User talk:Evad37

User page: This is a Wikipedia user page, not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Evad37.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 4 as User talk:Evad37/Archive 3 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

My Message Policy If I left you a message: I would prefer you to answer on your talk page.  You may notify me using {{ping}}, or by placing {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk page. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page.  If I want you to reply, I may place {{Talkback|Evad37|<section>|<timestamp>}} on your talk page, unless you specifically request otherwise.

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flinders Highway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 08:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South Gippsland Highway may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s and 4 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 06:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 18, 2014)

Fresh produce in a grocery store Hello, Evad37. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Grocery store Previous selections: Exploration • Festival Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Evad37 (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC) •

Thanks for the heads up

Why would my signature not include my user page? I will try and fix that right now. Thanks.--Simplysavvy 06:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplysavvy (talk • contribs)

This week's article for improvement (week 19, 2014)

Filming of a travel documentary Hello, Evad37. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Travel documentary Previous selections: Grocery store • Exploration Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC) •

Categorization of roads

Should an article about a road be in the same-named category? I can see the sense the logic of both of:

• Yes
• No, but the category has {{cat main}}. (Although this only links from the cat to the article, but there is no obvious link from the article to the cat. However it does remove the problem whereby an article about a road is indirectly in a category "Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia".)

Presumably we should be consistent about it, but recent changes are not consistent, eg

• [1] and [2] takes the article out of the category and adds {{cat main}}
• [3] leaves the article in Category:Stirling Terrace, Toodyay and adds it to Category:Roads in Western Australia. I would have expected Category:Stirling Terrace, Toodyay to be a subcat of Category:Roads in Western Australia, but it is not. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I started removing the roads themselves after adding the {{cat main}}s to categories, but the I wasn't so sure about the removal. Any, part of the problem is that these cats aren't actually about roads themselves, rather thare are about the buildings and structures built on (alongside?) the road. If you look through the content of the cats, the very vast majority of the pages do not below under the Roads in Western Australia category tree, but do belong under the Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia category tree. Having thought about it some more, the XYZ Road categories should probably be renamed (and turned into category redirects to) Buildings on XYZ Road (or similar) – which logically would mean that the roads themselves should not be in the categories. Also, I just realised the problem of road articles not being in the category for buildings could be solved by including said category in the see also section of the article. Does that make sense to you?

Re your last point: Category:Stirling Terrace, Toodyay should not be a subcat of Category:Roads in Western Australia, because the pages in it would not logically fit into Category:Roads in Western Australia. Per WP:SUBCAT, "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions^{[clarification needed]}) to belong to the parent also." - Evad37 [talk] 14:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps also more sideways links are needed (ie, via {{category see also}}), since the sub-cat/parent-cat relationship isn't suitable. - Evad37 [talk] 14:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames: Thoughts? - Evad37 [talk] 14:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The WP:CAT guideline actually has the answer. Per the WP:EPONYMOUS subsection, Guidelines for articles #1: "The article itself should be a member of the eponymous category and should be sorted with a space to appear at the start of the listing". So I have done that for are the articles, and they are now consistent. I have also replaced the {{cat main}} and related templates with {{cathead on road}}, which I created today and explains that the category is for buildings, structures etc on a road, and thus why the categories are subcats of Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia, itself a subcat of Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia. - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

One obvious problem is whether (as suggested by WP:EPONYMOUS) the article itself is a member of the eponymous category. Is a road "a building, structure or other feature on" itself? For the purpose of this exercise it might be better to answer "yes", in which case we should change {{cathead on road}} to say "This category is for {{{1}}}, and buildings, structures, and other features on it." (I can't think of any possible article that might be considered a member of category:Something Street that was not a building or structure or Something Street itself.)

By extension, Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia should probably be renamed (for example) Category:Roads in Western Australia and buildings and structures thereon, because currently it contains, indirectly, the roads whose eponymous categories it contains. (Category:Roads in Western Australia then ought to be a subcategory of "Roads in WA and buildings etc thereon".)

While on the subject of Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia ...
I suggest that this category should not be a container category. There are articles about specific buildings and structures that are on roads in WA, but they are on roads for which there is no eponymous category, so can't currently be put into Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia. One example is Seventh Avenue Bridge. There is no article Seventh Avenue, Maylands, much less a category, and it's probably not appropriate to create either, but that bridge is certainly a building or structure on a road in WA, so ought be in that category (directly or indirectly). (Likewise there are several articles about buildings on Vincent Street, North Perth, but there is Category:Vincent Street, North Perth. I might create one though - there are at least five articles, which is more than appear in some of the existing subcats of Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia.)

Is a road a "structure", for the purposes of "Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia? Ie should Category:Roads in Western Australia (or its proposed parent Category:Roads in Western Australia and buildings and structures thereon) be in Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia?

