the length of the documentation is already quite long, so chances are that some information will need to be placed on secondary pages. The template itself is quite flexible, being able to work with all types of roads and also junctions, as well as maintaing 100% backwards compatibility with the previous template. It is quite possible that in future that some information may be partitioned into separate subpages depending on whether you wish to code for a road, a junction, or convert an infobox using the older deprecated code upto the current parameters, you are more then welcome to make some progress in the sandbox if you think you may be able to help us with this. In which case, some easier to read docs could be created sooner, rather than later. -- Nbound (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "If you get the type set correctly, which it wasn't ..." And that's exactly the problem. The type wasn't set correctly, but it wasn't obviously wrong - Leach Highway is a "highway" to the casual reader/editor (including someone comfortable using templates, but not familiar with the details of this specific one). I saw that the suburb/settlement display was wrong, because it was "obviously" wrong, but there's hint that the problem is the type, which does not appear to be wrong (Leach Highway is a "highway" - no apparent problem there), so there's no obvious way for me to fix the problem.

If I were creating a new article (or adding the infobox to an existing article), it's quite a reasonable error to set the type to the simpler "highway" instead of "city highway", when there is nothing in the documentation telling me under what circumstances, or why, I should use one or the other.

I do think that you should fully document all of the fields and have several simple examples (for the benefit of those who don't want to read the full docs). The full documentation need not be directly in the Usages section, but there should at least be a link to that full docs. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether it is a good idea to have the suburbs/settlement display text be dependent on the type at all. Consider Albany Highway - is it a city highway or not? Currently it is not, so passes through the "settlement" of East Victoria Park and Cannington. But the alternative would be to pass through the "suburbs" of Mount Barker, Narrikup etc. Perhaps the display text should just be "Passes through". Mitch Ames (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If the road is both rural and urban, you set it to the rural type. A suburb is still a settlement (its just an urban settlement). A settlement is still a suburb too really (look how many forms there are which just ask for your Suburb, rather than your town/etc.). We could make the template always say "Major Settlements" and it'd be technically correct, but we are just trying to use preferred terms. :) -- Nbound (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Passes through is also inadequate terminology as many roads and highways dont pass through the surburb/town. Take the Hume Highway for example, it doesnt pass through Goulburn. But it'd be a bit odd to leave Goulburn off any list of towns that the road does pass. More extreme examples would be most highways and freeways in Canberra, which form the borders of suburbs rather than pass through them, or in the case of the freeways, often run through greenbelt areas, which are not part of any suburb. -- Nbound (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

"Passes through" is fine. The problem is that there is often a big misunderstanding as to what a suburb/locality/town is. The Pacific Highway used to pass through the township of Karuah, but with the new bypass it doesn't. However, it still passes through the suburb of Karuah, of which the township only represents a very tiny portion. If you do a search at http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ you'll see that the Hume Highway actually does pass through Goulburn, it just bypasses the actual town area. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That map doesnt show city/suburb boundaries, so isnt much help, though I do agree that Goulburn is a poor example in hindsight (The road skirts through the edge of South Goulburn). Take Yass though, there the road doesnt pass through any part of Yass. It passes through Yass Junction, which is where the railway station is located several kilometres north of town of town, but definately not Yass, or any part part of it. The Pacific Highway bypass around Taree is similar, the road barely skirts by Cundletown. Or Kempsey...-- Nbound (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I will point out the map only tells you the postal adress suburb, which can sometimes differ or, oddly, even double up. Nbound (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The map shows the officially registered locality. Yass Junction Railway Station is actually in the suburb of Yass and the highway skirts the township, but it still goes through Yass. There is no registered locality called Yass Junction, just a railway station. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The highway doesnt go within kilometres of any urbanised area at Yass. But I am happy to use this scheme if others desire it, it is based on official records. It will though, lead to odd things. For example, Taree would remain unlisted, for Cundletown instead. Kempsey would not be listed. And South Kempsey (a major populated area, and different locality would be). Checking the area for South Kempsey is bigger than the entire urban area of Kempsey and its suburbs. And stretches halfway towards Crescent Head covering an area which is largely heavily forested. Grafton and South Grafton are different localities, South Grafton does have a substantial population. Ballina/West Ballina? Thats just from a cursory look along the larger towns along the Pacific. -- Nbound (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been saying for a long time that one day the national highway will be one big loop road that goes nowhere as it's bypassing every place. That was the case with the F3, that effectively bypasses Newcastle, although not quite. What we probably need to do is write something like "Cundletown (Taree)" to indicate a major city/town that is a short way off the road as many of the road signs do. Ironically, most signs still give the impression that the highway actually passes through Taree. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What would you propose for Kempsey and the like... "South Kempsey (Kempsey)", or "[South] Kempsey"? Probably be a good idea to include a minimum size aswell. For example Yass and Nambucca Heads are roughly equal in size but one is listed on the Hume, and the other isnt on the Pacific. 5,000 or 10,000 would be my suggestions (with a preference for 5,000), Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

National Highway/auslink

Since we're going to all this trouble, would it be a good idea to have a part of the infobox that asks how the highway is/has been funded? (ie auslink, national highway etc)

Im not really fussed with that personally, but if others want I'll go with the flow. Probably only worth noting the construction cost, year and breakdown (split between fed/state/local) if it went ahead [this information could be a little hard to track down too]. Maintenance funding histories would be complex on some routes and probably better saved for the prose.

It should be noted that the National Highway system was deprecated and replaced by the AusLink network.

-- Nbound (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters

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 (✉) 23:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of direction values

I propose that the template should automatically

• capitalise the first character of direction_a
• uncapitalise the first character of direction_b

except that abbreviations (NW etc) should be all upper case.

This would allow the displayed text to comply with MOS:COMPASS. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's even possible and if it is, it would add an excessive level of complexity to the code. I'm also not sure that the current system doesn't comply with MOS:COMPASS. You have to remember that direction_a and direction_b aren't only used for "General direction", they're used elsewhere. If we decap direction_b you'll see something like what is shown in the infobox at right. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The MOS does allow occasional breaches, its is a guideline. I think given the circumstances its fine to ignore it here... The only other option is to use the abbreviated points for even the standard directions.

