Highways Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Per the requirements at WP:HWY/ACR, this notice is being left to inform you that this candidate for demotion from ACR has gone 30 days without any activity. If there is no clear consensus (3 votes) to keep or demote after 7 days, and no attempt to continue work, the review will be closed as keep. --Rschen7754 10:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kwinana Freeway/archive1, Talk:Kwinana Freeway#Traffic volume as a subsection of Route description

For the last several years, it has been a widely accepted standard that a highway article should have 1) some form of route description, 2) a history of the route, and 3) a junction list, even if the name of the section is not the "standard" one that the US standards use. Depending on the route, sections for "Future", "Services", "Tolls", "Auxiliary routes", and "In popular culture" have generally been accepted, and are used on several road FAs and GAs. Generally, this is not in dispute.

What has come into question, however, is the inclusion of some sections such as "Environmental impact" and "Traffic volumes." There has been some controversy over their inclusion, and I am starting this discussion so that we can provide some better and more consensual and uniform guidance on the matter. Of course, there are other "nonstandard" sections that are on many articles, and I don't want to necessarily limit the discussion to them. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I will express that in my own comments below. --Rschen7754 05:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my logic behind my comments in that FAC. The details of the Environmental impact section, a section which was only added during the FAC, were of a historical nature. They impacted the planning and construction of the roadway, and in my opinion, fit best when worked in with the other historical aspects that produced the modern highway.

As for the Traffic volume, there's a fine line between specialist and generalist information. Other than answering the question "who uses the road?" with the simple "between X and Y cars on average each day", traffic counts are meaningless in a generalist context. It takes some specialist knowledge to know is 10,000 vehicles per day high or low? A variety of factors go into interpreting raw traffic counts, and without a specific source to provide that interpretation, we shouldn't attempt such a thing on our own. That's why, even though I advocate including some traffic information, I don't recommend more than highest and lowest counts. Imzadi 1979 → 05:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree with Imzadi1979 to a limited extent.

As far as the traffic volumes: All I have to add is that one of the points of WP:NOT is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't know if it really benefits us to copy the traffic volumes table verbatim, when we already link to it. And writing it in prose puts the reader to sleep and makes it highly unreadable. Giving the highest and lowest gives just enough information to put it into perspective.

