Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways/United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge / cleanup proposal

Inspired by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-01-25/BLP madness, I am contemplating cleaning up all non-notable (ie: those that would not necessarily be kept via an AfD per WP:ROADOUTCOMES) roads that have been tagged as unsourced for over a year and haven't had substantial edits in that time to improve this, by redirecting them to the parent article - See here for an example. If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, shout now! --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Outcomes says "'A' roads are usually kept if all or part of the road is trunk or primary." ... would I be right in thinking that under your proposal you would not be intending to merge trunk or primary routes? Is there a handy source telling us which roads are trunk and/or primary? Is A4212 road a primary road? (I confess I'm not keen & yet to be convinced.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A similar program where we merged away most of the county routes was successful in the US - see WP:USRD/RCS. --Rschen7754 03:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Success defined and or measured where & how? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got a very handy source. Go to this page and type the road number in on the left hand box. If any of it appears in green anywhere, it's primary. If it doesn't, it's not. From that, we can see that the A4212 is not primary. Of course, WP:GNG can still trump all of this if the road crops up in multiple, reliable sources. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I looked at OS map keys yesterday, but probably for the wrong scale. That's an unimpeachable source, should the exercise proceed. What about the value of the description and image we find in the old A4212 article. It's not controversial and so in my understanding does not need to be sourced (though clearly we pefer, etc...). It seems to me to read very well; I get a very good sense of the road and its history from it. Would you be thinking in terms of transferring the text (and the image?) to the notes column of A roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme? And if not, what is the argument for jettisoning the information? (Although on its own it may fail GNG, within a collection is there not an argument for descriptive text per road - perhaps in more detail than the single sentences seen elsewhere in the A roads in Z4 article?) As you gather, I'm not keen on losing what I perceive to be valuable information. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think my main problem with that article is that it's completely unsourced. For instance : "only one short 40mph speed limit" - the tendency for speed limits to be reduced en masse throughout the U.K. indicates this may no longer be accurate. "The road was created in the early 1960s" - whenabouts exactly? It suggests it was done in response to the Bala and Festiniog Railway, but neither that article or this one cites when the line closed - Beeching Report closures covered about a 15 year period. The rest of the content duplicates what you can see on a map, or is unsourced original research, in my opinion. " It also provided a new and useful east-west link" - says who? In short - unsalvageable. Sorry. I guess it boils down to - do you want Wikipedia to have stuff that's probably right, or do you want stuff that reports what sources say? --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The assertions in WP:ROADOUTCOMES are highly dubious. I cannot find any examples of 1,2 or 3 digit A roads proposed for deletion. There have been 4 digit A roads proposed for deletion, with varying outcomes. Those which are entirely urban, relatively short, routes have been deleted, and 4 digit roads which are the old routes of rerouted roads have been redirected to the rerouted road. Others seem to have survived.

A further problem with redirecting road articles to list articles is that the redirection is not tracked as an AfD, so no discussion and no review by an uninvolved admin - and we have no more evidence which might support or refute the assertions in WP:ROADOUTCOMES.--Mhockey (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since content isn't getting erased, these type of actions can be performed without the need for an admin. The concept of lists that combine articles is that those individual article can be split out if/when sources are found to justify expanding the article out of the list. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be interested in hearing more about what happened when RSchen did a similar plan to merge / redirect U.S. county roads. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal Experience with Brick Lane Market?

I'm a student at Cornell University working on a class project to improve/expand the Brick Lane Market article. I've personally never been to the market (another member of my project group has) but if anyone here who knows about the market wouldn't mind taking a look at our proposed additions, that would be much appreciated. Thanks! Joey236 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited with correct link! D4n2elle (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone who helped. The project is done and the final article is up here! Feel free to make improvements. D4n2elle (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing road sign images

These pages are in Category:Articles with missing files:

• A roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme
• A roads in Zone 5 of the Great Britain numbering scheme
• A roads in Zone 7 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a bot on Commons that can create the missing SVG files once requested with the proper templates. See commons:User:Highway Route Marker Bot/Requests for more information. The bot isn't run that frequently, but once run, the files are supplied quite quickly. Imzadi 1979 → 19:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study. to discuss whether the article, which falls within the domain of this wikiproject, should be deleted — Rod ^talk 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary Destinations in the Infobox

Just a quick check of opinion! Yesterday I removed primary destinations from M48 motorway that weren't on the route, as it seems that's what we used to do. I was reverted with the edit summary "that's why they're in brackets - as seen on motorway signs".

