Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways/United Kingdom: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:09, 28 August 2008 editStavros1 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,993 edits Comment← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:42, 10 March 2018 edit undoRschen7754 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits ←Redirected page to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways Tag: New redirect
(435 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''REQUESTS FOR ROAD NUMBER SIGNS CAN BE ADDED~~ ]~~.'''~~		#REDIRECT ]

	==Standardise route boxes for motorway articles==
	Hi and thanks for setting up this project. I note your open task and wanted to discuss it before it gets rolled out. The main format used (partly through my original <s>set up</s> expansions or amendments) and partly through what was there before is more like ], ] which matches the road signs better. I had intended to go through and remove all colour to make them more accessible which seems to be a real requirement here. ] 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:I was the one who added most of them in the first place, but looking at them now, they're a real accessibility nightmare. ]'s routebox, a neutral gray, looks better than ]'s blue header. ''']''' <sup>(] ])</sup> 19:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	::That's fine with me to change. I used italics and bold as opposed to colour where possible for emphasis. I would also prefer to have the road number at the end as this matches the signs better (this is not trying to be travel guide) but also being in the context of UK road signage. I have also amended my comments slightly above. --] 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	:::Seems like a good idea to me. One thing that confuses me, which I think should be clarified, is (for example ] J31 or ] J3) where there are, in effect, two exits at one junction. At present, we separate it with a black line, and make rowspan of the J3 tag 2. Should be so a similar thing with the new more accessible version? ]] 16:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
	:::::I set them that way to distinguish between the non motorway and motorway stretches. If there is a better way to go, then I am happy to go with it. ] 19:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

	==Coordinates==
	Please see ] for a discussion of the use of coordinates in motorway route tables. ] 21:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
	*And please see ] for use of coordinates in the route template; noting the final external link on the page (usng {{tl\|kml}}, to a service which passes the coordinates to Google maps, so that they can be plotted as "push-pins". Perhaps this project could make adding coordinates (using {{tl\|coord}} to other motorway route templates one if its activities? ] \| ] 10:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

	== References / Short Article Clean-up ==

	] has a number of your motorway articles in its ] of articles (it's alphabetical, and A-roads come early). I've cobbled together references for those in my sets. If you have preferred way of adding references or maps to these short roadway articles (ideally, one no more difficult than Google Maps -- there are a lot of these to be done...) -- I'd love to know about them. Additionally, several folks in WP:SACU have suggested that some sort of reference template for roadway map links might be in order; I haven't the background for such an undertaking, but figure I'd mention it here in case someone here might be thinking similarly. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Junction lists and IRC channel ==

	Hello from ]! I thought I might want to bring up that the U.S. project put some discussion into it and came up with a standard for exit lists on our freeways. You might want to take a look at it and see if it's adaptable for British purposes. It's at ].

	Also, many Misplaced Pages road enthusiasts congregate in the <code>#wikipedia-en-roads</code> channel on the Freenode IRC network. The clientèle is mainly Americans, but there's a few Canadians too. We'd be happy to have anyone interested in roads to join in. Thanks! —]] 19:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

	== UK Roads/UK Transport WikiProject ==

	Id like to suggest that a UK Roads WikiProject be set up as an expansion of the current motorways wikproject and similar to US roads WikiProject. This would help have a uniform articles through out the UK road systems and also a point for people to combine there efforts and consensus to more easily achieved. For the time being i would like to see what support there is for this before making an official proposal? ] 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	:I'm okay with the the scope being expanded to A Roads, as the Motorway project already covers several roads. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
	::My suggegstion would be to make WP:UKRD an umbrella project as WP:USRD started. Then expand from there. --] 12:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

	I would support an overall roads project. We've got some standardisation going, but only through a few users. Also, many of the articles are rehashed SABRE entries which is not necessarily encyclopaedic. ] 15:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Merging ==

	We've got a few articles on former/planned motorways that could be merged. I would suggest that ] becomes part of the ] article, the ] becomes part of the ] and the ] goes into ]. They are short stubs, that are unlikely to grow and/or they contain a lot of duplicate information that is inherently linked.

