Jump to content

Talk:Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Out of Date Information

[edit]

Third paragraph from the top contains references to dates in 2007. Does this need updating? Have the mentioned roadworks commenced? --Joshy06x (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page paragraph needs an update and as of August 2009, nope. So far as I can tell, there's no sign of any roadworks on this section of the freeway itself. I'm not even sure that the plans made back in 2007 are even going ahead right now, though I could be wrong. 123.243.154.248 (talk) 11:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Services

[edit]
"If your are involved in a accident or crash contact the relevant emergency services by 
dialling 000(Triple Zero)."

I have changed this to the more official statement "In cases of emergency call 000".

Triple 0 cannot be taken so lightly. You do not dial 000, OR contact the relevant emergency services for just any accident or crash. This is precisely the perception 000 and emergency services seeks to dismantle.

I seek your thoughts on the necessity of 000 information in this article, and for that matter on wikipedia. Also, I think I've heard that for mobile phones it's better to dial 112, is this correct? --Eno1 11:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the offending text anyway, because it was mostly copied from the Main Roads website which is the external link in the article. That website said to call 000, but you're right, 000 is for life-threatening emergencies, not run-of-the-mill car crashes.
It used to be that dialling 112 was better than dialling 000, because calling 112 let the operators trace the mobile tower you're connected through, but 000 apparently didn't. Now I think they've fixed that technical issue and calling 000 allows them to trace you. But 112 has the added advantage that it works in every country and on every network (so if you're out of range of your carrier it will automatically route your call through any available network). I'm not sure if the same goes for 000. - Mark 03:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge

[edit]

We are currently discussing preferred outcomes (including merging), at Talk:Sydney–Newcastle_Freeway#Move_proposals. As some of you may already know, the NSW motorway standard sections will soon be taking on the "Pacific Motorway" name -- Nbound (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sydney–Newcastle Freeway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2014

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Unanimous support for the new suggested disambiguator. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) → Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW) – As the motorway extends further south, it comes impractical to rename/move the article for every extension of the motorway. It will also take quite some time before both Pacific Motorways join up. Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, as nominator - per reasoning above, but any other possible name such as Northern NSW will also do.
  • Rename - per reasoning above and also happy with any less-locality-specific name at the NSW end. It does seem silly to keep renaming it as it is gradually extended. And how many people know where Ewingsdale is in any case? At the southern end at least we all probably know where Newcastle is. Of course maybe it's better to just call the two ends Pacific Motorway (south from Brisbane) and Pacific Motorway (north from Sydney) which keeps our options covered at both ends. Kerry (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I honestly haven't a clue where Ewingsdale is, it'd be better as North NSW or similar. -- t numbermaniac c 07:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Note that there appears to be a non-contiguous section between the (south from Brisbane) and (north from Sydney) sections. Downsize43 (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