As far as the environmental impact: I don't particularly like sections like that, but I don't feel strongly enough to "prohibit" them either. As far as the length of that particular section, we do have to remember that what we write about has to be notable, which extends to the facts we decide to talk about: we are WP:NOT a news source, and we don't talk about most accidents, or repaving the road, or routine route maintenance. The same level of consideration should apply to all sections of an article. --Rschen7754 04:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Valley Parkway has both pieces of information. The traffic volumes are in a table in the route description, and the environmental impacts are detailed between the RD and the History sections. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to change anything. Those sections shouldn't even exist. Who cares. except during construction about envrionmental impact. Cover in history, good enough. As for traffic volumes I'm already opposed to anything lower than an arterial boulevard getting any mention of traffic volumes at all. Smaller the road gets, the dumber it seems. We're just over explaining that this road is underused. Mitch32^{(Wikipedia's worst Reform Luddite.)} 23:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the major problems with such a prescriptive approach is that the proponents will often differ. Even amongst these posts there are varying opinions, take into account the vast majority of editors who have not supported this at all, they probably dont agree which each other on everything either. Thats kind of the point. Overly prescriptive approaches only serve to allow singular viewpoints a free run, they alienate editors, increase combative behaviours, and all other sorts of fun nasties we dont need ruining the goal of creating better roads articles for all editors involved. Think about it, we dont have omniscience, its going to be hard to decide whats valid for inclusion on any road we are not familiar with, the less familiar we are, the less links we have with the road, the less likely we are to understand why the information is being presented the way it is. I have written a relatively comprehensive essay on the subject here: User:Nbound/RoadsEssay -- Nbound (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Even amongst these posts there are varying opinions, take into account the vast majority of editors who have not supported this at all, they probably dont agree which each other on everything either." For one, that's patently false - of the four other people who have commented here, not one has supported the inclusion of the controversial separate sections. I forgot to mention that California State Route 52 does include information on the environmental impact, but integrates it into the history, because it is a part of the history. There's nothing awkward about it at all. --Rschen7754 03:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres the opinion of Dr.Blofield who requested an EI section, and of Mitch Ames who protested the removal of traffic volume, Ive supported generalised control by stewarding editors, rather than particular groups. Evad has stated he is awaiting the outcomes of the discussion before deciding whether this is appropriate, Floydian has shown an article where sections have been semi-merged as subsections, in fact he has a subsection quite similar to the ones under discussion. Imzadi recommends no more than high and low traffic counts. You do agree on that, and have stated you dont feel strongly enough to ban an EI section. Mitch states he finds most of this stuff all boring, and gives another differing standard of inclusion traffic volumes. If there is a fixed consensus between editors so far, Im failing to see it. If there is truly to be a "rule" of this kind, what are its conditions, what are its exceptions, who arbitrates on it, who polices it - If there was a fixed consensus I wouldnt need to ask those questions. Needless to say this is hardly the crux of the argument, just an observation, more serious concerns are within the essay -- Nbound (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this discussion, nobody has supported including those sections as their own Level 2 headers, and Dr. Blofeld never indicated that he was unhappy with the information being moved elsewhere. As far as your essay, a lot of those same arguments could be made against various portions of the MOS, or using infoboxes (note the recent arbitration case), etc. and yet for road articles, those are both widely accepted. --Rschen7754 03:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As noted in the essay, even I dont support that we should be sectioning everything. Dr. Blofield's silence does not indicate a like or dislike of the final product. The MOS is defined by the community as a whole, infobox usage on roads are again defined by the community as a whole (theres noone arguing that infoboxes shouldnt be used on roads articles). Neither is in any way comparable. -- Nbound (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from