User talk:Roads4117/Archive 3 (September 2022)

September 2022 - cut-and-paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into A1025 road (Great Britain). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.  Dr Greg  talk  18:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dr Greg Thanks. I will use this when doing it in the future. Roads4117 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've now reverted about five of these copy/paste moves. If there are others that you've done recently, please revert them. Imzadi 1979 → 19:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Ok then. Roads4117 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing content without explaining why

Hello, I'm Riverbend21. I noticed that you recently removed content from A217 road without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Riverbend21 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Riverbend21 Hello, the reason why I removed content was because their is no need for infobox - please see Bishopsford Road Bridge. Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I suspect the underlying request is that you should always use the edit summary, especially for significant deletions. See Help:Edit summary. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

ANI Report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A441 road

Hi @Roads4117: What you added is not a source. It a was picture of an interchange. I have no choice but to revert it back to a redirect. The article was reviewed as part of the NPP process. That has strict criteria. The article itself must be sourced with valid WP:SECONDARY source to prove its notable, otherwise it a copy of information from somewhere else. I would suggest you copy it to a sandbox page in your user page or to a WP:DRAFT page and work on there until its ready to go, but I need to revert it. Its not sourced with effective sources, so it can remain in mainspace in that. Please also take a WP:REFB which is a small tutorial on how to create well-formatted reference. Every sentences needs a reference. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep Thank you for telling me. Roads4117 (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you would like help with doing citations, feel free to give me a shout. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Thanks for the offer. If I need some help, then I'll give you a shout. Roads4117 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

You made it look as though it was I who posted that query to Highways. You should have made it obvious you were quoting. No worries, I wil fix it.

You probably didn't realise that there is any problem with doing that more generally, since every in Wikipedia can be copied freely anywhere for any purpose. But not quite. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for the long answer. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Thank you Roads4117 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just fyi, if you just want to give a "lightweight" thank-you, you can click the 'Thank" option in the History for the change you want to recognise. Like I've just given you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Another tip: pings etc

If you want to get another editor's attention, there are some shortcuts (though they all end up the same). See {{ping}}, {{reply}} (or just {{rto}}, {{yo}} or just {{u}}. The catch is that if you make a mistake in the name, you can't correct it because the notification is sent when you publish the first version of the message and any corrections are shown but not actioned so you have to do a new message. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Thanks for showing me Roads4117 (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning about unattributed merges

It appears that you moved text from one or more pages to A400 road (Great Britain). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Any reason why these attribution requirements are not being followed even after threads like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1105#User:Roads4117 copy-and-paste merging long-standing articles into road articles? DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thank you for telling me. I will use this when doing it again in the future. Roads4117 (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek Also, this is completely different to Wikipedia: Administrators/NoticeboardIncidents, because here I am simply redirecting a road article into another road article, although, as you can see on the history of A2216 road , I was redirecting articles about libraries and train stations into road articles. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Your takeaway from that ANI discussion should have been that it's not okay to perform unattributed cut-and-paste merges and that ignoring WP:Copying within Wikipedia is unacceptable. DanCherek (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek Thanks for letting me know Roads4117 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek Sorry to keep bothering you, but also, am I allowed to perform this edit if I describe my edit, like how you did yesterday at A400 road? Roads4117 (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

See my initial message above – it's pretty simple. In the edit where you are adding the text, just use an edit summary like copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution or merged content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution (replace with the actual article title). DanCherek (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek Great, thank you for sharing all of this information with me Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A tip

We really need more secondary sources in A404 road, else it's just going to get redirected again. Please add secondary sources. Ovinus (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd say, more importantly, add citations that aren't self-published. Imzadi 1979 → 02:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Ok Roads4117 (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 What sort of secondary sources should I add? Roads4117 (talk) 07:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus I will try to see what I can do Roads4117 (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus What sort of secondary sources should I add? This page already has 15 citations Roads4117 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry my comment was so terse. Imzadi is on point; going forward, look for sources like newspapers which have editorial oversight, and use them well. WP:INTREF4 might be helpful. There may also be government publications on roads, but Imzadi knows 1000x more about road sourcing, so you may want to ask him. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ovinus I will Roads4117 (talk) 07:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Citing the route section on road articles

Hello. I have noticed in the past few months that you have been deleting the route section on articles. This rule that you have suddenly made up is affecting Wikipedia, by the article not making sense. The 'in a nutshell' section says:

Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

This isn't the first complaint about this subject, either. Only 5-6 days ago were you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. I am just going to warn you that if you do not stop now, it will a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Then report me. I have not made up WP:VERIFY, it's a core of WP. My removing the information means it is challenged. Therefore, as the WP policy says, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". Further, WP:OR states, "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". And finally, WP:BURDEN says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Again, WP policy. Failing to abide by WP policy might be construed as disruptive editing, see item #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, Roads4117 - I'll give you a chance to self-report, based on the above policies, or add the needed sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That is why I am here - to tell you that there is no information showing that each paragraph has to have a citation, although you are being overzealous regarding citations. I have told the team at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, to see what they think about it, although I think they will say to stop, or else you're banned indefinitely... Roads 4117 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 From WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN):

"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." (emphasis mine). WP:V states:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." (again, emphasis mine)

Note the clear differentiation between "verifiable" and "inline citation" (or "cited"). Also note "likely to be challenged". You are being overzealous with removal of easily verifiable information, please stop. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep following policy, thank you. But thanks for all you do on the roads project. Very worthwhile. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You aren't following policy, you're making up your own. Several editors (five, including myself) at WT:HWY#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles have commented against your actions, ranging from "what gives" to potentially disruptive editing. We have a {{citation needed}} tag for a reason, use it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, please read the policies I've listed above. You simply stating over and over, I'm not following policy doesn't mean I'm not following policy. I've stated the 3 policies explicitly above. Cherry-picking them in attempt to make them say what you want them to say is simply a waste of time. And again, thanks for your efforts on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, I don't see how quoting the majority of the only part of the intro of WP:V to mention citations is cherry-picking, but feel free to point out the part that says "all content must include a citation" or something remotely similar from the policy you claim to be following.

Second, even your quote of WP:OR above contains: "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."

Third, WP:BURDEN is a subsection link to WP:V, so that's two policies. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, when you only take part of a policy, while leaving out other parts, that's cherry picking.

Second, that's the very definition of cherry-picking, saying, even your quote of WP:OR above contains. The next sentence reads, "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." (emphasis mine). If material is removed, by definition, it is challenged. Period.

Third, okay, 2 policies, rather than 3, so, whatever. Bottom line is, these are policies. Two of them. Of which you are arguing against. You have stated zero policy positions. So unless you have something of substance to add, please desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Right... and you are not cherry picking and using circuitous logic? You aren't challenging the information, you're challenging the lack of a citation. You are also biting at a newcomer. I know you'll circle back to that single sentence of WP:V, so here's some more cherry picking, the very first sentence of WP:OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"

[a] reads: "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

And even though you'll toss the following away as an essay, even though it's possibly the most referenced essay on Wikipedia and makes direct reference to the emphasis you just provided, Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Challenging_another_user's_edits states:

"Challenges should not be frivolous: Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate."

I'm not going to bother adding emphasis, every single word is relevant. And no, I will not desist. I am also a stubborn mule. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you do not seem to understand the difference between an essay and actual policy, that's pretty sad. And regarding cherry picking, I'm using the entirety of the policy, not picking sentence fragments out to distort what the policy says. And challenging huge blocks of uncited text is not frivolous. As two other editors on the Roads talk page have said, the citations should be there (while at the same time disagreeing with my removal of the uncited text). And even when quoting the essay, again you cherry pick. The second sentence of the very passage you quote says, "Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Again, large blocks of uncited text are always inappropriate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's a 6 vs 2, and two will win?? Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you stop? It has nothing to do with numbers... it has to do with policy. As I've said repeatedly to you, and for some reason, you seem unwilling or incapable of understanding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969

Hello

I was wondering what you wanted to do regarding Onel5969 as I could see you were having a debate on their userpage. As six editors (myself, yourself, Fredddie, Imzadi1979, Rschen7754 & Chils Kemptonian) all disagree, do you think it would be necessary to take them to WP:ANI?

Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I would suggest waiting if/until there is another revert. --Rschen7754 06:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Rschen7754 Will do. Roads4117 (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 As per the content on Onel's talk page (User talk:Onel5969#Citing the route section on road articles), maybe we do put them on WP:ANI now (reason - cyberbullying/abusive behaviour over cherry picking). From (talk page stalker) Roads4117 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 - they is continuing to do this - not on road articles, but now on the following articles; Yoon Seok-hyun, Alex F. Yaworski, Gilera CBA, Guyana National Rifle Association and Mariano Llinás - definitely going to WP:ANI, as I am fed up of them doing this... Roads4117 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't edit 24/7 and I don't need a ping for every response. I think this was premature, but well the discussion is there now. --Rschen7754 18:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 Sorry for overreacting Roads4117 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ANI

I really wish that you hadn't started that discussion - personally I was hoping that all parties could self-reflect and that everybody would do better moving forward. But here we are. One has to really tread carefully at ANI. It attracts the types of people who want to throw out drama and sanctions. A posting would have been received better from a third-party.

And FWIW, I *do* agree with the edits regarding Alex F. Yaworski, because that falls under WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO where we don't have a choice but to remove. --Rschen7754 03:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 Sorry to not reply sooner- I hadn't seen it until now. Also, sorry to put it on prematurely - I just didn't want it to escalate, although if I had waited, then yes, it would be better for everybody. Roads4117 (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Copyright issues at A1011 road

I have removed text about the Silvertown Bypass from the above article that you copied from here. Please don't copy text from other websites that are not in the public domain nor compatibly licensed. DanCherek (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have also removed instances of copying from A474 road and A4240 road. DanCherek (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, Roads4117, this doesn't help your case and could lead to a block if this continues. --Rschen7754 04:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek & Rschen7754, am I allowed to copy information if I put it in my words, and add a citation from that source to verify? Roads4117 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It really needs to be in your own words. You can't just change one word here or there. Close the tab and write your own sentence that summarizes what the source said. --Rschen7754 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 OK then Roads4117 (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I urge you to carefully read #Wikipedia and copyright below, which had already been posted. Paraphrasing is one of the topics covered. —Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You might find Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing helpful. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba and John Maynard Friedman, thanks for those. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Roads4117! Your additions to A1011 road have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba Thank you for letting me know Roads4117 (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

CCI Notice

Hello, Roads4117. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. Rschen7754 05:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

And FWIW I hate doing this, but we need to make sure that we get all the copyvio found and removed. --Rschen7754 05:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 Ok then, thanks for letting me know. It is mainly the history section that I copied from SABRE Roads, not the route section. Roads4117 (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles with copyvio:

• A404
• A433

These are the only ones I can find at the moment that haven't been deleted. I will have a better look later.

Roads4117 (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Sabre

Hi Roads, this is a response to a question you asked Fram at ANI, which I don't think has been answered. I'm bringing it here because that thread is complicated enough to read already without trying to drag it off in a new direction.

Sabre is a wiki - its content is generated by its users, just like Wikipedia, Fandom, IMDB and so on. As such, it is covered by WP:UGC, and is inherently unreliable. We can't copy from it directly because of the copyright policy, but we can't use it as a reference because it doesn't meet the reliable sources guidelines. I really do encourage you to read that guidance, and only to add text to our articles that is based on sources that comply with it.

I'm not hating on Sabre here - much as I love Wikipedia, I would never use it as a source, when writing articles, and the same guideline prohibits doing so. One of the reasons we need to avoid sites like that is because they would open us up to circular referencing. I actually have an account over at Sabre (I've never used it much though). Imagine I went and used that account to write something over there - maybe it would be well-sourced, but maybe it would be my own original research, or maybe even sneaky vandalism, where I insert subtle inaccuracies intentionally. I could then come back here and cite myself to support my own content, and nobody would be able to challenge it because it's sourced. Do you see why we can't allow that?

If you think I'm being paranoid, let me assure you that there are multiple LTAs who go to remarkable lengths to try and degrade our content. Over the years we have uncovered hoax campaigns where people have obviously spent many hours writing fictional content based on fabricated sources. I don't pretend to understand why people do that, but I know that they do, so we simply can't rely on sources written by random folk on the Internet - we need reliable sources, which we can trust have been written by someone who knows their stuff, and fact-checked by a publisher with a reputation to maintain. Girth Summit _(blether) 05:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Oh I see. Thanks for letting me know Roads4117 (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Having reviewed the last few edits you have made, please also avoid using roads.org.uk, which is a self-published source. It is one person's work, with no editorial oversight; if that person were a widely respected academic (perhaps a professor of civil engineering or similar), it might be usable in some circumstances, but it's not - it's a random enthusiast. Sources like that should not be used. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a little bit more subtle than that, the site owner Chris Marshall has been mentioned in the news and name-checked in a few books, and I believe he does cite his information from the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives where appropriate. However, it is somewhat telling that despite being an acknowledged subject expert, coverage in mainstream sources is scant, probably because this is a niche topic which leads me to conclude that a lot of these road articles are actually just not notable at all, as I've previously speculated. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie333 If it is a little bit more subtle than that, the site owner Chris Marshall has been mentioned in the news and name-checked in a few books, and I believe he does cite his information from the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives where appropriate., then am I allowed to use it, because they are obviously widely recognised as good amd reliable editors, or does it still not meet the reliable sources guidelines? Roads4117 (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say not - Chris Marshall may have been name-checked in a few books and news articles, so 'random enthusiast' is probably a bit harsh, but I don't believe that he would meet the requirements of a subject matter expert set out at WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. If in doubt, one could always start a thread at WP:RSN to see what the community thinks; I'd be grateful for a ping if you start such a discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Girth Summit Thanks for your response. I think I will ask the community. Roads4117 (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I have started a thread on WP:RSN - we'll see what happens. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 Thanks for doing that Roads4117 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and @Girth Summit, what was the final result on the WP:RSN thread - I forgot to keep tabs on it. Roads4117 (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There wasn't a formal close with a consensus position; from my reading there wasn't a consensus, but I was obviously involved in the discussion so am not in a position to say that with any authority. The take away from that is that there is no 'ban' on using it, but you should probably use it cautiously and sparingly - don't base great swathes of text on it, but it's probably OK for basic details. Ritchie knows far more about writing articles about roads than I do, so I'd take anything he had to say on the subject seriously. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit Thanks for that. Roads4117 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)