If there are objections, please discuss here.Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads), per compromise suggested at the end. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW) → Pacific Motorway (New South Wales North Coast–Brisbane) – This article was only recently moved but, unfortunately, I was not aware of the discussion and there are some issues with the new name. "North Coast NSW" isn't actually a "place" so "coast" should not be capitalised, and abbreviations should not be used in article titles. While Australians may know that "NSW" means New South Wales, most readers may not, so the state should be spelled out per naming conventions. New South Wales North Coast is an article about a named area and so capitalisation is appropriate there, and it would seem more appropriate to use that name in the title of this article, since it's that region to which the title refers. When we moved Sydney–Newcastle Freeway and Pacific Motorway, we decided to go with south-north consistency so the articles were moved to Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) respectively. The current name ignores that consistency. It therefore follows that "Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW)" should really be Pacific Motorway (New South Wales North Coast–Brisbane) to address the issues. AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom – Seems a reasonable name, which is consistent with Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle), avoids using an acronym, and fits in with the reasoning behind the previous requested move. I also wouldn't be adverse to merging the two Pacific Motorway articles, which would remove the need for disambiguation (they are planned to link up eventually, aren't they?) - Evad37 [talk] 12:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't particularly care how we refer to the North Coast of NSW end. I think the unstated but implied proposal to reverse the order of the end points is a mistake. For Queenslanders readers, the Pacific Motorway is the road that runs from Brisbane (our capital) to the Gold Coast (our biggest holiday destination); most Queenslanders probably don't realise there is the Sydney-Newcastle segment. So I think Brisbane should come first in the name. I think WP:CRYSTALBALL might apply to the linkup between the two Pacific motorways; I think we can afford to wait to sort that one out if/when it ever happens. Kerry (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that it's WP:CRYSTAL to link the articles now. However, if that eventually happens, and we have one article starting at Brisbane and another starting in Sydney, one of the articles is going to have to be reversed. Pacific Highway (Australia) and Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) already follow the south-north rule so it seems only logical that this article should. Changing the name less than a week ago changed is what reversed this convention so by changing to Pacific Motorway (New South Wales North Coast–Brisbane), we're simply restoring the convention. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support - While I support replacing the acronym "NSW", I would disagree with the south to north naming convention. Though I'm not a Queenslander, putting the more popular place (i.e Brisbane) as the first in the name would seem more logical (Hence that's why we have Sydney TO Newcastle and not the other way round). Marcnut1996 (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basing a move on the perceived popularity of a place goes against both Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Popularity is NOT the reason we use "Sydney TO Newcastle" at all. The reason is that the freeway was started from the Sydney end and progressively extended in a northerly direction towards Newcastle. Popularity was never a factor in this discussion or this move discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What south-north rule? My argument about Brisbane is because it is bigger in terms of population than northern NSW (certainly more than Ewingsdale!) which isn't a matter of OR. Generally when we talk about roads, we tend to say the road from Bigger Place to Littler Place, But, having said that, I really don't want to make a huge issue out of the direction as adding a redirect for the reverse direction is probably worth doing in any case. Kerry (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a convention rather than a rule. You'll notice that {{Infobox Australian road}} uses directions for roads, not location names, and this is for a reason. Using location names causes inconsistencies. For example, if we're talking about Highway 1, using "big to little" the Melbourne-Brisbane section would be "Sydney-Melbourne" and "Sydney-Brisbane". Half-way along, we suddenly change direction. Really, populations are irrelevant to roads, because they're not populated places. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on directionality Do the relevant authorities have a published "direction" for the road? South Australian roads all (state-managed anyway) have a "start" and an "end" used for road maintenance, rural addressing, and emergency services so that a location along it can be identified unambiguously. If there is a direction used by the governments, it should be cited and followed for the article. --Scott Davis Talk 12:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, but not one to which I can find a direct answer to on the Qld Govt's website. Documents relating to various Pacific Motorway upgrade projects do appear to consistently refer to sections of motorway as being from Northern Place to Southern Place, or Nearer-to-Brisbane place to Further-From-Brisbane place, but the reason for this choice is not explained. Exits are numbered based on distances from Brisbane. Similar documents for the Bruce Highway refer to segments South to North or Nearer-to-Brisbane to Further-from-Brisbane, again the exit number is based on distance from Brisbane. So there is a definite "Brisbane bias" being exhibited here rather than a compass-direction bias. In the mind of the QG, it runs from Brisbane to Coolangatta. I presume the exit numbering ceases