Talk:M5 Motorway (Sydney)

Untitled

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)

Context

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)

Botany Photo

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)

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

Article title

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)

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

Possible names it should be given

• 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)

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)

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)

We'll discuss that when we have enough ideas. Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose page move as the M5 East will soon become part of WestConnex. Also, I don't see a page split as beneficial given the small amount of information in the M5 East section at present. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I oppose against spliting of article per OSX reasoning. Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Brief Overview possibility

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:

• The M5 South Western Motorway between <point a> and <point b>

and its later eastwards extension;

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

Nbound (talk)

M5 East Information

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)

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)

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)

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)