Talk:National Highways

Fair use rationale for Image:Highways Agency.svg

Image:Highways Agency.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Traffic Officer bias

This article has become heavily biased to a Traffic Officer viewpoint - ie the area teams support the Traffic Officers, the RCCs support the Traffic Officers. A reader could easily get the impression that TOs run the HA and everyone else serves them, but this is not correct. Halsteadk (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - however those who work within the RCCs are also Traffic Officers - so technically speaking; the RCC does support the TOs. Samiddon (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the Traffic Officer service become a stub in its own right, linked from this page? 90.218.216.229 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Highways England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/strategic-roads-network/strategic-road-network.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219152706/http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=162018 to http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=162018
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003102526/http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/documents/better_info.pdf to http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/documents/better_info.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

National Highways move?

Today it was announced that Highways England will now be known as National Highways - a minimal rebrand it appears with the logo staying the same. Should this page be renamed or a new one created? Nathan A RF (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved article. Logo needs updating to reflect new name. Paul W (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Why in a case like this do we move immediately (something, incidentally, I support), despite hardly anyone using the term 'National Highways' currently, whereas in the case of something like Czechia, we need to wait until a clear majority of people start saying Czechia rather than Czech Republic? Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Remove references to setting UK-wide standards

We either need to provide WP:RS supporting the claim that National Highways has a role in setting either UK-wide or GB-wide highways standards (and, if the latter, also update the text of the article to reflect this), or remove this claim (which featured in a UK government news release supporting the new name).

On a related note, we should also ensure that we are not parroting a UK government opinion that the use of the word 'national' in the name because of the aforementioned role is objectively right, but be clear that this is a political opinion. Kennethmac2000 (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Initialisms

I boldly reverted a good faith edit which added multiple initialisms to the lead, as it seemed very out of place per WP:ACROCLUTTER, as they're not used in the rest of the article, the other two unsourced, and AFAIAA not commonly used? While this subject's current title was only cited to one source, and a very short initialism nonetheless. But if multiple sources use them, then willing to accept them. But they shouldn't be in bold per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT unless NH in some form redirects here showing it to be a common initialism (it isn't even at that DAB). May have been a bit too quick, so opened a discussion, but admittingly found four initialisms in the lead to be too much. @JuniperChill, also links shouldn't be in hatnotes per WP:HATEXTRA. DankJae 21:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then why is GWR bold in Great Western Railway and its modern equivalent in addition to EMR being bold at East Midlands Railway given that these acronyms do not redirect there? In that case, at least NH could be included as shown in this BBC article . Plus, I do see all acronyms being used at least in some informal contexts like in some online forums.

Also looking at the NH dab page, National Highway is listed, but not this page. I also see that the London Overground and London Underground being listed at LO and LU dab page respectively, but those articles barely contain the abbreviation. How about Greater Anglia as I see people abbreviate it to GA all the time?

(I never thought we would meet again given that this is a road related article, not railway) JuniperChill (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

​Be free to add it to the NH dab tbh. In terms of the others, that is true, MOS:BOLDREDIRECT is a rarely remembered guideline, but GWR and EMR are clearly branded as such in their logos, so probably justify a redirect, while National Highways aren't really as branded as such, plus a very short initialism for not a really long name. If NH is used in more than one source (and publisher) fully fine with adding it back in, although would make sense to then also use the initialism in the article. We can't follow forums, a WP:USERGENERATED source, nor people's WP:OR, but secondary sources, as like Wikipedia talk pages, forum users and readers, may shorten anything.

This subject did a controversial name change a while ago, so watched it since then, and I like trains transport, but hi again! DankJae 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

To me, GWR and EMR should remain as a dab since neither are a primary topic, although the original GWR is and will always be primary. Plus, České dráhy (ČD) and compact disc (CD) is about the same length than National Highways and that National Rail and Network Rail contain NR in the lead, yet NR is barely used in both articles. Plus, its not only me that agreed to include NH, HE and HA since one other editor reverted your edits, but this and the HS1 discussion is now resolved.

_{(it looks like we are likely to see each other in rail and transport related articles since that is my interest on WP)} JuniperChill (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@JuniperChill, I questioned the editor that rolled back and they said it was a mistake, as they did it instantanously, therefore likely patrolling recent changes, rather than reverting based on content.

When I mention redirects I mean, derivatives are fine, like making EMR (train operating company), just so readers who only know it as EMR can find it, as ofc the railway isn't primary for all EMR. Once again, not opposed to initialisms, but just adding three to the lead at once, seemed too much WP:LEADCLUTTER. Nonetheless, I don't enforce it everywhere, if you added just NH, probabaly would've left it, but three was too many, sorry (and the hatnote links). To compromise, be free to re-add NH. DankJae 23:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)