Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

RfC: Conversion to Infobox Road

This proposal consists of several parts - (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.
 * 1) Identify all issues with  and modify it for Australian usage. (Significant progress has already been made on this at WT:AURD)
 * 2) Convert articles using  to, retaining  as a backup working template if editors wish.

Survey
Survey is closed until issues have had adequate discussion.

Interested Parties
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.
 * All WP:HWY/O editors (with a few exceptions as certain editors helped discuss/propose this).
 * All WP:AUS editors.
 * All WP:HWY editors listed on the main participants page, not on a subproject like US, Canada, or Indian roads.

As well as: Or roughly 20 editors.
 * Editors who commented in previous discussions pertaining to the use of in Australian articles.

and:
 * Evad has also posted an invitation on the talk page of

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.

Nbound (talk)

Discussion Withdrawal
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)

Caveat

 * This is long overdue, and I support the proposed migration, only with the caveat that the old Australia-specific template should not be retained "as a working backup", but deleted or redirected to the more generic one; or made a shell which calls that one. Kudos to Nbound for getting this off the ground; and being willing to do the boring clerical work. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andy, in the long term I would imagine that the deletion of 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  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)

Suggestions (Mark Hurd)

 * I wasn't sure where the best place to comment was. You should put some clear places and/or create the talk pages that you'd like used. Mark Hurd (talk) 11:16, 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:
 * 1) Have the "Existed" LHS change to "Established" and drop the "-present" when the road is still in use.
 * 2) Allow "Location" to appear before "Major junctions" and ... (BTW "Route information" is currently a poor title.)
 * 3) Redundantly include From/To and
 * 4) Direction in "Location"
 * 5) Consider finding an Australian term for "Allocation", or even call it "Number" and still have the same link.
 * 6) Definitely include the "See also" and "For full list" ancillary comments and links at the end of "Major junctions". (I'm referring to the last two test cases.)

Mark Hurd (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark Hurd,
 * Large shields are available via, though we have opted to use this only for route logos (ie. the roads commercial logo, if applicable). The reasoning is below:
 * The shields are too large in comparison to the infobox title text (ie. the road name). The infobox heading size is also a standard used accross all template based on
 * The shields often dont accurately represent particular roadways, which often only traverse part of an entire "route", or have only a short stretch of various routes.
 * The information was often being duplicated in the  section, far more accurately.
 * We can also separate tourist drives with the  parameter. And give them the same accuracy.
 * It should be noted that the non-NSW alphanumerics are only small as they have not been updated yet (we have completely redone most other highway shields around the nation already - including some old former shield types). Requests for shields can be made on WT:AURD.
 * Fair enough. It was just an obvious difference and it needed clarifying that it was a deliberate move to drop them. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Existed, I am neutral on this, happy for it to go either way, lets see what others would like...
 * From/To could probably be implemented, personally though I think its a bit redundant (as you state), given roads are generally two way.
 * Location directions generally follow that of the junction listing, which is why I would generally also personally support the junction listing being first.
 * My reasoning for the alternate order was "summary" (location) then "detail" (route) seems to be a better reading order to me. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It could alternatively be moved into the route information section if there is enough support? -- Nbound (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy for suggestions to retitle "route information"
 * See also could certainly be added, we havent developed any scheme as yet to decide when would be appropriate (if you check edit history, I have actually had them in there on the M31 testcase at a previous stage too).
 * Allocation is (as far as has so far been discussed), the Australian term, we've implemented it specifically on Australia's own code. In all other areas the section is known as Component highways
 * OK, just not au fait with my own country's term for this then :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

These points are all negotiable. Nbound (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. AFAIR I'm not even a regular gnome editor of the road pages, let alone a contributor. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions from previous discussions (Bidgee)

 * I've yet to see if the issues raised with the past discussions have been addressed but one thing is "Existed", which could be "Gazetted". (this isn't a support) Bidgee (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasnt party to any of the previous discussions, for simplicity could you please summarise the issues which you beleive still require attention. I think "Gazetted" could probably be a good choice actually, assuming its relatively easy to access to government gazette or gazettal information in all states. - Nbound (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A lot was said in the previous discussions, which I briefly summarised in this post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads 2 weeks ago. An initial proposal, followed by a brief discussion resulted in a TfD, with the original discussion continuing. Eventually the TfD was withdrawn and all went quiet for 15 months with no further discussion by anyone. Then another TfD was started, but discussion was overshadowed by opposition based on the fact that there had been no consultation with WP:AUSTRALIA in the previous 15 months. Some of the initial concerns had been addressed, but others had not. I did suggest that these discussions be read "to be sure that the issues raised have been addressed before considering conversion". Summarising the concerns addressed is possible, but may take some time. I'm busy with my own proposal at WP:IAP, so I don't really have time to spare. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Its hard for us to decide what has been adequately addressed, and what are core problems, as opposed to less important ones; which is why its now being opened up to all, and we are happy to take the time required to get people aboard. The RfC isnt saying: lets swap now - its saying: Whats wrong with the template? How can it be improved? What else needs to be done to allow conversion? . People unfaimilar with previous discussions (including to an extent, myself), would benefit from the listing, I dont mind who types it up, as I do understand you personally are busy with WP:IAP, AussieLegend. - Nbound (talk) 23:48, 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)
 * Route marker used to appear above the road name
 * Fixed: The road name appears at the top. Also, it is proposed to only use 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)
 * Note: Even though we are currently preferring the allocation mechanism, any image (such as a route logo) added into the 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)


