Jump to content

Talk:M5 Motorway (Sydney)

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

Untitled

[edit]

why is there a pic of the M4/M7 interchange on this page? lawl. 61.88.20.56 (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]

Please don't mention non-major incidents or alerts in this article. The paragraph detailing the truck that smashed into the front of the M5 East Tunnel was not necessary and was removed. These exact same incidents occur frequently in Melbourne's notorious Burnley and Domain Tunnels (overheight alerts) and there are no accounts recorded on any Victorian / Melbourne Wikipedia page regarding such incidents. Same goes for other states. Therefore, incidents that haven't involved fatalities (such as the Burnley Tunnel fireball in 2007 which involved numerous vehicles and some fatalities) or haven't involved major problems (such as a fire, explosion or massive pileup in the tunnel) shouldn't be mentioned! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.199.110 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Botany Photo

[edit]

The photo shown of Botany is not the M5 East, it is of Southern Cross Drive:

http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=southern+cross+drive,+botany,+nsw&aq=&sll=-33.942826,151.192131&sspn=0.019866,0.045447&gl=au&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Southern+Cross+Dr,+Sydney+New+South+Wales+2019&ll=-33.940405,151.195049&spn=0.019867,0.045447&z=15&iwloc=A

It doesn't become the M5 East until *after* it passes underneath the airport tunnel, which is way off the right side of the photo. 220.233.130.210 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed ***Adam*** (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

The article is titled M5 South Western Motorway and the intro makes a point that this is a different entity to the M5 East, however the article is actually about the entire M5. I don't believe splitting the article makes sense, but for correctness perhaps it should be renamed to M5 (Sydney) or similar? 124.168.177.19 (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Naming it South Western Motorway is definitely inaccurate. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible names it should be given

[edit]
  • Marcnut1996's suggestion/idea:
    • M5 Motorway, Sydney
  • 124.168.177.19's suggestion:
    • M5 (Sydney)
  • Nbound's suggestion:
  • M5 South Western Motorway
  • M5 East
  • M5 (Sydney) disambiguation (doesnt have to be that exact name, just something appropriate, even Marcnut's example above [but with parenthesis])

Please think up of some possible names that it could be renamed to. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im for a split, its the same as whats been done for all the various Highway 1 or M1/A1 articles -- Nbound (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im all for a mention of the other in both articles... while being separate roadways operated by separate companies, they do link together. -- Nbound (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll discuss that when we have enough ideas. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be per the (final draft) naming conventions Ive been working on at WP:AURD: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#Draft. Specifically point 2 of the article title section... This could be a good test for it... I would consider these roads separately notable personally :) -- Nbound (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the M5 Motorway, Sydney suggestion. With the likely deletion (not renaming) of the Metroad 5 article, a split would mean there isn't a single article for what almost any (normal) person would consider a single road. All signs for both sections read M5 Motorway so this would be the best article title. 124.168.177.19 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already splits the road into two separate roadways. They arent a single road any more than any two roads that flow into each other with the same shield are (like the M1 sections in Nth Sydney). The disambiguation page could contain an overview of the situation. The both have separate histories and separate operators, and are referred to as two separate roadways by reputable sources like:

  • The RTA/RMS: [1].
  • The Federal Government: [2].
  • NSW Land and Property Information division: http://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/ (switch to non-imagery basemap [top right] and zoom in.)

-- Nbound (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is clearly room to expand both articles with the appropriate sections for road articles, elaboration, and the extras that will also come along when you find sources for the articles' assertions. They are already longer than many articles which do have their own page such as Federal Highway (Australia). Unless there is reason to beleive these roads aren't seperately notable, Im finding it odd why a split would be opposed on work-in-progress content grounds :S -- Nbound (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note that any future naming/renaming of the WestConnex section is covered by WP:BALL (ie. ignored for this discussion). We dont know what will happen in regards to WestConnex at all. WC is just the name of a project, not the name of any road, We dont even know for certain if it will get built [We all know how much NSW loves to plan roads in Sydney ;) ]. -- Nbound (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's clearly room to expand most articles, but until the content is there the project does not benefit from numerous stubs when the information fits neatly into another (longer) page. If you or another user manage to get a substantial amount of info on the M5 East, then sure, let's revisit. The fact that the M5 East and West are effectively the same road means that to me, they would be best served a combined unit. Obviously each section was built by separate parties due to cost issues, etc, but to the end user, the road is the same.
  • Not that it matters a great deal, but the NSW Government doesn't have much choice on WestConnex; they have effectively locked themselves into it with the sale of the ports at Port Botany at $5 billion. The reason why a substantially higher transaction price was extracted from the superannuation fund syndicate is due to the contractual agreement to expand the road access in the area, namely the M5 East. By expanding the access links, Port Botany can itself expand as and when required. Again, my primary objection is covered in the first point, the WestConnex is really just secondary as it has not eventuated as yet. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cant oppose on pure lack of content grounds alone (if the article topic is notable, which noone has said the M5 East isnt). It just means it will be a shortish article... no big deal. Besides, if someone adopts the article Im sure they could find heaps more infromation. -- Nbound (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is certainly met for M5 East inclusion into Wikipedia—no doubt. But, the guidelines give room for choice on the matter of separate articles:

Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.

