Talk:State Highway 39 (New Zealand)

Traffic June 2017
@Johnragla, I reverted your edits because I don't consider them suitable for an encyclopedia. While there is no harm in mentioning general AADT data, we don't need a full table of stats from five years of every telemetry site along the highway, particularly when the content can be accessed by a reference to the NZTA website. Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate list of stats nor is it a webhost or a transport fansite and there is no precedent to include them in the other New Zealand state highway articles. I'll give you (and any others) a chance to respond first. Ajf773 (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ajf773, Alberta_Highway_63 has 10 lines of AADT figures, compared to the 8 in my edit. In an article which is classed as a stub (and therefore by definition isn't excessively long), it seems to me that is a good example to follow. Roads are there for the passage of vehicles. Why should an encyclopaedia not refer to the extent and trend of this primary use of them? The information is on the NZTA website, but has several other columns, which makes it hard to see the trends apparent in the table. This table is far smaller than many other tables found throughout Wikipedia.

A9_(Croatia) (listed on Highways) uses both table and chart and devotes a paragraph heading devoted to volume. Featured article M62_motorway also has a heading and a chart. Maybe that's why they were featured? They are not stubs.

The Auckland Motorways information is hard to find from an internet search. The sheets contain information which is otherwise not readily available. The information could be put into a table showing bridge lengths, ages, speed limits, etc. Johnragla (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the websites in the External links section can be attached as an inline citation then it should appear as one. There is a policy that deal with external links WP:EL and currently I don't believe these links add any value to the article. Also regarding the AADT table's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies (meaning just because one article has it, doesn't mean it automatically applies elsewhere). The AADT's would be better presented in prose form instead of a stats table (that can be accessed via a website). Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Which of the 19 in External_links do you think applies? I can't see that there are any. Are you saying a table of bridges would be preferable?

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS refers to articles which have been overlooked. That can't apply to articles which have been featured. Johnragla (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to articles and content. Also per WP:EL: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links. In the "External links" section, try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site. Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked". As I explained earlier, these sites on their own serve little purpose, is there no possibility you cannot add them anywhere as a citation? Ajf773 (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The single index page link could be used, but the headings on it are almost meaningless. That's why I listed them separately. As I asked above, would a table of bridges would be preferable? Johnragla (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it would be meaningless but the individual links would be more preferably be served as references so perhaps a table of bridges could be sufficient. Ajf773 (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ok I'll add it to my list of jobs to do. Johnragla (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)