 * Standard heading text size (from infobox) is too small compared to large route marker icons
 * Not an issue, if larger route markers are not used per above. If there is desire to use them, text size can be adjusted via CSS. - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Highway system links need to be relevant
 * Links now vary based on the state parameter. Further customisation is possible if required. - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Allocation section needed
 * Was added (usage of this section can be further discussed) - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)alleged


 * IR template is more confusing/parameters have different names
 * IR also does more things than IAR. Australia specific documentation has been developed. If this is a big issue, a shell template can be built that passes its own parameters through to the IR template. Also aliases for parameters have been introduced, such as  instead of   - more can done if needed - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What on earth does "primary destinations" even mean?
 * The labels from IAusR are now used instead - unless  isn't specified, but this could be changed to a different default term. - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * must be specified
 * It now only has to be specified for WA, NT, and interstate roads, but is one extra parameter a big deal? - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Inadequate documentation (changes not documented)
 * Australia specific documentation has been written - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How can Highway 1 (Australia) be handled?
 * See the article - I added an IR infobox in December, because it could divide major junctions into sections (ie mainland and Tasmania). Because it was done 6 months ago, it isn't in exactly the same format as the testcase infoboxes - Evad37 (talk) 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: In addition to split routes (even having more than 2 sections, which can all be named individually), loop roads are also supported, and the two can even be combined. I have tested Capital Circle as a split loop road (see: Capital Circle) -- Nbound (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Order of Allocation
Is 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. Gnangarra 12:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * So far I have been following the same precedence as you would travel when following the junction list (This seems general practice aswell). On more complex routes it may be necessary to note as such, and summarise within the   area, while explaining in greater detail in the article itself. Tourist routes are separated by the   parameter, and are then treated the same way as allocations as far as coding goes. -- Nbound (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I've been following is, in general, National Highway, National Route, State Route, with tourist routes last - with exceptions allowed if a route of higher precedence is only along a short section of the road. - Evad37 (talk)
 * Shows how well I know WA roads ;) [changed my post to "I"]. -- Nbound (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Junction listing
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)

Duplexing notes

 * I noticed there is some duplexing there. Generally the duplexed sections would be listed as below (using Monaro/Snowy Mtns H'ways):


 * Monaro Highway allocations:


 * Monaro Highway (National Route 23)
 * (Canberra to )
 * Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
 * ( to )
 * Monaro Highway (National Route 23)
 * ( to NSW/Vic border)


 * Snowy Mountains Highway allocations:


 * Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
 * ( to )
 * Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
 * ( to )
 * Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
 * ( to )


 * alternatively (if short on space):


 * Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
 * (Entire length)
 * Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
 * ( to )
 * ''Please see this section in article, for more details


 * In other words, work as it is signposted. I would then mention the the duplex in further detail in the route description and the junction listing regardless of whether the note was there as in the last example or not. This allocation system is little more than the existing system with WP:ACCESS requirements added. Alternatives will be considered, if anyone wants to move away from the semi-status quo. -- Nbound (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My request hasn't been addressed. The above isn't the same as having highway duplexes in a short distance (e.g. Sturt/Olympic Highway [Wagga Wagga/Moorong (suburb) to Ashmont/Moorong (suburb)]), Cooma to Nimmitabel is a totally different kettle of fish! Bidgee (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your request will be fulfilled, I was just quickly explaining the system in use (on a highway Im more familiar with), Evad has probably gone to bed, and I am now too. It was not an attempt to deflect the request in any way :). One of us will look at it tomorrow and see what we come up with. If it is sufficiently complex we may need to rethink/modify the allocation method or refer to the appropriate article section. I will note any change here will affect both infoboxes, as existing ones still need to meet WP:ACCESS, and also have less "real estate" than . -- Nbound (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, you never even looked at other highways. It may work on a highway you have knowledge on but doesn't mean it will work on others, this is the same issue we hit with US Roads "it works for other countries and it will work for yours" reasoning. While the "design" may look good, it still has some work before it has my support. I also have concerns that new editors will not understand AUshield, let alone the complex Infobox Road. Bidgee (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please Bidgee, assume good faith, we've looked at multiple highways, all around the nation. We certainly havent looked at every highway, and we certainly havent finished implementation discussions, which is why we have opened it to the wider community. I would like to see this get through, but given what Ive seen of its past, it wont unless we all work together on it. Im not trying to force something, Ive even stated that pretty much everything is negotiable and up for discussion. I want people to be happy with this move, that cant happen if WP:AURD finishes implementation ideas and works behind closed doors, before forcing people accept it a certain way. Work with me, and lets see what we can do - Nbound (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)

Nominators thoughts
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)