What is the correct thing to do? If we were to apply this logic to the M5 for example, rather than the current list of:

West Bromwich, Birmingham, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Bristol, Avonmouth, Weston-super-Mare, Bridgwater, Taunton, Exeter

We'd end up with:

West Bromwich, Birmingham, Bromsgrove, Worcester, Cheltenham, Gloucester, Bristol, Avonmouth, Weston-super-Mare, Bridgwater, Taunton, Exeter, (Wolverhampton), (Stourbridge), (Kidderminster), (Warwick), (Redditch), (Evesham), (Ross on Wye), (Cirencester), (London), (Chepstow), (Glastonbury), (Minehead), (Yeovil), (Exmouth), (Barnstaple), (Okehampton), (Plymouth), (Honiton), (Torquay), (Weymouth)

Which is a bit of a mess and not very useful in the grand scheme of things. Generally the destinations signed from the motorway are included in the junction list, so is there really a need to repeat them in the infobox? I'd imagine the situation would be even worse on the M1, M6 and M25 to give other examples. Jeni ^(talk) 09:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought that it had been previously agreed that we should only list primary destinations if they're within about 5 miles of the route. Signing ones so far off the route is pointless. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  16:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but I can't actually find that discussion. I'm probably being blind! Jeni ^(talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

FAR

Greetings! I have recently nominated London congestion charge, an article under this projects purview, for review. Interested editors are welcome to comment at the review page. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

GAN - M11 link road protest

M11 link road protest has been nominated for review as a good article. Any help to improve or review the article will be very much appreciated. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about using kilometres and miles in UK road articles at WT:RJL

There is a discussion starting at WT:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Distance columns of British Roads concerning how the junction km/mile position should be presented in junction tables of UK road articles. Please offer your opinion there if you are interested. 178.105.26.216 (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

A roads in Zone 7 of the Great Britain numbering scheme needs checking

I restored an old version after numerous suspicious-looking edits were made. Could someone more knowledgeable have a look, please? —rybec 07:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:M62 motorway

Please note that I have brought up some serious deficiencies at the above page that reflect that the article does not currently meet the FA criteria. If the issues are not resolved, the article will be brought to WP:FAR. --Rschen7754 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Use of driver location signs for distance

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Use of driver location signs for distance regarding UK driver location signs and their usage on Wikipedia to measure distance. Jeni ^(talk) 12:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Can someone explain (or point me to a previous discussion) where CBRD was declared as being a reliable source? It's used extensively on UK road lists, despite a disclaimer on the home page stating : "I make no guarantees as to the validity of any information on this website" and "the information on [the website] is not officially sourced or endorsed". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the information is directly taken from data sourced from the National Archives, the London Metropolitan Archives, or various other local government archives around the country - archive.cbrd.co.uk holds what source was used for where, and was set up for the very purpose of verifying the information on the site. For example, CBRD's page on pedestrian crossings cites National Archives file MT 34/221 (direct link here), and TNA documents are (imho) unquestionably reliable. I imagine there is no direct reference on each article itself, because it is not of interest for most readers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason why those sources can't be cited instead of CBRD? CBRD is a WP:SPS and is not reliable per policy. --Rschen7754 11:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You can treat CBRD as a content provider / aggregator, including it as a link, but using MT 95/197 as the actual underlying source. In any case, WP:SPS is a guideline, not a policy - it's better to focus on policies, particularly verifiability and neutral point of view, which, given the information is claimed to be directly backed up with TNA documents, would appear to be satisfied - if you don't believe the information is verifiable, you can check the original sources. The guideline against self published sources is really geared up to stop us writing articles on extreme fringe theories and crackpot ideas that would be given undue weight if published on WP. Moreover, citing past precedent, M11 link road protest passed GA while citing CBRD as a source. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't stake anything on one GA; I've seen SPS not get caught in a few US reviews (which then is very quickly addressed). GA reviews vary in quality. At any rate, it would never pass FAC. And why cite the middleman? --Rschen7754 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In general, we cite aggregators due to convenience. Now sure, there's nothing stopping you from taking a tube to Kew and spending 8 hours re-researching something that somebody's already done if you really don't believe them (and, indeed, I have done this myself), but I don't believe it's mandatory. To give another example, Van der Graaf Generator (another GA) cites several articles hosted on www.vandergraafgenerator.co.uk, such as this Record Mirror article, because while I could go to the British Library's magazine archive and dig out the original May 1971 issue of Record Collector, it would be an awful lot of work. Or, when GA reviewing KFC, I noticed there were a number of cites to findarticles.com that had since gone dead - again, the presence of the content aggregator means finding the original print source is, while possible, not necessary. The policy on verification is that information could be verified, not that it must be verified, particularly if verification is hard. You probably want to take this to WP:RSN to get a wider consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure it may be convenient but you sacrifice reliability in the process. Oh and by the way, SPS is policy as a part of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is not a guideline to ignore. --Rschen7754 11:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, if you don't think something is verifiable, there are other options you can pursue to resolve this. Who decides what is "reliable" anyway? As you can see from this recent example, opinions differ wildly on whether or not certain sources provided a sufficient claim to notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to take into account the statement "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources". To what extent does the converse hold? CRBD (which stands for "Chris' British Road Directory") is hardly exceptional - the motorway database for example on this page contains two main pieces of information - junction layouts and road signage. Both can be verified by reference to Google Maps, in other words they are easily verifiable and there does not appear to be anything extraordinary about the information that they convey. I am therefore inclined to agree with Ritchie333. Martinvl (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As a further point of information, it's worth noting that Joe Moran considered CBRD a sufficiently reliable source when writing On Roads to explicitly credit it in the acknowledgements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

FAR notification

I have nominated M62 motorway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Rschen7754 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Group collaboration