Either we ignore (my preferred), or we abbreviate all (not preferred but better than the original proposal above IMHO). -- Nbound (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do we even need a "direction" or "general direction" field listed in the infobox if each end has a direction assigned to it? - Evad37 (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, good point there, definately dont! Just scrap the thing :). Its redundant anyway. -- Nbound (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Having been through every article, I'd have to agree. It's not a good guide anyway. We still need the inputs, but don't have to display them. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear im for the scrapping of the "General direction" section, but not the two "ends". Though I am assuming that is what Evad meant - Nbound (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The KML feature

I find the KML feature of this template troubling. The following is an excerpt of a comment I have posted in response to an Australian ACR: I don't understand what benefit there is in eschewing {{Attached KML}} in favor of integration with the infobox. Though it was borne out of a discussion at WT:HWY, Attached KML is no longer a template specific to roads, and it can be found on pages in many topic areas on Wikipedia. Currently, it is transcluded in 4,284 pages. (You can even find it on 2013 Moore tornado, complete with KML data provided by the National Weather Service.) Google uses data provided by Attached KML in its search results. (Google "Creek Turnpike", for instance—it displays a map with our KML overlaid on it. Googling "Kwinana Freeway" also displays a map with the KML at time of writing, but I would wager that it will disappear when Google recrawls the page, as the KML has only been moved to the infobox today.) My understanding of the way that Infobox Australian road works is that the KML data is being stored as subpages of the infobox, not Attached KML. This is a poor decision because it splits up KML data across multiple locations. Were all KML data at Attached KML, it would be trivial for a reuser of our KML data, like Google, to see if an article has a KML; all they have to do is visit "Template:Attached KML/[pagename]". If the KML data for Australian road articles is stored elsewhere, that data is "off the grid". It is not as easily discoverable. Data reusers will have to code their software to look for data at multiple locations. They might decide to not bother to use Australian KML data (or simply not know that they must take the extra step to get to it), or scrap plans to use Wikipedia's KML data over concerns that its location is unstable (especially if this opens the door to similar infobox-KML storage schemes in the future). The end result of all of this is that this article breaks compatibility with a Wikipedia-wide convention, which may ultimately detract from its chances at FAC. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

We have several location map templates but that doesn't stop us embedding them in infoboxes. We have several citation templates, we don't stick with just one. Use of KML data was raised at an RfC but when I looked, {{Attached KML}} only included 38 KML files for the 498 Australian road articles. Of course it wasn't easy to find those 38 maps in amongst the more than 4,000 other KML files. The Attached KML box sits at the bottom of the page, while some editors claim this information is important to readers. For this reason the functionality was included in the infobox, where it is prominently displayed, and the KML files were included as subpages to provide for easy management. This is Wikipedia, not Googlepedia, and we should be writing for our readers, not Google's. Australia has location maps and KML files available for some roads, but by no means anything approaching a majority of them. The current version of the template provides for KML data, location map files, locator maps and simple coordinates. Together these provide for all road articles, not just the few that were previously catered for. The argument that "all they have to do is visit "Template:Attached KML/[pagename]"" is specious at best. The original KML files are still there, so they're still easily discoverable, as are the files list at "Template:Infobox Australian road/KML". --AussieLegend (✉) 16:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Addressing each of your points in order:

• Map and citation templates are a poor analogy to this because they do not consist of machine-readable data like KMLs do, and there is not one standard format, like KML is.
• There is no need to create a redundant data directory just so that tracking is made easier; this can be done by a parameter like |has-kml=yes on the Australian Road project tag (you can even have the template autodetect whether a KML exists by clever use of Parserfunctions), or by tagging Template talk:Attached KML/[article name] with the project tag.
• This data is not as important to readers as you might think. It certainly is not as important as anything else in the infobox; most readers will be adequately served by the raster map in the infobox. The KML data is merely a supplement to that, and in addition to providing Google and Bing maps links, it helps people who would like to include the feature in their own maps by importing it into GIS software. If the objection is to the box being displayed at all, that can be suppressed.
• As to most articles lacking KMLs, join the club—as I said before, there are only about 4,000 KMLs on Wikipedia altogether, and some of those are not road related, while the US roads project has something like 11,000 articles. All of the roads projects are in the same boat on this one.
• The vast majority of our readers get here from Google—part of Wikipedia's success can be attributed to its high PageRank. But when I speak of data reusers, I don't merely speak of Google. I'm talking about people who use our data to make maps with GIS too. Some of these are Wikipedians—I am responsible for upkeep of a pretty fancy map of road articles that have gotten FA status, which is made possible with the KML. When KML data is migrated to Wikidata, it will be a lot easier if the data is stored in one place, rather than making the bot operators code two or more locations to look up.
• If the KML data remains in the Attached KML tree, now we have two copies of the data. That means that when the road is realigned, the person updating the KML will have to either somehow know that there are two copies of it, and update them both, or else one won't get updated. That is bad data management, and increases the chances that our readers will get outdated data.

It sounds like this was implemented without a lot of thought for the consequences. What has happened here is a design and display problem has been solved, but the solution has caused technical and functionality problems. If the KML absolutely has to be displayed in the infobox, the much better solution would be to leave the data as a subpage of Attached KML and simply link to it from there, by way of a redirect if necessary. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't me that said the data was important, I just implemented a solution based on suggestions made by others, who said that the roads project preferred KML over coordinate data. The KML files that exist are predominantly for US roads, so the US is well represented in a situation where only 38 of over 4,200 files (less than 1%) are Australian. Because of the way that our roads are named, they are scattered randomly throughout the list of files so they are almost impossible to find, while the US has a better ordered structure because of the way roads seem to be named. Using |kml=yes is useless if you don't know the file exists. There's no guarantee that the uploader has modified the article talk page, so keeping them in a smaller group makes management much easier. Effectively {{Attached KML}} (which doesn't own the files) has 4,200 files in a single "category", which is unworkable. With any other file, we'd categorise them by country and then by state/province but, since we can't do that, we need some other option. The system implemented for this template is more easily manageable. Individual file talk pages don't need the project banner added as they're in a subpage of the main template and there are clear directions on how to find the files. So yes, there was a lot of thought for the consequences, despite your assertion. "When" KML data is migrated to Wikidata we will revisit the way we manage the files but, until then, this seems the best option.

