User talk:Regan123/Archive 2

Regan123 is busy at present. Whilst he will reply to talk page requests and will edit occasionally, he is not guaranteed to be here much at the moment.

Welcome to Regan123's talk page.

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

A215

What do you think of the merge-sectionise-expand job I'm doing on A215 road? I think it seems to be working reasonably well - the article's not getting unreasonably long & it's highlighting the differences between succeeding stretches better than separate articles would. Think this would serve as a model for a merge of the London sections of the A1, A10 etc? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to say I really rather like it. We now have a nice sized, informative and interesting article. You've done a cracking job with that. I still have my concerns about putting it all into the A1 article as I think it could become too long. But we could have an A1 in London article as long as we can make it encyclopaedic. --Regan123 16:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Road signs

Hi mate, just wondering how you create those road signs saying the road number on, they are brill. Cyberdemon007 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I use a photoshop file, which I am happy to email to anyone who wants it. Regan123 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats good, but i dont have photoshop so its a bit of a shame, can you make ones for the A6108 and the A684 please, and i can add the stats. CheersCyberdemon007 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Are they primary or non primary routes? I will then go and get them done...Regan123 09:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so,the A684 is anyway.Cyberdemon007 10:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have updated Template:UK motorway routebox to work with the SVG versions as they now have the correct filenames. Max Naylor 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done--Regan123 14:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot , they look so much better with pics!, Do you have any B-road pics?Cyberdemon007 09:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

B roads are not notable enough hence we have List of B roads in Great Britain, so I don't do the signs for them. --Regan123 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again I hope you like what i am doing, i am adding infoboxes for the first 99 roads you can maybe tell which major roads need signs, if you dissaprove just let me knowCyberdemon007 10:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Carry on - they look great. If you want to send me a list of the ones requiring the road signs to do I will get going on them! Regan123 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The Ones to do are-A13,A30,A35,A37,A39,A44,A48,A54,A56,A58,A59,A60,A62,A65,A67,A70 ,A71,A73,A75,A76,A78,A79,A80,A81,A82,A83,A84,A85,A86,A87,A88,ALL OF THE A90 ROADS. Cyberdemon007 21:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done - it might be worth adding the road junctions as you go, it makes life easier and as we add more images they get quicker to do. It is also a great way to add to the lists of roads and do any necessary redirects. Regan123 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London)

If you feel the urge, would you mind waving your Magic Photoshop Wand over the infobox for A1 road (London) at some point? (Some of the junctions already have images, but I've deleted all but the motorways as it looked too messy having some as images & some as text.) No rush at all as this one's going to be under construction for quite a while (17 named sections, and at the moment I'd say only two don't need a total rewrite) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I will have time this weekend to get in to this, so to all the requests, sorry for the delay. I will do this probably tomorrow. Cheers, --Regan123 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I've also put them into numerical order as I thought it would be easier to work with. Feel free to put them back into destination order if you wish. Cheers, Regan123 14:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I must say, looking down that list of empty sections the phrase "more that I can chew" is springing to mind. I'm sure I can find something to say about Holloway Road or Great North Way, but how the hell am I going to find anything to say about Barnet Bypass? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

template:sect-stub is your friend with those I think. If we get the existing text rewritten (I fear I might be using the Royal 'we' there), then worry about the expansion later? Regan123 15:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and referenced all the existing original sections except for the mess that is Archway Road. I've managed to do the one I was really dreading, in cleaning up the cesspit of unsourced OR that was Holloway Road. I think my real friend here is whoever saw fit to put "A History of the County of Middlesex" online. Followed shortly by whoever decided to put pubs & train stations along each stretch of road, giving at least something to mention for each section — iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Finished Archway Road! I never want to hear the word "primary road" again... — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are doing superb work there. I have taken a bit of a gamble but I've nominated A500 road as a good article. Fingers crossed. Regan123 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think it passes, but I'll give it a few days to see if anyone else comments on it - I don't really want to pass it myself in case it looks like back-scratching. It might be worth drawing a sketch-map of the road & its relationship to the surrounding towns, or even borrowing the diagram-generator program WP:Rail use to generate their route maps (for example the one on East Coast Main Line) which would work just as well with roads as with railways, since a lot of users are going to be hazy about the geography of Staffordshire. User:Trident13 seems to be the only person here who actually understands how the program actually works, but could probably be pestered into helping — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Finished the bugger! I never want to hear the words "Apex Corner" again. If you've any comments/ideas I'd love to hear them, before the WP:ROADS mob move in and rip the whole thing to shreds — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant work. I will give it a proper read in the next couple of days - in the middle of something non Wiki sadly. Regan123 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

A500 road

I have reviewed the article listed above and left notes on the talk page. T_{Talk to me} 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of A500 road

The article A500 road you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:A500 road for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations.

