Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

RfC: Conversion to {{Infobox Road}}

This proposal consists of several parts -

1. Identify all issues with {{Infobox Road}} and modify it for Australian usage. (Significant progress has already been made on this at WT:AURD)
2. Convert articles using {{Infobox Australian road}} to {{Infobox Road}}, retaining {{Infobox Australian road}} as a backup working template if editors wish.

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

Survey is closed until issues have had adequate discussion.

Discussion (Post your concerns here)

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:

• 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.

Or roughly 380 editors from those Wikiprojects.

As well as:

• Editors who commented in previous discussions pertaining to the use of {{infobox road}} in Australian articles.

Or roughly 20 editors.

and:

• Evad has also posted an invitation on the talk page of {{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.

Nbound (talk)

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 {{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)

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.)
   1. Redundantly include From/To and
   2. Direction in "Location"
3. Consider finding an Australian term for "Allocation", or even call it "Number" and still have the same link.
4. 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 |marker_image=, 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 {{infobox}}
• 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 |allocation= section, far more accurately.
• We can also separate tourist drives with the |tourist= 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 {{infobox road}} 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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)

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 end_a instead of terminus_a - 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 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 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 {{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)

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 Cooma)
• Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
• (Cooma to Nimmitabel)
• Monaro Highway (National Route 23)
• (Nimmitabel to NSW/Vic border)

Snowy Mountains Highway allocations:

• Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
• (Mundarlo to Cooma)
• Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
• (Cooma to Nimmitabel)
• Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
• (Nimmitabel to Bega)

alternatively (if short on space):

• Snowy Mountains Highway (National Route 18)
• (Entire length)
• Monaro Highway (National Route 23 / National Route 18)
• (Cooma to Nimmitabel)
• 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 {{infobox road}}. -- 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)

{{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)

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. --AussieLegend (✉) 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)

Thanks Gnangarra, we appreciate your time and input. - Nbound (talk) 13:24, 12 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? --AussieLegend (✉) 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: Northbourne Avenue (test revision)
• Alternate road names - Gungahlin Drive Extension (test revision)
• 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 - Gungahlin Drive Extension (test revision)
• 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.[1] 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 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. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 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? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Conversion testcases

Main page: Wikipedia: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: Template:Multicol

Current

• Roe Highway
• Great Eastern Highway
• Hume Highway (post-alphanumeric)
• Great Northern Highway  Done
• Albany Highway  Done
• Olympic Highway  Done
• Newell Highway  Done
• Calder Highway  Done
• Alpine Way (basic restrictions use)
• Sydney-Newcastle Freeway ({{infobox Australian road}} also following WP:ACCESS and MOS:BOLD requirements)
• Sturt Highway - See notes below
• <Your request here>

Archive 1

• Mitchell Freeway

Template:Multicol-end 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.

Conversion request notes

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)