Just to address a few other points separately:

• "Map and citation templates are a poor analogy ... there is not one standard format" - This is only partly true. While there may be different layouts for citations, the method of inputting data is being unified so, while the output of the individual templates may look different, the input data looks pretty much the same. The input data is analogous to KML, while the individual citation templates are analogous to {{Attached KML}} and this infobox.
• "This data is not as important to readers as you might think" - If not, then why does Attached KML include links in the title bar? Most uses of the template do this, so it must be seen by editors to be important. Why else would they insist on such data being prominently displayed?
• "most readers will be adequately served by the raster map in the infobox" - Well, no. The infobox now provides for a location map, something that wasn't in the old code. As a result, most articles don't include a map and, in any case, the map only displays the end points. As has been pointed out by others, this doesn't adequately represent the road, especially in cases like Highway 1 (Australia),which is effectively a ring road around the entire country, with small diversions in Tasmania and the Northern Territory. {{Infobox road}} sees that a map is very important, and so places a map image at the top of the infobox. Previously this infobox placed the map image at the bottom, although it has been moved too. Of course, we don't have these maps for every article, so we have to mix and match depending on data available. This means that KML maps, map images and locator maps are all important, with KML being preferred.
• "when the road is realigned, the person updating the KML will have to either somehow know that there are two copies of it, and update them both, or else one won't get updated. That is bad data management" - All Australian articles, except some that don't have infoboxes, and one that does,[2] now use the data kept here. Of course, we can always redirect the Attached KML files here if that's agreed upon so that we don't have two sets.
• "the solution has caused technical and functionality problems" - The infobox uses {{Infobox}}, some Lua code and has enhanced functionality, while it doesn't include unnecessary functionality of Attached KML. For Australian purposes, this infobox replaces {{Infobox road}}, {{Infobox road small}}, {{Infobox street}}, {{Infobox road junction}} and {{Attached KML}}. I don't see the "technical and functionality problems" in replacing five templates with one. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• And the problem with doing that is now that you have this one template that is trying to do too much in it. --Rschen7754 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? This template is trying to do too much??? This single page, 17kB template is concentrating on one country. {{Infobox road}}, with its 1,838 subpages is trying to dominate the entire planet. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that you're trying to pack too much functionality into that template, and trying to pack too many unrelated things into it. I've been concerned by the number of fields that you're trying to add into it over the last few weeks - the infobox is supposed to be a concise summary of the article, but now you're adding in every possible thing under the sun. Soon the infobox will be longer than the article! This will not fly at FAC, for example. (For example - Template:Routeboxca2, which unfortunately is now deleted, but was much longer than most of the California road articles at the time). Furthermore, from an engineering standpoint, I question the wisdom of redoing the template in the current language of parserfunctions when this site is moving towards templates written in Lua and incorporating Wikidata functionality (which Infobox road is going through right now, and will result in the elimination of many of the subpages). --Rschen7754 21:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been some minor additions to the template that really didn't require much of a change at all, but most of the functionality is nothing more than is in Infobox road. Much of what has been added has been so that we can take advantage of whatever limited data we have without having to compromise. We don't have to use every field, only those that are necessary. Even then, long infoboxes are always a problem with anyone trying to add a locator map for QLD, ACT or WA. While Wikipedia might be heading towards Lua, there are thousands of templates that won't be Lua for a long time. Remember, there was a push to standardise with {{Infobox}} and yet widely used templates like {{Infobox settlement}}, used in 326,820 articles, still use the old code that this one did. The original aim of the code rewrite was to provide future-proofing as it was the intent to keep this template for some time if we moved to IR but apparently I did too good a job and the RfC went stale. Even when we go to Lua, this template is so simple I'm not sure there will be much benefit with Lua. IR might benefit, but Lua will just effectively hide the 1,838 subpages somewhere else and it will be more difficult for those who aren't code-geeks. This template is so simple I could write it. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on this subject is taking place at Template talk:Attached KML; it would probably be better to continue over there where more people are involved. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Since we're discussing this infobox, I don't see why we should discuss at that template. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

KML tweaks

I've tweaked the KML code based on comments made at Nbound's talk page.[3] With the new code, which is only in the sandbox at present, |kml=yes is no longer used. Instead, the template automatically detects the presence of a KML file and automatically adds the links to the infobox. In cases like Kwinana Freeway, where the infobox links are not required due to the presence of a location map image, |kml_inline=no suppresses the infobox links and moves them to the title bar. |kml=no suppresses kml usage entirely, although this parameter really only applies to Kwinana Freeway at the moment. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mitchell Freeway, The Causeway, Reid Highway, Roe Highway, and Tonkin Highway should also be added to the list; I've reverted these back to {{Attached KML}} per my comments on Nbound's talk page that you linked to. - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any point having KML in the infobox then, if we're still going to use Attached KML? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, it was an interestign experiment though -- Nbound (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to have KML in the infobox - Evad37 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I must admit to being confused over this. The only difference between Attached KML's output and the new code is that there are no links at the bottom of the page, where they're redundant anyway. And, of course, there's no need to do anything other than upload a KML file in order to get it working. Still, if you want it gone, I'll get rid of it. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

KML makes sense in the infobox; the infobox is meant to give a snapshot for someone new to the topic, and the KML gives them a nice map of the road. Hiding it at the bottom of the article almost out of sight means most people won't know it's even there. Orderinchaos 01:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not hidden at the bottom of the article; there are additional links at the top of the article if the proper settings are used. (See the top of Interstate 8). --Rschen7754 01:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The box is most certainly hidden at the bottom of the article where it's redundant to the links at the top. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Examples page

The examples page should probably transclude the current revisions of the infoboxes. Dont need to worry about keeping them up-to-date that way. Thoughts? -- Nbound (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that assumes that somebody isn't going to screw up the actual articles, including removal of the transclusion tags. Example pages don't need to be updated every time the article is updated and, it's not going to work anyway. While it is possible to transclude the infobox, it's not possible to transclude between the "<pre>" tags. All you see is {{:Article name}}, not the list of parameters that are used to create the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah fair enough... just had to clean up some shields at the top of half a dozen articles because a guy innocently got the wrong idea from the page... Hopefully though, now that the bigger changes have been done, the boxes shouldnt differ too much from reality for the short-mid term -- Nbound (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Motorway, etc.

Ive added Motorway, Expressway, and Parkway to the sandbox template with some testing here: Template:Infobox Australian road/Testing

Ive also changed "Major suburbs" to "Major suburbs/ towns" as not all of these roads are restricted to the city areas. (eg. Federal Highway is designated a motorway under the new shielding scheme), will help with some rural motorways in Victoria too.

