Talk:New England Highway

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

Untitled[edit]

The spelling of Glen Innes on the distance sign image is wrong. The user who created the image seems to have quit WP, though. 218.102.220.129 12:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question... who is the genius who's just assumed this alpha-numeric thing is happening and as such is updating all of the Highway readings for NSW? There is yet to be one single source for this. The distances on the sign shown are more likely from Maitland, not Newcastle. Singleton is about 80km by road from Newcastle for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.37.129 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I thinkk this article needs some sort of a clean-up especially the intro. About the alphanumeric signss, it is evident that it wil be happpening and there is a decently reliable source. The author of www.ozroads.com.u has spoken personallly with the RTA and they confirmed it. Robotboy2008 (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major intersection[edit]

Thunderbolts Way intersection at Uralla. This alternate route from Sydney has increasing traffic. Cgoodwin (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced material[edit]

A single reference to an Ozroads page in the heading is not sufficient to meet Wikipedia referencing guidelines, when: (a) not all the information in the list comes from that page, and (b) it is just a repeat of information found on another webpage, which itself is not sourced.

I also question the value of reproducing such a large list from another webpage and producing a minor re-write (completley unsourced except for a single reference in the header) to make it technically not plagiarism.61.88.20.56 (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted that this article has been tagged as needing citations since March 2008 - nearly 4 years and no change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.71.169 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BURDEN "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it (although an alternate procedure would be to add a citation needed tag). Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." - 4 years is sufficient time. Given the material cannot be verified, it should be deleted. 61.88.20.56 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tags tend to stay in articles for a long time with little action, especially if they're placed incorrectly. They really mean very little and wholesale deletion of content based on them doesn't help improve the project. In this case, selective deletion of one section is inappropriate. The refimprove tag applies to the whole article, if you're going to delete one section based on non-compliance with it, you have to delete the whole article and that just doesn't happen. Tagging specific points with which you have a problem is best done using {{citation needed}}, but tagging every point, adding {{citation needed}} 42 times is excessive. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does then raise the question as to whether the article will actually ever comply with Wikipedia requirements and also, why is the content placed there in the first place without any references? I only looked at one section but I could easily add another 42 "citation needed" tags to other parts of the article as well seeing as it has precisely ONE citation. I do not have access to the appropriate research material to add citations for these - they should have been done when the information was first added to the article. Once again, WP:BURDEN states that the onus is on the author and/or restorer to 'prove' that the information is correct. If it cannot be proven, then it gets removed until such times that it can be proven. I am simply following Wikipedia policy. I note that your contributions history shows that you have pulled others up in the past for adding unsourced material. 203.23.209.190 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but it also says that not everything needs citations. It just needs to be verifiable and what is in the article is verifable. Most of the information is easily found on the RTA website, but Ozroads conveniently lists everything in one list. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pls go ahead and delete the entire article, bah humbug. What a bogus discussion, a huge page of such a large amount of info, all gleaned from knowledge and here there and everywhere but no citations, delete the lot. Pfft --Dave Rave (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National highway function section --- I suggest this section be removed entirely because: A) it completely lacks references/citations; and B) it is redundant and replicates information that already exists on the "National Highway (Australia)" WP page. Simply linking to the "National Highway (Australia)" WP page would be consistent with how this is handled on the pages of other national hwys (e.g., Cunningham Hwy). Mdgc1234 (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

attached KML[edit]

the one shown, Template:Attached KML/New England Highway, looks like it was done from start to end and not vetted for accuracy.

I've re-done it, my second attempt but now, how to over write or is delete and re-add okay, or just add a new one -1 and link Dave Rave (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sharing fixed, you can see it now ... I could cut paste all the coords in the kml and edit paste over the existing ?Dave Rave (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Bridge at Aberdeen[edit]

Unable to find a ref for Fitzgerald, but suspect it may be Richard Fitzgerald who had landholdings near Cassilis in the early days. He is in the ADB. Downsize43 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to whoever:
  • This Richard Fitzgerald is not one of those on WP.
  • His son Robert is on WP.
  • The Fitzgerald Bridge on WP is in India.

Downsize43 (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note:
  • The old (1893) bridge is listed on the Register of the National Estate, but the listing does not say who it was named for.

Downsize43 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the newspaper report of the 1893 opening ceremony it is named after Robert Fitzgerald (Australian politician) who was the member for Upper Hunter at the time and agitated for the bridge to be built. Kerry (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the road[edit]

I have recently discovered that the length shown for this road is short by 33 km due to an error made in the original RJL. I have confirmed the correct values for the Queensland segment, and will update all values in the near future. Changes that will reflect the link to the Toowoomba Bypass, and any completed rerouting in NSW, are for the indefinite future. Downsize43 (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a bad day - All Changes now reverted, I hope.Downsize43 (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_England_Highway&oldid=1199027141"