I'd like to give something a try. Let's stop this petty squabbling and see if we can all take an article to good article status together within a week. It shouldn't be hard. I'm going to pick A74 road as a candidate as it's well known, it's got a history going back hundreds of years, it's documented in several reliable sources, I have a bunch of maps on hand and some other offline sources that you can't search for, and I can pick up stuff from archives in London if anyone wants it. Oh, and the road has never run nearer than 350 miles away from where I live, so "I haven't got any local knowledge" is not an excuse! You can find online sources from just about any location in the world. I've done a bit of work this morning cleaning bits up in about half an hour. Who fancies giving this a go? I've already taken two UK road articles to GA and reviewed a third, and if I can do it, you can do it too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of Amricans are curently busy trying to redesign our RJLs for us. - see here and WP:RJL. Martinvl (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. How does that stop you from improving this article? Perhaps as an alternative suggestion you could try improving Street lighting, Road surface, Puffin crossing or Stone mastic asphalt - all are on the topic of UK Roads (at least partially) and none have these junction boxes that appear to ail you so much. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A-Class review proposed changes

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are proposed changes for the A-Class review for WP:HWY, to deal with situations where there are several opposes, and when the nominator has failed to respond to the comments. Your input is welcome at WT:HWY/ACR. --Rschen7754 05:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC) I don't understand the linked discussion - it looks too confusing. How does it relates to articles on this project, specifically? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC) This message was given to all national highway WikiProjects, since they all use the same ACR. --Rschen7754 17:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand. How does it relate to articles on this project? What's an "ACR"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) ACR is the A-Class review that all the HWY projects (USRD, UKRD, CRWP, AURD, and articles with no national project) share. It is required for an article to pass an ACR before it becomes an A-Class article. The reason our ACR is so rigorous is because it is meant to prepare an article for success at FAC. Since all the national projects have a right to use ACR, notices were sent to all of them as a courtesy. ACR consists of several road editors coming together to go over an article and make sure that everything is fine with it before it goes to FAC. In some cases, it's been more thorough than FAC. Of course, one can skip A-Class entirely and go to FAC, but unless the nominator knows what they're doing, they risk getting shot down at FAC. --Rschen7754 08:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Since we have no articles in this project that anyone is prepared to take above C class, I feel this point is somewhat moot. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox road proposal

There is a proposal to use Wikidata for displaying a map in Infobox road, only if both the map_custom= and map= field are blank. Your input is welcomed at Template talk:Infobox road. --Rschen7754 02:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've got a custom embedded map control that I wrote for stuff elsewhere (see here) - what code do you need? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This relates to using Wikidata to store the png/svg->article relation; thanks to a recent sitewide RFC, consensus is required to add the code that calls Wikidata to the infobox. However, there are already interactive maps available on all routes with a KML file; see the top of California State Route 78 for an example. --Rschen7754 08:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Don't use static images - they go out of date. Take the information dynamically, and cache the pages using memcached if you need to. In my experience, KML files are a waste of time which the man in the street thinks are silly little technical geegaws for geeks to play with, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • The readers don't see the KML data, as they just see them on the end result. I'm not a fan of interactive maps as implemented on WP, as only WikiMiniAtlas is available, and it sucks for the UK (compared to Google, Bing, OSM etc). I prefer static images, even though they can go out of date, as they can be made easier to read - by removing the clutter and only displaying pertinent stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Er, why can't you just drop in OSM maps? I've got a back burner proposal with the WMF that does precisely that, and as mentioned above, I've got some working code that does it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
          • OSM would be a good improvement, and I'd be all for it. However OSM has a lot of clutter, so static maps can be much better for this purpose. eg Who cares about forests when they are looking at a road?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Getting a "roads only" Mapnik server is on my todo list, and will get done either when I either get time or somebody else who knows how to do it has the time, but broadly speaking, you need to take the relevant planit.osm dump of the area you're look at, run osm2pgsl, delete everything that isn't part of a node you want, and point Mapnik at it. I've got a Debian server with about 8GB set aside to this (I built it the day after I spoke to WMF UK actually) which is kind of gathering dust in my office at the mo. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
              • I really like that OSM control, but will it work here? I wonder if you'd have more success with WP:WikiMiniAtlas since that is an in-house project. –Fredddie™ 12:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well personally I prefer the inline map, as casual users can see it immediately, while more advanced users can manipulate it to suit their needs, and really advanced users can reconfigure it. Horses for courses. Anyway, it's there if you want it - in fact, since it's GPL, I have to give it to you if you want it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, should have been more clear. I meant that the inline map would be from WMA, which uses OSM data in addition to other sources, and not OSM directly. –Fredddie™ 14:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know a WMA from a WMD (probably just as well) - hopefully that's something you can deal with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reinstatement of article on Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study#Proposed reinstatement of content. -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have filed my 2p in the ring at the talk page you linked to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Switching to Wikidata for maps

This is a notice that the |map= parameter in {{infobox road}} is soon becoming obsolete. The parameter will be supported by Wikidata projectwide in the near future. This has been tested and proven to work, but the parameter is only supported by Wikidata on a handful of articles, mostly pertaining to the United States, as of June 2.