If people are happy, I'll merge the changes. If not Ill revert the sandbox :)

-- Nbound (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any real problems with it. I've merged content from the live template into the sandbox so we don't end up losing anything, and I've sorted the road types for consistency throughout the template. We probably need to tweak the label width so that we don't end up using 3 lines for "Major suburbs/ towns" (see these examples). --AussieLegend (✉) 04:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Happy to go with the alternate 2 line version actually. I assumed it wouldnt fit, without testing, ill remove my test examples. -- Nbound (talk) 05:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we try to come up with something better than "Major suburbs / towns"? Many freeways etc. are only within urban areas, where makes no sense to have "/towns". Maybe new "rural freeway" etc types, with just "Major towns" as the locations label? Or any other ideas? - Evad37 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ive been thinking lately we should probably just use "settlements" as a blanket term. In the long run we could then get rid of the rural/urban divide of our own making. -- Nbound (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Localities", wikilinked to Suburbs and localities (Australia), is an alternative blanket term that could be used - Evad37 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Also a good choice... probably need a way with either one to avoid listing every locality/suburb along a route though - Nbound (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We could still use "Major ..." to imply that only the more notable ones are listed, not everything - Evad37 (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, we will still need some kind of cut-off to decide which is major though I think. And we'll have to decide what happens when the highway bypasses a town but doesnt technically pass through its suburb/locality. -- Nbound (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The reason that the article is called Suburbs and localities is because they are two separate geographical divisions. Although it does seem to vary slightly from state to state, a suburb is generally a "bounded locality with an urban character" while a locality is a "bounded locality with a rural character". A look at NSW's Geograpical Names Register reveals that it's a lot more common to register what is really a locality as a suburb, while it's less common to register a suburb as a locality. It's very common for roads to pass through a suburb or locality in an area without going through a settlement. It's been my experience that "towns/suburbs" is a lot less problematic than any other option. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If we can't come up with an appropriate blanket term, then we may need to add the extra types to resolve the label issue. Or else add another parameter to override the label. - Evad37 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think it matters what term we use, somebody will always object. One US editor recently argued we should use the "generic" term "cities" (Just like Infobox road), which doesn't fit with Australia at all. We could put "Major suburbs, towns, cities, settlements, places where nobody lives" and it would still be wrong. To me, "towns/suburbs" means "towns and/or suburbs" - you can include towns only, suburbs only or both. You don't have to include towns on a road that doesn't pass through any. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I just spoke with Imzadi1979 on IRC, he agreed there wasnt really any perfect term to cover them all, and understood when I mentioned AU-specific issues with other ways of doing it. He had a preference for "settlements", over "towns/suburbs" (seemed "clunky"), though there wasnt any specific MOS issues. He also mentioned settlements could have an issue when you mention a large settlement, as settlement tends to have a connotation of being smallish. Food for thought :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The could be issues with the slash, see MOS:SLASH. This affects RJLs too! -- Nbound (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the en dash "—" is preferred. I dont know about you guys but every time I see one of these I think "to" and not "and" or "or"... :S -- Nbound (talk) 12:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just re-reading the comments above after our IRC chat, and the slash may engender MOS issues. Other uses of slashes in articles will also have similar MOS problems with the usage of a slash. An en dash is used to substitute for to, versus or between, so the "New York–Sydney flight", a "6–3 vote in the committee" and the "Watson–Lyneham" boundary. Imzadi 1979 → 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of "settlements" has always been problematic, often for the reason mentioned. Consider referring to New York (or New Yourk, New Yourk - couldn't resist that one) as a settlement. There's also the issue that some of the places aren't actually settlements at all, even though they are. For example, the Newcastle Interchange on the F3 is at Cameron Park, which is a suburb of the city of Lake Macquarie and has a population of 5,166. However, the interchange is not within an actiual settlement, it's about 2km west of it. Regarding the slash, it's important to remember that the MOS is a style guideline, not a hard and fast policy that must be followed at all costs (Even our core policies have exceptions). One of the reasons for this is that you can't cover every eventuality, so there is room for justified diversion from what the MOS says. Some parts of the MOS specifically cater for this. For example, WP:MONTH says "Months are expressed as whole words". However, it also says "abbreviations such as Feb ... are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes." There's another such example at WP:MOS which says, "Where space is limited (such as tables, infoboxes, parenthetical notes, and mathematical formulas) use unit symbols. In main text it is usually better to spell out unit names". One editor recently reminded me that WP:EL says external links are not permitted in the body of the article and said that infoboxes including external links will not pass FAC, but when I asked at FAC I was directed to articles that had passed FAC with external links in them. Infoboxes are often excluded from strict MOS compliance because of the space restriction and use of the slash is one of those cases; it is better to use the slash than have to be verbose about what is required. Remember too, that WP:SLASH only says "generally avoid joining two words by a slash". It doesn't mandate it, nor can it. If we were talking about the prose section of an article, I'd argue for full compliance, but since infoboxes are space restricted, I really don't think we have to comply with the MOS at all costs. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

My favourite one is "port settlements" which was sort of the extreme case of where over-compliance with standards at the cost of common sense can take things. Orderinchaos 15:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Id prefer to stick with suburbs/towns at this stage I think... if not even move the label to all the other road types (this would save us then having the arbitrary "city highway" vs "highway", and "road" vs "rural road". -- Nbound (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox instructions

Test infobox
Header
Label	Data
Below

The link to the "Infobox instructions" was removed,[4] because another editor thought it looked "goofy".[5] This editor also argued that he hadn't seen such links in other infoboxs and "Wikipedia is written for the reader, not the editor". Template:Infobox includes the parameter name, which adds "view/discuss/edit" links to the bottom of the infobox (see the example) so, while the editor may think it's goofy, it is certainly a supported function in an infobox used in 1,350,505 articles. These same links are available, by default, in every navbox. However, for the reader, they're not descriptive and allow the reader to directly edit the linked file, which is highly undesirable when the linked file is the template itself. They also link the reader to the talk page, which is generally unnecessary. For this reason, a specific link to "Infobox instructions" was used. This is of benefit to our readers because it allows them access to the documentation to so that they know why particular terminology is used or what a particular field means. This is why the "view/discuss/edit" links are included in {{Infobox}}. It's important not to make impulsive decisions based on what one editor says, especially given that there is a group of editors who clearly don't like this infobox and seem to be ding everything they can to disrupt it. Coincidentally, the editor with the "goofy" problem is the same editor who recently told me that FAC doesn't like infoboxes that include external links.[6] Instead of immediately removing the links from the infobox, I asked at FAC and was directed to some articles that did not agree with that editor's concern.[7] Individual concerns need to examined, but they should not be acted on without good reason. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I was just seeing if anyone minded rather than by request, or by Rs' say-so [he'll be the first to tell you we dont always see eye-to-eye on road things] (though the original quip was what made me consider it), I dont have much of a preference one way or the other now that the deprecated parameters are completely gone, thanks to you AL :). The BOLD edit has been reverted and Im not going to revert it back again without any discussion here :). Whether the outcome is as previous, V,T,E links, or link removed - It doesnt matter too much to me. But I'll probably make a few comments if anyone has some nice ideas or whatever. -- Nbound (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between the VTE links and the infobox instructions. The issue with the instructions link was that it was way too big, and also too self-referential as the list of instructions is not very useful for the common reader. I won't respond to the accusations of bad faith. --Rschen7754 07:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The link is "too big" because VTE links are too small and because their purpose is unclear unless you click on them. We've already seen above where people are questioning "Major towns/suburbs" as a result of the limited space available for labels. The only thing in the below field is "Infobox instructions", in a small font and taking up about 1/3 of the width, which seems a reasonably balanced size given the space available, especially for our sight impaired readers. If we made it smaller, it would be too hard to read, and if we abbreviated it the purpose would be unclear. That it is "self-referential", is pretty much the point of the link in the first place. The example for use of name in {{Infobox}} is that it links to the documentation page, which is what the link here did, so it's just following precedent. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Internal classification/legal type parameter