at the NSW border (I cannot recall seeing any past the border). Kerry (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the Main Roads Dept in Qld to ask. It might not resolve this particular discussion (because of the cross-border aspect) but it might be worth knowing more generally if there is a QG standard naming. Kerry (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of something like the SA Rural Road Maps[1] have a green dot and a red arrow on each road, but it looks like Queensland is still working on the standard addressing project[2]. It could get interesting to accurately describe the direction of the road if it turns out to run towards the border from both sides! I think I've noticed a few other highway articles that are not even consistent within the article about which direction it goes. --Scott Davis Talk 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's going to be a different bias in each state. Qld will naturally measure from Brisbane and NSW will measure from Sydney and Wikipedia shouldn't get into interstate politics. Personally, I think the move in January was preemptive and WP:CRYSTAL. At the moment the motorway extends from Ewingsdale to Brisbane and will for some time, so there was no need to move the article at all. The argument that "As the motorway extends further south, it comes impractical to rename/move the article for every extension of the motorway" is specious. The NSW RMS doesn't really talk about the northern Pacific motorway, it concentrates on Pacific Highway upgrades, and it's entirely possible that the name change could occur at one time. The problem is that we don't know what will happen in the future. That's why we have WP:CRYSTAL. We need to conentrate on what's happening now, and the current situation is that the road is still "Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane)", and will "will also take quite some time" to change. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. As far as I can see on their website, the NSW govt only use the term Pacific Motorway for the Sydney to Newcastle section. They use "Pacific Highway upgrade" in connection with the work from Tweed Heads south, so it appears that we don't have a Pacific Motorway in northern NSW at all; the northern Pacific Motorway appears to start in Brisbane and stop at the Qld border. Kerry (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, the NSW Govt has gazetted the name Pacific Motorway in Northern NSW but only between Brunswick Heads and the Qld border see here. But it's not clear if they have gazetted beyond that to Ewingsdale or Tintenbar (where the current roadworks are expected to complete this year). It's this state of flux in NSW that prompted the previous name change, I guess. Kerry (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As all distances originate from the state capital, current name should be retained, albeit with NSW extrapolated. The statement that the motorway extends from Ewingsdale to Brisbane and will for some time, is not correct as the next section is due to open this year.[3] The original suggestion to rename was made in order to future proof the article. The alternative is to rename each time it is extended south. But at the current rate of progress, we could end up with 10 redirects before the time comes to merge it with the Pacific Highway article. IMO best to use the more generic Brisbane - North Coast New South Wales name to avoid. Drs002 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Future-proofing the article would include continuing the consistent naming that we established when the article was originally moved. As I have pointed out previously, when the motorway does join up there will have to be a change of direction in one article, which was not necessary under the old naming system. The link that you've provided is titled "Tintenbar to Ewingsdale - Pacific Highway upgrade". There's no indication that the section will be renamed to "motorway". --AussieLegend (✉) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly or wrongly, the subject of this article is the dual carriageway that currently extends from Brisbane to Ewingsdale. This is being extended through to Tintenbar, so had the previous Pacific Motorway (Brisbane-Ewingsdale) name been retained, the article would then be renamed Pacific Motorway (Brisbane-Tintenbar). Presumably it will continue to be extended south in stages and hence further renames would be required, hence why the more generic name was suggested.
An alternative would be to curtail this article to only cover the Queensland section and incorporate the NSW portion into the Pacific Highway article. Drs002 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"This is being extended through to Tintenbar, so had the previous Pacific Motorway (Brisbane-Ewingsdale) name been retained, the article would then be renamed Pacific Motorway (Brisbane-Tintenbar)" - That would only be the case if the Ewingdale-Tintenbar section was gazetted as part of the motorway. I don't see any evidence that this will be the case. As Kerry Raymond has pointed out, the only evidence we seem to have has the Motorway gazetted to Brunswick Heads, so I'm not sure why "Ewingsdale" was ever part of the name. Your alternative proposal was the case prior to the renaming in 2013. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Pacific Highway article That being the case, I have stuck my original decision. If it is to be retained as a stand alone article, it should cover the Brisbane - Brunswick Heads section, with the section south of Brunswick Heads incorporated into the Pacific Highway article. Although I don't see the need for 3 separate articles, would prefer one end-to-end article for the Pacific Highway from North Sydney to Milton. Drs002 (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Brunswick Heads-Ewingsdale section should be in the Pacific Highway article, based on the fact that the section isn't actually part of the motorway according to the gazette, but that doesn't have anything to do with the naming of the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible solution How about three articles (which theere seem to be now anyway):

