The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Conversion to {{ Infobox Road}}
This proposal consists of several parts -
{{
Infobox Road}}
and modify it for Australian usage. (Significant progress has already been made on this at
WT:AURD){{
Infobox Australian road}}
to {{
Infobox Road}}
, retaining {{
Infobox Australian road}}
as a backup working template if editors wish.( non-admin closure) Please see WT:AURD (Wikiproject: Australian Roads) for a summary of what has been discussed so far. These topics are not closed for discussion, if you have a problem with an existing decision of Wikiproject: Australian Roads, please discuss it below, in addition to topics we may not have covered thus far.
Survey is closed until issues have had adequate discussion.
I have invited WP:AUS, WP:HWY, and WP:HWY/O on their associated talk pages. If anyone has suggestions for other interested parties to invite please let me know. Of course, individual editors can extend invitations to any groups or editors they want, but I am happy to accept requests to do it instead. - Nbound ( talk) 10:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
For what has previously been a contentious topic, there seems little interest, so I have personally contacted the following editors individually:
Or roughly 380 editors from those Wikiprojects.
As well as:
{{
infobox road}}
in Australian articles.Or roughly 20 editors.
and:
{{
Infobox Australian road}}
I apologize in advance for any double-ups/missing editors/other problems, I did my best to get the word out to as many people as possible.
I do not want to make bad faith accusations where potentially none exist, or without a conclusive basis for it, but Im getting the feeling that this RfC is suffering from my own continued involvement. So I have decided, I will hereby withdraw from its discussion.
I hope that the editors involved here can continue in the spirit originally intended by the RfC.
I do reserve the right to offer a simple support or oppose when/if the survey is opened. Any clarification on why or why not should be able to be deduced from my contributions both here and at
WT:AURD.
I offer but one bit of generalised advice to all of those here, if something I have said appears to be in bad faith, please ask me for clarification as it was not my intent, as how things are written and how things are meant to be understood can be hard to decipher online. And if something is taken the wrong way, it can also affect the context of any further statements on the topic.
If anyone further feels the need to contact me in regards to this RfC, please contact me via my talk page.
Regards,
Nbound (
talk) 05:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
would occur, assuming this current proposal is received positively. Any future deletion will be a completely separate discussion to this one. The main reason we are keeping the old one as a backup is there may be editors that believe particular roads will be better served by the original box, and this will allow its use to continue while we work with them to further modify {{
infobox road}}
to suit their specific needs; of course, we expect the number of such roads to be quite small (if any!). This infobox has been a point of contention in the past, with very polarised opinions, hopefully we can all find some common ground this time round. We will consider proposing deletion, in the short-term only, if it is specifically mentioned by a the greater majority of those who discuss it here. --
Nbound (
talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Anyway, my only comment is you need to confirm if you intend to get more of the existing features moved across, especially the coloured background and the large shields. In general the new info box does look like it is clearer with more information -- and I said "in general": there is stuff that I'd prefer to still be available, like redundantly including direction and from/to at the top(*) and the aforementioned coloured backgrounds and large shields.
(*)Actually I think this could be my total suggestion:
Mark Hurd ( talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark Hurd,
|marker_image=
, though we have opted to use this only for route logos (ie. the roads commercial logo, if applicable). The reasoning is below:{{
infobox}}
|allocation=
section, far more accurately.|tourist=
parameter. And give them the same accuracy.{{
infobox road}}
code. In all other areas the section is known as Component highwaysThese points are all negotiable. Nbound ( talk) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion list:
Issues from the previous discussions (if I've left out any, please add them): -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|allocation=
for the route markers, and not large icons near the top - see Nbound's reply to Mark Hurd above -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|marker_image=
section will still appear below the title. |marker_image=
itself could also be aliased to something else such as |route_logo=
. --
Nbound (
talk) 05:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)|state=
parameter. Further customisation is possible if required. -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)end_a
instead of terminus_a
- more can done if needed -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)type
isn't specified, but this could be changed to a different default term. -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)country=AUS
must be specifiedIs there an order of precedence for the Number allocations of route numbers, would have thought National Route 1 would be first listed, followed other National routes then state and tourist. Gnan garra 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
general practice aswell). On more complex routes it may be necessary to note as such, and summarise within the |allocation=
area, while explaining in greater detail in the article itself. Tourist routes are separated by the |tourist=
parameter, and are then treated the same way as allocations as far as coding goes. --
Nbound (
talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So far Evad and I have been using the same system except I state the town/suburb and state under the start and endpoint junctions (My only testcase on display is the M31 testcase - if people want to compare). What would others prefer here? -- Nbound ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox road}}
. --
Nbound (
talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
AUshield}}
isnt compulsory [though it is preferred], its just a tool to make it easier so you dont need to remember filenames and type sizing code over and over, it also makes shield changes easier to fix in future. Unconverted shields are likely to be converted by
WP:AURD members. {{
infobox road}}
is reasonably simple to use, and anyone is welcome to edit the docs if they feel something is explained in an odd way, or they can ask if we havent explained something in a way that is understandable. If there are specific functions that are hard to use add them in the discussions section and we can see what can be done, we can do a fair bit within the AUS specific coding. --
Nbound (
talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: Partial retraction due to being far to early (was not aware of usual 30 day convention - we have plenty of time)
So far we have had very little interest from the WP:AUS community as whole, despite direct invitation, it would seem reasonable to assume that at least to a fair few, this appears to be a run-of-the-mill change to those people.