WP:WIAFA: "It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of... appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." So concerns about the organization of the article are certainly valid at FAC. --Rschen7754 03:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is arguing for widespread sectioning of everything. Regarding the WP:WIAFA criterion- concerns should be noted, but keep in mind that criterion does not necessarily support your viewpoint, nor does it support the opposite. I pointed this out when it was mentioned at the FAC discussion at the top of the page. Nominators should take these viewpoints into account, but they certainly do not become laws for writing articles. If there is differing opinions, its upto the nominator to weigh them up. -- Nbound (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to realize that the outcome of every FAC is determined by the delegates, who read through to see if there is consensus regarding the promotion of an article - so it's how the reviewers choose to interpret the criteria and the strength of those arguments that makes the difference. --Rschen7754 03:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, though this has little bearing on the discussion - If a roads article with 6 level two sections makes FA, that doesnt mean we now follow a six section rule. Each road is different. Again, definitely take the complaints into account (either way, and within the context of an article). -- Nbound (talk) 04:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than try to prescribe or proscribe certain sections in all scenarios, WP:HWY should have vague guidelines that, if followed, cause the writer to answer several basic questions (like "Where does the road go?", "Who uses the road?", etc.). We should probably write down those questions anyway. Then the local WikiProjects would define their standards in terms of the greater WP:HWY standards (such as, "We have an infobox to tell the reader at a glance where the road goes.") As far as "non-standard" sections go, I think we, as reviewers, need to ask better questions. Instead of requesting a change because the section is "non-standard", we need to ask why that section is better than a more conventional way. I will elaborate more on this later. –Fredddie™ 05:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. I think this is the underlying message that the people who have commented here are trying to convey - we're not opposed to these particular instances just because they are "nonstandard." (Disclaimer: I know people have used "nonstandard section" as their only justification in past reviews, though they usually are criticized about it later). --Rschen7754 05:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, this in many ways parallels the points Ive been trying to put across. A prescriptive approach is not going to work very well. Editors should be given some free reign to setup articles as he/she/they see most appropriate to a particular road, whilst giving the basic information that is integral to most WP articles (who, when, where, what, why, how, etc.). There is not going to be an approach that is necessarily right or wrong. There is going to be a range of views on most content and structure decisions. The wide range of existing FAs across Wikipedia more than adequately illustrate that. This doesnt mean that a reviewer cant suggest an optional change based on their own opinion, go for it! Chances are, it might be acted upon. If not, then perhaps the nominating/stewarding editor has a differing opinion and perhaps good reason to not do it. At the very least, remember there is more than one way to skin a cat! -- Nbound (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But do all of the possible methods work / are they the most effective ways to do them? I write every FA a little bit differently, and I'm bound to get it wrong one of these days (such as the one I'm working on right now, Interstate 805... there's certain aspects that I'm not comfortable with, but I'll take it through ACR and see what happens). --Rschen7754 05:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its going to depend immensely on who you ask. Excluding fill/padding on very small articles, most things have been included for a reason, or structured that way for a reason. Like I said above, if you believe an article may be better served with a different structure, by all means mention it... allow it to be weighed up... and it'll either make the cut or not. Prescribing a singular viewpoint as the only standard is inappropriate when articles will be so varied across a range of different measures. Again im not saying we should be just placing new sections everywhere, just that its inappropriate to apply to particular standard as required. Even amongst my own articles I have followed a relatively conservative approach. For example: All the four articles I have at GA or GAN stick to a relatively traditional/conservative approach to sectioning/content (and they dont make any mention of EI*, or traffic volumes either).