	I would also like to merge ] into ] and create a more comprehensive history. We risk duplication of effort at the moment. ] 15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Importance scale ==

	As I've just installed the parameter, we need an importance scale. I propose this:

	*'''Top''' - The most major routes in the country. Reserved only for the M1, A1, M25, M4, and M6.
	*'''High''' - other major routes. One digit numbers, with the exception of: M2, M20, M42, M62.
	*'''Mid''' - Ax(M) roads, two digit motorways and A-roads, major London roads such as ].
	*'''Low''' - service stations, local routes.

	Objections? ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

	:In general for the roads I don't have a problem with that, but there will always be variations! And I thought I put the param in yesterday. Mustn't have got it right. ] (]) 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
	::Exactly, there will be variations, e.g. M2/M20. Should be a general guide, though. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
	:::OK. Been through the A1xxx roads and got the overwhelming majority. Couple I would like others to assess though, in light of comments elsewhere.] (]) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	::::Now completed the A5xx articles. Could someone else look at the remaining A1xx and A2xx ones as I've edited those a bit and am worried about a COI. ] (]) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	Although historically the number of digits in a road number was indicative of its importance, that isn't always true nowadays. Shouldn't the question of whether or not a road is a ''primary route'' be taken into consideration? (E.g. the ] is arguably more important that the ] on those grounds -- at the time of writing both are rated "low".) Once the importance scale has been agreed it should appear on the project page. --] (]) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I've tried to adjust the rating as I go by reading the article to check importance. If I've got it wrong I apologise and feel free to change my assessment. The trouble is most articles claim to be a "major" road, without this being defined. We could put primary to mid and non primary to low if that is appropriate. ] (]) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Putting primary routes as "mid" (or higher when appropriate) seems a good idea, and that is an objective fact (determinable from maps) that doesn't depend on the subjective view of reviewers or editors. Do others agree with this? (A complication may be that, I think, some road numbers only acquire "primary" status along ''parts'' of the route. That's where a bit of subjective assessment may be required.) --] (]) 12:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

	== references ==

	Hallo, Now that I've discovered this project, I'd like to link to a discussion I had recently with an admin about what constitutes appropriate referencing for roads - see ]. At the time I couldn't find this project - not quite sure if it existed or not! Cheers, ] (]) 23:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Hi Pam. My feelings are the Motorway Archive is the first source to go to. CBRD and Pathetic Motorways are good when they are referencing official documents or have done the research. Their personal opinion sections aren't up to ] ] (]) 21:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Article tagging gone mad ==

	Hello WP Roads, I have noticed that ] has been adding the {{tl\|WPUKroads}} tag rather indiscriminately. For instance ] and ] are now listed as within the project, which I'm not sure is the case. It's because these (and other) articles are in ], which is a UK road. It may be worth investigating what other non-road articles are in street categories like this, meanwhile I will notify the Bot and start de-tagging Royal Mile articles. Thanks, ] (]) 09:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
	:Apologies. Should've really double-checked my lsit (I removed the Scottish Parliament, for example). ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 10:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

	== ELG vs. current templates ==

	This is a straw poll regarding whether exit lists similar to that at ] or the current ones.

	*An example of the ELG kind can be seen on {{la\|M62 motorway}}
	*An example of the current kind can be seen on {{la\|A500 road}}.

	''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

	===Support===
	*'''Support''' oh dear, I'm a US road editor. ;) but I believe that we should use a standard style worldwide, with obvious adaptations to UK roads. --''']''' (] ]) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Support''' - while I don't like it being made internationalised without consensus, I think it would cut down redundancy with junction boxes (i.e. very few junctions have vastly different destinations on each carriageway) ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 20:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