— Wikipedia:Notability

In this case, I can't see what is to be gained from the separation, especially considering that small article size, which has not grown much in years. If and when the section becomes unwieldy, there will be no opposition from me. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And when does that occur? The section is already bigger than many roads articles, and all it would take is a keen editor and a few hours work to expand it to full size. The article already largely covers both separately, rather than covers both together. -- Nbound (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Brief Overview possibility

[edit]

The M5 Motorway is a name used to refer to a length of roadway that links General Holmes Drive in Sydney's inner south, to the Hume Motorway in the outer southwest. It consists of two component motorways:

and its later eastwards extension;

  • The M5 East between <point b> and <point c>

Nbound (talk)

M5 East Information

[edit]

I'm the Environment & Community Manager at the M5 East Motorway. I have been in contact with Google over an issue with Google searches for our information where the M5 Southwest Motorway map appears alongside search results for the M5 East. The issue, according to Google engineers, is that the Wikipedia article has M5 East Freeway as a subset/subheading in the M5 Southwest Motorway article and uses this information/data for search results and maps. The M5 East (owned by RMS) is not part of the M5 Southwest Motorway (leased by Interlink) - the M5 East begins at King Georges Rd and ends at General Holmes Dr. By having M5 East as a subset of this article, it also creates havoc as motorway users think that we can deal with their tolling accounts, accidents, breakdowns, complaints, etc. It's become an administrative nightmare! If the page could please be split into 2 separate articles with references to the other motorway in each, it will solve a big problem for our call centre. Also, upon completion of WestConnex construction, all 3 assets (i.e. M5 East, New M5 and M5 Southwest) will be managed separately. Furthermore, the New M5 and M5 East will be sold off. They will not be managed as a single mega-asset. Once the New M5 is completed, a new article could then be published describing that asset. Refer to Page 5 of the following WestConnex document: [[3]] and the M5 East Motorway website showing the incorrect map at the bottom [[4]] Trubie78 (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, previously I have been in favour of retaining a single page for these roads. Creating separate pages to resolve a Google issue is very much a case of the tail wagging the dog. However, I concede that my previous opposition to a split is not as strong as before (I'm now neutral on the matter). As you stated, the M5 route comprises the Southwest, East and future WestConnex eastern section. For comparison, the M1 is broken down into Gore Hill Freeway, Warringah Freeway, Sydney Harbour Tunnel, Cahill Expressway, and the Eastern Distributor, among others. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response - appreciate it. Can we at least change the title of the article to M5 Motorway and make M5 Southwest Motorway a subheading like the M5 East Motorway currently is? Thus the article would then have 3 sub-sections comprising the M5 Southwest Motorway, M5 East and New M5. Please? Trubie78 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For now I have changed the title to M5 Motorway (Sydney) and made it clearer that the roads are distinct. I will let others participate in the discussion further regarding a split of the page into individual articles. I believe the current setup is satisfactory though. The old structure with the name M5 South Western Motorway was inaccurate when applied to the entire page. However, there was issue in renaming as "M5 Motorway" was already taken. I have chosen M5 Motorway (Sydney) as this is inline with Western Distributor (Sydney) and EastLink (Melbourne). OSX (talk • contributions) 07:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 July 2025