Perhaps the existing Category:Somthing Street containing buildings etc on Something Street is the wrong approach. Would we be better using diffusing categories, eg Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by street?

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Vincent Street, North Perth created. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• One obvious problem is whether (as suggested by WP:EPONYMOUS) the article itself is a member of the eponymous category. Looking through the guideline again, it is quite clear that if they are eponymous categories (as the current names suggest), then the article which each category covers should be in that category. If not, then categories should be renamed/redirected so its clear they are not eponymous categories, eg XYZ Road → Buildings and structures on XYZ road. However, a pragmatic benefit of having the roads in the cats is better navigation, so readers can find the cats from the road articles.
• Is a road "a building, structure or other feature on" itself? I would say actually no, its not, but leave the articles in the cats per WP:EPONYMOUS – unless the cats are renamed per the previous point above, in which remove them from the cats. But WP:SUBCAT does allow for "possibly a few exceptions", so does the {{cathead on road}} hatnote actually need to be changed, in anycase?
• By extension, Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia should probably be renamed (for example) Category:Roads in Western Australia and buildings and structures thereon. If a road is a structure (see below), then it doesn't matter that sub-sub-categories of Buildings and structures in Western Australia contains roads, which would seem to go against your renaming argument. (In contrast, a building is very definitely not a road, which is why these categories can't be subcategories of Roads in Western Australia)
• this category should not be a container category... Perhaps it would be better to keep it as a container category, and have "in region" subcategories (ie, Category:Buildings and structures on roads in the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia) for that purpose? But on the other hand, that might be peeking into a can of worms, given how many different definitions of regions there are.
• Is a road a "structure", for the purposes of "Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia? Well, we do have the category tree Buildings and structures in Australia → Infrastructure in Australia → Transport infrastructure in Australia → Roads in Australia. Nonbuilding structure lists road as a type, and infrastructure "is basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise". So that's three points in favour of a road being a type of structure.
• Would we be better using diffusing categories, eg Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by street – not quite sure what you're getting at (aren't the current categories already diffusing their parent cat?), are you proposing to rename Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia → Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by street, and each Category:XYZ Road → Category:Buildings and structures on XYZ Road ? (or have I missed the point..?) - Evad37 [talk] 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The "problems" as I see them at the moment are:

1. Category:Something Street is defined by {{cathead on road}} to be for "[structures etc] on Something Street", but the category contains Something Street, which is not "on" itself. I agree that (regardless of exactly what we call the category) having Something Street in the same category as structures etc on Something Street is a good idea. The category name Something Street is sufficiently general that there's no contradiction in it including the street and structures thereon, so there's no need to change these category names. The category definition - {{cathead on road}} - however does differ from the contents. Not by much, I know, but we might might as well be accurate if we can.

   My proposed change is that {{cathead on road}} say "This category is for {{{1}}}, and buildings, structures, and other features on it.", so that it accurately describes the category. (There's no need to change the names of the many categories:Something Street.)

2. The existing Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia contains Something Street (indirectly, via Category:Something Street). But Something Street is a road; it is not on a road. (I agree that a road is a structure, but that doesn't matter here.)

   Possible solutions:

   • Rename this one category to "Roads in Western Australia and buildings and structures thereon. Literally accurate, considering its contents (direct and indirect), and still fits under Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia. The disadvantage is that this name places more emphasis on the roads rather than the structures.
   • Leave the category name as it is, but add an explanatory note that subcategories contain the roads themselves, as well as structures etc on the roads. Simple, keeps the focus on the buildings and structures rather than the roads, and probably sufficient.

3. Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia is a container category, currently containing only subcategories (per its description text) by road name. However there exist articles (eg Seventh Avenue Bridge) that ought to be in Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia (directly or indirectly) but are not in a road-name category and it may not be appropriate to put them in one.

   Possible solutions:

   • Take Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia out of Category:Container categories. Simple and effective. Direct entries (such as 7th Ave Bridge) are not listed/sorted by road name, but I don't think that's a big problem.
   • Keep it as a container category, but "allow" (eg change the descriptive text) sub-categories other than specific roads, eg Category:Buildings and structures on roads in the Wheatbelt region of Western Australia and/or Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Maylands. The first reduces the number of sub-categories but doesn't solve the original problem. The second allows for a larger subcategory than what I would otherwise need to include the 7th Ave Bridge (Category:Seventh Avenue, Maylands) - there are a few structures on roads listed in Category:Maylands, Western Australia. Also it does suggest moving all of the categories:Something Street, Fremantle into Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Fremantle etc (which is then in Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia) for the sake of consistency. (Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Fremantle etc has the same name vs scope problem - ie its name doesn't indicate that it includes the roads themselves - as Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia, but the same potential solutions apply.)
   • Create one or more metacategories Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia by street/suburb/region.
     (Previously I typed "diffusing categories", but that was an error on my part. What I meant was metacategories.) The metacategories would be container categories, but they should still only partial diffuse Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia, so that the latter can contain articles directly if necessary.