Nom thoughts responses

 * ... Whilst I concur with the points made above, I think this proposal should be put on hold for at least a couple of days. This will give AussieLegend, Bidgee, and Gnangarra (and any others who choose join the discussion) a chance to leave feedback regarding the testcases, and respond to our comments on the issues from the previous discussions. Also, there is no need to rush through the RFC (which is only a few days old), or begin implementation before discussion concludes. - Evad37 (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think "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". I was puzzled as to why there wasn't more activity, even more so after I did a check and found that Nbound had actually managed to invite everyone he could to this discussion with personal messages on their talk pages. My own proposal at WP:IAP has seen very little activity, and that directly affects 7,434 articles more than this RfC does. I can only assume that the lives of many formerly active editors away from Wikipedia have to take precedence over Wikipedia, or that they are active on other projects and haven't had time to comment. I know it is the case for some editors based on emails and contribution histories. As Evad37 has said, there is no need to rush. The default duration for an RfC is 30 days. This one has been running for just over 4 days. There's plenty of time left. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasnt aware of that time limit (have edited above post accordingly), the time limit of a week was only based on the fact that there had been one comment since the 6th. I would dare say your IAP proposal isnt contentious as it is essentially a clone of the original with a nicer exterior, while this has functionality changes. BTW if i ever develop arthiritis in my clicking finger, im blaming inviting everyone personally :D. -- Nbound (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am currently inviting the remaining 80 or so users from WP:AUS who were in the unsorted and inactive sections. -- Nbound (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another 50 users have been invited from WP:HWY, (the generic participants page - not from a subproject) -- Nbound (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Currently in the middle of organising the launch of Freopedia, thats why I asked for the examples to be done, I havent yet had time to review them or any of the other discussions taking place here, I'll find time to have a look but I remember the previous fiascoes both with this and Australian place infoboxes this rfc is good way to resolve issues beforehand dont rush it because that only makes people oppose on issues that could/should have been resolved. Gnangarra 00:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Freopedia looks pretty cool, hope it goes well :) - Nbound (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * having read thru all of this and looked at examples I cant think of any major concerns, nor minor ones that havent been addressed or being addressed in the RFC. If/When you want a closing support just ping my user page Gnangarra 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * withdrawning my unconditional support as it appears that discussion on this isnt addressing concerns raised but rather choosing to use personal attacks(noting appology was given for PA) to dismiss them. Gnangarra 11:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * – 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.
 * – 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)
 * To alay the fears of any other editors here as to my allegded conduct, I am withdrawing myself from this discussion (a larger statement has been posted above) - Nbound (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gnangarra, we appreciate your time and input. - Nbound (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't had a chance to look at it, I'm extremely busy with a very heavy work load. I'm unsure when I'll get enough spare time to have a good look at it. Bidgee (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My involvement with the Infobox Australian place upgrade (now implemented) has meant I haven't fully followed this but I have a question about something that you've said above. "Infobox road provides more functionality, and some articles even require it already, as IAusR cannot perform as required." What functionality are you referring to, and can you give examples please? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC).


