Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads/Standards/Australian road junction lists

Comments and/or suggestions
The following items are based on my limited experience as a user of the AU RJL template (NSW version), my extensive experience as a user of AU roads, and some personal preferences perhaps moulded by those experiences.Downsize43 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

RJL should not try to be a route card
The advice in this article includes the following: "Include all junctions where a turn is required to stay on the road"

On many rural roads this could result in a large number of intersections being listed, when the reality is that the existing road signs (and often the nature of the road surfaces) clearly indicate the "main drag" to any reasonably intelligent user. Many of these intersections are also clearly marked on "road atlas" type maps and are known to GPS systems.

My suggestion: Remove this requirement.Downsize43 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rather than removing it, I would suggest making it a suggestion, decided on a case-by-case basis, something like:


 * Junctions where a turn is required to stay on the road may be included, if it will not make the list too long. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis, based on consensus at individual articles.
 * - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didnt think we were adhering to guidelines so heavily anyway - I dont think we need to change them - It could be more explicit that it is a guide rather than a recipe though. (Even though there is two boxes already stating as such) -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your views - I will now feel more comfortable with how I have approached this element.Downsize43 (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Blindly following MOS:RJL when there is conflict is a bad idea
Under "Destinations" MOS:RJL states: "Routes not indicated on the guide signs may be included in parentheses."

In some AU states the practice is to use names in parentheses on signs to mean: "To get to this place you need to turn here, but be aware that there will then be another turnoff that you must take".

My suggestion: Ignore MOS:RJL in this instance, and use parentheses as above or not at all.Downsize43 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * MOS:RJL is a guideline and part of the MOS, with the consensus of a larger number or people, whereas this is basically an essay page. So generally, if there is something wrong with MOS:RJL, or other parts of the MOS, it should be brought up for discussion at those pages. In this case, the "may" indicates it is optional advice in MOS:RJL, so we can add a subpoint to this page, such as:


 * Do not use parentheses around any destinations. The meaning of parenthesis may vary from country to country, so if the information indicated by them is important, include a note in the notes.
 * - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In NSW I list classified roads only, sometimes the classified road will have a local street name at an intersection within a towns urban area - in such cases I list "Foo Street north - Foobar City (via Mt Fooey Foo Rd) " as Foo Street isnt going to take you the 200km to Foobar City, but it is part of the classified road. -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Having read some of the threads on the MOS:RJL talk page I think I shall not go there.Downsize43 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Avoid redlinks (sure I've read this somewhere before)
For the location column the following phrase is included: (or redlinked if the article does not yet exist)

My suggestion: Use the "location_special" parameter to avoid redlinks.Downsize43 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In general there is nothing wrong with redlinks, they indicated a topic that should have an article, but doesn't yet. Per Red link, they are generally useful, and only certain types of red links should be avoided, such as in the See also section or navboxes. - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing wrong with redlinks per Evad. These should be kept as such so other editors can create articles for affected suburbs -- Nbound (talk) 06:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I prefer no redlink for a small locality that is unlikely to ever have an article (sometimes these are merely empty paddocks that may once have had some form of settlement)Downsize43 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt any legal suburb/locality is unlikely to ever not receive an article. Just my 2c. -- Nbound (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I respect your view; however, take a look at "Wallanthery, New South Wales", the locality where the Lachlan Valley Way intersects with the Kidman Way 32 km north-east of Hillston, New South Wales. There is nothing there but paddocks, bush, watercourses, and the aforementioned roads. IMHO it will never be notable enough to have is own article.Downsize43 (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The current WP view is that all legally defined locations are considered notable (Correct me if Im wrong). Locations are usually notable by whats contained in them, so all it takes is someone to write essentially what you've said, then - perhaps add a picture, mention the lake on the southern boundary, the ridge, Nombinnie Nature Reserve, past history (who first explored for example, pre-1788 indigenous people, when and how was it connected to the rest of the state - those roads didnt always exist), and anything else that happens in the future (perhaps a farm in the area could become famous for great produce [or a disease outbreak]) -- Nbound (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have taken your advice and set some redlinks. For now I will pass on creating new articles.Downsize43 (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Use common sense when listing destinations
MOS:RJL states: "Locations and roads as presented on guide signs for the junction. Other locations should not be listed unless that location is extremely notable and well known"

This article says: "The Destinations column lists intersecting roads, and destinations that can be reached by turning onto those roads - the sort of information that would be seen on a big green directional sign."

In AU most big green signs show the next sizeable town, perhaps the one after, and some far distant large city, while not mentioning smaller but closer localities that may be of more interest to the traveler. Also, even with the use of Google Street View it is not always possible to know what is on every relevant sign.

My suggestion: Encourage the use of common sense when deciding what destinations to list.Downsize43 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant the sort of information you might expect to see on big green signs at intersections (especially in urban areas where highway tend to have more signs with more information), even though such a sign might not exist at the specific location, or only have information for one of the directions. Adding the phrase "use common sense when deciding what destinations to list" is probably a good idea. - Evad37 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The RJL isnt supposed to list every locality on the way, its a breakdown of the road only, not a list of attractions. I list whats on the signs, occasionally other inclusions may be made per the MOS, or sometimes a road will be name "Foosville Rd" without a green arrow for Foosville for some reason, sometimes I'll add those too. If a nearby locality or attraction is mentioned in the article without violating WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not... (in this case) ...a travel guide). Then it may be worth adding in some circumstances. Some editors are more picky as to what would violate that. But anything that reads like a wikivoyage page is a bad start XD -- Nbound (talk) 06:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This is also why the RD is generally relatively dry. -- Nbound (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I am comfortable with continuing as I have done to date.Downsize43 (talk) 11:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

LGA= is not a valid parameter for
Thus the following code does not give the desired result:

Downsize43 (talk) 04:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For bridge entries, you would usually use the river as the location - spanning across the LGA and location (and if applicable, state) columns, and the bridge name as the destination - spanning across the notes column. For examples, see the table for Kwinana Freeway or Tonkin Highway. In this case, it should be


 * If the length of the bridge is known, km2 can be used. - Evad37 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is true, but I was trying to emulate the formatting in Kwinana Freeway where the river is not on an LGA boundary, and the actual LGA and Locality names are shown, with the river name in the Bridge columns. It works OK where the river is not the first entry for the LGA, but not where it is the first entry for the LGA. Downsize43 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, you would be better of using NSWint (or the equivalent template for other states), with the bridge parameter instead of road

becomes
 * - Evad37 (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks muchly. I actually had the thought to try that about midnight, but decided to wait till a civilized hour. Downsize43 (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)