Would there be any concerns with having a parameter along the lines of the above. basically just to list the road's internal/legal classification (which can differ from how it may be named)? It would also be good to include its applicable internal designation -- Nbound (talk) 06:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this so we can cater for the situation that now exists with the Pacific Motorway between Sydney and Newcastle? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, it does help explain various things better (such as road histories), and shows the type we put in may not be the legal/internal case - or hell it kind of even invalidates it to some extent (it could be argued our current "type" is OR to some extent).

Some named "highways" arent necessarily so (eg. Kings and Olympic Highway). Similarly Newcastle Inner City Bypass is actually a declared state highway (just not by a singular name).

For the former F3 the legal classification is it's a Freeway (6003)

Kings Highway is a Main Road (MR51)

Snowy Mountains Highway is a highway (HW4)

(there are multiple other roads types too)

It would also point out some interesting things like some bypasses of the Hume and Pacific actually being declared freeways (legally).

ACT's system includes different names...

• Arterial Road
• Major Collector Road
• Minor Collector Road
• Local Streets

Presumably most states would have similar systems to either of the above.

If you wanted to put forward a situation to sort out the F3 motorway/freeway inconsistency, I'm all ears, but it was not the intention of this proposal and I am happy to leave things as they are .

-- Nbound (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Listings:

NSW- http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/downloads/lgr/reg_table_for_internet_31jan11.pdf

ACT (page 55) - http://www.tams.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/398423/ACT_TRIS_03_Traffic_Management.pdf

OK, I see where you're coming from. This wouldn't be too hard to implement. We could probably even get the infobox to provide the citations to the specific PDFs. Can you find documents for other states?

I'll see what I can find, it would be best if there is still a way use a custom ref aswell (ie. only if there is no "<parametername>_ref" input, link to the default listings, otherwise use "<parametername>_ref") - Could even do it in Lua. -- Nbound (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WA: https://gis.mainroads.wa.gov.au/roadinformationmap/ (turn on road hierarchy layer, expand layer to see legend) [general hierarchy information here: https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/OurRoads/Facts/Pages/StateRoadNetworkMaps.aspx#hierarchy] -- Nbound (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

- Highways and Main Roads (with road numbers): see List of highways in Western Australia#References

VIC: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/25B86705-AAEF-4257-9D19-F906FD257D04/0/RoPR_October_2009b.pdf - over 1000 pages - see also: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/Moreinfoandservices/RoadManagementAndDesign/TypesOfRoads/VictoriasRoadNetwork.htm and see also http://maps.vicroads.vic.gov.au/ for lower level roads. some extras: http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/CCC51D91-1845-474A-B1E5-89A1C3DCC121/0/ROPR_Otherroads_12112009.doc -- Nbound (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

TAS: http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/20734/DIER_Road_Hierarchy_2007.pdf - Evad37 (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

SA: http://www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Transport,%20travel%20and%20motoring/Transport%20facts%20and%20figures/A_Functional_Hierarchy_for_SAs_Land_Transport_Network.pdf - seems to be three classifications that don't overlap: Peak Hour Route, Major Traffic Route, and Key Outback Route; plus also freight routes, and tourist routes. There's also a list/maps of state maintained roads at http://www.sa.gov.au/subject/Transport%2C+travel+and+motoring/Transport+facts+and+figures/Roads+and+traffic+facts/State+maintained+roads - Evad37 (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

QLD: http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Travelandtransport/Maps%20and%20guides/Queensland%20maps/State%20road%20network/srnmapfront.pdf and http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Travelandtransport/Maps%20and%20guides/Queensland%20maps/State%20road%20network/srnmapback.pdf - State map with lists of road by network class and state or local control - Evad37 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

NT: http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/6429/ntmapallroads.pdf - Evad37 (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it all depends on what we want to do with each state, so we should get the information absolutely correct before we roll anything out, if Ozroads is to be believed some of these are just other kinds of hierarchy (even the ones suggested so far). -- Nbound (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the NSW one is self-evidently correct. and the ACT one is supported by other sources: http://www.justice.act.gov.au/page/view/3063 (it should be noted that all ACT roads are territory controlled anyway). -- Nbound (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to be clearer on exactly what type of internal/legal/"hidden"-from-public classification you intend to use. For example, Western Australia has at least 8 different classification processes – see [8], Appendix B (p.13) - Evad37 (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ideally the legal classification, with the addition of any internal designation. (ie. not the case for WA's one i posted above - from what I understand the WA legal classification involves main and secondary roads [amongst others] similar to NSW), failing any public access to such information, then perhaps whatever the consensus opinion is to being the next best thing/most applicable, but if no such thing can be found/decided upon easily, we can turn it off for affected states until sources are found/consensus changes. -- Nbound (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually in WA, the legal classification under the Main Roads Act, if any, is highway or main road. The act does also define secondary road, but no roads are classified as secondary road. And they do all have internal road numbers, beginning with H or M - there are maps available which show all of these, see List of highways in Western Australia#References. (Ramps and roundabouts are also classified as highways, and have their own numbers: [9].)

Anyway, I think that a parameter of this type should just be legal classification, and cited to legislation, if possible. WA's Main Roads Act 1930 is available here: Main Roads Act 1930 (WA), legislation from other states should also be available. And if the data isn't available, the parameter should just be excluded from that infobox. - Evad37 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me . We might have an odd case with the ACT, as it didnt need legislation to assume roadway control (no local govt). -- Nbound (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Types and locations

I think its time we look at the locations issue again. From the section (Motorway, etc.) above "Major suburbs/ towns" was the preferred label for freeways (and motorways etc.) as it covered both rural and urban settings. So is there any reason not to extend this logic to cover all road types? Why should we need to differentiate between a "highway" and a "city highway", but not between freeways?