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as proposed. I note that the proposed alternative clearly lacks consensus at this time. BD2412 T 16:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– Revert undiscussed moves per the outcome of similar RM for M4 Motorway (Sydney). Also aware of the huge ANI thread and possible ArbCom case regarding the wider topic of capitalisation but that's probably neither here nor there. Fork99 (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 07:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for the same reasons as in the previous discussion about the M4 Motorway. "Motorway" is an integral part of the proper name of each of these roads, and is generally capitalised. The undiscussed move should be reverted so that Wikipedia once again reflects this. Tomiĉo (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reverting the undiscussed moves as the pages were at the correctly capitalised titles, per WP:NCCPT and MOS:PROPERNOUN as “Motorway” is a proper noun in this context (and not used generically).
– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 22:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Sydney M5 etc (including M4). The M in M5 inherently means this is a motorway, making the addition of motorway to the title redundant. M5 is more than sufficiently WP:RECOGNIZABLE that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. Placing Sydney with this is sufficiently PRECISE and has the advantage of being NATURAL. Including motorway per the existing title is OVERPRECISION. The problem with WP:NCCPT is that it is in direct contradiction with WP:AT (WP:UCN) but NCCPT does not mandate the use of motorway. MOS:PROPERNOUN does not tell us what a proper noun is. Motorway is inherently a descriptive, class or common noun. Per WP:NCGCLASS these are not capped as a matter of course. However, the proposed alternative makes such a question redundant - at least for the title. Note that in adopting this, the article would need to be indexed on M5 Sydney, since M5 is the key search term. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that the word "motorway" is redundant. It is not clear that Sydney M4 would refer to the motorway. In the context of Sydney, M prefix could also mean a Sydney Metro line or a Metrobus route. The alternative will also contradict the recent RM for M4 Motorway.Marcnut1996 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Could and does are two different things. WP:TITLEDAB applies to actual conflicts in article titles. A search of google scholar and news shows that Sydney M5 is being used to refer to the motorway [near] exclusively. The status quo at M4 does not veto this proposal. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose alternative: M1 is already ambiguous in Sydney, it could mean the M1 Pacific Motorway or the M1 Metro North West & Bankstown Line, and future Sydney Metro lines that are under construction and proposed will only complicate the matter in the future. Fork99 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For M1, there is no actual title conflict with the proposal and this search indicates the motorway would be the PRIMARYTOPIC in any case. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      True but arguing for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on two relatively niche localised articles with not that much worldwide coverage or notability is such a waste of editors' time in my opinion. (I've decided to preemptively strike this out upon re-reading this because it's not that important to the discussion and it was dismissive, I apologise for that) Fork99 (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC) I don't see what value is being added to Wikipedia if a similar amount of readers are coming to one article and expecting the other one.[reply]
      By number of page views, e.g. see the page views in the last 30 days for the two M1 articles, the motorway got 1144 views in the past 30 days and the metro line got 2778 views in the past 30 days.
      The first suggested aspect of PTOPIC (PT1) suggests for determining a primary topic is with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. (own emphasis added). Regarding WP:PT2, I don't have enough info to make a judgement on that, although both are likely to have long-term significance, just to what extent is the question. It's just not worth it in my opinion.
      It also wouldn't help for WP:CONSISTENT if one motorway in Sydney was named under one convention and a another one used a different naming convention. Fork99 (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      M5 is the most CONCISE and COMMONNAME for the motorway in Sydney (there I was just drving down the M5 minding my own business ...) but there are many M5s occupying title space (ie article and redirect names) and it requires disambiguation. M5 motorway (however capped) is not sufficient to resolve this. We can either add further disambiguation (the present title) or find a better disambiguator - eg the proposed alternative. There is no conflict in title space for this alternative name. Other things in Sydney that could occupy this name don't and the search I provided show that it is quite RECOGNIZABLE with the NATURAL disambiguator. It is sufficiently PRECISE. Where I said, this search indicates the motorway would be the PRIMARYTOPIC in any case [emphasis added], I was countering a hypothetical with a hypothetical. PT only applies if there are two names in title space that would otherwise occupy the same name - eg Charles III v all thye others called Charles III (Charles III (disambiguation)). Because there is nothing else occupying Sydney M5, PT doesn't actually apply here.
      Indicating that these four articles should be CONSISTENT with one other article is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Clearly, if the alternative has consensus, a move of M4 is indicated and I specifically mentioned (foreshadowed) this in my initial post. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In any case, I think that if the alternative has consensus, it should be M5 (Sydney) as Sydney M5 is a bit unnatural. But yes, it is common in colloquial speech to refer to the road by its route number only. I have no idea about it being the (emphasis) WP:COMMONNAME though, compared to "M5 Motorway". Fork99 (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose alternative suggested by Cinderella157 for the reasons Fork99 stated, additionally the WP:AURDNAME § Article titles guideline (which reflects consensus in the Australian context) has examples of both “Motorway” and “Highway” being capitalised when referring to a particular road in article titles. Also it is common to say something such as “the M5 Motorway” despite the M (in M5) meaning motorway.
– MrAussieGuy (Talk) 12:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add While WP:AURDNAME § Article titles has one example of a motorway, Princes Motorway (M1), it is neither defining nor restrictive in respect to the alternative. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Sentence and upper case are used interchangeably by sources depending on individual style guides. The suggestion that motorway is not often capitalised is not correct. Channel 7, Drive.com.au, Daily Telegraph and Transurnan articles are examples that use the capitalised version.
Notably, Transport for NSW, the owner of the motorways, consistently uses the M5 Motorway format. e.g. M5, M8, M12. M5 Motorway is a proper name, thus per WP:NCCAPS, M5 Motorway is how the article should be named. Oppose the alternative M5 (Sydney) and Sydney M5 suggestions. Soulongso (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Australian Roads, WikiProject Australian Transport, and WikiProject Sydney have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 07:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M5_Motorway_(Sydney)&oldid=1302109509"