	===Oppose===
	*'''Oppose''' - I have plenty of problems with the US centic design of the lists. For the US Roads I think these work very well, but they are to my mind, far too busy, with too many images. The international coverage wasn't supported on the talk pages proceeding the MoS adoption and I see no real reason this should be made to be a "hoop" to jump through for GA or FA status. I think the A500 one can be improved on, but it is a better starting point. Most of the info in the ELG lists should be in the route prose (without it becoming an essay). ] (]) 17:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	My concern with the ELG tables are:
	*Division by county - we've had edit wars galore over those on WP
	*A large amount of information not formatted for easy reading and covered in road icons
	*The tables don't cope with different directions shown on the road signs. The Highways Agency/Transport for Scotland etc defines the signage destinations and if we put other things on there, surely it becomes ]
	*These large tables are not very good on smaller screens (eg. smaller laptops or older CRT monitors)
	] (]) 14:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
	**If counties aren't defined well in the UK, we don't have to use that column.
	**What information is this? I'm assuming ] uses the other format; there seems to be a lot of duplication between the two columns, but also ambiguity over exactly what ramps exist (the ramp configurations are not always symmetrical; just because you can exit northbound doesn't mean you can enter southbound).
	:::Which is why the ] version was used as the example. It's very clear where the slip roads are. M3 also clearly demonstrates it in a very logical manner.] 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::It's not clear to me; which ramps are present at the Stoke Road Junction? And what's with the "no exit" in both directions just below it? --] 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Quite clearly you can't exit the road at that junction. ] (]) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::But in which direction can you enter at Stoke Road? And are you saying that the junction just below has no exit ramps at all? If so, what road is it at and which direction can you enter? --] 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::You can't exit at that junction. That's all that's needed. Simple, clean, no notes needed. ] (]) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::That's not all that's needed - which way can you enter? --] 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	**We're not saying that what's in the table is what's actually on the signs, so I don't think there's an issue with original research. If you can get to the destination by taking the exit, even if it's not the best way, there shouldn't be a problem with listing it.
	:::Road signs are used to manage traffic flow in many cases by directing you in one direction or another. And where do you stop? The A5 ends in Holyhead but starts near London. Exactly how many destinations are you supposed to list.] 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Generally the ones that are on the signs; if the signs list different destinations on each direction, we can combine them. --] 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::Which misses the point, ignores the second issue and doesn't deal with limited egress and access points. ] (]) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::If it's a partial interchange, that goes in the notes column: "Northbound exit and southbound entrance". --] 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::And road exit north goes in one direction and the opposite in another (which does happen). More explanatory notes, more clutter. And still not dealing with my original second issue. ] (]) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::::In this relatively rare case, you split it into two rows. --] 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	**The one in M1 looks fairly large, especially with the redundancy between the two directions. The example on ] looks to be about the same length; the only thing really making it bigger is the county column (which I adressed above) and the icons, which don't seem necessary given that they're just colored text. Maybe the motorway symbol would be sufficient.
	:::And it's about 2/3 of the width, much easier to read, is clearer and simpler. The A500, A55 are good examples. ] 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::It's only about 2/3 of the width because it's so much taller, due to a bunch of line breaks. --] 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::Which makes it perfect for alternative display sizes beyond 17" LCDs. ] (]) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::On small monitors, the ELG format will line-break, but on larger monitors it will use the full width. --] 16:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::::::And still looks an utter mess. ] (]) 19:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:::::::Your opinion, and not that of those who worked on ELG. --] 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
	**--] 01:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
	I was the one who initially added the UK example to WP:ELG, which is based on a section of M6. I didn't find it particularly difficult, other than when opposing directions have different destination cities. As for counties, I used of ]. Feel free to ask me any questions about adaptation issues. —]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
	:Thanks for the offer, but I'm not having a problem with finding them, I just don't see the point of them. ] (]) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	::Well, it provides another layer of context for the location of the exit/junction. In the US, there can be areas that aren't part of any town (or on the flip side, a city with such a large area it's in multiple counties, like ]), and thus the county is the only point of reference you have. That said, looking at the ELG's UK example, I don't know where Croft is, but at least I've heard of Cheshire, which helps give me a starting point for further research, if I so desire.—]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 03:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I have requested a peer review of ]. Any comments would be gratefully accepted as well as any advice on getting a map for the expanded zone. ] (]) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Heya guys, we need to be more involved in WP:HWY. It is mostly USRD run and i think for any chance of agreeing a global consensus for anything that happens on highways, UK involvement is really needed. Also use of the channel will help get things going on highways towards international consensus.
	] (]) 23:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

