![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I appreciate your sentiments when you added the "miles" column to the M25 motorway, however I believe that they were mis-placed. Before you redo your work, please take a drive on the M25 (or any other English motorway) and look out for the Driver location signs. The distances that are catalogued in the article are the distances shown on these signs - please read the reference in the introduction to the section. By introducing miles you do a dis-service to drivers who wish to use these markers since thety will only ever see the kilometer-based markers when driving.
Finally, by making an issue of this, I am promoting roads safety in England - if there is an incident on the motorway, these signs are used to help the emergency services get to the scene of the indicent, but the British Government is very coy about the matter. By adding miles to the column, you will remove the safety message that I am putting across (but which should be put across by the British Government). Finally, I don't care what the Highway Code says about roadside telephones - most drivers use a mobile phone rather than looking for a roadside phone. Martinvl ( talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I have just come in on this discussion and I think the following points should be made:
I believe that this fact is notable. Because of that I have added that fact to the article and have backed it up with a reference. However, I have not changed the order of the units, as this question may need further discussion. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Postscript: I think the table of distances from the driver location signs should put the kilometres first. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a problem here where three things collide: the need to verify information; the guideline that says that miles come first in UK articles; and the reality that the driver location signs are in kilometres. Obviously, something has to give, and I believe that in this case the guideline needs to give way to common sense. In other words, it would be preferable to give priority to the actual figures on the driver location signs. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think it is relevant whether the signs are experimental or not, or whether the numbering starts at zero or even whether the signs are used for navigation. The point is that they are placed at intervals measured in metres. Therefore, when we have a table that sets out the distances one would normally expect that the metric distances would come first. Take this:
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Now the figure 3.5 miles is a reasonable approximation of the distance on the driver location sign. However, being an approximation, it's slightly out. In this case it's 67.296 metres short. (That's more than 220 feet and 9 inches short or more than twice the width of Tower Bridge in London.) So what we're deciding on is whether we put the source figures first or whether we put our approximations first. I believe that the source figure should come first. Like this:
M25 Motorway | ||||
km | miles | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
5.7 | 3.5 |
It's not a big change. It reflects the sources. There are still the conversions into miles. However, we have ensured that the source is quoted accurately. I hope that this explains why I have suggested this revision and why I believe that it is better than the present text. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have two opinions here. One says that miles must come first as per the convention about British roads. The other insists that kilometres must come first, according to the source. If we set up the question like this, it will be impossible to agree. However, if we look at the question in a different way, we may be able to come to an agreement that will be reasonably satisfactory to both parties. In my opinion, the two salient points are the beliefs that miles must come first and that it must be clear what the primary units are. If I could come up with an arrangement that would keep the miles first but would make it clear that the kilometre measures were the primary units, would this satisfy the concerns of both parties? Michael Glass ( talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a way to put the miles first but still show that in this case they are derived figures. This can be done by putting the miles in parentheses. Here is an example:
M25 Motorway | ||||
(miles) | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
(3.5) | 5.7 |
By doing this both points of view are accommodated. It gives neither side all that they might want, but it is a compromise that I think that most people could agree to. What do people think?
Michael Glass (
talk)
08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the text to include the starting point of the numbering system. It's near the River Thames. (The sheet describes this as a point near Junction 31, but as this would be meaningless to anyone but regular commuters on the M25, I included the nearest landmark, which is the Thames.) It should be noted, of course, that the mile conversions have already been added to the article, and the question at issue is not whether they should be added - they're already there - but how they are to be presented. The question of milepost equation would only arise if the M25 had been rerouted, and as the driver location signs are relatively new, this is not likely to be an issue. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to take into account your last dot point. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I note that there has been no further comment about my proposal to put the miles in parentheses in the table. I believe that it would be better to make this change to the article for the following reasons:
I realise that this compromise is not perfect, but it does seem to be the best fit at this time. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles[1] | km[1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
There is already a note in the text. I have decided to cut the Gordian knot. I have put an extra explanation in the text and put the miles in italics. Please look at what I have done, and if there is any problem let's talk about it more. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [nb 1] | km [nb 1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
<sup></sup>
tag. First set up the footnote, but not in the coloured background area. Then you need to determine the internal link ID for that ref, and the sup tag link to that with a normal wikilink. So we might have this:M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [1] | km [1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Note: [nb 1]
This mayfit the bill. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
mi [1] | km [2] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) [3] | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
23.5 | 35.7 | A lot of text here for the clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps. | J2 | A lot of text here for the anti-clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps. |
Notes:
Martinvl (
talk)
21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
While I acknowledge all the hard work of other editors, I think my solution is neater, clearer and easier than the use of footnotes. See below:
Data [1] from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. [2]. Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures.