There are other interstate routes with articles on the whole thing and the components. --Scott Davis Talk 00:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that, we'd be going backward, not forward. Prior to May 2013, Pacific Motorway was the QLD Pacific Motorway article. It was moved to Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) after the section of the Pacific Highway from Brunswick Heads to the NSW/QLD border was gazetted (i.e. officially renamed) as "Pacific Motorway". At the same time, the Sydney–Newcastle Freeway was also gazetted as "Pacific Motorway". This meant there were two Pacific Motorways in NSW. It was decided to rename Sydney–Newcastle Freeway to Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) and merge the existing Pacific Motorway (New South Wales) and Pacific Motorway articles since they were one continuous section of road. Your proposal to rename this article to Pacific Motorway (Queensland) is inappropriate because 55km of the road is not in Queensland. It would be necessary to create a fourth article, which we expressly did not want, covering the 55km section from Brunswick Heads to the NSW/QLD border, splitting the northern Pacific Motorway unnecessarily into two articles. The Sydney-Brisbane route is correctly covered by:
  1. Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle) covering the main Sydney–Newcastle route
  2. Pacific Highway (Australia) covering the Pacific Highway from Sydney–Brunswick Heads. The present article is a little confusing, as it covers all the way to Brisbane, which is not correct.
  3. Pacific Motorway (New South Wales North Coast–Brisbane (or Pacific Motorway (Brunswick Heads–Brisbane) covering Brunswick Heads–Brisbane.
In any case, splitting articles is not the aim of this move proposal. We seem to be heading off course from that. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Highway (Australia) map and lead section say that it goes from Sydney to Brisbane. Is that a different road to the two "Pacific Motorway"s, or are they upgraded-standard of essentially the same road? The article says it is being upgraded to motorway or dual carriageway. As a reader not familiar with the road, I interpreted that they are all one route, like for example Melbourne–Adelaide railway consists of both the Western standard gauge line and the Adelaide-Wolseley railway line. --Scott Davis Talk 21:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Pacific Mwys are sections of the Pacific Hwy upgraded, albeit to a different alignment in parts. Parts of the old Sydney-Newcastle road still exist as the Old Pacific Hwy. Drs002 (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: The map in the article was created prior to the confusing renaming in 2013. The Pacific Highway is a different road to Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle). The Pacific Highway still exists between Sydney and Newcastle, but it's far less travelled and a lot slower between the two cities. The northern Pacific Motorway in New South Wales is an upgraded and renamed section of the Pacific Highway from Brunswick Heads to the NSW/QLD border, as explained above. It's been gazetted as such but is still referred to informally as the Pacific Highway. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I joined this conversation in response to the request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads. I agree that the current name Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–North Coast NSW) is poor for this article. I prefer Pacific Motorway (Queensland) and it appears natural to describe it in the direction of the numbered intersections. I will leave it to the regular editors and experts to determine whether to include any or all of the continued dual carriageway in New South Wales in the article, and to what degree. It appears reasonable to also include it in the Pacific Highway (Australia) article. Tracing the former routes and upgrades of significant inter-city highways is interesting as demographics and road building technology and philosophy change. I've been looking at the various routes and re-routes of the Sturt Highway and Princes Highway in South Australia, both of which have had a number of significant changes of which towns they pass through (and now bypass) since the names were first gazetted. --Scott Davis Talk 11:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a response from the Queensland Government Transport and Main Roads on how they refer to roads. It is "TMR has a convention that the direction of a road, highway or motorway is generally from major centre to lessor or minor centre, or from major road to minor road. For example, the Bruce Highway direction is from Brisbane to Cairns, Pacific Highway is from Brisbane to state border and Flinders Highway is from Townsville to Cloncurry." Kerry (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the conventions of any particular government. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While not a hard and fast rule, infrastructure articles do tend to start at the larger centre. Road articles such as the M1 motorway are written this way as it follows the numbered junctions (which exist on the Pacific Mwy) in ascending order. Likewise railway articles such as the Gold Coast railway line are written from the state capital as this mirrors the ascending lineside mileage posts. Drs002 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
55km of this road is NOT in QLD so we can't base things on distance from the state capital unless we change direction for the NSW 55km and measure from Sydney. That was one of the reasons we decided to continue the south-north convention. That allowed a minimum of change when/if the road eventually connects up as the vast majority of it lies in NSW. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: previous discussion on directionality resulted in WP:AURD/RJL#Other_issues bullet point 3 (note those suggestions need not apply here if a different consensus is reached here, just an FYI for Aus road articles in general). If further discussion on article directions in general is desired, probably best to raise it on the WT:AURD project talk page. - Evad37 [talk] 13:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change of direction. I closed the previous move (which was a pretty clear cut closure), but I don't think that disqualifies me from !voting here. Like others, I don't have a strong opinion on the choice of name for the end point (although the current one is quite concise, even if a few readers won't know what NSW means), but it does seem clear that this road is part of the Brisbane metropolitan road network, and as such it makes sense to list Brisbane first. The prospect of the Sydney and Brisbane legs being joined up seems very remote, so really they're separate motorways in separate metro areas.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The NSW section was renamed specifically because the plan is to eventually rename the entire Sydney-Brisbane route "Pacific Motorway" so the likelihood is not as remote as you think. It will happen, we just don't know when. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get back on track