 * Sure, I will concede that most of these could be implemented in IAusR given time and a keen coder, but that again goes into the duplication of effort I mentioned aswell. Examples are just what I can think of, off the top of my head - there are likely many others throughout the nation.
 * Loop roads - State Circle - this doesnt have a test revision - but basic usage here (US) - Doesnt have to be called beltway (there are a couple of other choices like "loop road"), i have even gotten them to add "tourist loop" for the ACT tourist routes aswell)
 * Split roads - Highway 1 (Australia) - each split section can be named separately
 * Split loop roads - Capital Circle - each split section can still be named separately
 * Restrictions are overly specific in IAusR which leaves out some things (like snow closures/chain requirements) - Alpine Way - this functionality was expanded by IR from the IAusR infobox various restrictions (permits, fuel) - can and should be expanded on within the article itself. There are some roads which close down for months (snow, wet season, etc.), and this information is pretty important to have up front IMHO.
 * Segregation of Tourist Routes from standard allocations (these are poorly displayed in most of our displayed testcases as this information is lacking in many current boxes presumably as too messy) - a good example here:
 * Alternate road names -
 * Maintenance agency - there is a relatively complex WA example in the testcases, but for many roads this would consist of a single agency eg. TAMS.
 * Assigning directions to road ends. 'From' and 'To' are a little odd on a two-way road. (IR removes the ends for loop roads for obvious reasons also)
 * History section for more complex road histories than can be provided by a single date -
 * Better aesthetics when meeting WP:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD requirements (due to larger area, and also better spacing of sections).
 * Route browser functionality if ever required.
 * Possibly others I cant think of aswell. Evad might have some more that Ive missed. If you want to read up on the parameters see here. Nbound (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some more points:
 * Custom alt text can be added to the map/photo via map_alt / photo_alt
 * Ability to add a ref after the length, via length_ref
 * Can control the precision of the converted length - eg could avoid Mouat Street showing up as "0.3 km (0 mi)", or prevent the miles measurement being more precise than the km measurement it was converted from
 * System links are included at the bottom of the infobox (varies based on state, could be further customised)
 * - Evad37 (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * AussieLegend, if you are planning to update IAusR to essentially replicate IR, why not just use IR? I would oppose it on the grounds there is no reason to duplicate our efforts compared to the rest of Wikipedia (the normal course of action when pages duplicate is to WP:MERGE anyway). The crux of the opposition argument thus far had been that IR wasnt meeting Australian requirements?! Theres no reason why your coding skills cant be reused on infobox road itself, for any future AUS specific requests (Sincere apologies if I have misjudged your motives here) -- Nbound (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a stated requirement that Infobox Australian road be retained as a working backup - you've opposed deletion of the template yourself for that very reason. Unfortunately, Infobox Australian road was built on the same code used for Infobox Australian place, it's old and needs replacing, which is why I updated IAP. We're not going to be migrating articles to IR any time soon, although I note some articles already use IR. At the present time, there are 486 489 articles using Infobox Australian road (it seems to climb every day) and it's going to take a long time to migrate articles using it, especially since there are a lot of errors that have to be fixed while doing so. In the meantime, we should ensure that IAR will continue to work in the future and if we can add some functionality that makes the migration to IR a little easier, why not do so? It's hardly duplication of effort. Infobox road is an incredibly complex template. I once helped write an operating system that could track 100 individual targets in real time at ranges of up to 445km, up to 55,000ft AMSL (I think that's about 10.4 million km3) and at maximum speeds of more than 9,000km/h and it wasn't as complex as Infobox road. In any case, as the new code for IAP already exists, so does replacement code for IAR, since it would be built from that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just adding that restrictions are overly specific in IAR because they were parameters imported from Infobox Outback Track when I merged the two in January 2012. They, like many of the parameters that are only now seemingly desirable or essential, had never been requested. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can I construe that as a conversion support then? I did actually mean as-is in the proposal (though it wasn't specifically stated, I do admit), as I didnt expect someone would want it to become IR AU edition. I would be happy for you to keep IAusR up-to-date while the conversion occured as a backup for any rogue roads that may appear, but it would seem alot of effort to go to, so as to retain functionality for a handful of articles (if that) [the extra inputs are unlikely to be used on a significant number of roads, between now and proposed conversion], and when the existing template isnt going to break tomorrow? Regardless, I can assure you we would get through the list of articles very quickly; after that, then go back and see which articles for any reason required IAusR retained, consult with editors, fix problems, then, and only then would IAusR be proposed for deletion (in a completely separate discussion). -- Nbound (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When converting IAP I looked at some other templates to see if there was a better way of doing things. One of those was IR. One of the biggest concerns I have is the complexity of the code. It can be very hard to follow. While it may be supportable now, will the people driving it (no pun intended) still be around in a few years? I've seen it happen far too often over the past 30 odd years that people move on and somebody else has to try to sort out the mess, so I have some reservations about IR based on experience. Look at IAP for example. None of the people I expected to comment have said a word and yet, only months ago they were all very active. There are some things that IR does that I definitely don't like, and I'm seeing if there is a better way for it to be done. If not, I can't support migration. At the moment there is no cross compatibility between IR and IAR and that's a concern too. I think your idea of "very quickly" might be amitious. How long do you expect migration to take? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I would expect initial conversion to take a few weeks (3-6 perhaps), perhaps quicker. Considering IR is transcluded on many more articles than IAusR or IAP, and supported by a much larger base, the chances of all its coders disappearing within a short period is much lower than the other templates, not higher. You arent the only coder in Aus with the skills to create a functional template; and there are many more editors with those skills in the US/CAN/UK/NZ. You are still claiming IR does things that you dont like, can you list them? I am aware of how the specific restrictions were imported, there is no reason why they cant be transferred to single solution input. You now need to add a new template input everytime a new road restriction is found. You may need add ones for single road cases. You claim that you are adding features to ease conversion, yet cant give a support for the said conversion? If you want to recode the way infobox road does something, why not make a sandbox and fix it up, merge your fixes into the mainline code, work with the existing group of editors, we dont need to duplicate our efforts and create two templates that work essentially the same way, and then need to be updated