	== Order of roads in infobox ==

	This has been raised at ]: ''Should the roads listed be in geographical order, or senority (i.e. motorways above primary routes, standard A-Roads, B-Roads etc)???''
	My reply was: ''Erm. I change my mind on this often. Seniority looks neater, but geographical is more accurate. Really I don't think there is a defined position. I'll raise this at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject UK Roads''. What do people think? Do we need to define it? ] (]) 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
	:I think that having a huge infobox is unnecessary by having up to 30 different road numbers in the infobox, and that using an exit/junction list is a lot tidier. ] (]) 13:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

	==Decommissioned Guideline==
	This are plans for a guideline to be drawn up over the usage of the term ''Decommissioned'' at WP:Highways . There is to be as much input into this as possible. Its has taken a long time for this to get this far. It is important that this is done with the consensus of '''ALL''' roads projects.] (]) 02:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Gray's Inn Road ==

	Seeing as I'm here... As everyone at ] and ] has already flung up their hands in disgust and backed slowly away, anyone here want to take on the Augean stable of original research, trivia and insane over-attention to detail that is ]? (Currently longer than ] and ] combined!)<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 18:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

	:Shouldn't it go to AfD? There is no assertion of notability... ] (]) 22:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

	::After the ] - all of which were considerably less notable than this - I'm extremely reluctant to AfD this myself as it will look like a bad-faith nom.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> — ]]</font> 00:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

	== Road Lists ==

	Hi, i've now completed the A road lists for Zones 1, 2, 3 & 5. 4 is nearly there. I then plan on tackling 6. 7, 8 & 9 are missing loads of entries and if anyone feels like expanding them I will tackle the road signs. I've not got the B roads on my radar at all yet. Cheers, ] (]) 14:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
	:OK 4 & 6 are now complete, leaving just 7, 8 & 9 which are at least smaller. For the B roads I have found which has a list of all A and B roads in 2005 in excel format. ] (]) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
	::All zones are now complete for the A roads. Also all roads now have a road sign image.] (]) 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	I have opened a discussion at ] about refocusing the article now that we have ]. Suggestions, comments, references (in particular) would be very welcome... ] (]) 19:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Would someone mind having a look over this as I have rewritten it today. I originally assessed it as a start but it might be improved to a B I hope. I do want to get this to GA as well. ] (]) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

	== London congestion charge ==

	I have nominated ] for ]. Comments are welcome at ]. ] (]) 22:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	== Congestion charging generally ==

	Copied from ]

	-----
	It seems that congestion charge schemes are to be implemented across the whole of the UK, according to the BBC. Maybe do you think a general article on congestion charge schemes in the UK should be created. Cities identified so far (implemented or not) include: London, Durham, Derby, Edinburgh, Manchester, Belfast and probably many others. ] (]) 22:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Hi. We already have ] which we could redirect ] to. That article has a few too many stub sections at the moment, but work is keeping me away from WP, annoyingly. I will look at the Belfast and Derby schemes soon and see if we can create other articles. There is also an overview at ] as well. ] (]) 22:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	::It doesn't seem like all things mentioned are to do with congestion charging. Motoring taxation seems to be about the many different types of schemes, of which congestion charging is just one, others including road tax and tolls. I do not think motoring taxation should redirect. ] (]) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
	:::No. I was talking about the other way round - congestion charging redirects to Motoring Taxation. At the moment I'm not sure we have enough for a separate cohesive article just on congestion charging. However I was also planning on doing an article on road pricing proposals from the government. Maybe the two could be combined into one article with a summary in Motoring Taxation. ] (]) 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	::::I've had a further search on google and just simply congestion charging is being talked about being introduced into most major cities by the various authorities, so not just the cities i've mentioned. Examples of other cities where it is, or most likely, to be implemented are Liverpool and Newcastle although others seem to be backing down e.g. Bradford. ] (]) 23:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	:::::OK. I'll try and pull something together but it won't be for a few weeks yet. Alongside work i've got the FAC to work on! ] (]) 23:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	::::::And make that it seems many cities generally and some towns. I think most are still proposals only. And i won't hurry you either. I've got a huge assignment to do myself. Btw, do you think we should move this discussion to one of the many projects and then some? ] (]) 23:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	-----