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
However, perhaps the introductory text could be tweaked. Any comments or suggestions?
Michael Glass (
talk)
00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In this table:
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Martinvl ( talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I'd like to direct your attention back to my proposal. If I have read you correctly, what you said was that italics were better than parentheses However, the explanation was not where you would expect to look to find out why the figures were italicised. What we are trying to do here is to work out an acceptable compromise that everyone can live with. This means that those who want the kilometres first have to agree to having the miles first while you need to accommodate the views of others who insist we must clearly mark the difference between the original figures and the derived figures. Now you might feel we don't need to mark the miles as derived but remember that others will certainly regret that the kilometres have been relegated to second place. So, to make this work, both sides have to compromise, and that is something that can be very hard to do. I know my compromise isn't perfect, but I hope that it is something that we can all live with, however reluctantly. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [4] | km [5] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
References
Martinvl ( talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Data [1] from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. [2]. Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures."
Thryduulf, I agree with your proposed additions to the introduction though I also think that the unit of measurement should be mentioned. Perhaps the wording could go something like this:
Michael Glass ( talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I still want the miles to be italicised to set them apart from the kilometres. I also think the last sentence is needed to explain the layout of the first two columns in the table that follows. Note that the wording of the last sentence explains both the kilometres and the miles. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
We have talk on this page going back to 2005, and is now getting rather long. Unless anyone objects in the next few days I'll set up auto-archiving for this page. The bot has settings for how old threads must be before they are archived, I suggest 60 days, and the minimum number of threads left, I suggest using the default 3. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
One year many people left work early, and got caught up with gritters, and the m25 was jammed for over a day. Does anyone have any info about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.113 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Since you are not a registered editor and I cannot send you a message, I have had to reverted "Staines-upon-Thames" to "Staines". Can you supply documentary evidence that the road signs show "Staines-upon-Thames" rather than just "Staines"? May I draw to attention that the primary road network as per this document refers to "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull", to "Kingston", not "Kingston-upon-Thames", to "Richmond", not "Richmond-upon-Thames", to "Newcastle", not "Newcastle-on-Tyne". It does however refer to "Newcastle-under-Lyme". Martinvl ( talk)
I see an editor getting stroppy about the exact form used for place names in this article. There is even an edit summary stating "UK Junction Lists reproduce the text on road signs themselves". The article content does not currently reflect that statement. The road sign for Heathrow Airport says just "Heathrow" and not "Heathrow Airport". The road sign for junction 13 says "A30 London (W) Hounslow Staines" not "London (West), Staines, Windsor A30".
I think we need a bit more flexibility here, and why should we overrule the Staines name change? Shufflee ( talk) 09:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please justify the use of "Staines-on-Thames". AS per WP:RJL, you shoudl be using the names as thezy appear on the road signs and the picture above quite clearly shows "Staines". Until the Highways Agency choose to change the roads signs, please stick with "Staines". Martinvl ( talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello - sorry this is written in extreme haste. Briefly: this morning I reverted an edit in which the user wanted to remove the word "Orbital" on the grounds that it is not a true orbital motorway because of the A-road Dartford Crossing. I feel strongly that this was not correct: the article already explains very clearly that it is not a continuous motorway ring, and the word Orbital is used freely for this road, both in the article as explained and in the world outside, thus bringing in WP:COMMONNAME too. I feel that this was a major change in the wording that would need to reach consensus here first; I would, natch, oppose it were it suggested as I feel it is wholly unjustified. Sorry it's a bit curt, no offence meant; I'm juggling (incompetently) here! Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 08:36, July 3, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (41,542 bytes) (+4) . . (Re- previous edit summary: I agree with DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ... of course it is "orbital" and should be referred to as such here. "Ring road", really! +para break added to clarify meaning of "It") (undo)
That's it: "End of story".
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I appreciate your sentiments when you added the "miles" column to the M25 motorway, however I believe that they were mis-placed. Before you redo your work, please take a drive on the M25 (or any other English motorway) and look out for the Driver location signs. The distances that are catalogued in the article are the distances shown on these signs - please read the reference in the introduction to the section. By introducing miles you do a dis-service to drivers who wish to use these markers since thety will only ever see the kilometer-based markers when driving.
Finally, by making an issue of this, I am promoting roads safety in England - if there is an incident on the motorway, these signs are used to help the emergency services get to the scene of the indicent, but the British Government is very coy about the matter. By adding miles to the column, you will remove the safety message that I am putting across (but which should be put across by the British Government). Finally, I don't care what the Highway Code says about roadside telephones - most drivers use a mobile phone rather than looking for a roadside phone. Martinvl ( talk) 06:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I have just come in on this discussion and I think the following points should be made:
I believe that this fact is notable. Because of that I have added that fact to the article and have backed it up with a reference. However, I have not changed the order of the units, as this question may need further discussion. Michael Glass ( talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Postscript: I think the table of distances from the driver location signs should put the kilometres first. What do others think? Michael Glass ( talk) 21:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
We have a problem here where three things collide: the need to verify information; the guideline that says that miles come first in UK articles; and the reality that the driver location signs are in kilometres. Obviously, something has to give, and I believe that in this case the guideline needs to give way to common sense. In other words, it would be preferable to give priority to the actual figures on the driver location signs. Michael Glass ( talk) 13:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think it is relevant whether the signs are experimental or not, or whether the numbering starts at zero or even whether the signs are used for navigation. The point is that they are placed at intervals measured in metres. Therefore, when we have a table that sets out the distances one would normally expect that the metric distances would come first. Take this:
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Now the figure 3.5 miles is a reasonable approximation of the distance on the driver location sign. However, being an approximation, it's slightly out. In this case it's 67.296 metres short. (That's more than 220 feet and 9 inches short or more than twice the width of Tower Bridge in London.) So what we're deciding on is whether we put the source figures first or whether we put our approximations first. I believe that the source figure should come first. Like this:
M25 Motorway | ||||
km | miles | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
5.7 | 3.5 |
It's not a big change. It reflects the sources. There are still the conversions into miles. However, we have ensured that the source is quoted accurately. I hope that this explains why I have suggested this revision and why I believe that it is better than the present text. Michael Glass ( talk) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have two opinions here. One says that miles must come first as per the convention about British roads. The other insists that kilometres must come first, according to the source. If we set up the question like this, it will be impossible to agree. However, if we look at the question in a different way, we may be able to come to an agreement that will be reasonably satisfactory to both parties. In my opinion, the two salient points are the beliefs that miles must come first and that it must be clear what the primary units are. If I could come up with an arrangement that would keep the miles first but would make it clear that the kilometre measures were the primary units, would this satisfy the concerns of both parties? Michael Glass ( talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a way to put the miles first but still show that in this case they are derived figures. This can be done by putting the miles in parentheses. Here is an example:
M25 Motorway | ||||
(miles) | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
(3.5) | 5.7 |
By doing this both points of view are accommodated. It gives neither side all that they might want, but it is a compromise that I think that most people could agree to. What do people think?
Michael Glass (
talk)
08:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the text to include the starting point of the numbering system. It's near the River Thames. (The sheet describes this as a point near Junction 31, but as this would be meaningless to anyone but regular commuters on the M25, I included the nearest landmark, which is the Thames.) It should be noted, of course, that the mile conversions have already been added to the article, and the question at issue is not whether they should be added - they're already there - but how they are to be presented. The question of milepost equation would only arise if the M25 had been rerouted, and as the driver location signs are relatively new, this is not likely to be an issue. Perhaps the wording could be expanded to take into account your last dot point. Michael Glass ( talk) 14:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I note that there has been no further comment about my proposal to put the miles in parentheses in the table. I believe that it would be better to make this change to the article for the following reasons:
I realise that this compromise is not perfect, but it does seem to be the best fit at this time. Are there any further comments or suggestions? Michael Glass ( talk) 22:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles[1] | km[1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
There is already a note in the text. I have decided to cut the Gordian knot. I have put an extra explanation in the text and put the miles in italics. Please look at what I have done, and if there is any problem let's talk about it more. Michael Glass ( talk) 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [nb 1] | km [nb 1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
<sup></sup>
tag. First set up the footnote, but not in the coloured background area. Then you need to determine the internal link ID for that ref, and the sup tag link to that with a normal wikilink. So we might have this:M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [1] | km [1] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Note: [nb 1]
This mayfit the bill. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
M25 Motorway | ||||
mi [1] | km [2] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) [3] | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
23.5 | 35.7 | A lot of text here for the clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps. | J2 | A lot of text here for the anti-clockwise carriageway, We need to test how it wraps. |
Notes:
Martinvl (
talk)
21:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
While I acknowledge all the hard work of other editors, I think my solution is neater, clearer and easier than the use of footnotes. See below:
Data [1] from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. [2]. Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures.
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
However, perhaps the introductory text could be tweaked. Any comments or suggestions?
Michael Glass (
talk)
00:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In this table:
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles | km | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
Martinvl ( talk) 06:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thryduulf, I'd like to direct your attention back to my proposal. If I have read you correctly, what you said was that italics were better than parentheses However, the explanation was not where you would expect to look to find out why the figures were italicised. What we are trying to do here is to work out an acceptable compromise that everyone can live with. This means that those who want the kilometres first have to agree to having the miles first while you need to accommodate the views of others who insist we must clearly mark the difference between the original figures and the derived figures. Now you might feel we don't need to mark the miles as derived but remember that others will certainly regret that the kilometres have been relegated to second place. So, to make this work, both sides have to compromise, and that is something that can be very hard to do. I know my compromise isn't perfect, but I hope that it is something that we can all live with, however reluctantly. Michael Glass ( talk) 10:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is an example
M25 Motorway | ||||
miles [4] | km [5] | Clockwise exits (A Carriageway) | Junction | Anti-clockwise exits (B Carriageway) |
Dartford Crossing A282 | ||||
3.5 | 5.7 |
References
Martinvl ( talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
"Data [1] from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from a point near the River Thames, east of London, when travelling clockwise on the motorway. [2]. Figures in kilometres in the table below are from the Department for Transport; figures in miles are derived figures."
Thryduulf, I agree with your proposed additions to the introduction though I also think that the unit of measurement should be mentioned. Perhaps the wording could go something like this:
Michael Glass ( talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
No, I still want the miles to be italicised to set them apart from the kilometres. I also think the last sentence is needed to explain the layout of the first two columns in the table that follows. Note that the wording of the last sentence explains both the kilometres and the miles. Michael Glass ( talk) 05:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
We have talk on this page going back to 2005, and is now getting rather long. Unless anyone objects in the next few days I'll set up auto-archiving for this page. The bot has settings for how old threads must be before they are archived, I suggest 60 days, and the minimum number of threads left, I suggest using the default 3. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
One year many people left work early, and got caught up with gritters, and the m25 was jammed for over a day. Does anyone have any info about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.178.113 ( talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Since you are not a registered editor and I cannot send you a message, I have had to reverted "Staines-upon-Thames" to "Staines". Can you supply documentary evidence that the road signs show "Staines-upon-Thames" rather than just "Staines"? May I draw to attention that the primary road network as per this document refers to "Hull", not "Kingston-upon-Hull", to "Kingston", not "Kingston-upon-Thames", to "Richmond", not "Richmond-upon-Thames", to "Newcastle", not "Newcastle-on-Tyne". It does however refer to "Newcastle-under-Lyme". Martinvl ( talk)
I see an editor getting stroppy about the exact form used for place names in this article. There is even an edit summary stating "UK Junction Lists reproduce the text on road signs themselves". The article content does not currently reflect that statement. The road sign for Heathrow Airport says just "Heathrow" and not "Heathrow Airport". The road sign for junction 13 says "A30 London (W) Hounslow Staines" not "London (West), Staines, Windsor A30".
I think we need a bit more flexibility here, and why should we overrule the Staines name change? Shufflee ( talk) 09:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Please justify the use of "Staines-on-Thames". AS per WP:RJL, you shoudl be using the names as thezy appear on the road signs and the picture above quite clearly shows "Staines". Until the Highways Agency choose to change the roads signs, please stick with "Staines". Martinvl ( talk) 08:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello - sorry this is written in extreme haste. Briefly: this morning I reverted an edit in which the user wanted to remove the word "Orbital" on the grounds that it is not a true orbital motorway because of the A-road Dartford Crossing. I feel strongly that this was not correct: the article already explains very clearly that it is not a continuous motorway ring, and the word Orbital is used freely for this road, both in the article as explained and in the world outside, thus bringing in WP:COMMONNAME too. I feel that this was a major change in the wording that would need to reach consensus here first; I would, natch, oppose it were it suggested as I feel it is wholly unjustified. Sorry it's a bit curt, no offence meant; I'm juggling (incompetently) here! Thanks and best wishes DBaK ( talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
(cur | prev) 08:36, July 3, 2012 Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) . . (41,542 bytes) (+4) . . (Re- previous edit summary: I agree with DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ... of course it is "orbital" and should be referred to as such here. "Ring road", really! +para break added to clarify meaning of "It") (undo)
That's it: "End of story".