This works by using the map property on Wikidata. To complete the example above, here is the item for CA 78 on Wikidata. Notice how in the "road map" property is File:California State Route 78.svg, which is the map that infobox road now links to, to use as the map in the infobox. If you have any questions, I'm willing to answer them. TCN7JM 06:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox road junction to use Wikidata for maps

Please see Template talk:Infobox road junction. --Rschen7754 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should we look at that article? A bit more information on this page would be helpful (or is this a diktat?) Martinvl (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we need more information on this and how it affects this project specificly - assuming it does affect it. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fine, if this is what I get when I give a courtesy notification about a discussion I won't be giving them here anymore. --Rschen7754 21:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong, I appreciate the project being informed about proposals/changes that affect its articles, I just feel that with many of these there doesn't seem to be much comment and/or discussion on why it is useful for this project. I say this because the linked discussion doesn't seem to elaborate on this. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  21:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, after one of your members decided to throw in some ad hominems at the above page for good effect, I'm through with notifying this project. If you want to see these notifications, they will be posted to WT:HWY. And as far as the question above, thanks to the sitewide RFC on Wikidata, we have to have these discussions before enabling Wikidata for any field. --Rschen7754 21:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And here we go again. Rschen, if you didn't throw your toys out of the pram every time somebody had an opinion that varied with yours, and realised not every idea you come up with will be enthusiastically received by the entire WP community, we'd all get along much better.

Yeah, I think you've done a lot of good stuff for the encyclopedia (lots of GAs and FAs) but also a lot of boneheaded stuff - in this specific instance, it's because upthread you'll see I made an offer of a much better mapping system that could be integrated in with WP without too much effort. I don't know the right people to ask, but perhaps you do. But of course that's not your way of doing things, so you'd rather reinvent the wheel and stomp your foot and cry when you don't get an unanimous agreement. I don't make ad-hominem comments about who people are, but if people do things I think are idiotic, and telling them to their face they're idiotic has a net benefit to the project, I will. Bill "That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard" Gates and Linus "I'm A Bastard" Torvalds have done alright out of it.

I quietly undid this "announcement" yesterday in the full expectation that were it to stay, it would result in a fracas - which is exactly what has happened! Totally predictable. In my view, all are welcome to post on this project page if you have specific thoughts that will benefit the content of articles for this project. Such as the request to try and collaborate a GA quality article listed above, which alas fell on deaf ears. :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we're confusing two items.

• Wikidata (WD) is a shared database between all of the Wikipedias and other sister projects. It stores data about topics, like say that the M25 is a road, that it's in the UK, etc. The DB entry will also have a property that says that there is a map of that road stored on Commons at a specific location.
• When {{infobox road}} was updated to query WD to see if there were maps of roads, a bunch of German highway articles suddenly had maps appear, because the articles here previously didn't link to any existing map graphics, but editors had added that information to WD.
• Now, as I recall, you proposed some interactive mapping ideas that could replace the existing static maps in the infobox. That's something I would love, actually. Using our KML files, we can generate a WikiMiniAtlas (WMA) in articles. Just look at Capitol Loop for one article that has the little globe from WMA in the upper corner. Once a reader clicks on that globe, a map pops up that he/she can scroll, zoom, etc.
• I would love if we replaced the static map graphics in the infoboxes with something that was interactive, but for readers with slower connections or those using older software, static map graphics are still going to be necessary.

Unfortunately though, the site-wide RfC on using WD content requires that there be consensus to implement any specific template changes to query the WD database; since this project uses {{infobox road}} and {{infobox road junction}}, this project's members should be notified, as a courtesy, so that they can participate in discussions that affect this project's articles. Imzadi 1979 → 09:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Imzadi - that's a much more helpful and constructive comment.

I'm a big fan of keeping things simple. I see your site-wide RfC and raise you WP:IAR. If you can't explain why a template must not be changed under any circumstances without careful discussion (as a high server load impact or many pages breaking would be two reasonable explanations), just say balls to it. If you don't understand why you're doing something, and have to defer to a higher authority "the boss / government / RfC / Jimbo / Arbcom told me to do so", you'll be less likely to see problems with the approach, come unstuck if and when things go wrong, people blame you for it all, and you won't be able to defend yourself.

All said and done, my personal opinion is that I feel the map on M2 is better than the map on M2 motorway (Great Britain). The Wikipedia map is terrible - you can hardly tell where the road is! The SABRE map is much better - zoomed in to exactly where the road is, with the option of moving it, zooming in and out etc. I appreciate your concerns about bandwidth, but I've tried it on a 2G mobile and my home broadband which regularly rates around "F" on speedtest.net, and it works okay. How you re-use it on here is up to you lot, really - I don't have time to do the legwork myself, I'm afraid. And when other members say things like "Fine, if this is what I get ... I won't be giving them here anymore" to two quite legitimate and reasonable questions, it makes me even less inclined to get things integrated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with User talk:Ritchie333. Martinvl (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly wish it were simple enough to just IAR and implement some of these changes instead of going through the hoops, but the Community through the RfC has said that we need to do this. We don't have this limitation over on the Simple English Wikipedia, and the infobox there is essentially a clone of the one here. We implemented the WD query there, tested it there, and it worked as it should. Coming to do it here though, we have this RfC limiting things. It sucks, but that's life too.