independently of each other each time someone creates a nifty new function, and which would probably end up being WP:MERGED sooner or later. -- Nbound (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In relation to have to fix errors on each page, there would be no reason for that to be done by the converting editors (unless glaringly obvious), it would be up to the editors involved with each page (as it always has been) to keep templates upto date. WP:AURD members may get around to fixing up errors on every page in some future taskforce, or project of the group. A bigger conversion down the line will be making sure that junction lists conform to MOS:RJL requirements, which will require much more fact checking than the infobox conversions. Another big conversion will be the updating of NSW articles to be alphanumeric before the end of the year. I for one wont be shirking either of these off. Conversion to IR/MOS:RJL also gives the opportunity for conversion of shielding to the AUshielding template, which can greatly simplify maintenance issues with any future shield changes. - Nbound (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not worrying about IR coders disappearing in the short term, it's the long term that concerns me. As I said, it's an incredibly complex template that requires intimate knowledge. By contrast, Infobox television, which is transcluded to 27,000 articles with multiple transclusions on each page (roughly 550,000 actual transclusions) uses much simpler code that can be understood by anyone, as is Infobox settlement (324,406 transclusions), just to name two. I haven't chosen to list my reservations yet because I'm still in the process of evaluating IR; to do so now would be improper. As has been pointed out above, we're not in a hurry. We can take as long as we want, and we should do any migration properly. If doing it slowly returns the best result, then we should do it slowly, and if we have an updated IAR then progressive fixes and upgrades can be made to articles as they are noticed. We don't need to wait until they are migrated. I really have no interest in attempting to work with IR code, the work I'm doing at the moment is simply a coding exercise and if I can come up with something practical as a result, then that's so much better. There's also no need to update the two templates "independently of each other each time someone creates a nifty new function". If all articles are converted then there will need to be no further work on IAR. This is a short term thing, unless the decision of the RfC is not to migrate. Of course RfCs are non-binding, so the result of the RfC is only a guide so I wouldn't worry too much about a lack of support for migration. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Im just confused as to your intentions; can you please list, preferably in clear dot point form, how you would prefer to see everything to progress from here on. I will let you know my thoughts on each point. - Nbound (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox road has a set of technical notes explaining the inner workings of template and its subtemplates. Perhaps the notes could be improved. - Evad37 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, Infobox road isn't the most complicated template I've seen. I now have a pretty good understanding of how it works, as opposed to Jct (not used in Australian road articles), which is far more complex - Evad37 (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Evad has been here less than a year and he has a basic working understanding of infobox road. He wouldnt be the only "new" member who has taken this path. Short of some pending armageddon, there will always be editors who can fix such templates. I did a partial IT degree a long time ago aswell, and Im sure I could step up to the plate and make changes to IR if all other editors went on strike or something (I just havent bothered to familiarise myself overly much with wikipedia template coding) -- Nbound (talk)
 * I'm not ready to list what I'd like to see, as I'm still evaluating. When I am ready, I'll comment. Nbound, I understand where you're coming from but perhaps you miss the point of an RfC, it's not so one editor can evaluate the preferences of others, it's so outside editors can provide comment on the nominator's request, hence the name. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats not what Im proposing, those who have commented here have evaluated the propositions of WP:AURD. We have the equal right to comment on any counter-propositions. The whole point of an RfC is to try and establish consensus, thats a little hard if we cant comment on each others ideas, and discuss the topic at hand. Its even harder if the ideas arent being posted, how is the greater community meant to work with that. Surely you have some idea as to what your future proposition is, else you wouldnt be chasing it. It doesnt matter if it doesnt come to fruition, at least give those here a chance to comment on it. Announcing wide-ranging changes with little notice, down the line, is rife with danger for your potential ideas (which could be great ideas), surely we can all learn by the previous American attempts at the conversion of IAusR... -- Nbound (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, we have at least 23 days left for the RfC. Don't be in such a hurry to push other editors to comment when they are not ready. As I've already explained, my time has been taken up with the IAP upgrades, so I've really only had a few days to look at this. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AussieLegend's evaluation and comments
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:
 * Loop roads - Infobox road is rather messy in the way that it handles these. In the event that more than one of,  ,  , or   are selected (not at all unusual) the infobox displays the headings for all options in sequence, resulting in "Beltway around beltwayOrbital around orbitalLoop 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.
 * "Split roads - Highway 1 (Australia) - each split section can be named separately" - Infobox road is inconsistent here. In the example, which I grabbed from Highway 1 (Australia), the  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.
 * "Route browser functionality if ever required" - I'm sure there are lots of things that you could use "if ever required" but this is really an insignificant issue.
 * "Can control the precision of the converted length" - This was raised at Template talk:Infobox Australian road and a fix has been implemented in Infobox Australian road already. See Mouat Street, which now shows the length os "0.3 km (0.2 mi)".
 * "System links are included at the bottom of the infobox (varies based on state, could be further customised)" - This is one "nice to have" that I considered a plus at the last TfD. However, links should only be shown when  = "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:
 * LGA links - Infobox road only has a generic tooltip saying "Local Government Area". The capitalisation is incorrect and should be "Local government area". (Capitalisation was discussed at AWNB and has been fixed in most articles) In Infobox Australian place we link to the article for each state, to give the reader a better understanding of Local government in Australia. (see examples)
 * Jervis Bay Territory is a territory of Australia but, inexplicably, was missing from Infobox Australian place but that has now been corrected. Although we don't seem to have any road articles for the area, it really should be catered for, for consistency.
 * Both Infobox Australian road and Infobox road have the ability to display location maps, but these are sadly lacking for most Australian roads, and creating them is a big task. It has become extremely common to use a locator map in articles as a visual identification of the location of places, buildings, natural features etc., and this is also a partial solution to the problem of missing location maps. While it's not possible to generate a map of the road, it is possible to display the two end points of most roads or, for short roads, a single point showing the general location of a road within a geographical area. (see examples)