T_{Talk to me} 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can have a go so can I... I'll be interested to see what they say about A1 road (London), which (gasp) starts with an image aligned to the left - I really want to keep the map in the lead section as it's so much easier than trying to explain the twin routes verbally, but I don't want the infobox pushed any further down, or it'll force the images below it into the wrong sections — iridescenti (talk to me!) 21:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A205 road

Hi. Just curious. I noticed you reverted some changes I made to the A205 article. And you quoted WP:MOS, which I assume related to WP:MOS#Images which says: "Start the article with a right-aligned image." Yet you replaced the right aligned image with a description of the route which - surely? - belongs in the section describing the route. I can understand that in an article which is a stub, or which has no images, then the info box is better than nothing, but when there is an image Wiki guidance appears to be to go for the image. Or am I misunderstanding the guidance? Regards SilkTork 20:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I certainly hope you don't see the changes as a "revert" which I like to apply to vandalism, but I tried to bring them into line with the general position of articles across the board by putting the infobox at the top right. The road infobox was based on the motorway one which again sits in that position. The actual WP:MOS ref was about taking the size out of the image thumb, which is apparently now required. 99% of the articles with infoboxes I have seen go on the top right, but I see your point re the confusion in the guidelines. Perhaps it should go as a topic for discussion at the MOS talk page? But it was nice to see the article cleaned up a bit and also your work on the London Inner Ring Road as well. The A500 road and M62 motorway articles are now at WP:GA status, so I will use those as my guidelines at the moment - one I did, one I didn't Regan123 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of a wider discussion regarding the general placement of images v info boxes in the top right of articles. What is the MOS talk page? Regards SilkTork 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style would be a good place to raise it. As an alternative we could add in an image at the top of the infobox? Regan123 22:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a hunt through and see if the matter has already been discussed. Meanwhile - some of the issues I have with the box being placed where is it, apart from the text v image debate, is that it is a rather long box and displaces the edit facility of the first few sections, and that the information is about the other roads that the A205 crosses or meets, rather than the A205 itself, as such it more of a navigation box and correctly belongs lower down the article. I understand your comment that other articles that have achieved GA status have a similar box in the top right - however, I suspect those articles would have still got their status if there had been an image in the top right, and the navigation box had been lower down the article. They are well written, good articles in themselves regardless of where the box had been placed. And the box itself is an attractive and useful box. My quibble is about the precise placing of the box and image in A205. Regards SilkTork 07:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! MOS stands for Manual of Style. Got it! SilkTork 07:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Success

All of the first 99 roads have articles now, I will expand the ones i have created as much as i can.Cyberdemon007 10:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Isherwood

Hi regan123,

You deleted Lawrence Isherwood from the Wigan notable people section.

Why?

http://www.isherwoodart.co.uk/

thanks

80.192.134.47 09:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He has no article himself and I don't think he meets WP:BIO. Regan123 13:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop mass changing infoboxes with AWB. At least one of the ones you changed was betteras it was and better contained the specific information for that article. If you are going to change things, please review each article separately and work out what is going on, check the talk page, and see what is best for that specific article. You may wish to discuss changes with those already working there.--Doc^g 17:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 18/Template:Infobox England place for this deprecated template. I am completing the roll out. Regan123 17:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Scotland Map

You can see what I mean at Peterhead. It has joined the oil rigs in the North Sea. Rgds. --Bill Reid | Talk 14:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a puzzle. I tried the coordinates from streetmap.co.uk and they seemed to move it nearer to Norway. The others in the area were quite accurate (like Aberdeen). I will need a little bit of time on this. Am looking at it now. Regan123 18:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Map

Thanks for replacing the infobox in the entry for Barrhead with the newer infobox, but the map is incorrect. It's showing Barrhead almost an hour further south of where it's actually located. How do you fix it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.106.231.199 (talk • contribs).

I have input correct coordinates according to streetmap.co.uk. Is this now in the right position? Regan123 18:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still a bit too far east, but from looking around at other examples of this map, I think this is as accurate as it's going to get...thanks for helping.