Note (*): excluding Majura Parkway which has focus on EI integrated within its history section much like proponents of this scheme would codify, when discussing the chosen alignment.

That doesnt mean Im necessarily right or wrong with this approach. I am more than happy to acknowledge that there may be other ways to approach the same problems. I am open to pointers on them in either direction. I have structured those articles the way they are because it makes sense given the content I have so far integrated. It may change with more, it may not. For all the reasons outlined within this discussion and within the essay, a prescriptive approach to this is not the way to go.

-- Nbound (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what the concern is here but at the FAC I saw that the environmental implications of the highway were covered in numerous publications and I felt that the article should have a comprehensive section on it. I can;t see why removing such a section would improve the article or exactly why this is problematic. As far as I can see he's done a great job on it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is whether that material should have a separate section. --Rschen7754 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And when it's all details tied into the development and construction of the modern highway, why are we separating them from the other details of the development of the construction of the modern highway in the history section? Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, its not about whether we should have a separate section per se. Its about whether we'll be free to structure an article the way we prefer given the road. In many roads there is no EI due to age, some barely a mention, but a few have relatively interesting and pertinent EI sections and could benefit from a separate section at an editor(s) discretion. There is more than one way to set up an article. In the case of Kwinana two sections had information removed before being merged. Pretty much all articles on WP could be theoretically merged into a 'description' and 'history' section, but it is not done for good reason. Whatever the personal position on the specific circumstance, we should not be prescribing a standard based on a singular viewpoint. Of course, if a reviewing editor has an opinion on structure, by all means, let the editor/nom know, its quite possible the advice will be followed. Advice is fine, but enforcing personal opinion, not so much. -- Nbound (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reviewing is all personal opinion; the standards that MOS is based on, and even our naming conventions are all arbitrary. The problem I have with a separate EI section is that it fragments the history and makes it much harder to follow. I think the other thing missing is that Wikipedia is bound by consensus; when a consensus of reviewers makes a recommendation, that is simply not something the nominator can ignore. --Rschen7754 22:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And no one has said we can't tease out EI information as a subsection of the history. The modern environmental impact studies and such are core stage of the overall development and construction of a modern highway, so there's no reason that can't be used as a subsection, placing those studies in their historical timeline after proposals and before construction. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, environmental impact is only one of the reasons why a road is opposed, and the debates happen at the same time; to separate environmental impact out makes the article harder to follow. --Rschen7754 22:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes and no, you review content based on the criteria, not based on your own opinion (people judging articles by opinion is generally why articles goto review). As shown by the multiple discussions in regards to this there is hardly a consensus, as I mentioned earlier; even the "proponents" of the prescriptive approach have not yet presented any kind of rule for consideration. If there is a fixed consensus between editors so far, Im failing to see it. What are its conditions? what are its exceptions? who arbitrates on it? who polices it? - If there was a fixed consensus I wouldnt need to ask those questions. Similarly, take some of Imzadi1979's articles, he has sections on "Historical Bridges" and various other things that are traditionally merged into the History or the Route Description. If and when another example of this appears, should another editor request it removed, should he be forced to remove the section? Im sure he'd argue that it was justified for one reason or another. Why not extend other editors the same courtesy? Now, I dont have a problem with those sections, Im sure in the context of Michigan and that road's history they could be important, despite whether or not I find the section boring, "out of place", or whatever else. I realise Im not qualified to make that judgement. Its certainly going to be the case in reverse cases aswell. Advice is welcomed, rules; not so much. -- Nbound (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not intended to be some political thing; this is not intended to be a prescriptive approach. I'm certainly not advocating for that, and I don't think anyone is. However, in this specific case, four road editors have advised against the specific use of the headers that started this discussion. To readd the headers in this particular circumstance comes dangerously close to ignoring a developing consensus on the matter. --Rschen7754 23:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theres the opinion of Dr.Blofield who requested an EI section, and of Mitch Ames who protested the removal of traffic volume, Ive supported generalised control by stewarding editors, rather than particular groups. Evad has stated he is awaiting the outcomes of the discussion before deciding whether this is appropriate, Floydian has shown an article where sections have been semi-merged as subsections, in fact he has a subsection quite similar to the ones under discussion. Imzadi recommends no more than high and low traffic counts. You do agree on that, and have stated you dont feel strongly enough to ban an EI section. Mitch states he finds most of this stuff all boring, and gives another differing standard of inclusion traffic volumes. Fredddie has stated he would like a question based approach. Hardly consensus. Now you say you dont want a prescriptive approach, well great, lets get back to editing roads! I dont mind whether Evad37 adds them or not, that is not what I have argued at any point in this thread, but I would suggest he settled upon the original article structure for a reason, much in the same way that Imzadi1979 decided to separate his historic bridge sections, and much in the same way that most articles have little need at all for extra sections. -- Nbound (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again, nobody has said that environmental impact information should be removed entirely from the article. Frankly, this is starting to sound like molehill->mountain. I think you're nitpicking a little bit too much here - neither I, nor Imzadi1979, nor Floydian, nor Mitchazenia support the controversial sections the way they were. But to clarify this matter...--Rschen7754 23:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viridiscalculus, in your stroll poll response below you said that "Level 2 sections are supposed to be able to stand alone or mostly alone." Can you provide a link to the MOS (or other) guideline that supports that assertion? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that "traffic volume" information may not always be appropriate in articles, eg on the grounds that it is meaningless without interpretation (violating WP:OR) or that is "indiscriminate collection of information". These are valid points, and perhaps the specific numbers are not useful to the average reader, but I can assure you - as regular user of both the Kwinana and Mitchell Freeways - the traffic volume does matter from a practical standpoint. Although the actual number number of cars per hour may not mean anything, what does mean something is:

• The level of traffic congestion is a major problem for commuters, so much so that
• Many (most? all?) local radio stations broadcast traffic reports each weekday morning and afternoon to give road users some forewarning of the problems
• During peak times (several hours, twice a day) the freeways' usage exceeds capacity and so there is significant variation in the travel time - minor incidents can create major unpredictable delays.