A separate but related issue is whether to have a parameter, such as |urban=yes, to take away the "/towns" when it has absolutely no business being there, such as a freeway or other road entirely within a single city.

Finally, the link for highway was recently changed to Limited-access road ([10]). However, not every highway is limited access, so its a bit misleading to hide that link behind the word highway. Perhaps if we want to differentiate between Controlled access highways (ie freeways etc), Limited access roads, Arterial roads, Streets, and tracks, those are the labels we should use. - Evad37 (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, to me "towns/suburbs" means "towns and/or suburbs" - you can include towns only, suburbs only or both. You don't have to include towns on a road that doesn't pass through any. Space constraints mean we are limited on what we can use for labels and there is no "one size fits all". If we see the need to differentiate, and I'm heading towards supporting that, it's relatively easy to add new types to the infobox code, which is far simpler than adding an urban parameter. We just need to determine what we need to add. For example, are there any non-urban parkways? (It's not a term we really use in NSW) I do agree with the links for "highway". The Pacific Highway is a good example. Through the cities of Newcastle and Lake Macquarie, the Pacific Highway is almost exclusively not limited access. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Limited Access: Yeah it was the best descriptor I could find, the actual highway link, doesnt offer much in the way of explanation.

A highway is any public road or other public way on land; the term exists in distinction to waterway. In North American and Australian English, the term frequently implies a major road such as a controlled-access highway or an arterial, generally under the control of a state or provincial agency instead of a local road authority.

Perhaps the highway article information could be meated up a bit, and the link changed back?

• Parkway: The term, as listed, is a purely ACT term, and the term non-urban is a little difficult to define in the ACT for multiple reasons, but to answer your question - assuming the colloquial meaning, at this stage no.
• Switch: A switch would be nice, though it would need to work three ways (urban [suburbs], mixed [suburbs/towns or as otherwise decided], and rural/remote [towns or as otherwise decided]). And we can then drop the extra "city", "rural", etc. descriptors in the type. This also means that all the existing base types can be used in any circumstance, so if a rural parkway is built one day, then it just requires a different switch setting to the others.

-- Nbound (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's far simpler just to add additional types than code in yet another parameter, since all we're changing is one label.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesnt really bother me too much to be honest whether its a switch or not, though instead of using "city <type>" it might be better to change to "urban <type>" (at least on these new ones - and eventually migrate the old). Thoughts?... Also, What about mixed routes (eg. Federal Highway [and probably many others].). These may traverse multiple suburbs and towns/villages/localities with notable populations. -- Nbound (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Might be best if we dont modify the types further until we decide what tags we will use, incase changes are required over the next few days, and overzealous editors have already rolled out types. -- Nbound (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Urban" is essentially related to cities, so it's really neither here nor there as to which term we use, but since we've been using "city" for years, it seems consistent to continue with that. For mixed routes we don't need to do anything, as they are already covered by "suburbs/towns". The new types are only in the sandbox code, so nobody should be rolling out anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So they are... to much uni make brain go weird :/.... the only reason I suggest urban is because outside of Australia city has connotations which it does not carry here (including being a type of LGA equivalent - and taking it from that example would make the type sound like its a city owned/controlled highway, when it is likely state or federally administered. Whereas urban refers purely to the built environment.) - If we are keeping suburbs/towns as a catchall term then why do we need separate city versions? We should have either a catchall term, or different terms depending on subtype, not a mix of both, its redundant. -- Nbound (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of what you've said is the reason we never used to display the type in the infobox. If we were to switch to urban now, we'd need to go through every article to replace the types. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why cant we just make "city highway" display as "urban highway"? Any new roads can be put in as the new version, and old ones converted at our leisure. Using the switch proposed earlier would bypass this altogether as we wouldnt have to add these extra descriptive terms to the base types. -- Nbound (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

...as far as the switch idea goes, it does not need to be very complex either, the type will be just the base type [road, highway, freeway, etc], and the new switch would just change the label on the "major suburbs" section to whatever else we deem appropriate. -- Nbound (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We also always have the option of dropping listing cities/towns/suburbs altogether like USRD has done. Which might save a few headaches -- Nbound (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We can make it display whatever we want. In the meantime, I've linked "city" to Urban area to avoid any ambiguity.[12] If we're going to change from city to urban, we may as well get it out of the way rather than leave the template in limbo for who knows how long with extra fields that we may or may not eventually remember to delete. It's not a huge drama with AWB. With the switch, again it adds extra code and I'm loathe to add more complexity than we really need. I tried that with KML, which I still think was a good idea, and look where that got us. I think including cities, towns, suburbs etc gives the reader a better indication of the road route. We can do that on a template that only has a few hundred uses but when you do it on a one size fits all template that is used in thousands of articles you have to compromise. Regarding the linking of highway, I think Highway is a better link. As we've already noted, not all highways are limited access and the lead of Highway says that in Australia the road is "generally under the control of a state or provincial agency instead of a local road authority", which addresses one of the concerns you had. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

that same lead also says they are frequently controlled access (which is largely untrue), or are arterial roads (which are described as a "high-capacity urban road."), which again is largely untrue. The ambiguity of city is only resolved if someone questions it enough to follow the link. If we did decide to drop cities, we could use LGAs... Ive not been a massive fan of that in the past but it less messy. It also leaves the ACT without a suitable equivalent (unless it had an exception and still used suburbs). -- Nbound (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the type field can just not display the "city " prefix. A highway in a city is still a highway, is there actually a need to specify the "city" part? - Evad37 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ummm, well, yeah, that would work. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Urban highways fall into two categories. One is basically a freeway under another name with the odd traffic light, and they're basically identical to any other highway. The other is a major road with lots of access points, slowdowns, people living on it etc and is fundamentally different. As an aside, this (in Auckland, NZ) would have to be my favourite urban highway - it's not even a *major* road. Orderinchaos 15:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I now have a version in the sandbox that does away with "city" (i.e. no "city highway") and has a new parameter urban. When |urban=yes, the label is "Major suburbs". For anything else, the labels are as they have been. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is largely what I was suggesting earlier. Though I did also suggest going one step further and having mixed/rural options (ie. loctype=urban/mixed/rural), which is now even less of a coding leap. Assuming we dont want to take that further step, what should our our label be for non-urban (will it be a catchall, or will it be "major settlements" or similar) -- Nbound (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We will also need to table the type outcomes so they can be added to the guidelines/instructions and kept upto date. -- Nbound (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