If we can provide a graceful fall back for users with browsers that can't support Javascript/whatever is needed to make the interactive map work, then I'm all for implementing the code and providing an interactive map in the infobox. That's something I've wanted since we started uploading KMLs. Dschwen (talk · contribs) had said it would be easy to insert the current WikiMiniAtlas into the infobox, but the idea hasn't gone anywhere yet. If the map that pops up from the globe on Capitol Loop were in the infobox, which also zooms in on the highlighted road, etc. Compare that to the WMA that pops up on U.S. Route 127 in Michigan, which is a much longer road. Since the coding for this already exists on Wikipedia, and we already have someone that should be able to implement it easily enough, how would that work for you? Imzadi 1979 → 11:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Having a static image that is effectively a copy of the default map is definitely worthwhile having, even if you can still do the interactive stuff. For OpenStreetMap images, it's pretty simple to assemble something in ImageMagick based on the lat, lon and zoom (this guide explains exactly how). Trace involves parsing some text (whether it be osm or xml) and constructing a polyline out of it; a little more taxing but hopefully not excessively so, particularly since the code already exists in OpenLayers. Once you have that up and running, you can obviously cache the result (how often do maps change really?) somewhere so getting it again is fast, and expire it some time in the future. Let me see what I can come up with.

As for what the current control on SABRE does - it's a pretty simple affair all said and done. It hooks into wgParser:setHook, takes a few basic parameters (in our example above, the relevant bit of the source is <sabremap lat=51.328338 lon=0.662424 zoom=9 trace=M2/M2.osm />) and creates an OSM map out of it using the standard OpenLayers API. So all we really need to do is to reuse the relevant bits of the API code, porting it from JavaScript to C++, Python or PHP (depending on language I feel like using). Simples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

@Dschwen: is the interactive map expert on this wiki, so he'd be the one to ask. Hopefully he has notifications turned on and will see this. –Fredddie™ 14:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This bit of code will take a lat, lon and zoom and return a blob of html that will load in any browser. A bit of ImageMagick can do cropping so the point is dead centre as opposed to anywhere within the inner 256 pixels, but hopefully it'll spark ideas :

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>

#define PI 3.14159265358979323846

void print_osm() { printf( "http://%c.tile.openstreetmap.org/", ( rand() % 3 ) + 'a' ); }
double deg2rad(double deg) { return( deg * PI / 180.0 ); }
double expz(int z) { return pow(2.0,z); }
double long2x(double lon, int z) { return (lon + 180.0) / 360.0 * expz(z); }
double lat2y(double lat, int z) { 
  return (1.0 - log( tan(deg2rad(lat)) + 1.0 / cos(deg2rad(lat))) / PI) / 2.0 * expz(z); 
}
void print_tile( x, y, z ) {
  printf( "<td><img src=\"" );
  print_osm();
  printf( "%d/%d/%d.png\"/></td>", z, x, y );
}
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
  double lat, lon, x, y;
  int zoom, tx, ty;
  int xtiles[2], ytiles[2];

  if( argc < 4 ) {
    printf( "Usage: GenMap [lat] [lon] [zoom]\n" );    
  }

  srand(time(NULL));

  lat = atof( argv[ 1 ] );
  lon = atof( argv[ 2 ] );
  zoom = atoi( argv[ 3 ] );

  x = long2x( lon, zoom );
  y = lat2y( lat, zoom );  

  tx = (int) floor( x );
  ty = (int) floor( y );
  
  if( fmod( x, 1.0 ) > 0.5 ) {
    xtiles[ 0 ] = tx;
    xtiles[ 1 ] = tx + 1;
  } else {
    xtiles[ 0 ] = tx - 1;
    xtiles[ 1 ] = tx;
  }

  if( fmod( y, 1.0 ) > 0.5 ) {
    ytiles[ 0 ] = ty;
    ytiles[ 1 ] = ty + 1;
  } else {
    ytiles[ 0 ] = ty - 1;
    ytiles[ 1 ] = ty;
  }  
  
  printf( "<html><head/><body><table cellpadding=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\">" );
  printf( "<tr>" );
  print_tile( xtiles[ 0 ], ytiles[ 0 ], zoom );
  print_tile( xtiles[ 1 ], ytiles[ 0 ], zoom );
  printf( "</tr><tr>" );
  print_tile( xtiles[ 0 ], ytiles[ 1 ], zoom );
  print_tile( xtiles[ 1 ], ytiles[ 1 ], zoom );
  printf( "</tr></table></body></html>" );

  return 1;
}

Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Dynamic maps working inside wiki! may be a relevant discussion. I have mixed feelings about using dynamic maps in the infobox - I'd have to see the finished product. --Rschen7754 20:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you go onto SABRE you'll find a veritable smorgasbord of examples. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, yes I have notifications turned on. Indeed it would be rather simple to embed interactive maps in infoboxes. But I'm not sure this is the optimum solution. This would have to be a one size fits all kind of thing. I can only imagine that atricle authors appreciate a certain abount of editorial freedom to format maps in a way that is most suited to the subject of the article. --Dschwen 14:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I envision it as a option to be enabled, and not a default, that if the article has the proper KML and a parameter is invoked in the infobox, the WMA would appear in place of the map graphic. Imzadi 1979 → 15:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Imzadi. I find it easier to make KML than to make maps, so if we can potentially remove the map-making step altogether, I'm for it. –Fredddie™ 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists

There is an RFC here that may be of interest to this wikiproject. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

HKRD

There's a new WikiProject, WikiProject Hong Kong Roads. Help is appreciated.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 01:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Directions

Is there consensus on the direction in which routes should be described? US roads are treated south-north and west-east. E.g I see A1 is followed south-north and A16 north-south. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no relationship to cardinal directions, but there is a definite direction to the roads. For instance, the A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 all radial routes that start in London (and should be described from London outwards) and head N, SE, SW, W, NW and NW respectively. "Away from London" is a decent rule of thumb, so the A16 appears to be wrong way (though I can't confirm that).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't matter what direction is chosen, so long as the same convention is used in a country. --Rschen7754 21:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for these helpful replies. I was thinking myself that "away from London" would be a sensible way to do things. Spicemix (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

More correctly, follow the direction of increasing junction or [[driver location sign|marker posts]. In general these increase as one leaves London, but obviously some roads such as the M62, M5 and A34 follow an arc around London. Martinvl (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A82 road

I expanded this over the last day or so, and looking at it I'm tempted to send it straight to FAC. Before I do it, can any of you lot give it a good looking over and spot any deficiencies - I'm au fait with the sourcing and I think it's pretty comprehensive, but MOS issues are not my forte, as some of you may well know. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Leaving comments at the talk page atm. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked a few of my other chums who I've done recent GA reviews for to see if they'll have a look too, so some more comments may appear soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#Key ordering

An unofficial request for comments has been started here to determine the ordering of the statements in the key at the bottom of the table. Your comments would be appreciated. TCN7JM 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

New templates

Hi all, I've created three new templates: {{traffic volume top}}, {{traffic volume row}}, and {{traffic volume bottom}}, that can be used for creating tables of traffic volume data, as seen in the new A-Class article Kwinana Freeway and relatively new GA Tonkin Highway (which were previously hardcoded). I've written the documentation and WP:TemplateData. These have been coded using parser functions, but I imagine the logic can be executed using a WP:Lua module (I haven't yet learned to code in Lua). - Evad37 (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cross-posted to WikiProject Highways and other road wikiprojects. Please reply at WT:HWY#New_templates

Notability 2nd opinion

Looking for some advice on what guidelines there are for the inclusion of roads. A new editor has created this article:- Donnington Bridge Road. The road is 0.8 miles (1.3 km) long, passing through a housing estate and over a river, just like thousands of other roads. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that you meant 0.8 miles, not 0.8 metres in length.

Secondly, the criteria for notability for roads are not clearly defined - it is up to the initial editor concerned to convince the AfD team that this road is notable. In my view, it is not, though if it were redirected to the article Donnington Bridge, it might warrant a short mention.

Thirdly, I have done a quick check on the Internet - this page has some interesting suggestions that the bridge might be on the site of a Roman ford, in which case the road might follow the route of a Roman road. That would make it notable. The article also mentions a ferry that pre-dates the bridge.

Martinvl (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have "driven" the road on Google Maps. The road has absolutely nothing remarkable and is a prime candidate for AfD. If you want to keep it, I suggest that as a matter of urgency you redirect it to Donnington Bridge. Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have no interest in retaining it. The editor who created it has just received a block for disruptive editing and edit warring on other articles.no doubt with creating this one he will exhibit a tendency to own it. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please help get road-related listed structures ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September

In September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed structures of significant importance (eg grades I or grade II* or equivalent), as recorded by English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency . The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?

In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Many of the listed structures are residential or other buildings, but there are a significant number of road-related listed structures that may be of specific interest to members of this project. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible structures are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the links, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?

Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by the official listing organizations. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.

The data still needs the attention of local editors:

• The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
• The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
• The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
• The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
• Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the official database which can be checked if needed for details.
• The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
• References may be added according to normal WP practice.

For further information, please see Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom.

If you have any queries, please post them not below but on the Organizers' help page on Commons.

Anything you can do to help improve these lists will be much appreciated. The final deadline for cleaning up is 31st August.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

WT:HWY#Sections

There is a discussion at the above page related to what additional sections (beyond the standard route description, history, junction list) can or must be included on a road article. --Rschen7754 05:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Distances conversions (Imperial <-> Metric)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#US_distance_conversions

It has been noted that UK opinions are missing from this discussion, and as the original poster I agree that we should seek opinions here too.

As a bit of context:

Mainly just curious as to the preferred measurement units.

Not looking to setup anything as "rules", just guidance for authors when creating articles

So far working with some USRD editors in the past it has been mentioned in a few A-Class article reviews for both AU and US conversions.

There will always be circumstances where it may be best to provide conversions quite different to those that may be suggested in the hopefully ensuing discussion.