[edit]

This is a move request, not a discussion about what content should be in the article, or whether it should be split into two. Discussions about which directions the individual states use are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not obliged to follow individual governments' preferences, nor should we. If we did, how would we measure the Pacific Highway article, from Sydney the way NSW does, or from Brisbane, the way Qld prefers? Or should we change direction at the border to satisfy both? This article originally covered just the Qld road, but was expanded to cover the NSW section when NSW gazetted the name changes of the F3 freeway and the northern part of the NSW section of the Pacific Highway, both to "Pacific Motorway" and announced the plan to eventually rename the entire main route from Sydney to the Queensland border to "Pacific Motorway". This article was moved from Pacific Motorway to Pacific Motorway (Ewingsdale–Brisbane) accordingly. The decision to use "Ewingsdale–Brisbane" instead of "Brisbane–Ewingsdale" was not made lightly. The road will eventually link up and it will be necessary to re-order one of the two Pacific Motorway articles, before merging with the other, so that everything goes in the same direction. If we go with what the pro-"Brisbane-Northern New South Wales" people want, and go from larger to smaller location, then the direction will be Sydney–Brisbane, meaning this article will have to be re-ordered then. The choice of "Ewingsdale–Brisbane" was made to avoid the necessity of having to do this in the future, when the article will cover a lot more road, assuming a progressive name change over time. Clearly, people do not now seem to want that convenience in the future and would prefer the huge task of having to re-order when it happens. You could argue that planning for the future is WP:CRYSTAL and therefore we should work with what we have now. In that case, the January move was also WP:CRYSTAL and should never have gone ahead. At this time I can find no plans to rename any sections of the Pacific Highway south of Ewingsdale in the near future so the justification for the January move was specious at best. As a name "North Coast NSW" is ambiguous, as the NSW North Coast is a big area. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australian roads) says that roads should be named "<road> (<point a> — <point b>)" and those points are well defined for this road. "NSW North Coast" is not a point, it's a huge blob. The officially gazetted points are Brunswick Heads and Brisbane so, to satisfy those who prefer "larger to smaller", the naming convention, and WP:CRYSTAL, the article should be moved to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads). In the event that the road is extended in the future, the article can be moved again then. Moving an article is not a difficult process and can be done a million times if necessary. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is i.e. Pacific Motorway-North Coast NSW Drs002 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Thought the idea of 'Let's get back on track' was to stop the chat, for those interested to cast a vote, a consensus hopefully reached and the issue closed. But apparently not so as editors are instead repeating points they have already made and it has now degenerated into a discussion on the trivial issue of the length of a dash. Basically the discussion is going around in circles. Drs002 (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped it would stop the chat, which is why I provided links to the various guidelines. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That fails for the reason explained in the original nomination, and you can only !vote once. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "(Queensland)" is offered as a disambiguator, to distinguish the topic of this article from the topic of all the other Pacific Highway/Pacific Motorway articles.
  2. "–New South Wales" addressed the concern that someone expressed earlier that NSW seems to be extending the highway a bit at a time, and the article name would need to keep changing if it was too specific.
  3. I note with wry humour that you have stated Wikipedia is not obliged to follow individual governments' preferences when the Queensland government practice was against your preference, but are happily accepting the NSW government preference that the Motorway currently ends at Brunswick Heads, when you had previously been promoting Ewingsdale as the terminus of the road described in the article.
  4. I found the region names from Regions of New South Wales#Informal divisions after you asserted that there was no such place as North Coast NSW. It said that Northern Rivers is a subregion of North Coast. I like the concept of that article and might try to do a similar one for my own state, since every department here seems to have its own regions too.
  5. Am I the only one finding this conversation tedious and the simplest outcome is to close it as "no consensus" and get on with improving the content? As far as I can tell, any interesting text for the NSW section of this road is also valid for the Pacific Highway (Australia) article in the upgrades section (which currently uses Ewingsdale or Ballina as the Motorway endpoint, not Brunswick Heads).
--Scott Davis Talk 04:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "(Queensland)" is misleading, for reasons already stated.