Discussions have mainly revolved around minor naming and positioning issues, which can be addressed at any point in time, and shouldnt impede the rollout of infobox road. Though are of course, always open to discussion.
Other issues seem to be related to usage (what is the prefered way to enter this?), which again shouldnt impede the rollout and often relate to both the old and new infoboxes (ie. we need to start adding the shield descriptions on Infobox Australian road aswell to meet accessibility requirements and aid navigation for international users).
Coding of the template can be eased by either the addition of more example templates. Other than locality requirements, the usage of the two templates is quite similar in most regards. As Evad states, if it is needed, a shell template can be created to simplify usage further.
Infobox road provides more functionality, and some articles even require it already, as IAusR cannot perform as required. It also reduces duplication of effort, and eases sharing between the various roads projects (US roads has already imported from IAusR a while back the concept of road restrictions. They have also imported the allocation sectionm, as "Component Highways". The tourist section originated in NZ). [See here]
I would like to propose to the few who have voiced dissenting opinions so far, based upon what I have stated above, that we begin a rollout. And we will continue to work with them and discuss their issues whilst this occurs. IAusR will continue to exist until such time in the distant future it is deemed no longer necessary in a separate discussion. As these users have an interest in Australian roads, I would also invite them to join
WP:AURD, and help us in many other road-related regards.
I would like to ask those who were party to previous discussions to give us a clean state. There were mistakes made by other editors that shouldnt have been, perhaps a little out of naivety, perhaps by flaunting presumed authority on the matter. Neither myself, nor Evad were party to the previous discussions, we have no secret agenda, or goal, other than to improve the quality of Australian road articles.
I am not closing discussion at this stage. I will likely let the discussion run the course of a week its full duration, unless consensus can be reached sooner. I hope it can be, and we can continue to work to better Wikipedia --
Nbound (
talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
discussion on this isnt addressing concerns raised– See Bidgee's comment below, and AussieLegends comments further down, such as "I haven't chosen to list my reservations yet because I'm still in the process of evaluating IR". It's a bit hard to discuss concerns when they haven't yet been posted.
choosing to use personal attacks(noting appology was given for PA) to dismiss them– While I do not condone the actions/assumptions of bad faith (by either party), I don't think it was Nbound's intention to dismiss them. Indeed, AussieLegend commented below "Don't be in such a hurry to push other editors to comment" - Evad37 ( talk) 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
|map_alt=
/ |photo_alt=
|length_ref=
I hadn't really intended commenting yet as I've been busy with other projects, both Wikipedia related and personal, and I haven't really evaluated {{ Infobox road}} completely, but it seems the issue has been forced so here are my preliminary comments. Please note though, these are subject to revision if I find something else about IR with which I have concern. Following is a list of a few things that need fixing, as well as some others that I believe need to be implemented. First though, I asked above what does Infobox road do that Infobox Australian road can't. Nbound and Evad37 both supplied lists in response. None of what they listed is anything out of the ordinary. However, there are some things that need coment:
beltway_city
, orbital
, loop
, or tloop
are selected (not at all unusual) the infobox displays the headings for all options in sequence, resulting in "
Beltway around beltway
Orbital around orbital
Loop around loopTourist loop". (see
example) The two common terms in Australia are
Ring road (ironically
Beltway,
Orbital road and
Loop road all redirect to
Ring road) and "tourist loop". Regardless of how many of these are set, only one should be displayed, per the example, and "Ring road", not "Loop" should be used. This is also general information, and should be shown as such, not under "Major junctions", as being a ring road is not a major junction.section1
heading "Mainland section" is replaced by "Major junctions" and the section1 layout is different to subsequent sections. "Major junctions:" is shown as a label, whereas it isn't for normal roads. This is inconsistent. What should be seen is
this. There should also be clear indication that the road is a split road, as per the example. That it is a split road is general information and it should be shown before the "Major junctions" heading, as being a ring road is not a major junction.type
= "highway", "city highway" or "freeway", but not if type = "road", "rural road", "street" or "track". At the moment, IR forces the links. Do we really need highway links in something like
Mouat Street? There should be some way of turning the links on and off. (see
examples) I see no need for
Highways in Australia to be bolded; linking is more than sufficient.Moving now to other issues:
Note that the examples that I've used above all use abbreviated infoboxes for clarity. In order to demonstrate a reasonable comparison between the way that IR handles data, and the way that I believe it should handle it, I've updated code that I had previously written to update {{ Infobox Australian road}}. That code is now in Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox. Documentation for the code is in Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox/doc, should anyone wish to further test what I've written. The new code also addresses all of the items listed by Nbound and Evad37 that have not specifically mentioned above, but that was the result of me attempting to improve my coding skills than for any other reason. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Not directly related to the RfC, but if anyone is curious as to how the new code looks in full infoboxes, I've just uploaded a series of testcases to Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Road}}
and modify it for Australian usage". There is plenty of room to move in the AUS specific coding. If anything was missed in the list posted earlier regarding what was discussed at the two TfDs, please feel free to elaborate on it. --
Nbound (
talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
AussieLegend, thank you for initial comments - I fully respect your right to revise or add to them. I agree with many the points you have made - but it is late now, so I will discuss further tomorrow (and also make some changes/fixes to the infobox road sandbox) - Evad37 ( talk) 16:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{infobox road/sandbox |country=AUS |type=highway |name=Ring road test |ring_road=ring road |orbital=orbital |loop = loop |tloop = tloop}}
type
is freeway, highway, or city highway. The infobox road sandbox code also turns off the "Highway system" headingterminus_x
, which was terminology that was an issue at the TfDs, and certainly contributed to the problem with Highway 1. I was the one who proposed end_x
instead of terminus_x
.
[6]
end_x
is available in infobox road, and all the testcases I've made use end_x, not terminus_x{{Infobox Australian place}}
. The problem with not having complete control is that we need to know that our requirements will be accepted. If we need a locator map and the IR people don't think it's needed, what do we do? Yes, we could use a wrapper and incorporate our requirements in that, (see {{
Infobox Schutzhütte}} which is a wrapper of {{
Infobox hut}}) but then we may as well have our own template. As for protection, yes, we could semi-protect it but looking at the edit history, I don't think it's warranted. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 06:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Thanks to User:Nbound for the invite to this. While various other things have been on my front burner, the general comment is ensuring the concerns of more active Aus Road editors are fully addressed. However, there are a few recent developments that may affect road infoboxes: 1) introduction of the Lua language for templates, and 2) the establishment of Wikidata which in time could be a central repository for road data, infobox and otherwise. For 1), it may be better use of time to do any infobox consolidation under Lua, perhaps some outstanding concerns may be effectively addressed with that coding. For 2), Wikidata phase 2 seems to be active, which concerns the content and setup of infobox data; careful attention will need to be paid to that process to ensure road infobox and other road-related data will be properly represented and structured there. Dl2000 ( talk) 03:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
(talk here:
Template talk:Infobox Australian road). If you feel you have information that could be useful or foster collaboration between the various roads wikiprojects, we'd appreciate it mentioned there :) --
Nbound (
talk) 03:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If you would like a conversion of a particular road/highway/freeway, so you can see what it will look like, please request it below:
|
|
Note: Italic named testcases were pre-existing or created without request.
In an attempt to keep the testcase page reasonably navigable, there will be no more than 10 conversions appearing at any one time. Older conversions will be found in the archive which is linked to on the testcase page.
A reasonably complete set of Australia-specific {{
infobox road}}
documentation is also available at the bottom of the testcases page.
requested 2 examples, has a number of limitations. Great Northern Highway at 3200 km covers most twists and turns. Also Albany Highway as it changes between MRD responsibility to various LGA's along its route. Gnan garra 11:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be interested in how the template will handle, mainly the Sturt and Olympic Highway which have a rather complex route in some sections, unlike the Hume. Bidgee ( talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll defer to Australians and others familiar with Australian roads on this infobox controversy. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Conversion to {{ Infobox Road}}
This proposal consists of several parts -
{{
Infobox Road}}
and modify it for Australian usage. (Significant progress has already been made on this at
WT:AURD){{
Infobox Australian road}}
to {{
Infobox Road}}
, retaining {{
Infobox Australian road}}
as a backup working template if editors wish.( non-admin closure) Please see WT:AURD (Wikiproject: Australian Roads) for a summary of what has been discussed so far. These topics are not closed for discussion, if you have a problem with an existing decision of Wikiproject: Australian Roads, please discuss it below, in addition to topics we may not have covered thus far.