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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of AussieLegend's work

 * Definately a much improved IAusR, and I commend your efforts. My thoughts on it:
 * Reading through your points, I really cant imagine any of these being controversial as suggested edits for IR. I will suggest them as enhancements.
 * I do agree locator maps would be a good idea for all roads where an actual route map is lacking (on either template). As long as the background images are bought back upto date. As an example,the ACT one doesnt have urbanised area for :the 50,000 or so residents who reside in Gungahlin. Other cities may be similarly affected.
 * My only real beef with it is, it brings the two boxes closer together than ever, and makes either a good candidate for merger with the other. With the usages being so close, is there any need at all to have two equivalent boxes, thats already the basic point of the current discussion, and these IAusR enhancements lessen the differences.
 * I dont think this box is useless, it could be used to smoothen any transition, as moreso than ever, inputs on it could be directly copied to IR.
 * In regards to the improved template. There are some relatively minor issues with some of it (as to be expected), but these could be fixed in future if need be
 * Evad may have his own opinions in regards to this updated box, these are my personal opinions only -- Nbound (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As Evad below has stated, I also respect your right to change your comments, I understand this is not a final statement on your behalf -- Nbound (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While it may look the same, it's a different infobox, highly customised for Australia and, unlike IR, it's 100% backward compatible with the current WP:IARD, except for some very minor changes in appearance. The look is more a case of being built from Infobox, which is what all infoboxes, or at least the vast majority, should be built from, to give Wikipedia a consistent look and feel. It also doesn't use some of the U.S. driven terminology, like "beltway" and "terminus". With the new code, we only need a single infobox, there's no need for separate Infobox Australian street and Infobox Australian road small as apparently there is with Infobox road. And, while Evad37 may have his own opinions, it's not only him that gets to have an input. You keep referring to him only, but there are several other editors who have contributed here, and several who haven't, and you consistently omit them from any discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am refering to him as we both come from WP:AURD where this idea was (re-)born, and Im trying not to let our opinions (and that of AURD) become intertwined, as he has contributed significantly in both how this proposal was put forward, housekeeping, testcase creation, and so on. Some of what I have stated is the opinion of WP:AURD, some of what I have stated is my personal opinion, I am merely trying to be clear, and not bring undue weight to anything I have to say. If you like I can remove the reference to him, and just state "these are my personal opinions only". It was not my intention to make anyone feel excluded, and if this is the case, I apologise. -- Nbound (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to the coding differences, I am aware of these, but I am still unconvinced that these are required. Despite your claims previously, I can see no reason that infobox road will become unusable due to lack of editors capable of understanding its code in the future. Any remaining US specific terminologies can be dealt with and removed as that have already been so far. -- Nbound (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont personally have usability issues with your template, but others may, (Bidgee noted this as a possible issue for newcomers to IR earlier) as it contains more inputs than either the current IAusR or IR. -- Nbound (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because I raised the IR usability issues, doesn't mean that they apply with AussieLegend's proposed infobox. Also remember that you claim the IR's US centric documentation is good enough for the proposed Australian use, the IR's documentation isn't easy for regular editors to use. The other issue with IR is that we need to go to US Roads to get changes done, we know what that has been like in the past. Bidgee (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)As well as the two of you, there are 5 other listed members of AURD aside from me, plus Bidgee. Unfortunately your comments do exclude others. RfCs are for all members of the community, anyone may contribute. They don't need to be from AURD. The coding issue that I mentioned a few days ago is something I still think could be a problem, but my evaluation doesn't deal with that. I've tried to concentrate on current problems with IR and what really should be added to address the problems of the current IARD. I can't support migration until IR complies with those. Editors will not have any problems with the new code if they don't have any with the existing code. As I've pointed out above, the new code is 100% backward compatible with the existing template. The testcases demonstrate this. (Or you can just check it out on any live article) All of the new parameters are completely optional, while IR is a completely new template with a completely different parameter set. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I havent claimed that people cant comment. Infact, Ive very specifically stated, repeatedly, that all issues were open for comment, even if they had been previously discussed on WP:AURD. Part of that was even stated in the opening part of this very RfC. All I did was try to separate my own opinions from those of Evad, or WP:AURD. In other words, I was trying to give my own words less weight, not more. .As I have stated previously, I am happy to remove the reference to Evad from the post if you wish. As further evidence of my good faith in this regard it should also be noted that I invited several hundred editors to this RfC by hand, hardly the behaviour of someone who would wish to silence those not from WP:AURD. -- Nbound (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as the complexity issue goes, I agree with your view insofar as existing templates, the complexity would come from the new functionality, not the old. I wont comment any further than that as it is not a specific problem I have with your IAusR, just a possibility from others given previous posts. Im sure Bidgee (or someone else), will let us know if there is an issue (or not) with your IAusR. --- Nbound (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A small point regarding "My only real beef with it is, it brings the two boxes closer together than ever, and makes either a good candidate for merger with the other", I'm afraid that possibility was put in place with the original question regarding migration to IR. At that time, upgrading the IARD code was already in consideration, as a result of the merge with Infobox Outback Track. Any changes to IR, regardless of how badly it can't do what we need, are likely to prompt a TfD, as two previous TfDs demonstrate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion could be used to show that infobox australian road is not to be deleted until some point post conversion. And yes, if this proposal is succesful, I would vote in favour of keeping IAusR per this RfC, until any final niggles were worked out, and it became actually became a redundant template. The previous two TfDs were as a result of WP:HWY users trying to standardise all boxes and were made with little discussion with the users that were affected in individual nations, a big mistake on their behalf. One that Im trying not to repeat. If there are still things that IR cannot do, let us know what they are, and we can attempt to fix them if others are in agreement. The first point of the RfC is to "Identify all issues with 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)