It would also be interesting to hear opinions on other older/specialised measurements such as Chains

-- Nbound (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

British roads are a mess. They are designed using metric units - motorways have location marker posts calibrated in kilometres and in England, motorways have driver location markers driver location signss that replicate the location marker posts. However most motorists are unaware of this and in order to keep the anti-EU sentiment under control, the Government, in their infinite wisdom, try to keep it that way - all distances are marked in miles, fractions of a mile (down to quarter of a mile) or in yards (correct to within 10%), so sign that reads 100 yards is actually placed 109 yards from its target. (BTW 109 yards is 100 metres).

As far as roads are concerned, chains went out forty years ago (though they are still used on railway lines, except for new lines). Martinvl (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

So basically -

• < 1/4mi (~400m) = yards
• < 1mi (~1.6km) = fractions of a mile (presumably quarters, not eighths)
• > 1mi = miles

Though for the last, would that be (hypothetically) 60.5 mi or 60 1/2 mi?

Thanks for the input! -- Nbound (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

More or less, but note that British road signs seldom quote fractions of a mile where the distance exceeds 5 miles. Also, fractions of a mile are shown in vulgar fractions, not decimal fractions. In addition, I have seen roads signs stating that there are road works for the next 2000 yards (by which I assume 2.0 km). Martinvl (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY

There is a discussion on WT:HWY regarding a proposal for a shields request page on WP:HWY - Evad37 (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

RFC: WP:MOSNUM

There are currently a number of proposals to improve the language at WP:MOSNUM relating to the use of Units in UK related articles. External opinion is invited at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RFC: Proposals to rewrite WP:MOSNUM on UK units of preference. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pullens Lane

Is this road really notable enough? Ollieinc (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/B4101 road. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

WT:HWY/ACR#ACR for lists

We are discussing how lists should be reviewed at our A-Class review before a featured list candidate nomination. Your input is welcome. --Rschen7754 06:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:HWY/CUP

Hello. Just a friendly reminder that the 2014 HWY Cup – a contest similar to the WikiCup, but within the scope of WP:HWY – starts on June 1. Please sign up at the linked page if you're interested. Thanks! TCN7JM 20:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

New template: infobox highway system

The US has had {{infobox state highway system}}, but now there is a more generic {{infobox highway system}} designed for a more globalized use. Imzadi 1979 → 21:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Citing a map

Please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#Citing a map for a discussion on possible updates to the format of map citations in Citation Style 1 using {{cite map}}. Imzadi 1979 → 16:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates for British Road Junction Lists

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#RJLUK set of templates regarding a proposed set of templates for British Road Junction Lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject UK Roads at Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Layout consistency

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Layout consistency regarding the layout order of non-standard sections (ex Tolls, Services, unique top-level sections etc), which I have come to notice varies even between Featured Articles. Your input is appreciated. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes to ACR

Please see WT:HWY#Change of outlook at ACR for a discussion on a proposed change to how ACR works. Rschen7754 (delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC))

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

AfDs

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B4058 road and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B5470 road. Other articles are nominated on those pages. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) 16:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

A14(M) etc

Hi,

Some advice with how to handle the Commons category commons:category:A14(M) motorway (and other similar roads) would be appreciated. IMO either outright deletion or careful segregation is needed, with all content associated with the official routes - A14 and A1(M) in this case.

The A14(M) is not fictitious but its not exactly real either is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:M62 motorway/GA1

M62 motorway is undergoing a GA review at Talk:M62 motorway/GA1. Editors are invited to help improve the article in line with the review. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (message) 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Potential changes at FAC

There is a proposal at WT:FAC#FAC nom preparedness to potentially require a Peer Review or A-Class Review before nomination. The idea is that would the change streamline the reviews at FAC to push articles through there faster by requiring more of the advance prep work to be done before an FAC was initiated. Such a change would mean revitalizing and using WP:HWY/ACR more in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 20:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: I have commented on that thread, but I don't see a particular consensus to change the FAC process; I think you just need a bit of common sense of making sure you have made the article as best as you possibly can and so have all your chums. I am concerned about the page you linked to for two reasons; firstly it seems to be the same group of 4-5 people creating a walled garden of reviews which leads to all hell breaking loose the minute somebody outside spots faults - this is a general problem when you don't have enough reviewers. Secondly, the page you linked to above says "The most important part of each A-Class review is the review of the written prose designed to make sure that the content in the article is clear, complete, and formatted consistently with our MOS and other guidelines"; I thought the purpose of A-Class reviews was to make sure it was as factually complete as possible, and a subject expert would be happy that nothing was left out. Given that I've put up more than a few road / street articles to GA / DYK without even an infobox, that would suggest nobody else gets that excited about MOS wonkiness either.

Now, on a more positive note, I have heard vague waves from Dr. Blofeld that it would be nice to improve Denmark Street beyond its current GA status, and given FAC reviews seem to run in geologic eras, so an A review for that might be a suitable stepping stone. It may also tempt other people into reviving the idea of A reviews for WP:ALBUMS and related projects. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I personally believe that ACR should do both: check for MOS/other guideline compliance, and that it is complete subject-wise. Part of the purpose is to address potential MOS issues before they are brought up at FAC, and lead to editors opposing at that stage. --Rschen7754 00:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Project inactivity

I have two questions related to the activity (or lack thereof) of this WikiProject.