So, where are we at with this? Despite some inefficiencies with highway, I'm all for linking to this as it's more accurate than the current links. Do we need to go beyond what I've got in the sandbox regarding city/urban and, if so, what are we going to use? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Am I to assume nobody has any opposition to the above? --AussieLegend (✉) 14:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox version looks good to me. - Evad37 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, I think it would be better to switch to legal classifications completely. Or at the very least something else that doesnt use our own judgement, which is OR. -- Nbound (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Though we don't want to get too technical, per MOS:JARGON. Would the average (worldwide) reader ever heard of, or know what a "Major Collector Road" is? Maybe we need a Road classification in Australia article to link to, rather than relying on the general Wikipedia articles. - Evad37 (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago I had begun to convert the Road infrastructure in Canberra article to follow the terms, but got a little bit distracted after writing the small first section, regardless, the 4 main classifications used in the ACT are explained there. Even if we dont rely on legal status (I would still like it in the infobox, of course), it may be better to class roads by the shields they have been allocated, of course this has issues of its own (largely the same ones that affect why we dont route based articles), perhaps some other scheme is possible. At this stage, each editor is basically saying "this road looks like my idea of a highway/road/etc." which isnt something that can be relied upon if we ever hope to get articles classed at higher quality levels, and like most OR can result in edit wars (Is it a road? Is it a track? is it a highway?). -- Nbound (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have been looking into classifications, and found this document [13] (page 18) has some relevant information:

"There are two basic classification systems for roads:

• an administrative classification – used to manage the funding and administrative responsibilities for each road; and
• a functional classification – used to define the traffic function of each road.

Ownership or management of a road does not always indicate its traffic function."

What we should really be using for road type is a functional classification, rather than a legal/administrative (which could still be included separately)... but that's probably going to be different in each state/territory, and may or may not be easy to find out. - Evad37 (talk) 06:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Many states have some kind of strategic classification they have released to the public. Might be worth using? As long as our classifications are based on something tangible and reasonable, Im all ears. -- Nbound (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to see what's available. Other than getting hold of the data, the main problem I see is trying to coordinate colours across different systems in different states/territories - it may be better to just use a single colour for all types, eg white text green background (using the Australian Standard green we used for the shields). This is probably also necessary for roads with different classifications on different sections. In terms of data, I know that it is all available for Western Australia via the Road Information Mapping System and other documents on the Main Roads WA website. I have no idea about the other states and territories though. - Evad37 (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we're overthinking things here. We don't want to confuse readers and classifying roads based on different state definitions will do that. WP:AUSTRALIA saw this happen a long time ago with cities; each state has its own definition. In NSW a city is legally defined by LGA boundaries but WA has a different definition. It was decided to use ABS data because it covers the whole country. While I don't agree with it, it does seem to work in most cases. One of the general Wikipedia practices is to use common definitions and names. The most obvious use of this is WP:COMMONNAME, but it's followed everywhere. If we're going to use legal definitions then we'll have to remove functionality or make the infobox unnecessarily complicated. I really don't see the point in going beyond what's in the sandbox. We've been using the same definitions for 7 years and they've worked up til now. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem isnt so much the terms themselves, but instead the lack of source to back them up, its OR. As I have stated earlier, whether its the legal classification, strategic, functional, whatever else, as long as there is something to back these up (the legal classification thing is secondary to the main issue*). As long as our classifications are based on something tangible and reasonable Im all good. What happens when Kings Highway or Olympic Highway (for example [these are roads where the name and legal class dont line up]) go for ACR/FA and someone realises the roads arent actually highways and were never proclaimed as one, and we cant find a source to back up our position? It would fail. If we have to rewrite/redesign parts of the infobox then so be it :) -- Nbound (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

*: The main reason I would like the legal classification in is that it helps with understanding the historical basis for the roads, and their interactions with other roads over time, most articles lack this information at this stage, but they will be expanded to include it. This is separate to the more important issue at hand. -- Nbound (talk)

roadname2

Another relatively major change. The secondary names are now equal in size to the primary ones, this going to be confusing for readers, and looks extremely odd on articles like Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) -- Nbound (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a minor issue and has been fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Australia

Quite happy to defer to the rule of the mob here but do we really need an extra line that states "Australia". None of the states have duplicates overseas and 3 of them include "Australia" or a derivative in the state name itself. I personally think it looks a little odd in its current position/style as well -- Nbound (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

At various country specific infoboxes there have consistently been requests to include the country name, with rguanets that while "we" may know where a particular road is, readers not familiar with the area may not. This is why most infoboxes include a country parameter. Because of the nature of the infobox, and the possibility of more than one state name, including Australia anywhere but on its own line can pad the infobox width unnecessarily. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The only other infobox Ive seen around applying it in the same manner is IAP, I dont think it looks all that great there either (no offence), but at least the things it represents there are limited to a single state. If we must, by all means add the name, but we can do it in other ways. Regardless of this infobox road has many many times more transclusions than IAR and does not display a country name (its only used for internal switching of parameters). This has not stopped it from being part of dozens of FA-class articles, presumably this either isnt a big deal for readers, or in the few cases where ambiguity does occur, mentioning the country in the opening paragraph of the lead is a much cleaner solution. -- Nbound (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the country; we can always refer to this thread if anybody complains about it not being there in the future. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You dont want to put forward a compromise? While I personally dont want it there, others might wish it retained... A different position/style may be more palatable. Though by all means; if removed, refer them here. It doesnt bother me. If it ends up it needs to be added back at some point then we can do that (I cant see any circumstance where a lead based solution wouldnt work - but you never know). -- Nbound (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

State2 field broken

|State2= used to accept plain text but now rejects it. Can we please discuss changes where the accepted inputs are changing (well any major change really, of course :D ), roads use the plain text capabilites of that section (usually to list a third state). -- Nbound (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It was never the intention that state2 should accept plain text. From when it was first added on 30 May 2013, the instructions to use it for the "other end" of the road have not changed. It is supposed to be the state code for the state corresponding to direction_b and end_b, just as state corresponds to direction_a and end_a. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate that, but we still need to publically announce changes like this either here on on WT:AURD. People will and have always used parameters for non standard things. We use route_image for highway logos and the instructions dont mention it at all. We used to use the image caption section for former allocations, and some roads still do. It also gives a chance for editors to put forward a need for their nonstandard input if required. Else an article might sit for months or years with broken outputs because the editor who worked on it didnt know his input was no longer supported. -- Nbound (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing to announce because no direct change to the parameter's functionality was made. If there was a change, it was unintended as a result of fixing the classes of some parameters. If an editor had used a new parameter without referring to the infobox instructions, which clearly say "use the 2 or 3 digit state code corresponding to the location used for direction_b and end_b. It will automatically be converted to the full state name and wikilinked", what makes you think he'd look at AURD and make the link in a discussion that didn't even mention the codes? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said above the usage for logos with route_image isnt even mentioned in the docs. I actually did an offending state2 based edit on one of the roads, though Im sure I'd seen it around on at least one other road at the time, giving me the idea in the first place. Im not saying there was any mal-intent on your part - I will happily admit that I had made a non-standard edit because I wasnt familiar with exactly what was written for |state2=. The only point im making is a headsup would have been a bit better (for this, and any other major changes [ie. not spelling or link changes]), and we can then all keep an eye out for things like this and other odd behaviours. Some roads articles are very low traffic so are unlikely to be checked often and could contain major issues for weeks or months. I think it stopped working with plaintext when the Australia link was added (I only noticed it very recently and it affects that parameter). I never checked the diff when you added the link originally (was too busy with an article), and had assumed up until tonight it was probably hardcoded in its own section. And thus my odd usage of state2 would have been unaffected. -- Nbound (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