Broadwater Farm

(Crossposted to assorted "people I've run into and whose opinions I respect")

I realise it's totally outside your field, but if you get the chance could you take a look at the article on Broadwater Farm I've recently created? I do think it deserves it's own article - yes, it might be most famous for events that happened 22 years ago, but having it as a redirect to Broadwater Farm riot seems to me as ludicrous as redirecting Germany to World War II or Northern Ireland to IRA. However, now I've set up incoming links it's likely to be a beacon for POV-pushing, so I'd like to get opinions on (a) what a NPOV will be on something like this where the two POVs are likely to be diametric opposites, (b) whether you think it can/will ever be stable (and whether it's worth trying to keep stable) and (c) how much of a focus ought to be on the riots as opposed to the place itself. If any of you feel the urge I'd also appreciate anyone who feels able/willing putting it on their watchlists, as I suspect it's going to be heavily vandalised & spammed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 00:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oldham categories at Cfd

The question of whether 'Oldham' cats should be renamed to 'Metropoloitan Borough of Oldham' has been taken to CfD, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_9#Oldham. As far as I can tell, this renaming proposal would apply to Wigan, Stockport and all other metropolitan boroughs - UK-wide - that share a name with a town. Your contributions would be welcome. Mr Stephen 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ealing

That went through far too quickly and with only limited input. Given the wider implication, and the fact it has introduced anachronistic use of "Ealing" I think it should be reviewed. MRSC • Talk 11:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If categorisation only by current local government district was rolled out to all people articles in the UK, how many arguments and edit wars do you think it would start, or do you think the rationale would be broadly accepted? MRSC • Talk 18:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise solution for "people from location" categories

One possible solution to our dilemma on what to do with these "people from location" categories for London might be to include dates in the category names. With ealing, for example, the people could be subdivided into the following categories:

Category:People from Ealing (1965-present)

Category:People from Ealing (1863-1965)

Category:People from Acton (1894-1965)

Category:People from Southall (1894-1965)

The names of these categories could be adjusted if necessary. A few "pre-18NN" categories could also be created. This would solve the problems that you, MRSC, and other people have with the fact that some regions fell outside of "Ealing" and London before 1965. At the same time, this would solve the problems that other people and I have seen with attempting to divide the London Borough of Ealing into vaguely-defined districts. Please let me know if this is acceptable. I will even help you with recategorizing people if you like this suggestion. Dr. Submillimeter 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting proposal actually. Sorry I haven't responded before, I've been busy in real life. I think this Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Counties of Britain is also relevant. Perhaps we should open it up to the main discussion and see where it goes? Regan123 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I opened it up at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject London. Could you please express your support for it there? If we go ahead with this reorganization, maybe it is something that could be done one borough at a time? Dr. Submillimeter 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Location maps

Would you be willing to dual license the location map and related templates under the CC-by 2.5 license? This way i could use it on wikinews. Happy editing. Bawolff 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this refer to? Regan123 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User 88.104

Hello, just a line to make you aware that user 88.104 (the Oldham re-categoriser) reworked the Royton article last night (the 19th June - take a look at the history). He's a chronic troll, sock puppetteer, and previously blocked contributor who I've had the displeasure of taking on in the past (see my evidence page), and this appears to be in protest to not accepting his nomination.

Royton therefore may need some community support just for the next few days.

I also passed comment about the people from Ealing category; you and MRSC have my support there. I also hope to catch up with producing English ceremonial county maps for the UK place infobox. Hope all is well. Jhamez84 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Ealing. There is an interesting alternative raised above that may work, we'll see where it goes. As for Royton it is referenced so we need to look at how reliable they are. As it is, the whole article needs tidying up, removing overlinking. Let me have a think about a way forward. Glad to see you back. Regan123 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - it's kinda good to be back! Though alot of issues have popped up since my break, and the co-operation that was gathering (in part due to the UK place infobox) seems to have been lost somewhat.

I'll take a look at the Ealing alternative, though was wondering how you got on with deleting the infoboxes that you mentioned on the UK place infobox talk page? Jhamez84 13:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you revert Jade Goody's miscarriage?

We don't want this to become an edit war. It's widely sourced.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention for an edit war but no valid source was provided that I could see. If one is there then I'll leave it alone. Frankly I think the page needs protecting again and the references keep getting screwed up. I've fixed them again. Regan123 01:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Stoke-on-Trent

Hi, a week ago you deleted all of Leereyno's photos from the Stoke page. Maybe you did this because they weren't tagged properly, in which case he sorted this when he put them back a couple of days later. Personally, I think the page would have been better if your deletions had stood, because the quality of his photos is generally poor and the page is now too cluttered with images, several of which are of dubious value, in addition to their aesthetic weaknesses. I'm unsure what is best practice when it comes to deleting photos from Wikipedia articles. Usually, I'd say: don't delete a bad photo unless/until there's a better one to take its place, but that doesn't apply if the pictured scene is of no interest in itself.

Also, in answer to your question about collaborating on getting Stoke to good article status, I'd be happy to get involved in this. However, while you're a rusty emigré, I'm a newcomer to the city, so maybe we need at least one other collaborator with a more continuous history of residence. Russ London 20:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I generally use my own or Geograph's images for the web pages. I'm not keen on the images, and some are straight duplicates. Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion is the end place. I am going to remove the duplicates and perhaps move some to other pages where they work better. Finally, glad to see your interested in the Good Article drive. I will try and post a list of areas to improve on the article over the next couple of days. Thanks for dropping by and I'll see you soon. Regan123 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks on all counts. I'll look out for your list of areas to improve and contribute in whatever ways I can. Cheers. Russ London 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:UK road A1020.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:UK road A1020.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

M40

M4 was the first motorway to link London and Birmingham, the M40 connection came much later as for years it just conmnected London with Oxford albeit the M40 may be older as a motorway, SqueakBox 19:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Am I being thick here... The M4 sort of goes from London to Reading to Swindon to Bristol to Wales C2r 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Motorway routeboxes

I have personally been using M62_motorway as my template (also a GA), and to me it appears more readable as it shows the connecting roads (which themselves have multiple destinations). It also removes the need to bold all of the road names, improving readability. Maybe we should try and get some community opinion on this if we still share different opinions, like at village pump? Thanks. Ian¹³/t 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

West Norwood rewrite

Hi, I've reworked/re-ordered a goodly part of the text at West Norwood - as you suggested the rewrite would you like to cast an eye over it? Thanks, Ephebi 21:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cornwall settlement infobox

Hello Regan123, would you be kind enough to pass comment at this TfD entry? Hope all is well, Jza84 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (formerly Jhamez84)

Thought also you may be interested at the bottom section of this talk page. Hope all is well, Jza84 13:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Regan123, I seem to keep finding your name!... Per Template_talk:UK_Parish, I'd really welcome a merger of this template, as I don't find it helpful at all frankly, and think the UK place one adequately covers civil parishes already (as does a fine job of it!).

However, I'm hoping to initiate a Template:Infobox UK district soon, to try to eliminate some of the unsightly and inconsistent pink "faux-infobox" tables that appear on articles like South Kesteven etc. Let me know your thoughts of course, Jza84 00:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK place

Hi! Not sure if you're still around as much as you have been in the past - if you get chance, could you take a look at the aforementioned template - I believe I've messed up the syntax so it is showing some of the bare coding on transclusions. It's my mistake, and I take responsibility! Hopefully it's fixable! Jza84 23:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've kinda fixed this (though not perfectly). Sorry for the intrusion, I hadn't noticed your "busy" banner. Jza84 23:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

List of London streets and roads

In case you're not aware, this is up for deletion here — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A2022 road

Can you see any earthly reason why this should be kept? — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally can't see why each individual railway station needs it's own article - why can't watton at stone station be merged with the article on the village itself, for example. But I think if stations are notable enough to be included, then so are classified A class roads. C2r 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy has traditionally been that one, two and three digit A roads warrant their own article but four digit roads are classified by the road name, not the number; I'm not proposing deleting the article but renaming it for consistency — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Regan123 for hijacking his talk page, but I think it's worth pointing out that the number of digits in a road number does not necessarily correspond to the importance / standard of the route. Many parts of single-digit A-roads are merely back-streets now - having been superceeded by motorways. Some 4-digit A-roads are actually very important routes. The A5103 road is one of Manchester's most important routes, even comprising a dual carriageway section with 4 lanes each way at a couple of points at the southern end. The A5117 road is part of the main link road between Manchester & Liverpool (and most of northern England) to North Wales.

Note also, that many 4-digit roads will change their road name several times along the route. For instance, the A5103 that I referred to above is known as "Princess Parkway", "Princess Road", "Medlock Street", "Albion Street", "Lower Moseley Street" and "Portland Street". Which would you rename the article to??

For the reasons above, it's probably easiest to keep the A2022 article at that name. There are other 4-digis A-roads at their own page (rather than listed under a road name only), so it's not exactly for consistency. Richard B 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi all! RichardB makes a valid point re not using a road number to decide notability. In this case the article doesn't assert notability and I would return it to a redirect myself. Non primary routes across the board have a problem with this issue. However as Iridescent did so much excellent work on A215 road maybe that is an option here? Regan123 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be a while if you're waiting on me - there's a long queue ahead of it (and cleaning up A105 road in particular is going to be a stinker). Plus, it's in an area I could barely point to on a map, so would be limited to what I could find on the internet. BTW, if you're looking for more roads to merge or want to give your XfD button some exercise, you can always go through the steaming heap of vanity articles I've just deposited into Category:Low-importance London Transport articles; I deliberately didn't send the majority to AfD as the list was starting to get swamped — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I'll start to work through them and merge the stubs where possible. Good luck with A105 road. Maybe it is time that we worked up a policy at the UK Wikipedia Noticeboard? Regan123 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A422

When you have a mo, could you make a green sign for the A422 road like the one for the A421 road, please. Although, since it has white signs for most of its length, maybe it should be white? (Here's where you tell me you draw the line at doing white signs!) --John Maynard Friedman 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I do both. I also have some to do for other people. Probably going to be the weekend on this one I suspect. I generally put it down as Primary (Green) if any section is classed as such. Regan123 17:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A148 Road

I see that you have placed the clean-up tag on A148 road article, which I notice has been placed on many similar articles on roads. I fully understand the reasons for this, but I am of the opinion that this article, and some of the others, is a fair description of the road. It points out Garages, Public House, and other points of Interest. If people want a sterile version of a road route they would look in one of the many road atlas of Great Britain or use one of the many web –based route finders. I thought that the whole point of an encyclopedic article was to inform and enlighten people as I think this article does. I am Interested to here your opinion and how you think the article should be improved or changedStavros1 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The short answer as I am off to bed is: Reading it, there is far too much detail on the route and what is passes. It borders on a Travel Guide (particularly things like the traffic signs) which falls under WP:NOT. Have a look at A500 road and M62 motorway which are both considered Good Articles. Regan123 23:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A148 Road and A149 Road

Hello Regan I have followed your advice and looked at the page you described as a good article (A500) that was not Essay Like, and as you rightly point out , it is a good article. But I feel I Must point out that Lines Like:- “Construction involved the destruction of streets and businesses within the town centre of Stoke as well as the excavation of a mass grave of the victims of a 17th Century cholera epidemic” and also the inclusion of such landmarks as “Britannia Stadium”, former” Wolstanton Colliery”, “Stoke-on-Trent railway station”, “Trent and Mersey Canal” and” River Trent” are surely what you constitute as far too much detail on the route and what is passes, and borders on a Travel Guide. With This in Mind I disagree with your opinion that The A148 and A149 articles are Essay Like and the fact that they are major tourist routes must have a bearing on the way these two roads have been described. I will be interested on your further thoughts on the matterStavros1 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but they are nothing at all similar. There is not the detail of where the speed cameras, petrol stations and so on. To what you refer is the history of the route, fully sourced under WP:V. Yes it gives 3 landmarks so that you can reference it on a map, but it doesn't give every detail about the fields, the buildings, the fuel stations and son... What you have written is a travel guide which is WP:NOT. The content needs to be dramatically cut down with a basic route description (compare A500 again), verified history and anything that is particularly unique. If you disagree with me, ask for a WP:Peer Review, but don't remove the tags without fixing the problems. Regan123 23:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:UK road A1145.PNG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:UK road A1145.PNG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ρх₥α 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope this is either a joke or a bot posting... — iridescent 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate. It's no bot! Whilst you're here could you look at A148 road and A149 road. I would like to know I'm not going off at an angle on this. Regan123 23:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The A149 one seems a bit like spam for the Norfolk Tourist Board (everything's "scenic" and "beautiful"). At a quick glance, the thing that's most obviously missing is the relationship between the roads and the M&GNJR, as the roads were built alongside - and eventually replaced - the railway lines — iridescent 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, which image should be delete?

• 

or

• or both? Thanks. Carlosguitar 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither - They are both in use and both required. I just uploaded a duplicate image instead of the correct one for A1144, which is why I have now replaced it with the correct one. Sorry about that. Regan123 11:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A149/A148

Hello Again Regan123, Whilst you may have a point in the Discriptive elements of the text, I do not understand your thinking behind Speed Cameras and filling stations Being pointed out as being beyond the scope of an article on a ROAD. Surely if you come to Wikipedia to research a journey that is to be made on a route, this is just the information you require. Cars need petrol and knowing where the speed cameras are are things that most motorist would want to knowStavros1 09:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, everything you are suggesting is a travel guide, which is WP:NOT. That would belong in WikiTravel. Have a look at Ridge Route which is a featured article. WP is not for researching a journey, but a factual database. Wiki Travel is your friend for these things. AIUI from above, these are conversions of a railway. Source that, create the history, reduce the route description down and remove things like "beautiful" and your sorted. Regan123 11:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Regan & iridescent.
Iridescent has got his facts slightly wrong!. As I have mentioned in both the A149 and the A148,only two short sections of the roads have been built on the track bed of the railway line. Both sections have been used two by-pass towns. Holt on the A148, and Stalham on the A149. The most parts of both these roads were there long before the railways.Stavros1 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hindhead Tunnel (A3)

Hi, you deleted the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindhead_Tunnel to the blog site at http://www.a3tunnel.co.uk/

siteing WP:EL as the reason. WP:EL says: Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

12. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

In this particular case I think the blog is useful as it seems to be the only place that any discussion & informed user content is being recorded.

The particular site may be set up as a blog, but its use is not as a personal blog, but more as a topic related website and forum. If you know of a more active place for this specific topic that would be great, but in the mean time could you reinstate the link to the blog please?

I think this would be in line with the guidelines because it is a link to a collection of pages that are on the subject of the article

Thanks. Mike.hinson 01:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the post. My concern with the link is that it seems to have a lot of personal opinion. If you feel it should be on there, then perhaps a post at Talk:Hindhead Tunnel would be a good idea. It is not up to me to decide what links go one, but to gain a consensus. Thanks, Regan123 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I will do as you suggest and see what others think. The Blog is not ideal as you point out, but in its favour there are a lot of photos of the construction progresses which are not available anywhere else so that has convinced me that it is a helpful link. Mike.hinson 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A13 road

Well it's completely different from what it was just a month ago! I tried to make it detailed yet succinct at the same time, just to get the balance right. However, missing an "A1261" symbol from the Roads Joined box - could you please make one? Thanks very much, Sunil060902 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I felt I got the balance right, given that I have sectionalised the route both inside and outside London, and even further by Local Authorities. As User:Iridescent pointed out re: his A215 road article, it is possible to go into too much detail! best, Sunil060902 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing the tag. The problems have not been solved. Regan123 00:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What problems? I fear you're being a tad subjective. Once again I point out that both Route and History have been sectionalised, precisely to break up the text, unlike, say, the History section of the A500 road. Sunil060902 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:A13 road for my comments. You might also want to read WP:MOS for section guidance and article style guides. Further discussion on this needs to take place at the article talk page. Regan123 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Iridescent pointed out no such thing; what is keeping A215 road (and A500 road)at GA instead of FA status is a lack of detail, not too much. (There's nothing in either article about the history of the road surface, or public transport usage, for example.) It's still basically an almost unsourced essay (only 5 valid references; the remainder are duplicates, non-existent, and the dreaded "personal communication"). Compare this with 103 references on what I'd consider the "adequate article" benchmark for London A-road articles, A1 road (London). — iridescent 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, nice to see you again. One of these days I might get back to Stoke to look up the next bits I need for FA status on the A500. Then again, I should be in bed - work is crazy! And your mention of the London A1 road is very pertinent. Regan123 01:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Manchester Airport

You are correct. It's best to wait to see how things pan out. It's inevitable that those pages will be deleted, but we shouldn't jump the gun. --Oakshade 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey

I am glad you share my view that the lists of destinations on all articles should be deleted. It appears that due to the opinion of a few select users from the airport project that the un-encyclopaedic list of nonsense is just going to be added back into the article even after deletion of my list pages. I believe we can work together on this and leave the AFD to finish with delete then move on to establish a consensus somewhere to delete the lists from all articles as it is clear from comments on the AFD that people do not believe them to be of value to Wikipedia. If we find somewhere to establish consensus then we can invite all the participants in the AFD to vote to remove the lists and with enough people the airport project will not have a leg to stand on. This is not a war I am trying to start even though it sounds like it but a way to improve Wikipedia for the better! I hope we can find a way to quash this nonsense policy of the airport project so airport articles such as Manchester's can flourish without the long lists. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)