Survey is closed until issues have had adequate discussion.
I have invited WP:AUS, WP:HWY, and WP:HWY/O on their associated talk pages. If anyone has suggestions for other interested parties to invite please let me know. Of course, individual editors can extend invitations to any groups or editors they want, but I am happy to accept requests to do it instead. - Nbound ( talk) 10:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
For what has previously been a contentious topic, there seems little interest, so I have personally contacted the following editors individually:
Or roughly 380 editors from those Wikiprojects.
As well as:
{{
infobox road}}
in Australian articles.Or roughly 20 editors.
and:
{{
Infobox Australian road}}
I apologize in advance for any double-ups/missing editors/other problems, I did my best to get the word out to as many people as possible.
I do not want to make bad faith accusations where potentially none exist, or without a conclusive basis for it, but Im getting the feeling that this RfC is suffering from my own continued involvement. So I have decided, I will hereby withdraw from its discussion.
I hope that the editors involved here can continue in the spirit originally intended by the RfC.
I do reserve the right to offer a simple support or oppose when/if the survey is opened. Any clarification on why or why not should be able to be deduced from my contributions both here and at
WT:AURD.
I offer but one bit of generalised advice to all of those here, if something I have said appears to be in bad faith, please ask me for clarification as it was not my intent, as how things are written and how things are meant to be understood can be hard to decipher online. And if something is taken the wrong way, it can also affect the context of any further statements on the topic.
If anyone further feels the need to contact me in regards to this RfC, please contact me via my talk page.
Regards,
Nbound (
talk) 05:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
would occur, assuming this current proposal is received positively. Any future deletion will be a completely separate discussion to this one. The main reason we are keeping the old one as a backup is there may be editors that believe particular roads will be better served by the original box, and this will allow its use to continue while we work with them to further modify {{
infobox road}}
to suit their specific needs; of course, we expect the number of such roads to be quite small (if any!). This infobox has been a point of contention in the past, with very polarised opinions, hopefully we can all find some common ground this time round. We will consider proposing deletion, in the short-term only, if it is specifically mentioned by a the greater majority of those who discuss it here. --
Nbound (
talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Anyway, my only comment is you need to confirm if you intend to get more of the existing features moved across, especially the coloured background and the large shields. In general the new info box does look like it is clearer with more information -- and I said "in general": there is stuff that I'd prefer to still be available, like redundantly including direction and from/to at the top(*) and the aforementioned coloured backgrounds and large shields.
(*)Actually I think this could be my total suggestion:
Mark Hurd ( talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mark Hurd,
|marker_image=
, though we have opted to use this only for route logos (ie. the roads commercial logo, if applicable). The reasoning is below:{{
infobox}}
|allocation=
section, far more accurately.|tourist=
parameter. And give them the same accuracy.{{
infobox road}}
code. In all other areas the section is known as Component highwaysThese points are all negotiable. Nbound ( talk) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion list:
Issues from the previous discussions (if I've left out any, please add them): -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|allocation=
for the route markers, and not large icons near the top - see Nbound's reply to Mark Hurd above -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
|marker_image=
section will still appear below the title. |marker_image=
itself could also be aliased to something else such as |route_logo=
. --
Nbound (
talk) 05:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)|state=
parameter. Further customisation is possible if required. -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)end_a
instead of terminus_a
- more can done if needed -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)type
isn't specified, but this could be changed to a different default term. -
Evad37 (
talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)country=AUS
must be specifiedIs there an order of precedence for the Number allocations of route numbers, would have thought National Route 1 would be first listed, followed other National routes then state and tourist. Gnan garra 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
general practice aswell). On more complex routes it may be necessary to note as such, and summarise within the |allocation=
area, while explaining in greater detail in the article itself. Tourist routes are separated by the |tourist=
parameter, and are then treated the same way as allocations as far as coding goes. --
Nbound (
talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So far Evad and I have been using the same system except I state the town/suburb and state under the start and endpoint junctions (My only testcase on display is the M31 testcase - if people want to compare). What would others prefer here? -- Nbound ( talk) 12:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox road}}
. --
Nbound (
talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
AUshield}}
isnt compulsory [though it is preferred], its just a tool to make it easier so you dont need to remember filenames and type sizing code over and over, it also makes shield changes easier to fix in future. Unconverted shields are likely to be converted by
WP:AURD members. {{
infobox road}}
is reasonably simple to use, and anyone is welcome to edit the docs if they feel something is explained in an odd way, or they can ask if we havent explained something in a way that is understandable. If there are specific functions that are hard to use add them in the discussions section and we can see what can be done, we can do a fair bit within the AUS specific coding. --
Nbound (
talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: Partial retraction due to being far to early (was not aware of usual 30 day convention - we have plenty of time)
So far we have had very little interest from the WP:AUS community as whole, despite direct invitation, it would seem reasonable to assume that at least to a fair few, this appears to be a run-of-the-mill change to those people.