	What do people think about congestion charging? There are talks on many congestion charges in towns and cities across the UK. Thoughts and opinions? ] (]) 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

	== ] will most likely be on the main page on 4th February ==

	Just a heads up - I've ] that the article ] be on the main page on Monday (as the chances of ] getting there two weeks later are slim because it's been on once), and there are currently 3 supports and 0 opposes. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 18:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
	:Well, 28th. The request for the 4th narrowly missed. ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 11:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

	== Highways on Commons ==

	] ]]<small>(])</small> 03:59, 05 March 2008 (GMT)

	== UK road terminology? ==

	Hello. I've just created ]. Could I get a few UK editors to look over it and add some UK road terminology and/or mark terms that aren't used outside the U.S.? Road enthusiast slang or other informal terms are OK for the purposes of this list. Thanks in advance! —]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

	== B-class drive, Importance Scale and to do list ==

	Hi all,

	Continuing the discussion about Importance Scale.
	I have been assessing articles as such:
	*'''Top''' - The major motorways in the country e.g M1, A1 & A1(M), M25, M4, M6 etc. i.e those that link major cities or go through many counties. Also this should include large motorway bridges such as the ] and ] etc.
	*'''High''' - Other Motorways that do not fall in the '''Top''' class for example M50, M23, M69 etc. as they are either shorter in length or carry less traffic than the '''Top''' Class. It would also include major A roads that are largely dual carriageways and again go through many counties such as A55, A34, A30 etc.
	*'''Mid''' - Minor spur motorways that have very few junctions such as the M271, M275, A48(M) plus A roads again that are likely to be dual-carriageway but are local roads (probably ring-roads).
	*'''Low''' - Service stations, A roads (green and white signs including Trunk roads) that are single carriageway roads. I would also include proposed motorways that were never built.

	The list is very close to the list that Will produced (above) but I have added a little more description. It is subjective I know.

	Next I go onto "B-class drive" from the main page. I believe we should try to get every '''Top''' Importance article to Good Article status, as a minimum. For all '''High''' importance we should aim for B Class as a minimum, but for '''Mid''' and '''Low''' importance articles we have to accept that they are probably never going to reach B Class and in some instances not even Start Class, therefore Stub Class is acceptable as a minimum class. Agree / disagree ? ] (]) 01:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Over-lengthy route descriptions ==

	Hi folks, I've been adding {{tl\|essay-entry}} to any UK road article which has a prose-format route description. I've started an ] discussion about one particular article, where an editor who feels like he "owns" the article has twice removed that tag with little consideration for Misplaced Pages policy or this Project's B-class article guidance. I would welcome your thoughts and actions on this matter.  — ] <small>] \| ] ]</small> — <em style="font-size:10px;">08:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</em>

	== Primary Destinations ==

	I've noticed a lot of people have added towns to the ] where they are in fact not so, and likewise to the road articles' routeboxes. As far as I know, the only official guidance to which destinations are primary is in the form of Local Transport Note 1/94 published by the then Department of Transport. Highway Authorities do frequently ignore this guidance, either wilfully or unwittingly, but our place as an Encyclopedia is to record fact backed up by official sources. I would appreciate this project's editors' assistance in checking articles that erroneously give Primary Destinations that are not the case. However, if anyone is aware of any other official instrument specifying Primary Destinations either nationally or regionally, then please let me know. I have a PDF copy of LTN 1/94, should any editor wish to have it available; although I try to keep on top of ] to ensure the destinations listed are included in LTN 1/94.  — ] <small>] \| ] ]</small> — <em style="font-size:10px;">08:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)</em>