  2. The concerns expressed were, at best, specious, and certainly WP:CRYSTAL. Upgrading of the Pacific Highway has been going on since 1990, but it wasn't until 2013 that it was announced that the F3 freeway and the northen section of the Pacific Highway were going to be renamed to "Pacific Motorway". This happened in February 2014. Since then there have been no name changes announced. The concerns were based on an assumption. Given the history, there is no reason for moving the article to the more ambiguous "North Coast NSW" and, as I've already pointed out, moving an article is easy. It doesn't matter how many times it's moved.
  3. No, I'm not happily accepting the NSW preference at all. That it happens to coincide with the naming convention is a coincidence. In fact I've suggested now that the article should be moved to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads), which is in the opposite direction, and I've explained why at length.
  4. It said that Northern Rivers is a subregion of North Coast - Where did you find that in the article? It implies it, but doesn't actually say it, and it certainly doesn't say it's a sub-region of North Coast NSW.
  5. There is support for New South Wales instead of NSW but not for the original south-north direction. I've compromised by alternatively suggesting Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads), as this complies with the naming convention and avoids ambiguously identifying one end of the road as a 262 km long region. Yes the upgrades do mention Ewingsdale but that has nothing to do with the road's name. The sources in the article, specifically the NSW Government Gazette, identify the end of the Pacific Motorway as Brunswick Heads, not Ewingsdale. (Thanks to Kerry Raymond for finding that.
I must admit I'm at a loss as to understand why people have become so fixated on inappropriate name changes and the direction of the road, or why they don't seem to want to address the WP:NCAURD or WP:CRYSTAL issues that should be addressed. Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads) addresses all of the legitimate concerns so far addressed. Maybe I should just close this as "withdrawn by nom" and start again. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Em dashes can't be used for ranges—only en dashes. We certainly space/unspace en dashes in date-ranges according to whether there are any internal spaces within either element (9 June – 20 July; but 9–20 July). I haven't checked, but probably an open (spaced) en dash is better on the eyes when using "Brunswick Heads". Not too thrilled about spelling out the full catastrophe of NSW in expanded form, but it's not a huge deal. To me, it makes the title pretty long-winded, and NSW has a big recognition factor. Will foreigners really be misled by NSW? Tony (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just getting silly now. The road does not end at Brunswick Heads, it ends at Ewingsdale. But the whole point of the previous move request was to remove the need to continually move the disambiguator to include new small settlements as the road gets extended, but just accept that it ends somewhere on the northern coastal region of New South Wales. Personally, per Tony, I think the current title is just fine. It's concise, and recognisable enough - epsecially to those who are interested in looking at either of the two articles in the first place. You could spell out NSW in full if you really want to, but any other change, back to a settlement name for example, is not needed at this time. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's cetainly silly to claim that the road ends at Ewingsdale when we have clear sources that say the Pacific Motorway ends at Brunswick Heads. Do you have a source to say that the Brunswick Heads to Ewingsdale section has been gazetted as part of the motorway? As I've pointed out, there is no evidence that there are any plans to move the southern endpoint of the motorway beyond Brunswick Heads in the near, or even distant future. All we have is a statement from the NSW RMS that the entire main route from Sydney to Brisbane will eventually be renamed to Pacific Motorway, with no time-frame for that. The concern about moving endpoints has no evidence to support that this will be a problem, so the change was, at best, WP:CRYSTAL. And no, it's not concise or recognisable. The naming convention says use end points. A 262 km long section of road is not concise at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the endpoints, there may have been some confusion between the Pacific Motorway, which ends at Brunswick Heads per the sources, and the M1, which does continue further as Pacific Highway (M1) – e.g. these recent (Jan 2014) Google streetview images in the section between Ewingsdale and Brunswick Heads: [4][5][6]. Anyway, I would support Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads), which does fit with the naming convention of "(<point a> – <point b>)". We may need some page moves as, when, or if, the Motorway (not the M1) is extended, but page moves aren't really such a big deal to do, and redirects are cheap. - Evad37 [talk] 00:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legend's proposal for removing the clunky state-name is excellent. Solves everything, doesn't it? Tony (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you've convinced me. If the "motorway" really becomes the "highway" at that point, then it's fine. Support move to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane – Brunswick Heads).  — Amakuru (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