route_image and its variants have been in the template for a long time, state2 has only been in since there was a major upgrade of the infobox that catered for many of the misuses that had crept in over many years. The current template is far more forgiving than the old one was in some circumstances while better highlighting some misuses. The changes that were made were not major changes, they were simply code updates to fix things like classes that shouldn't affect a properly filled out infobox. Even the font changes fall into this category. Spelling fixes are minor but link changes are not trivial, as the discussion over "highway" has revealed. That discussion, along with the others shows that most glitches are picked up fairly quickly and when they are, they are usually a simple fix. I wouldn't be too worried about errors in articles, most articles contain errors that have been around for years. We fix them when we can. I fixed one a short time ago that had been in an article for over 7 years and while fixing 1,400 outward links that were recently broken,[14] I've found hundreds of errors that I expect will be there for some time to come. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

These kind of discussions are fairly standard for most templates, and helps with transparency of decisions. Regardless of any personal opinions otherwise in the interim, discussions for these changes will eventually be forced as the template gains more transclusions and becomes protected as a high risk template. Ive coded some Lua sections for this template, but I wouldnt add them in despite in my testing having close or equivalent functionality. Theres the always the possibility of unintended consequences. At this stage despite a mention on WT:AURD and the WP:AURD/NEWS, no further interest has been shown; as such Ill be mothballing them until that changes (or perhaps occasional work as a hobby, to keep my Lua skills alive). We may as well get into the habit of it from here on out, its not going to hurt the template, and in the future we will be able to see when and why things happened. Besides what reason could there be not to discuss template changes? -- Nbound (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road small

In October 2013 it was proposed that a small version of the infobox be created. The discussion, which ended with a solution, but no consensus to proceed with implementation, is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Archive 4#infobox Australian road (small). Rather than create an entirely separate template, it was much easier to add a small parameter to the existing infobox. Subsequent discussion has indicated that there is no desire to proceed at this time.[15] The purpose of this thread is simply to note the changes that were required, should there be some desire to address this issue in the future. These changes may be seen here. Testcases were removed in this edit of Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rename Allocation

I think that the current "Allocation" label, which links to Route number#Australia, and is set by the |route= parameter, should be changed to "Route" (or similar, perhaps "Road route" or "Route number"). I'm not sure how the term came about, but it seems to be specific to Wikipedia. I have not seen it used in either reliable sources, or "roadgeek" sites such as OzRoads. "Route" more accurately describes the information listed there, as well as matching the parameter name and the linked article. - Evad37 [talk] 03:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A look through the infobox history shows the label was originally called "Route", but was changed to "Allocation" with this edit on 9 January 2007. I couldn't find a reason for the change though. I do remember some much later discussions about why allocations was used, but I'll have to do a search to find them. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So where are we at with this? I had a bit of a look through user talk archives and user contributions from January 2007, and couldn't find discussion of the change. - Evad37 [talk] 03:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated above, there were some discussions that I remembered about allocation but I've been unable to find them. The only thing I've been able to find is this comment at the first TfD, where Imzadi1979 said "Previous concerns centered on the position of the name versus the marker graphics, and the "allocation" parameter." Allocation is a bit vague, but I think "route" and "route number" are problematic. "Route" implies details of the physical route, not the route number(s). "Route number(s)" is better, but doesn't quite sound right and the label might encourage editors to only add numbers. "Route allocation" is more in line with the wording of Route number#Australia, i.e "road routes are allocated". If we use "Route number(s)", then we need to address the "Former allocation" label. "Former route number(s)" is a long label so we'll have to wrap it acrosss two lines. It's not a big problem, but needs to be mentioned. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I think Imzadi's comment, which goes on to say "The latter was added,...", was more about the previous absence of such a parameter in infobox road. "Route" is only ambiguous if there's no content in there. If another road's infobox is copied over and then modofied, then it will already have a route like "State Route 3" for that parameter. If blank code is copied over, then the situation is the same as at the moment – the parameter name is still route – but a hidden note could still be added to the blank code page, ie <!-- Allocated road route, NOT the physical route -->. "Route" also has an advantage in that "Former allocation" could become "Former route" and not need to wrap across two lines. The other options are alright, and better than "Allocation", but I prefer the plain "Route". - Evad37 [talk] 10:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there was definite discussion about "Allocation" and why the term was used in Australia. I thought it was part of this discussion. Even with content, "Route" is still ambiguous. I've seen it happen far too often with infoboxes. You'd be surprised at the number of times that editors completely misunderstand even simple instructions. Look at the discussion over "towns/cities'. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still think we should move away from the term "Allocation" which, unless we find new evidence, is a term not used in any sources (and we still haven't found a discussion of why it was used instead route or another term). So how about Route number? Even if just a number is put in there, it shouldn't be too hard to later convert that into "[icon] <route type> <number>". (Not sure that the "(s)" is actually needed - it wasn't used for Allocation, and what's in there is either a single entry, or a list with start/end locations in brackets – but it's not a big deal if you want to include it.) - Evad37 [talk] 01:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't at least try it. If it's problematic then we can always try something else. If not then we don't have to waste any more time. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Use error messages?

As of today, there are no instances in articles where |type= is undefined or set incorrectly. Should we make |type= a required parameter, and display error messages if not used correctly, rather just tracking usage in the hidden Category:Australian road articles using deprecated parameters? The logic behind this is that Undefined is not really a type of road, its actually an editor not using the template correctly - an error message with an appropriate link could get them to fix it themselves. I started coding in the sandbox, but the documentation would also need to be adjusted. - Evad37 [talk] 05:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)