	== Wikibook Project: Open-version highway code ==

	As a sub-project of mine and as another hobby I would like to ask if any others who have passed their CBT, Direct Access and Driving licenses would like to contribute towards a pinpoint-accurate-referenced version of the highway code, and perhaps if popular enough open replacements for driving test related books for other countries. Of course, I will be e-mailing the DSA and others to see if anyone there would be willing to review the book for legal accuracy before it is considered a "complete" project. For anyone that is interested, please leave comments below rather than on my talk page. <span style="font-size:10px; letter-spacing: 1.4px">]</span> <sup><nowiki>] <nowiki>]</nowiki></sup> 02:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Following a request at ], this article could probably use a once-over from this project. Its style seems to be out of step with the style used on other road articles. Thanks. ] (]) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

	==Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme==

	As you ], we at the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at ].
	*The '''new C-Class''' represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
	*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of ], and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
	*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as ].

	Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at ]. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. ] is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

	Please ] with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Misplaced Pages 1.0 scheme! For the ], <font color="green">]</font>''' <small>(<font color="red">]</font>)'''</small> 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Proposal to expand ELG's scope to non-freeways ==

	A ] to consider expanding ELG to cover non-freeway junction lists. Please voice your opinions about the idea and how it should be implemented there. Thanks. —]] <span style="font-size:75%">]]</span> 09:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Motorway junction lists ==

	I notice some of these contain some parts which say "No access", and others seem to say "No exit". AIUI, in the context of a motorway junction "access" and "exit" generally refer to the motorway itself, rather than the junction - i.e. "no access" means "you cannot get onto the motorway here". I believe that this is how other casual readers might also understand it. Any thoughts either way? ] (]) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
	:I'd expect No access = cannot join motorway, No exit = cannot take the exit from the motorway. ]] 15:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
	::] agrees with this usage (saying "access only" and "exit only"), but it seems to be alone. ] shows "no access" for places where you cannot leave the motorway (presumably saying there is "no access to the junction"), as does ] and ]. Would anyone be opposed to changing from the current usage to the more logical reading? ] (]) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
	:::Would "entry" be less ambiguous than "access"? --] (]) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
	::::Saying "there is no access to the junction" makes sense, it's just the opposite to how most people will think of it. Substituting "entry" would not change this, since it too can carry both meanings. ] (]) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

	== National Cycle Routes move request ==

	I believe the titles of these articles should be rendered in full, with redirects from abbreviated forms if people get too lazy to copy/paste. Example: ] vs. ]. This seems to be the style used for most other articles where there isn't a formalized prefix (e.g. "A1" is the full title of that road, and it appears as such on the signs) - for example, a lot of the US articles are of the form ], with ] as a redirect (see also ]). It is also the style used in the ] of the articles in question.

	This amounts to a move request for articles in ] beginning ''NCR'' and ''RCR''. ] (]) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

	: That seems reasonable to me. I'd also suggest renaming the category to ''Category:National Cycle Routes of the United Kingdom''. And sort the articles in numerical order. --] (]) 16:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Template:GB_B_road_zone_1 abandoned? ==

	] (]) has been removing links from B Road articles to ] on the grounds that it has been "abandoned". Is this correct? ] (]) 19:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

	:I think most B roads are not notable enough for articles, and after a few ] debates this appears to have become consensus (unless the consensus has recently changed without me being aware of it). As a result, most of the links would only be redirects to the list. Of the blue links that exist, all are redirects to the list with three exceptions: one to an A road, another to a named road and only the ] has a separate article, so I don't think the template will be needed. --] ] 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

	::Even then, I would suggest that B1159 having its own article is something of a stretch, since there's nothing in the article which suggests the ''road itself'' has any significance. Much of the content is about things peripheral to it (i.e. a ]). The primary references being maps isn't helpful either. ] (]) 08:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

	== Notability for UK A-Roads ==

	This discussion will affect a number of A-Road articles. I am looking to establish whether all A-Roads are notable or not and whether consensus has been reached on this in the past. This I hope will make things clearer and prevent futher disputes in the future.