Obviously the above is Perth- (and sometimes freeway-) specific, but it seems likely that it applies to other major roads was well. Perhaps our major road articles need a level 2 section not just on traffic volume (the number don't mean much to anybody) but "traffic volume and congestion", describing more the practical outcomes of the volume. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but now we're coming close to travel guide material... which is also included in WP:NOT. --Rschen7754 09:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Mitch, there is a basis for some volume/congestion data [AADT, avg speed] on major roads (Kwinana and Tonkin are quite major roads in a WA context, probs not much by US standards though). It certain fits under the "How?" question - How is it used? is it coping? (overused/underused). No editor intends of giving a day by day account of road conditions as you would expect from travel advice. None of the information presented in these sections is useful as actual travel advice beyond very generalist terms (much like some of the non-controversial "restrictions" information presented on some roads). In essence - you cant plan a holiday based on AADT values :). -- Nbound (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we include day-to-day details of congestion (as we don't list day-to-day traffic counts), but the surely it is notable that the there is significant congestion every weekday - ie rather than focusing on the traffic counts (as we currently do) report the fact that the traffic volume regularly and consistently causes problems. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That should certainly be mentioned if it can be reliably sourced. Automobile associations like NRMA, RACQ, (not sure of the WA association but you would be) often publish pieces with such information - It may also be cited from newspapers occasionally when they do similar pieces. Roads are more than just the physical objects. Similarly it gives context to why extensions/duplications/extra lanes and other improvements may be planned/under construction - This kind of information was requested for Majura Parkway as stating a road was replacing another didnt explain why it was happening. There is figures for the current road, a future projection for the replacement roadway, and a cited prose evaluation of the current road's inability to handle the volumes. Theres not enough traffic history for it to require its own sub/section (it article follows the 'conventional' structure as noted earlier), but its not hard to imagine other roads requiring a subsection or section dedicated to it. -- Nbound (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly Mount Lindesay Highway was decommissioned in NSW some time ago, the parallel route into QLD via the New England Highway was much more popular. This was much to do with the condition of the road, but some traffic stats of the era would also collaborate this (if available), again giving some context to the why?. -- Nbound (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this straw poll is only used to reflect and clarify what the consensus is so far.

1) A prescriptive approach should generally not be used in road articles: in other words, we should not "ban" or "prohibit" particular sections being included solely on the basis that they are nonstandard.

• Yes. --Rschen7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. –Fredddie™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say "ban" is a bit strong. I see nothing wrong with discouraging nonstandard sections. However, this should usually be done at the national level, not globally. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - though if USRD wishes to form their own consensus on the matter per Scott5114 - I wouldnt necessarily be against that. Assuming it was a strong consensus. For something to be "banned" it should have a consensus level approaching that of the usual "required" sections -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If solely on the basis that they are nonstandard, then yes. TCN7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Do not prohibit or even discourage particular sections solely for being nonstandard.  VC  03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We should not "ban" sections from an article - the idea is ridiculous. Guidelines that suggest certain information be in certain sections (environmental impact in History, for example) are a good idea, but "prohibiting" editors from diverging from the "one true layout" seems not to be consistent with the idea that "Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules". Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -happy5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes absolutely, every article is different, and if something like environmental impact has had extensive coverage for a road then it should be encouraged. It would be wrong in encyclopedic terms to make such a general decision. Environmental impact is often one of the biggest factors anyway in the decision to build highways or not, I can think of one such local highway leading to Cardiff Airport from Culverhouse Cross which was proposed and dropped because of extensive environmental lobbying and if you did research on such a road, environmental discussion and assessment would be a major factor in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, but to a point. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2) However, "nonstandard" sections should be evaluated on the basis of whether this is the most optimal way to organize the relevant information, as opposed to the "standard" method.