[edit]

@HandsomeFella: Regarding the recent page move, you used the edit summary "Per MOS:ENDASH" – can you explain what you mean? Espcially since for "ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through", MOS:ENDASH says "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when at least one endpoint of the range includes at least one space." - Evad37 [talk] 01:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Evad37: it appears that goes for time-related ranges only (it's said in that context), but I agree, it's somewhat confusing and contradictive, because at the same time there's this example: a New York–Los Angeles flight. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having given it some thought, I'm pretty sure that goes for date/time ranges only. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) → Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Ballina) – The pacific motorway was extended to Ballina in December 2015. It is mentioned a few times in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(Australia) Iainturville1 (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should at least go to a full requested move discussion: previous renamings have been controversial, see talk page – including regarding where there endpoints of the named road are, which may be confused with the endpoints of the M1 route. - Evad37 [talk] 07:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that there are no reliable sources provided (as requested last July[7]) to support a renaming, only some uncited material in a Wikipedia article. - Evad37 [talk] 07:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iainturville1 and Evad37: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The proposer did a cut and paste move of this page in July 2016 using the same argument. The article was not moved then because the official endpoints of the road had not changed. They still have not. The change needs to be promulgated in the government gazette and there has been no change of which I am aware. The last change set the official endpoint as Brunswick Heads.[8] Per WP:NCAURD, "Roadways are named by their current public official name as listed in the appropriate government gazette [preferred], or as otherwise used for general administrative purposes, and not their common name, or their internal name according to the relevant government department." Therefore, until such time as the endpoints change officially, the article should remain at Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads). --AussieLegend (✉) 17:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my 'contested technical request' comments above, and per AussieLegend - Evad37 [talk] 00:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real comment on the title of this article, but it should be merged, cleaned up, then made a decent subsidiary of Pacific Highway (Australia). The hat note on that page says it is not to be confused with this road or another road, immediately next to a map that shows the Pacific Highway goes from Sydney to Brisbane. To non-road-nerds, the "Pacific Highway" is the road from Sydney to Brisbane, and the "Pacific Highway upgrade" is making it better. The NSW government seems to think the Pacific Highway upgrade is from Hexham to Queensland.[9] which I think includes part of this road, but not the other one referred to by the hat note but included in the map. The issue is not about renaming the subtitle of this article, it is about setting or changing the object being described in the article. I have recently combined (with consensus) several other highway articles that had been arbitrarily split into "highway" and "motorway" or "freeway" segments based on the progress of upgrading and building bypasses, and believe that Wikipedia would be improved by describing the Pacific Highway as a whole in a summary-style article too. --Scott Davis Talk 13:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current proposal as per others above. But, after this proposal is resolved, I would like to see a proposal along the lines of Scott Davis's suggestion above. I think the current distinction between the Motorway and the Highway doesn't reflect the way readers think about the situation. If we follow Scott's suggestion, then we can say in the article that certain parts are officially known as This Highway and That Motorway, while recent construction work between HERE and THERE has upgraded the route to motorway-like quality but, as of DATE, has not been officially gazetted as part of the motorway. That would avoid constant renaming of the article (and discussing the renaming of it) as each new chunk is upgraded and/or gazetted as part of the motorway. Let's be accurate with the facts, but we should remember to be accessible to the reader up front in order to get them to read the article and not discard it thinking it not the one they wanted/expected. Kerry (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having spoken to RMS recently about the current M1 Motorway to Raymond Terrace proposal, it would appear that the ultimate aim is to make the Pacific Highway disappear as a main route altogether, with the M1 Pacific Motorway being the main route between Sydney and Brisbane. This would leave the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Raymond Terrace and explains the current practice up upgrading the highway and subsequently renaming sections. As it stands, the section of road that is the topic of this RM is officially gazetted as the Pacific Motorway, not the Pacific Highway, regardless of what people like to call it. That said, a discussion about what to do after this RM about the Pacific Highway is really outside the scope of this discussion, so it really shouldn't be mentioned, as it has no bearing on the outcome. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion on what to do with the articles at WT:AURD#Pacific_Highway. - Evad37 [talk] 05:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point in The issue is not about renaming the subtitle of this article, it is about setting or changing the object being described in the article was not intended to refer to "the other road", it was that the road between Brisbane and Ballina is not (precisely) the same as the road between Brisbane and Brunswick Heads. At the moment, the difference between the two might be seen as trivial if it is only the date of opening of a dual carriageway, but it could theoretically be much more (for example if the site of an event like the Kempsey bus crash was in one but not both). --Scott Davis Talk 13:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

