Talk:A466 road

Infobox

@Ghmyrtle:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Gerda Arendt:, @Cassianto:, @SchroCat: - Infobox, yay or nay? I removed it because it doesn't really give you anything over what the text does, but was reverted. So here's the discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll better not mention that word until 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Consistent format with other road articles, and well established in this article. Unproblematic. Some of us generally regard infoboxes as useful and helpful, others don't, but that matter of principle is not something for discussion here. (Canvassing editors uninvolved in this article, whose opinions are well known, might be, however.) I don't particularly like the format of the road infoboxes, by the way, but that's a different debate entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

My principal complaint in this article is it makes the text quite cramped when viewed on a phone. A more established article, with a full history, pictures, and a fleshed out lead and a table of contents would be less of an issue. But in general I find that articles are best off developed slowly (and this one had very little activity until this evening) and then the requirement for an infobox comes along naturally. (About the pings : I couldn't think of anyone else would care to offer an opinion, if you think other people should be invited to balance the debate, please do) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the priority should be to improve the article text rather than arguing about the infobox - when we know that all the usual arguments are going to be deployed on both sides. Until the article is properly expanded the status quo ante, with the infobox, should prevail.

On a wider point, I'm not sure how you intend to expand the article. Most of the features along the road - bridges, villages, etc. - have separate articles. The reason there has been little "activity" on the article may be that there is not necessarily much more to say without duplicating other articles. More could be said about the turnpike trusts, and probably about the detailed engineering of parts of the road (around Wyndcliff for example, which needs its own article) - if sources can be found. But apart from that, how much is there to say about a road? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping to put in something about the prevalence of coaches that go up and down the road to Tintern and a bit about instability of the local geography (though finding actual reliable sources will probably require a gruelling search through county archives), but probably not too much more than that. Even so, I think there's enough that could be written to easily make the article survive an AfD or redirect. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fine (but I'd be extremely surprised if anyone would take seriously an AfD or redirect proposal). I may have more sources on C19 history, etc., which I will look for at some point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm the appropriate person to be asking for their views on an infobox here, given the amount of threads that I've been dragged into at ANI of late; in fact, there's still one there, so I'm doubly not the right person. But sod 'em, here's my view nonetheless: As with Kelly's of Cornwall, I don't mind seeing an infobox here as it provides a house for all the various other roads this road is linked to. I'm worried that putting the linked roads in the lead will provide to much clutter.

However, I think now is the wrong time to add one as the article is in the first throws of life and certainly provides no benefit to the fact hunter searching for "quick nuggets of text" or "gleaned facts from the long and dense text" or any of the other rubbish the infobox fraternity seem to rely on to enforce their POV onto every article. It does make me laugh, however, that Ghmyrtle reverts with the summary: "reinstating infobox, removed without explanation" when Welsh added one, also without an explanation, on 13 February 2012. I'm damned sure that if the shoe was on the other foot and I, or others, had reverted with that edit summary, the placards would of been out waving OWN and CIVIL and all of the other bullshit that comes with these types of discussions.

Anyway, without the fear of being hauled up before the kangaroo court for an eighth time this month, I'll just say that I'm not opposed to an infobox, per sey, but now is not the right time to have one. Cassianto^Talk 23:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The article is not "in the first throws of life" - it was started in 2012. The infobox has been in it ever since that time - it was not added later. Please try not to impute motives to other editors. And there is no "w" in "throes", and no "y" in "per se". Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, looking at the state of it, it might as well be in the first throes of life. Not a lot has happened since 2012, including anything that you have done (or not done, in your case). Thanks also for the English lesson, but editing from a mobile phone on a small screen with fat fingers (with predictive text on) isn't all that easy. But I appreciate your attempt at giving me an English lesson. I think in future I'll pass, opting instead for a lesson in English by a three-year-old and not the likes of you as I'm not that desperate. Cassianto^Talk 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I've said this to Ritchie previously, I don't mind the infoboxes in road articles. I like the design of them, though the real informational value I guess is questionable. With a decent road map I think the infobox will look fine. For such a small article though perhaps it does look a little overwhelming.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

All said and done, I think there is a general consensus the infobox can stay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)