1. Would it be fine if I "demote" this project to a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways? It would become Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/United Kingdom. WP:UKRD and all the appropriate shortcuts would redirect to the right spot. Conversely, the WP:HWY links could be redirected to the WP:UKRD pages. I have no preference for either option.
2. Would it be fine for me to switch the project banner to {{HWY}}? I would simply have the UKRD banner call the HWY banner so no changes to any talk page would be necessary.

Obviously, if project activity were to increase, these changes could be undone. And if you'd rather someone other than myself perform these actions, that's fine. I'm more interested in having a reasonable discussion than anything else. –Fredddie™ 22:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the prospective benefits of such a rearrangement? What are the costs of the status quo? --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For one, we'd avoid discussions like Talk:Dartford_Crossing#Project_banners_and_ACR. I'm simply taking what Ritchie said indirectly, that UKRD was dead, and I'm starting a discussion.

The HWY project, in my opinion, was never meant to be active, at least not to the degree that WP:USRD is active. (I'm not saying USRD is better than UKRD, simply more active.) It's more of a place for people to share resources where a local WikiProject doesn't make sense. A local WikiProject, to me, implies that there is some activity and collaboration among editors. So, if a local project struggles to keep going, it should be folded into the umbrella topic where there is a greater likelihood for attracting eyes for a discussion. USRD did this a few years ago with individual state WikiProjects; each state had its own WikiProject. None of which were as active as the main project. We decided that one project with 50+ pages of individual state resources was easier to maintain than 55 or so separate WikiProjects with separate discussion pages.

So tl;dr: discussion and activity make a WikiProject, otherwise it should fall under a task force of a bigger project. –Fredddie™ 23:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much hit the nail on head. I would rather see fewer really active projects than a lot of arid ones, and this is far from the only example of project merging that I think would be beneficial. In this specific case of Dartford Crossing, I was concerned that recent events meant that the article might not be as good as it could be anymore. I can go round and ping talk pages asking for a review, but it's difficult to get individuals to be motivated. I saw the note about ACRs and thought that might be a suitable way of getting improvement, but in the top-level project where I think more people would be around to pass comment. The review has been helpful (particularly Fredddie's input, as it happens) and the article has got better.

Part of the problem is a "project" in the wider, real-world sense has things that WikiProjects tend not to have, such as a defined set of goals and a deadline to meet them. You also need a "project manager" who co-ordinates things and makes sure tasks are done. Without those, I think projects will drift naturally. Consider something like Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge/Bristol, which does have a well-defined coordinator (Blofeld) and a well defined goal (all articles must be improved in 3 days) and motivation (winners will be awarded Amazon vouchers) - and suddenly in 72 hours we got A369 road, A403 road and Avon Bridge expanded from a stub, Stokes Croft and Gloucester Road, Bristol had major improvements, and M32 Motorway and Portway, Bristol both passed GA. Indeed, look at the list of improved articles make for some pretty impressive improvements. Yes - paid editing (albeit not in actual hard cash but vouchers) does work on Wikipedia!

There's also the problem that articles can spill over multiple projects; for example, Park Lane is marked as part of this project, but equally as Wikipedia:WikiProject London and Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport, while Sun in the Sands, a major road junction in southeast London, isn't here.

tl;dr - what Fredddie said Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you have your answer, Fredddie. The massed ranks of WikiProject UK Roads have all spoken. Please do as you think best. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

It should be done. Thanks for your input Ritchie333 and Tagishsimon. –Fredddie™ 23:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way on this move. I'm not sure how discussion is any more centralized by having the project as a subpage of WP:HWY, as users would still need to add the talk page to their watchlist. I'd merely like to point out that 5 days and the input of one user (even if they were the only consistently active and focused editor of the project) is likely to draw ire from the less active but wiki-xenophobic users. Another week would have cemented the move per WP:SILENCE. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the project banner for this Freddddie, and organising the Taskforce-ification (I'd have agreed with you earlier if I'd been active enough!). I'm just wondering if you know why the article assessment now no longer includes the importance assessment? I've fixed a few things but can't figure that out. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

That was unexpected and definitely not intentional. @Imzadi1979: you know more about setting this up than I do, can you comment? –Fredddie™ 21:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tried a few things to update the banner, but I can't figure out the magic ingredient to get the importance ratings working. I'll give it another go shortly, or ping in some outside help. Imzadi 1979 → 01:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Proposed A-Class Review rule changes

There have been some proposed changes to the A-Class review process at the discussion above. --Rschen7754 20:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Junction templates

I made some templates for junctions on British roadways so people don't have to type out a Wiki-table. I made a 'top' template (like Jcttop), a 'main' template (like Jctint), a 'bottom' template (like Jctbtm), and a services template (like Jctrestarea). Do whatever you want with them. You can even incorporate them into Jcttop, Jctint, Jctbtm, and Jctrestarea somehow. Here they are:

• Top template
• Main template
• Bottom template
• Services template