Mitch Ames (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

4. Simpler still ... Perhaps we should delete Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia (and other states if appropriate) and replace it with one or more metacategories Category:Buildings and structures in Australia by state or territory, Category:Buildings and structures in Australia by city, Category:Buildings and structures in Australia by suburb/town/locality, Category:Buildings and structures in Australia by ROAD (caps here for emphasis). Do we really need a category that includes all the structures that are on roads but excludes those that are not on roads? Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how deleting the category would improve navigation. "Do we really need a category that includes all the structures that are on roads but excludes those that are not on roads" – that's not really the purpose of the cat. It was actually intended to be more of a metacategory, breaking down buildings and structures by the road they are on, rather than by type (airport, hospital, etc) or location (city/suburb/town/locality/region).

The "in Australia" cats could be parents for the "in Western Australia" cats, but do not negate the value of the state-specific cats. I don't see any reason why an "in Australia" cat for buildings by road would not have an "in Western Australia" subcat (and similar for other states/territories).

Now, the by location (city/suburb/town/locality/region) cats or proposed cats can't replace the "in Western Australia" cat for roads in more than one location. Consider, for example, a "Great Northern Highway" category, with structures all the way from Perth to Wyndham. Anyone browsing the subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in Perth, Western Australia should not be seeing articles on historic buildings in Wyndham, and vice-versa. So they can not completely replace/justify deleting the cat, but could be created for specific locations, eg for Fremantle.

So I think there is still a place for the "in WA" category. More replies tomorrow re your other proposals tomorrow. - Evad37 [talk] 15:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: I changed the bullets in your message to numbers to make replying easier

1. Yeah, the proposed change to {{cathead on road}} seems reasonable.
2. Adding an explanatory note seems like the better solution. The focus should be on the buildings/structures, which make up the vast majority of pages in these categories, rather than the roads.
3. The main problem with putting pages directly within the category is that the inclusion criteria is then too broad: Almost every building/structure can be described as being on a road, if the road is not specified. How is that useful? - Evad37 [talk] 06:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

(4) "... a category that includes all the structures that are on roads but excludes those that are not on roads" [is] not really the purpose of the cat. It was actually intended to be more of a metacategory, breaking down buildings and structures by the road they are on...
That would be consistent with changing/renaming Category:Buildings and structures on roads in Western Australia to Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road (a subcat of "... in Australia by road") - "by road" explicitly indicates that we want to list by specific road, whereas "on roads" does not.

(3) If we change the category to "by road" instead of "on roads", the problem of "too broad a category" goes away, because it is a metacategory rather than a category. As suggested by WP:DIFFUSE, we might want to consider adding {{catdiffuse}}, which allows for direct inclusion of articles not yet categorized by road but suggests that they should be so categorized. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

One fundamental point that hasn't yet been considered is whether the Something Street categories should actually exist in the first place. In particular, is the street a building is on a WP:DEFINING characteristic? And is categorising buildings by roads an example of Intersection by location (overcategorisation)? - Evad37 [talk] 06:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The street is part of a building's address/location, which I believe is a defining characteristic. One could reasonably "define" a building by its street address of "123 Something St". In most cases it would be reasonable for the lead sentence to say something like "Xxxxx is a building on Something St in Perth". It's not so obvious whether this applies to other structures, which typically would not have a street number or "street address" in the usual sense. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Koo Wee Rup Bypass

Hello Evad37. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Koo Wee Rup Bypass, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Redirect would do the job. I'll sort that. . Thank you. GedUK  12:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Ged UK - Evad37 [talk] 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Australian road

I just saw this edit. That code has been in the template since 30 May 2013. How did nobody notice it? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know... perhaps no Tasmanian roads were showing the system links before I made them show by default for freeways, highways, etc. - Evad37 [talk] 02:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 20, 2014)

Hopetoun Falls in Beech Forest, a forest in Australia Hello, Evad37. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Forests of Australia Previous selections: Travel documentary • Grocery store Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC) •

Tassie Road article quality

Hello, I noticed a while back you rated Kingston Bypass a C-Class. While I am more than happy with this evaluation, I am a little confused how said article can be rated C, while the Brighton Bypass is rated as a starter. Would you mind comparing the two articles and re-evaluating or explaining the reasons why the Brighton Bypass is not yet suitable to be C Class?

I would prefer a reply on my talkpage.

Kind Regards, Wiki ian 09:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)