Discussions have mainly revolved around minor naming and positioning issues, which can be addressed at any point in time, and shouldnt impede the rollout of infobox road. Though are of course, always open to discussion.
Other issues seem to be related to usage (what is the prefered way to enter this?), which again shouldnt impede the rollout and often relate to both the old and new infoboxes (ie. we need to start adding the shield descriptions on Infobox Australian road aswell to meet accessibility requirements and aid navigation for international users).
Coding of the template can be eased by either the addition of more example templates. Other than locality requirements, the usage of the two templates is quite similar in most regards. As Evad states, if it is needed, a shell template can be created to simplify usage further.
Infobox road provides more functionality, and some articles even require it already, as IAusR cannot perform as required. It also reduces duplication of effort, and eases sharing between the various roads projects (US roads has already imported from IAusR a while back the concept of road restrictions. They have also imported the allocation sectionm, as "Component Highways". The tourist section originated in NZ). [See here]
I would like to propose to the few who have voiced dissenting opinions so far, based upon what I have stated above, that we begin a rollout. And we will continue to work with them and discuss their issues whilst this occurs. IAusR will continue to exist until such time in the distant future it is deemed no longer necessary in a separate discussion. As these users have an interest in Australian roads, I would also invite them to join
WP:AURD, and help us in many other road-related regards.
I would like to ask those who were party to previous discussions to give us a clean state. There were mistakes made by other editors that shouldnt have been, perhaps a little out of naivety, perhaps by flaunting presumed authority on the matter. Neither myself, nor Evad were party to the previous discussions, we have no secret agenda, or goal, other than to improve the quality of Australian road articles.
I am not closing discussion at this stage. I will likely let the discussion run the course of a week its full duration, unless consensus can be reached sooner. I hope it can be, and we can continue to work to better Wikipedia --
Nbound (
talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
discussion on this isnt addressing concerns raised– See Bidgee's comment below, and AussieLegends comments further down, such as "I haven't chosen to list my reservations yet because I'm still in the process of evaluating IR". It's a bit hard to discuss concerns when they haven't yet been posted.
choosing to use personal attacks(noting appology was given for PA) to dismiss them– While I do not condone the actions/assumptions of bad faith (by either party), I don't think it was Nbound's intention to dismiss them. Indeed, AussieLegend commented below "Don't be in such a hurry to push other editors to comment" - Evad37 ( talk) 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
|map_alt=
/ |photo_alt=
|length_ref=
I hadn't really intended commenting yet as I've been busy with other projects, both Wikipedia related and personal, and I haven't really evaluated {{ Infobox road}} completely, but it seems the issue has been forced so here are my preliminary comments. Please note though, these are subject to revision if I find something else about IR with which I have concern. Following is a list of a few things that need fixing, as well as some others that I believe need to be implemented. First though, I asked above what does Infobox road do that Infobox Australian road can't. Nbound and Evad37 both supplied lists in response. None of what they listed is anything out of the ordinary. However, there are some things that need coment:
beltway_city
, orbital
, loop
, or tloop
are selected (not at all unusual) the infobox displays the headings for all options in sequence, resulting in "
Beltway around beltway
Orbital around orbital
Loop around loopTourist loop". (see
example) The two common terms in Australia are
Ring road (ironically
Beltway,
Orbital road and
Loop road all redirect to
Ring road) and "tourist loop". Regardless of how many of these are set, only one should be displayed, per the example, and "Ring road", not "Loop" should be used. This is also general information, and should be shown as such, not under "Major junctions", as being a ring road is not a major junction.section1
heading "Mainland section" is replaced by "Major junctions" and the section1 layout is different to subsequent sections. "Major junctions:" is shown as a label, whereas it isn't for normal roads. This is inconsistent. What should be seen is
this. There should also be clear indication that the road is a split road, as per the example. That it is a split road is general information and it should be shown before the "Major junctions" heading, as being a ring road is not a major junction.type
= "highway", "city highway" or "freeway", but not if type = "road", "rural road", "street" or "track". At the moment, IR forces the links. Do we really need highway links in something like
Mouat Street? There should be some way of turning the links on and off. (see
examples) I see no need for