• Yes. --Rschen7754 23:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. –Fredddie™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. TCN7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes.  VC  03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a big fan of consistency but I'm not comfortable with this use of "nonstandard", implying as it does that the absence of such a section is the defacto best approach. I think the "standard" layout needs to allow for optional sections for material (such as traffic volume) that is likely to occur in many road articles. (The preferred ordering of optional sections should probably be defined in the guideline, much as WP:LAY does.) Whether the material should be included in a separate section or not will then depend on the specific material and article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -happy5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the decision to include something should be based on coverage in reliable sources. The Perth highway has a wealth of coverage on environmental impact and a truly great article would not ignore this. I agree that each article should be assessed differently, but if a road has extensive coverage on environmental impact then documenting it in its own section should not be discouraged. Only if the info is very sparse and not comprehensive should it be merged IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes with conditions. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3) Where appropriate, information on traffic volumes and environmental impact should be included in road articles.

• Yes. --Rschen7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. –Fredddie™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure. —CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously. TCN7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Granted, "appropriate" is open for interpretation.  VC  03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. -happy5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes agreed, especially if traffic volume and environmental impact has had extensive coverage then it should be encouraged.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• ONLY and ONLY in history for environment and traffic counts need to be restricted to boulevards, freeways and larger. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4) However, including separate Level 2 sections for "Traffic volumes" and "Environmental impact" in articles like Kwinana Freeway is suboptimal, in that the information can be included elsewhere in the article, and makes the article more understandable.

• Yes. --Rschen7754 23:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying that I tend to agree with Scott5114 overall. I intended this to be more specific than general, which apparently I failed to make clear. :S --Rschen7754 01:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not necessarily. –Fredddie™ 00:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Depends on the context. The vast majority of the time environmental concerns are only relevant during construction. In this case, I would rather the environmental concerns be covered in the history (as on Creek Turnpike). If environmental issues remain ongoing after the highway is built and opened, then it would be appropriate to have a standalone section. Traffic counts should generally not have their own section, since including so much of this information that a standalone section is warranted would overwhelm the reader with overly technical details. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not necessarily. I personally would not include them in the majority of articles. -- Nbound (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not always, per Nbound.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Traffic volumes should never get their own Level 2 section in my opinion. Either put it in a Level 3 section at the end of the route description or stick it in a section lead at the beginning of it. As for environmental impact, my views seem to be aligned with those of Scott5114. TCN7JM 01:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. Level 2 sections are supposed to be able to stand alone or mostly alone. Traffic volumes and environmental impact can almost never stand alone in road articles. They need to be presented in context in answering the the 5 W (and How) questions.  VC  03:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Sometimes separate sections are appropriate. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see how traffic counts can have a separate Level 2 section in any circumstance. Not even on Ontario Highway 401. In regards to environmental impact, I second Scott's view. -happy5214 11:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not neccesarily, depends upon the context. If environmental impact and traffic volume have had extensive coverage then I think it is feasible to have separate sections on them. In the Perth highway case I see too much coverage in reliable sources and information to make it feasible to merge or even remove the info. In some cases however coverage of these may be minimal and might then be feasible to merge into longer section, each article should be assessed differently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• NO levels 2s that aren't standard/status quo. Mitch32^{(New digs, new life, same old stubborn.)} 20:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes and no, the information can be included elsewhere, but is it necessarily better or more understandable? Leaning towards yes for EI, but not sure about traffic volume. - Evad37 (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Officially pinging User:Imzadi1979, User:Mitchazenia, User:Floydian, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Nbound, and User:Fredddie to clarify where their opinion falls in the above options. --Rschen7754 00:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Also pining User:Evad37 and User:Mitch Ames - both have had opinions on associated pages -- Nbound (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I note question 1, 2, and 3 are still relatively open to interpretation (ie. Q1 doesnt explore the "ban" question for alternative reasons than non-standard), Ill just put this out there too:

We need to keep in mind that there is no precedent for codifying any of these ideas and opinions on inclusions. Wikiprojects dont have any power as far as the MOS/FAC goes, and they dont overrule it. Its quite possible that an article which breaks any of the wikiprojects guidelines or rules will pass at FAC as long as the article is well-written and comprehensive. Even stuff we term as "required" such as infoboxes arent enforceable (its only the acceptance of this rule by everyone that "enforces" it - as its actually just a recommendation). Passing a rule even if it had only had a minority (the straw poll above actually shows a relatively mixed response) is support just likely to alienate those editors. If an editor loses faith in the system they may just go straight to FAC, and lose whats often quite valuable observations at ACR. Needless to say enforcing something at ACR which isnt enforcable at FAC is pointless. -- Nbound (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is enforceable at FAC, if a consensus believes that the article fails criterion 2b at WP:WIAFA. --Rschen7754 18:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its upto the delegate to weigh up that up actually (and it also presumes that even amongst those here - all of which are likely to be seen at FAC - there would be a consistent support/oppose position, but I digress). Again, a look at FAs will show that most articles have larger numbers of sections than most roads articles (its not uncommon for road FAs to include them too!), despite almost all being able to be merge in very similar ways. Placing a "rule" on anything is unlikely to convince them if the nominating editor has a good reason - which is generally the only reason why an article nom'd for FA would have extra sections. Its unlikely an article would be failed for a lack of infobox (as the only reason) for example. One of the most worrying things in the preceeding discussion threads (Kwinana, and Tonkin) was that noone asked the nominator why the thing was done, within what context, and perhaps to work upon providing that context in the text for non-local readers (if citable). Instead it was just ruled as being 'wrong', and the second - a completely different road - was referred to first. The idea that there is one single ideal approach to any article is laughable. -- Nbound (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nominator never offered that information either... --Rschen7754 22:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i pointed out earlier, do we really want to down a combative path? Where well meaning editors are required to consistently defend their choices, and are guilty until proven innocent... Sounds like fun... Im sure we'd see little drama with that approach :S -- Nbound (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Going off on a tangent here, but...) I'm just going to say that from my experience watching USRD's FACs, in at least half of them we do have to defend something, if not several somethings. At FAC, articles tend to get picked apart, and the process can be somewhat brutal (and by several factors more than HWY/ACR can be). At every FAC (even those that have nothing to do with roads) you should be confident in what you have written, and be ready to defend anything in the article, or you will not be successful. --Rschen7754 06:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a somewhat arbitrary break)

While I agree with much of the above, I'm not entirely convinced that the route description section is the appropriate place for traffic volume information. The route description section answers the basic questions: What is it (a road), Where is it (the path it takes), How does it travel (details such freeway/dual carriage, speed limits, etc). The history section deals with the When question (construction and opening dates, etc) and Why question (eg to bypass congestion). For Kwinana Freeway's traffic volume information, I previously had it in a separate section because its not just related to the route description, but also the history - traffic volume for 2006/07, or any other period, is by definition historical data, and not necessarily appropriate for the route description section, which details the current route. In essence, there is a Who question – who uses it – but the answer can only be given in relation to a time period: In XX year, there were YY vehicles at point ZZ. So is it more appropriate to have it in route description section, or history section (or neither), and under a level 3 heading, or integrated in with the rest of the section? Maybe different approaches would work better in different articles, but in essence, if the rest of the route description deals with the current route/conditions, does traffic volume belong there? - Evad37 (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was asked at some point, but I assume there was no data that was more recent? --Rschen7754 06:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I could find. The information may exist in a computer system somewhere, but doesn't appear to have been published. - Evad37 (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even in the route description, some of the "current" sources do tend to be a bit dated. I know of several California route descriptions where the published map I used was published in 2008 or 2009. --Rschen7754 21:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that if any editor chooses to add these extras into the RD, especially beyond a brief mention, it probably shouldn't be called the "Route Description" on road based articles (as opposed to route based). If you talk about the route of a road, you are talking about its alignment. To Rs' point above, there is online AADT data (in NSW at least) as far back as 1970. Given that this may be needed to collaborate other text on the increasing importance of a road, declining use, etc. this again may make it not suitable for integration straight into an RD. -- Nbound (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion about a large amount of streets in Hong Kong to be AFD/PROD.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]