	I think all A-Roads would be inherently notable, especially if the connect two urban centres - they are likely to have some historical significance in the development of both those urban centres. However, what are your thoughts on A-Roads that only form part of an urban centre network? ] (]) 21:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Consensus has traditionally been 1,2,3 digits=notable, 4 digits & B-roads=non-notable. ] is a fairly good rule of thumb. It's certainly possible to ] into valid articles, but realistically some of them will end up permastubs.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]</font> 21:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

	::It may also be worth mentioning that in the case of renumberings of sections, or of well-known names, it may be more appropriate to collect everything into one article to preserve context - e.g. the A3400 between Oxford and Birmingham is a detrunked and renumbered A34, and shares historical context. Similarly, nobody cares about the A4202 - all noteworthy aspects of that road are connected with its identity as ]. It is always worth bearing in mind that if you can't see an article expanding beyond stub status, or containing any information other than the basics about where it is and where it goes, it's a fairly good sign that there's no need for a separate article. Put simply - for a subject to have an article, there must be an article there to be written. This isn't a "new idea" or an "interesting theory" - it is to all intents and purposes a restatement of our existing policies, and trivial to derive from them. ] (]) 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

	:::For what I'd consider a "model" merger of road stubs, have a look at ]. Most of these roads aren't notable enough to warrant their own article, but by stringing them together it makes an informative article, illustrating the differing characters of the segments of the A-road, with probably more interest to the general reader stumbling across it, and without losing any of the individual stubs. (Note; the page history makes it look like I wrote the whole thing, but that's because the histories of the sections are preserved under the titles they were merged from).<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]</font> 19:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