 * I would like to also, remove any doubt, and reiterate my support for the updated template as a very good tool to ease conversion (if RfC successful). Even if the RfC isnt successful, its a pretty big improvement on the former template, and i commend AussieLegend on his work. - Nbound (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I havent claimed that people cant comment. Infact, Ive very specifically stated, repeatedly, that all issues were open for comment, even if they had been previously discussed on WP:AURD. Part of that was even stated in the opening part of this very RfC. All I did was try to separate my own opinions from those of Evad, or WP:AURD. In other words, I was trying to give my own words less weight, not more. .As I have stated previously, I am happy to remove the reference to Evad from the post if you wish. As further evidence of my good faith in this regard it should also be noted that I invited several hundred editors to this RfC by hand, hardly the behaviour of someone who would wish to silence those not from WP:AURD. -- Nbound (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as the complexity issue goes, I agree with your view insofar as existing templates, the complexity would come from the new functionality, not the old. I wont comment any further than that as it is not a specific problem I have with your IAusR, just a possibility from others given previous posts. Im sure Bidgee (or someone else), will let us know if there is an issue (or not) with your IAusR. --- Nbound (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A small point regarding "My only real beef with it is, it brings the two boxes closer together than ever, and makes either a good candidate for merger with the other", I'm afraid that possibility was put in place with the original question regarding migration to IR. At that time, upgrading the IARD code was already in consideration, as a result of the merge with Infobox Outback Track. Any changes to IR, regardless of how badly it can't do what we need, are likely to prompt a TfD, as two previous TfDs demonstrate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This discussion could be used to show that infobox australian road is not to be deleted until some point post conversion. And yes, if this proposal is succesful, I would vote in favour of keeping IAusR per this RfC, until any final niggles were worked out, and it became actually became a redundant template. The previous two TfDs were as a result of WP:HWY users trying to standardise all boxes and were made with little discussion with the users that were affected in individual nations, a big mistake on their behalf. One that Im trying not to repeat. If there are still things that IR cannot do, let us know what they are, and we can attempt to fix them if others are in agreement. The first point of the RfC is to "Identify all issues with 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)
 * I would like to also, remove any doubt, and reiterate my support for the updated template as a very good tool to ease conversion (if RfC successful). Even if the RfC isnt successful, its a pretty big improvement on the former template, and i commend AussieLegend on his work. - Nbound (talk) 00:55, 19 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)
 * Loop roads: Yes, only one term should be displayed at a time, and ring road should be an option. This has been fixed in the sandbox:
 * Split roads: There isn't actually anything wrong with Infobox road, Highway 1 (Australia) just wasn't using the proper implementation of sections. I have now fixed this in the article
 * Route browser functionality: Agree that this isn't really an issue, and I can't see this being used for Australian roads
 * System links: Have now turned off the system links, unless  is freeway, highway, or city highway. The infobox road sandbox code also turns off the "Highway system" heading
 * LGA - fixed in infobox road sandbox, see Mitchell Freeway testcase
 * locator map Hmm, definitely not an ideal solution, only showing endpoints on a statewide map, or map of the whole country. I haven't yet looked at how the coding of locator maps work. If this was to be used, I think the output should be suppressed if a location map image is specified.
 * The changes that you had to make to Highway 1 (Australia) seem to demonstrate some basic usability issues that Bidgee was concerned about. If you're going to get it wrong, how will the average editor make out? I agree that locator maps aren't the ideal solution, at least for long roads. For short roads, route maps are probably excessive and I doubt that we'll ever see them for all roads. There is another option that I discovered today, but I haven't investigated the implementation of it as of yet. The locator maps that I've implemented also generate coordinate data automatically - this is sadly lacking in many articles. If the maps are turned off, the coordinate data needs to be generated manually. I realise that a lot of the identified problems have been fixed in the IR sandbox, but we need to ensure that they work in the live version of IR, and that they won't cause problems before migration can commence. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another problem I have with IR is not only the documentation (unlike IAusR) US centric and confusing, is the fact that US Roads has full control of IR and can make changes without our say and also block us from making changes. I'm watching AussieLegend's proposal closely and leaning towards it over IR. Bidgee (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is Australia-specific documentation (being) developed here. If this proposal was to be sucessful, there would be a prominent link to the Australia-specific documentation at the top of the standard documentation. - Evad37 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Those changes to Highway 1's infobox were only necessary because that infobox was added last December (and very few changes made after that). That was way before this discussion started, and before the Australia-specific documentation (currently on the testcases page) was written. I assume most people would copy the blank template from the documentation page, and fill in the blanks according to the documentation. In any case, the parameters (direction_a#, end_a#, etc) are the same as you are proposing in Template:Infobox Australian road/sandbox, so I don't see how, in this regard, infobox road would be any more complicated
 * Ideally, KML would be used instead of coordinates, as roads are line items, not point items. However, coordinates should obviously be retained until KML data has been generated. And the coordinates entered could still be used to automatically generate coordinate data, even if the locator map is not displayed. It would be interesting if KML could be displayed in the locator maps, but I don't know if that is possible.
 * I agree that any changes made to the infobox road sandbox will need to be working in the live version without problems before any migration. However, we should probably wait and see if there are other changes we want to make before discussing/making an edit request for the live version. - Evad37 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What I haven't proposed is use of, 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   instead of.
 * "I assume most people would copy the blank template from the documentation page" - Don't assume, most editors copy code from other articles. It's a problem I have to fix constantly, along with problems caused by misinterpreting documentation. The additional documentation required for IR is bound to be problematic. It always has been in the past.
 * "we should probably wait and see if there are other changes we want to make before discussing/making an edit request for the live version." - Therein lies the big advantage with the project maintaining its own template, we can make changes and fixes on the fly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * is available in infobox road, and all the testcases I've made use end_x, not terminus_x
 * OK, point taken about assumptions. You've been around here a lot longer than I have. But if people copy templates from other articles without looking at documentation, then that's going to be a problem no matter which template is used. And additional documentation is a consequence of additional features - the changes you are proposing for Infobox Asutralian road will require additional documentation.
 * What I meant by the last point was that rather than making incremental changes to the live template as we go through this dicussion, it would be better to try to make all necessary changes to the sandbox version, and then have only one update to the live version. And while infobox road is protected, that is because it is a high-risk template - any admin can make minor, uncontroversial changes such as those in the diffs above. (Also, shouldn't IAusR be at least semi-protected per the same policy?)
 * Not having complete control is really the one thing that can't be changed about infobox road. Everything else can solved - we could even rename parameters or disallow the use of parameters such as terminus_x by having a wrapper template pass its own parameters through to infobox road. But since it is used in so many countries, any major changes have to be discussed with editors from across the world. We have policies such as WP:OWN and WP:CON which, if followed, should keep everything in check (though I accept enforcing them is another matter). Also, there are many things Australian editors do not have control over that effect Australian articles, such as the WP:MOS and WP:GNG. Ultimately, is not having complete local control a deal breaker? - Evad37 (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The documentation for the code I've written is complete, and consistent with the documentation for Infobox Australian place, Australia's other main infobox. It's more detailed than really should be necessary, but that's to minimise the risk of errors. The problem with copying templates from one article to another is exacerbated with a template like infobox road, there's no guarantee that an infobox will be copied from an Australian article, with the result that terminology and distances etc may be wrong. We've seen this with Australian articles that had used Infobox settlement rather than . 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. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Use of KML data seemed like such a good idea, I've added the functionality to the Infobox Australian road sandbox. There is a fair amount of data available, but it's currently hidden amongst hundreds of examples at Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Attached KML/. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Effects of Lua and Wikidata?
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)