Highways in Australia to be bolded; linking is more than sufficient.Moving now to other issues:
Note that the examples that I've used above all use abbreviated infoboxes for clarity. In order to demonstrate a reasonable comparison between the way that IR handles data, and the way that I believe it should handle it, I've updated code that I had previously written to update {{ Infobox Australian road}}. That code is now in Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox. Documentation for the code is in Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox/doc, should anyone wish to further test what I've written. The new code also addresses all of the items listed by Nbound and Evad37 that have not specifically mentioned above, but that was the result of me attempting to improve my coding skills than for any other reason. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Not directly related to the RfC, but if anyone is curious as to how the new code looks in full infoboxes, I've just uploaded a series of testcases to Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Road}}
and modify it for Australian usage". There is plenty of room to move in the AUS specific coding. If anything was missed in the list posted earlier regarding what was discussed at the two TfDs, please feel free to elaborate on it. --
Nbound (
talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
AussieLegend, thank you for initial comments - I fully respect your right to revise or add to them. I agree with many the points you have made - but it is late now, so I will discuss further tomorrow (and also make some changes/fixes to the infobox road sandbox) - Evad37 ( talk) 16:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
{{infobox road/sandbox |country=AUS |type=highway |name=Ring road test |ring_road=ring road |orbital=orbital |loop = loop |tloop = tloop}}
type
is freeway, highway, or city highway. The infobox road sandbox code also turns off the "Highway system" headingterminus_x
, which was terminology that was an issue at the TfDs, and certainly contributed to the problem with Highway 1. I was the one who proposed end_x
instead of terminus_x
.
[6]
end_x
is available in infobox road, and all the testcases I've made use end_x, not terminus_x{{Infobox Australian place}}
. The problem with not having complete control is that we need to know that our requirements will be accepted. If we need a locator map and the IR people don't think it's needed, what do we do? Yes, we could use a wrapper and incorporate our requirements in that, (see {{
Infobox Schutzhütte}} which is a wrapper of {{
Infobox hut}}) but then we may as well have our own template. As for protection, yes, we could semi-protect it but looking at the edit history, I don't think it's warranted. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 06:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)Thanks to User:Nbound for the invite to this. While various other things have been on my front burner, the general comment is ensuring the concerns of more active Aus Road editors are fully addressed. However, there are a few recent developments that may affect road infoboxes: 1) introduction of the Lua language for templates, and 2) the establishment of Wikidata which in time could be a central repository for road data, infobox and otherwise. For 1), it may be better use of time to do any infobox consolidation under Lua, perhaps some outstanding concerns may be effectively addressed with that coding. For 2), Wikidata phase 2 seems to be active, which concerns the content and setup of infobox data; careful attention will need to be paid to that process to ensure road infobox and other road-related data will be properly represented and structured there. Dl2000 ( talk) 03:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
infobox Australian road}}
(talk here:
Template talk:Infobox Australian road). If you feel you have information that could be useful or foster collaboration between the various roads wikiprojects, we'd appreciate it mentioned there :) --
Nbound (
talk) 03:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
If you would like a conversion of a particular road/highway/freeway, so you can see what it will look like, please request it below:
|
|
Note: Italic named testcases were pre-existing or created without request.
In an attempt to keep the testcase page reasonably navigable, there will be no more than 10 conversions appearing at any one time. Older conversions will be found in the archive which is linked to on the testcase page.
A reasonably complete set of Australia-specific {{
infobox road}}
documentation is also available at the bottom of the testcases page.
requested 2 examples, has a number of limitations. Great Northern Highway at 3200 km covers most twists and turns. Also Albany Highway as it changes between MRD responsibility to various LGA's along its route. Gnan garra 11:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll be interested in how the template will handle, mainly the Sturt and Olympic Highway which have a rather complex route in some sections, unlike the Hume. Bidgee ( talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll defer to Australians and others familiar with Australian roads on this infobox controversy. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)