Talk:VicRoads

Employees

That employees figure is totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.30.199 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct number added —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dub1968 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates. Why?

An editor keen to add coordinates across Wikipedia (he tells us this on his user page) has just done so for this article. I'm not sure it's a sensible approach for this topic. The location of the VicRoads head office is otherwise very well defined by its address in the info box, with even more detail in the text. It could not be more precisely defined. In addition, VicRoads is a body that operates and has other offices all over the state of Victoria. What is the point of listing precise coordinates for just one of these offices? It seems to place undo importance on one not terribly relevant fact.

HiLo48 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on VicRoads. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061125203359/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au:80/vrne/vrne5nav.nsf/alltitle/About%2BVicRoads-Contact%2BUs to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne/vrne5nav.nsf/alltitle/About+VicRoads-Contact+Us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060910001442/http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au:80/vrne/vrne5nav.nsf/childdocs/-BB50F530937BB3C9CA256FD300241C84-72F00738926865AFCA256FE100428355?open to http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/vrne/vrne5nav.nsf/childdocs/-BB50F530937BB3C9CA256FD300241C84-72F00738926865AFCA256FE100428355?open

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Governance

This section has a neutrality issue.

"Arguing that the reform would go "one step beyond" the formation of Transport for Victoria, Andrews said that merging the two agencies would lead to planning of an integrated and mode-agnostic transport network. However, the announcement was criticised by the state Opposition as a cynical exercise to obfuscate the planning failures of existing agencies. Although the Rail, Tram and Bus Union supported the government's decision, the Australian Services Union, representing a large number of VicRoads administrative staff, opposed the merger."

State Oppositions and unions always oppose any restructures, so it is hardly noteworthy. The article should reflect what is planned will happen in a neutral tone, without the opinions of vested interests. Fishaharris (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing mention of the Opposition predictably opposing, but if you read carefully, your comment about unions isn't true. One union has supported and one has opposed the change. That seems notable, but reasons would be interesting to see. HiLo48 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who added the information, it was obviously my intention to be neutral. It would be less neutral no to mention that the change was opposed by significant groups (Oppositions don't oppose everything, but I do take your point here. Probably worth adding the comments of the PTUA and RACV if they've made any, as I usually do on transport issues, and then the whole thing can be condensed to avoid giving undue weight. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)