 * Hi Dl2000, the discussion here has stalled (and may not be on many people's watchlists anymore), and is effectively abandoned. We have instead refocused on the redevelopment of (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)
 * We are actually doing a lot of work on this in the US and Germany at d:WD:HWY. The first field populated through Wikidata (maps) went live this weekend for Template:Infobox road on both the English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia, adding several Germany road maps that were never included on the English Wikipedia. As has been mentioned previously, since the Australian Roads WikiProject has chosen to not use the worldwide template, the maintainers of Infobox road will not be supporting efforts to convert Template:Infobox Australian road to either Lua or Wikidata. --Rschen7754 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Conversion testcases

 * ''Main page: WikiProject Australian Roads/Infobox testcases

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:


 * Current
 * Roe Highway
 * Great Eastern Highway
 * Hume Highway (post-alphanumeric)
 * Great Northern Highway
 * Albany Highway
 * Olympic Highway
 * Newell Highway
 * Calder Highway
 * Alpine Way (basic restrictions use)
 * Sydney-Newcastle Freeway ( also following WP:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD requirements)
 * Sturt Highway - See notes below
 * 


 * Archive 1
 * Mitchell Freeway

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 documentation is also available at the bottom of the testcases page.

Gnangarra's requests
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. Gnangarra 11:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I will start making these - Evad37 (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bidgee's requests
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)
 * Sturt Highway: What specific thing do you wish to see demonstrated by this road? The existing infobox is missing duplex information and there isnt an AU-type or MOS-type junction list (I am assuming per the Olympic Highway request, the main interest was duplexes). Converting it as-is would result in a relatively run-of-the-mill infobox (which I/Evad would also be happy to create, if thats what is desired). -- Nbound (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rickyrab's deferrence
I'll defer to Australians and others familiar with Australian roads on this infobox controversy. &mdash; Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)