For information of interested editors, this article is included in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian Roads#Pacific Highway which relates to all of the articles about the route(s) between Sydney and Brisbane with "Pacific" in their name. --Scott Davis Talk 09:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes

[edit]

G'day @AussieLegend: here you reverted my removal of hatnotes with comment "Reverted good faith edits by Shhhnotsoloud: These hatnotes are used becaue all three are intimately related, effectively being 2 parts of a road and the entire length of the road". That's not what hatnotes are for: WP:HATNOTES: "Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". No-one is going to come to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) wanting Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle). Furthermore the 2nd hatnote {{see also}} should only be used at the top of a section. Per the 5 basic rules of hatnotes, please self-revert and let my edit stand (and at Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle)). Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is going to specifically come to Pacific Motorway (Brisbane–Brunswick Heads) or Pacific Motorway (Sydney–Newcastle). They generally look for just "Pacific Highway" or "Pacific Motorway". That's where the problem begins. For the purposes of this discussion the Pacific Highway starts in Sydney and heads north to Brisbane. From Sydney another road, the Pacific Motorway, starts in Sydney and heads inland of the Pacific Highway north to Beresfield where you turn right onto John Renshaw Drive then merge left onto the New England Highway which eventually rejoins the Pacific Highway on the bridges at Hexham (Technically they join in Thornton but that's another story). Heading south from Brisbane, the Pacific Highway and Pacific Motorway follow the same route to Brunswick Heads where the motorway ends and the highway continues. Between Brunswick Heads and Hexham the road is known as the Pacific Highway. So here we have a situation where we have two Pacific Motorways, one of which is part of the Pacific Highway. Eventually, all of the Pacific Highway will become the Pacific Motorway. This has lead to enormous confusion by readers and editors alike, which is why the hatnotes are used. Throw into that the fact that all three roads form part of the national highway, Highway 1 with the southern Pacific Motorway being part of Highway 1 while the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Hexham is not and you have a genuine example of a situation where hatnotes are required in order to reinforce that readers are either at the correct article or the wrong one. Even if this does not comply with the rules for hatnotes, and I believe that it does with what WP:HATNOTE says, it is a place where WP:IAR is justifiable. As for the use of {{see also}} that was only restored because it was unable to restore the hatnotes without restoring that. It's not actually needed anyway. One of the roads was already linked in the body of the article and the other should have been. That has now been fixed. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend: OK, thank you for your comprehensive explanation. Cheers, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Length of this road

[edit]

The distances shown in the two RJL tables add up to 152.8. This should be the figure shown in the infobox. Downsize43 (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South East Freeway?

[edit]

This term redirects to this article, but I see no mention of the term in the article. This could easily be mistaken for the South Eastern Freeway in SA. I have put hatnotes on both articles, but wondering if the redirect should just be changed to target the SA one?

South East Freeway is indeed mentioned in the article. I have bolded it to increase visibility. Downsize43 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - thanks. But that's "Southeast", one word - which is why find didn't work. Which also leads to the question - do we have redirects for all of the variations of spelling these points of the compass for every article title containing one? (The SA one is never spelt as one word, that I've seen, anyway.) And I've just discovered that there's a DAB for South-Eastern Freeway. Perhaps that should combine both terms? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TMR official name is South East Arterial Road, just to further complicate things. Downsize43 (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, well perhaps add a redirect from that term, and add it to the article somewhere? I have just moved the ill-named "South-Eastern Freeway" DAB (hyphenated form) to "South Eastern Freeway (disambiguation)" and included all terms that could be confused (and fixed one article that included the redirect to this article). Hopefully clearer to all. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tweed Heads Bypass Stage 1

[edit]

It should be in the Gold Coast Highway article 'cos it's got the same speed limit 2001:8003:313B:F300:B9F2:1DCE:A40A:F19E (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pacific_Motorway_(Brisbane–Brunswick_Heads)&oldid=1233049137"