	I can see the consensus that B roads are usually non-notable, see ] per ]. But what about 4 digit A roads? The suggested rule in ] seems very difficult to apply - you have to decide within what radius of the road you measure the 50k. There seems to me to be more indication of consensus that all A roads are usually notable. See
	*]
	*AfD debate on ] at ] - the result was Keep.
	*]
	Clearly A roads vary in importance (and length), and article lengths will reflect that - the ] can sensibly be applied to roads. But there should be something informative and non-trivial to say about just about all A roads, even if it has not been written yet.] (]) 21:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
	:My usual argument for my horde of railway-station stubs goes along the lines of <font face="Trebuchet MS" color=#266012>this is automatically notable by Misplaced Pages standards, since it's a reasonable presumption that there will undoubtedly have been significant coverage in reliable sources at the time of opening, even if we don't currently have access to those sources</font>. You could almost certainly make a similar case for A-roads if you're prepared for interminable AfD arguments.<font face="Trebuchet MS"> – ]]<small> 22:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)</small></font>
	:Certainly any A-road that has portions which are trunk routes or primary routes should be significant enough to merit an article. There is also the notion that why only certain roads are designated A-road while others are of lower class. If an A-road were really not important, wouldn't it have been classified as a B-road or even lower? I would expect the path of modern A-roads were also roughly where people used to travel before the invention of the automobile. One can always incorporate the history of the path in the article on the modern road. So, even though many current A-road articles are stubs, that does not automatically mean there is no information that can be added about them. --] \| ] 22:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
	::I would consider that "automatically notable" is a nonsense concept. We don't have anything anywhere that says that some topics are "automatically notable". Trunk roads will certainly have things written about them somewhere, since they have been given trunk status for being a major route between major destinations. There is, however, a significant difference in the classification between the rest - shorter numbers are generally more important, but that's about it. There's also not necessarily a correlation between a road's place in the scheme and our ability to write something worthwhile about it. It should not be assumed that because something has an "A" number that it must merit its own article - it very much remains the case that there must be an article there to be written that contains more than simply basic information such as the route and length, and we should have evidence of such before we begin. It's not enough to say "there are probably sources for this somewhere", ] is very clear about this. ] (]) 08:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::That's the general principle why we have extremely short stubs on little places that's no more than "X is a village in Country Y located at coordinates i,j". Note that there s nothing principally wrong with being a stub. Your philosophy implies all stubs should be merged somewhere. --] \| ] 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
	This a list of A road articles in Zone 4 (I haven't checked other zones) which have recently been blanked and redirected, all by one editor, and not reverted:
	] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
	Those articles have also been removed from ], and so have the following articles which were blanked/redirected and have now been reverted:
	] ] ] ] ]
	In most cases the reason given in the edit summary is "No content" (or something similar) rather than lack of notability.
	] (]) 14:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
	:Can you explain how we can positively determine that something is notable from a complete lack of content about it? ] (]) 14:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
	::That's missing the point altogether. What everyone is saying is that even though the article is a stub and there's no publicly available information available about it on the internet, then it does not mean that it is "automatically not notable". There is bound to be a lot of historical information somewhere about A roads, most likely in government archives. ] (]) 08:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
	:::Subjects should be assumed not notable in the absence of evidence to the contrary, since you can prove something is notable. A guide to the "non-trivial" part of ] is that you have people writing about it in other contexts. The people that turn up on Big Brother are nobodies, until people start showing an interest in their life outside of the house. Similarly, it should be assumed that information about the route, and most information supplied by the Highways Agency or RSNI amounts to trivial coverage. People often misunderstand precisely what "]" means. To take an extreme example, the A1 is well-covered historically independent of "it goes from London to Edinburgh". ] (]) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I agree with that. ] is very clear that notability and content (or lack of it) are separate issues. As has already been said, articles which are little more than definitions may satisfy WP:N - although they should be capable of expansion. You need to look at the available info about a topic, not what the article says at a point in time. Also, "complete lack of content" seems to be overstating the case - when it is applied to a 3 paragraph, 1,750 byte, article (]).] (]) 10:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
	::Bytes do not make content. Substance makes content. Describing where a road is and what towns it goes through is not substantial. A one-line stub cannot possibly meet ], since it does not provide evidence of "non-trivial coverage". A three-paragraph article that says nothing more than the basics also fails by the same token. ] (]) 10:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
	:''A one-line stub cannot possibly meet ].'' Why not? It is clear from WP:N that you do not look for evidence of notability only in the article. Let's just remind ourselves what a stub is. If you look at ], it is clear that a definition ''may'' (my italics) qualify as a stub, although the practice is not encouraged. It should not be "so short as to provide no useful information." Nothing about "substantial". So are you saying that "describing where a road is and what towns it goes through" does not provide useful information? In fact ] does quite a bit more than that - it discusses the reasons for the road's importance, and its history.

	:It would be very helpful if you could say what you think should be in an A road article.] (]) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

	== Road article moves ==

	{{user\|Nono64}} has been ], and set about getting "a uniform presentation for road articles among countries"; unfortunately he was unaware of this project nor ]; I thought it best to bring this to the attention of this project, so that a consensus can be formed over the policy for naming roads in the UK, before his changes can be set as policy, tweaked or undone as required. (See also ]) -- ] (]) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
	==Reverting B road Articles==
	:],] and ]

	::For the life of me, I do not understand why editors who are members of the UK roads project are so anti articles about B roads. I have heard the views on these roads not being notable enough, but I have made an effort to place reasons on the talk pages which have been totally ignored with the result being that these articles have been revert back to a list of B roads. The reverter has made little effort to enter into very little positive discussion or reason for the reverts. Why do you think that reverting pages with a description of a road, all be it some what basic, would be better to reverted to an article that is just a list of B roads. Misplaced Pages List are best used as a navigation to Articles within the list. If all that’s wanted is a list of B roads there are list already on the web, sabre for example. Most B roads are ancient routes that have criss-crossed this country since the acts of enclosure which in itself makes them notable. I have over 4000 edits on Misplaced Pages and have never found such intransigence over an issue. These reverts are nothing more than a form of deletion without any form of consensus. ] (]) 20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:42, 10 March 2018

Redirect to:

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways