![]() | 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 |
A dispute has broken out between an IP-user and me as to how readers should be notified that the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers. The rationale behind this is that UK drivers expect everything to be in miles and could be taken by surprise to find that the distances shown on driver location signs (which are highly visible - see image on right of a driver location sign on the M27) are in kilometres. The use of kilometres rather than miles violates the principle of least astonishment. In my view, it is better that readers be exposed to this when they are sitting at their computers rather than sitting at the steering wheel. For this reason I have been including the text "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway." The IP-user has been removing that text. We have both had an edit-warring warning. What do other editors feel. Martinvl ( talk) 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl: the articles in question already make it very clear to readers that "the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers", with this note at the bottom of each junction list: "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts".
Gareth: Wikipedia has a policy of presenting the neutral point of view and presenting information in miles in UK-related road articles. The junction lists have a column of miles and a column for km. A note at the top, and another at the bottom of each junction table already point out that the km values are from the roadside marker posts.
BBaK: I share your distaste of the single-issue-crusader approach, which is why I reverted the crusading pov-push edits that Martinvl, an editor who has been in trouble before, and involved in many acrimonious discussions before, for doing similar things in other articles, including those related to allegations of his gaming the system to push metrication into articles related to the Falkland Islands. Recently he has started to visit each motorway article in turn, and, without any discussion at all, adding blatantly anti-mile messages to them. It is that that I removed.
The pov-push edits that I was responding to were these in which transparently anti-mile content was added to the already adequate information: M25, M2, M54, M48, M45, M27, M3, M26, M42, M23, M18.
Let's recap. The motorway junction lists already have a note at the top, and some two notes; with one at the bottom too, explaining that the km numbers are from the roadside posts. If they are also to now have an extra note conveying thinly-veiled anti-mile usage POV, a discussion on the wording for that needs to be held first. 212.183.128.207 ( talk) 11:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
My current proposal is to both:
"Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from..."
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
And thus removing the one, POV sensitive and redundant sentence, this one: "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway"
212.183.140.3 (
talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Random comment: most junction lists in the United States have been displaying both miles and kilometers for almost an entire year. -- Rs chen 7754 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a naive question, but why is this article of "high" importance to the East Anglia project and "low" to the Kent and Hertfordshire project? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to object to the actions of two editors on this article. They are ganging up against me, and threatening me with being blocked from editing because I have objected to their insistence that incomprehensible jargon that was only added about 7 hours ago must be left in place, and that if I don't like it, the onus is on me to raise a discussion about it, but I must not remove it. Obviously I don't want to break any rules, but I'm not sure that what they are doing is legitimate. Can anyone help me here please. Cobhama ( talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In dumbing the language down, you have removed clarity. I have restored it and ensured that every bit of techincal language is wikilinked - this is what Wikipedia is all about what little technical language is language that appears on UK roadsigns - in particular the phrase "main carraigeway" appears on signs 7231, 7232 and 7261 in
Schedule 12 of the TSRGD (Also see
TSRGD).
Martinvl (
talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl (
talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me put another slant on things. Some years ago there was an article on Wikipedia TOTSO. This article was removed in 2009 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO. I tried to restore it, but failed. My text is here. As a result of this discussion, I tried to avoid using the word “TOTSO”. For the record, the word “TOTSO” is catalogued in List of road-related terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I have realigned the destination list for junction to reflect those shown on the main carriageway. The M25 Anti-clockwise shows London(SW), Guildford and Kingston while the M25 Clockwise shows London (SW & C), Portsmouth & Guildford. Martinvl ( talk) 05:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the 2007 source I have cited confirms that the western stretch is the busiest stretch of motorway in the country and on an annual average (which of course includes the weekends) the per day figure is considerably lower than the heaviest traffic day cited from 2003. Some of the other distances and terms given were vague which did not therefore conform with the Manual of Style. The plaintive style overall was clear from adjectives used, and conflicted with WP:NPOV before my latest edit. Adam37 ( talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a detailed description of the layout of junction 5, but of no other of the 30 junctions in the description section?
I thought the reason was because it is subtly different to all the others, in that unlike the others, the M25 route does not follow the mainline through that junction. And that characteristic is only apparent to motorists because they have to take the left-hand branch at the junction diverge, whereas they take the right-hand branch at the diverges of all other junctions to stay on the M25 route.
If this is the reason that it alone is described, then I think we should add that as context to the description. If that isn't the reason, then we need to explain the reason. On the other hand, if there is no reason, then we probably need to describe the layouts of all of the other junctions too for consistency. Cobhama ( talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
On the Junctions list it says that you can access M26 Eastbound fron junction 5 on the M25 Anticlockwise and not clockwise. This is the exact opposite, and also to access A21 (S) from M25 Clockwise. See Link. This image is on the M26 Eastbound beginning just after the M25 uses a slip road. Kentm ( talk) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi User:Cobhama, Please don't invent your own language - the DfT vocabulary is taken from a British Standard. You use of the word "divides" hides the fact that the M25 through route uses connector roads to get from one main carriageway to the other - known to road geeks as a "TOTSO" - "Turn Off To Stay On". There used to be a Wikipedia artcile TOTSO, but it was deleted, but not before the Dutch article and German article were written. Martinvl ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to weigh in on this recent debate a sense of duty to explain is required in articles on major national topics such as the West Coast Main Line and it is acceptable to use common jargon for railways there, just as it is for roads here. Please go to the trouble to explain meanings in footnotes (not references) where users have complained or indeed in brackets into plain English if the jargon is often explained in government or quasi-government publications. As to the wording of why Junction 5 deserves special mention you will see from my re-write it is far clearer how this junction operates and why it meets notability. I would merely ask you to compare American freeways for all kinds of plain English to describe roads, and to avoid using pure Anglo-norman administrativese when describing how lanes work. Adam37 ( talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I undid three edits from 81.159.88.77 (and then restored one removing an unwanted capital) but I'd like to discuss them.
Changed from six to seven and back. What are we counting here? Should be easy...
I restored a link to the A3 on the right hand side of the table. Looking at it again, I now wonder if that was right. Is there a set of rules regarding how this table is linked? If so, I am not quite getting it. Please enlighten me.
Cheers, DBaK ( talk) 09:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the opening date to 1975 - that's when the first section of M25. Though I thought about adding a category to the template box for "date of completion to current length" - thoughts/ideas? Erath 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC) hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 ( talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Op47: You wrote " The M18 to M1 north is clearly longer". Where is your source of information? The Guardian citation clearly states "The clockwise sliproad leaving the M25 for Reigate is the longest in the world outside the US". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The mentioning of metonymic usage in the lead is common practice on Wikipedia (see links on List of metonyms page), hence I have included this in the intro. Why this article should be an exception, when the metonymic usage of 'M25=London conurbation' is so ingrained in British popular culture I don't know. WisDom-UK ( talk) 11:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
A dispute has broken out between an IP-user and me as to how readers should be notified that the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers. The rationale behind this is that UK drivers expect everything to be in miles and could be taken by surprise to find that the distances shown on driver location signs (which are highly visible - see image on right of a driver location sign on the M27) are in kilometres. The use of kilometres rather than miles violates the principle of least astonishment. In my view, it is better that readers be exposed to this when they are sitting at their computers rather than sitting at the steering wheel. For this reason I have been including the text "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway." The IP-user has been removing that text. We have both had an edit-warring warning. What do other editors feel. Martinvl ( talk) 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl: the articles in question already make it very clear to readers that "the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers", with this note at the bottom of each junction list: "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts".
Gareth: Wikipedia has a policy of presenting the neutral point of view and presenting information in miles in UK-related road articles. The junction lists have a column of miles and a column for km. A note at the top, and another at the bottom of each junction table already point out that the km values are from the roadside marker posts.
BBaK: I share your distaste of the single-issue-crusader approach, which is why I reverted the crusading pov-push edits that Martinvl, an editor who has been in trouble before, and involved in many acrimonious discussions before, for doing similar things in other articles, including those related to allegations of his gaming the system to push metrication into articles related to the Falkland Islands. Recently he has started to visit each motorway article in turn, and, without any discussion at all, adding blatantly anti-mile messages to them. It is that that I removed.
The pov-push edits that I was responding to were these in which transparently anti-mile content was added to the already adequate information: M25, M2, M54, M48, M45, M27, M3, M26, M42, M23, M18.
Let's recap. The motorway junction lists already have a note at the top, and some two notes; with one at the bottom too, explaining that the km numbers are from the roadside posts. If they are also to now have an extra note conveying thinly-veiled anti-mile usage POV, a discussion on the wording for that needs to be held first. 212.183.128.207 ( talk) 11:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
My current proposal is to both:
"Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from..."
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
And thus removing the one, POV sensitive and redundant sentence, this one: "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway"
212.183.140.3 (
talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Random comment: most junction lists in the United States have been displaying both miles and kilometers for almost an entire year. -- Rs chen 7754 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps a naive question, but why is this article of "high" importance to the East Anglia project and "low" to the Kent and Hertfordshire project? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I would like to object to the actions of two editors on this article. They are ganging up against me, and threatening me with being blocked from editing because I have objected to their insistence that incomprehensible jargon that was only added about 7 hours ago must be left in place, and that if I don't like it, the onus is on me to raise a discussion about it, but I must not remove it. Obviously I don't want to break any rules, but I'm not sure that what they are doing is legitimate. Can anyone help me here please. Cobhama ( talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
In dumbing the language down, you have removed clarity. I have restored it and ensured that every bit of techincal language is wikilinked - this is what Wikipedia is all about what little technical language is language that appears on UK roadsigns - in particular the phrase "main carraigeway" appears on signs 7231, 7232 and 7261 in
Schedule 12 of the TSRGD (Also see
TSRGD).
Martinvl (
talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Martinvl (
talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me put another slant on things. Some years ago there was an article on Wikipedia TOTSO. This article was removed in 2009 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO. I tried to restore it, but failed. My text is here. As a result of this discussion, I tried to avoid using the word “TOTSO”. For the record, the word “TOTSO” is catalogued in List of road-related terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl ( talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I have realigned the destination list for junction to reflect those shown on the main carriageway. The M25 Anti-clockwise shows London(SW), Guildford and Kingston while the M25 Clockwise shows London (SW & C), Portsmouth & Guildford. Martinvl ( talk) 05:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the 2007 source I have cited confirms that the western stretch is the busiest stretch of motorway in the country and on an annual average (which of course includes the weekends) the per day figure is considerably lower than the heaviest traffic day cited from 2003. Some of the other distances and terms given were vague which did not therefore conform with the Manual of Style. The plaintive style overall was clear from adjectives used, and conflicted with WP:NPOV before my latest edit. Adam37 ( talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Why is there a detailed description of the layout of junction 5, but of no other of the 30 junctions in the description section?
I thought the reason was because it is subtly different to all the others, in that unlike the others, the M25 route does not follow the mainline through that junction. And that characteristic is only apparent to motorists because they have to take the left-hand branch at the junction diverge, whereas they take the right-hand branch at the diverges of all other junctions to stay on the M25 route.
If this is the reason that it alone is described, then I think we should add that as context to the description. If that isn't the reason, then we need to explain the reason. On the other hand, if there is no reason, then we probably need to describe the layouts of all of the other junctions too for consistency. Cobhama ( talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
On the Junctions list it says that you can access M26 Eastbound fron junction 5 on the M25 Anticlockwise and not clockwise. This is the exact opposite, and also to access A21 (S) from M25 Clockwise. See Link. This image is on the M26 Eastbound beginning just after the M25 uses a slip road. Kentm ( talk) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi User:Cobhama, Please don't invent your own language - the DfT vocabulary is taken from a British Standard. You use of the word "divides" hides the fact that the M25 through route uses connector roads to get from one main carriageway to the other - known to road geeks as a "TOTSO" - "Turn Off To Stay On". There used to be a Wikipedia artcile TOTSO, but it was deleted, but not before the Dutch article and German article were written. Martinvl ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Just to weigh in on this recent debate a sense of duty to explain is required in articles on major national topics such as the West Coast Main Line and it is acceptable to use common jargon for railways there, just as it is for roads here. Please go to the trouble to explain meanings in footnotes (not references) where users have complained or indeed in brackets into plain English if the jargon is often explained in government or quasi-government publications. As to the wording of why Junction 5 deserves special mention you will see from my re-write it is far clearer how this junction operates and why it meets notability. I would merely ask you to compare American freeways for all kinds of plain English to describe roads, and to avoid using pure Anglo-norman administrativese when describing how lanes work. Adam37 ( talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I undid three edits from 81.159.88.77 (and then restored one removing an unwanted capital) but I'd like to discuss them.
Changed from six to seven and back. What are we counting here? Should be easy...
I restored a link to the A3 on the right hand side of the table. Looking at it again, I now wonder if that was right. Is there a set of rules regarding how this table is linked? If so, I am not quite getting it. Please enlighten me.
Cheers, DBaK ( talk) 09:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the opening date to 1975 - that's when the first section of M25. Though I thought about adding a category to the template box for "date of completion to current length" - thoughts/ideas? Erath 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 ( talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC) hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 ( talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Op47: You wrote " The M18 to M1 north is clearly longer". Where is your source of information? The Guardian citation clearly states "The clockwise sliproad leaving the M25 for Reigate is the longest in the world outside the US". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The mentioning of metonymic usage in the lead is common practice on Wikipedia (see links on List of metonyms page), hence I have included this in the intro. Why this article should be an exception, when the metonymic usage of 'M25=London conurbation' is so ingrained in British popular culture I don't know. WisDom-UK ( talk) 11:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)