User talk:Roads4117/Archive 6 (December 2022)

Incessant comments at WT:HWY

I know you mean well, but your recent stream of continuous commentary on WT:HWY comes across as a bit of "look at me, look at how much I'm doing" and it doesn't serve to inspire discussion. I say that because no one is replying to the updates on individual articles, so it may actually stifle discussion. That's why I collapsed it into the box, and I hoped that you'd catch a hint and stop adding to the list.

As for the rest, well, the US has had a very firm "no more than 10" rule for a decade, and we've always figured out a way to keep every infobox under that limit. It's just not a question: we don't list more than 10 intermediate junctions. I'll list out some general rules of thumb, and maybe you can adapt them to the UK.

1. We have a nice hierarchy here in the US: state-maintained highways, county roads (where they exist), local streets.
   1. State maintained highways also form a hierarchy: Interstates, US Highways, state highways.
      1. Interstates have their own hierarchy: primary (1- or 2-digit numbers) or auxiliary (3-digit numbers). Furthermore, "major" Interstates end in a 0 or a 5.
      2. The same numbering logic may or may not apply within the other classifications. Major US Highways end in a 0 or a 1, and 3-digit numbers are still primary, but less important than the others.
      3. In Michigan, there's no real numbering scheme to how the state trunkline numbers are assigned. Number of digits, last digit, and even the parity (even/odd) don't matter, so other considerations would come into play. Other states have schemes, so we have to use some localized knowledge on a by-state basis.
   2. There may be hierarchies in how county roads are designated. For an article on a state highway, these probably wouldn't be listed though.
   3. There are special routes of the various destinations. These are the business routes and such, and they'd be considered less important to list.
2. There's also the hierarchy of build quality. Interstates are freeways, but some US Highways and state highways are also built to freeway grade. They'd be considered more important to list than others of the same designation type.
3. The length of the intersecting highway may make it more important. Longer highways are more important than shorter ones of the otherwise same classification/sub-classification.
4. Geographic diversity matters. We like to space out the entries so that they aren't all clumped together from one region. Some proportionality is a good thing. Sometimes that means we ignore the other rules above to add something in that we'd otherwise skip and then remove something else we'd otherwise include.
5. This is like the speed limit: you can go lower, just not higher. In that sense, maybe we only list 8 intermediate junctions. Maybe we only list 2. Rather than flip a coin or something to pick a 10th junction for a long highway, maybe we just don't add it, and maybe that tricky decision for a 10th means we also omit the 9th choice.

That listing attempts to provide some objective rationales on what was picked. In general, one of our editors can probably look over the selections and reverse the decision algorithm if asked. That said, no one spends much time discussing this on a talk page.

You might also try flipping the perspective for a moment. Instead of trying to eliminate more minor junctions to get under the limit, you need to start with a blank list and figure out what to add. Imzadi 1979 → 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Hi, thank you for your message. I would like to thank you for being honest with me, I would hate for editors to see me as "look at me, look at how much I'm doing". I will remove that section as soon as possible (ASAP). Also, thanks for those bullet point on how I can improve. When I have finished putting them on the necessary talk pages and doing the infobox major junctions shortening (without putting them on WT:HWY) then I will go back and have a look at them, to see if there are any road articles where the infobox can be shortened further. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at this edit. The roads at the termini were in the list. Moving them into the termini where they belongs gets that infobox under the desired limit. I did something similar to the A4, so you may have a lot of infoboxes that have the same opportunity. Imzadi 1979 → 09:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Hi, thanks for doing that, I will try to do that on all of the articles, as it reduces the number of road junctions inside the infobox. Also, I have been really busy today, so I haven't had time to move the extended content on WT:HWY to the necessary and required talk pages, however I will try to do it either tomorrow and/or on the weekend. Roads4117 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 BTW I have deleted the extended content from WT:HWY, and moved it onto User:Roads4117/Major junctions. Roads4117 (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979 Sorry for bombarding you with messages this afternoon, but just wanted to ask you a quick question. If an infobox was split into three sections, like at A33 road, would the major junctions count as the overall total amount, or the individual amount for the three sections? Roads4117 (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a good question. The short answer would be that basically yes, 10 total intersections for the entire box.

The 10-jct limit was established at WP:USRD out of commentary at FAC about 15 years or so ago. At that time, we didn't have the ability to list individual highway segments separately in the infobox. These multi-segment highways are rare enough that we never formalized a variation in the rule to account for them. For historical coding/display reasons, I'd note that in infoboxes that were converted over, the segment termini were counted as intermediate junctions, so the practice would be closer to the ultimate termini plus up to 10 other junctions including segment termini.

The spirit is still the same: keep the infobox to a succinct summary of details in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

OK then, thanks for that! Roads4117 (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Deep nesting at talk pages

FYI. There comes a time for all of us when we get fed up of having to count how many colons we need to precede our reply. Which is why someone invented the wonderful template {{od}}. Enjoy. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman Thanks for that tip. I will try to use it in the future. Roads4117 (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Use sparingly, ideally when it seems a natural break but not a new topic. Like this one isn't! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman OK then, thank you for those tips! Roads4117 (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

And more generally , thank you for always giving tips to improve. I find them really helpful, as I like to improve where I can. Roads4117 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume you know that if it is a new but related topic, it normal to just create a level 3 (or lower as appropriate) subheading. When discussions get really really long, people will create a new subheading anyway, called something like "Arbitrary section break, for editor convenience", trying at least to do it somewhere not too disruptive to the flow – not always easy when long discussions are often a "full and frank exchange of views"! --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman OK thanks Roads4117 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Taking a sabre to SABRE

Hi Roads4117! Regarding this edit to A22 road, I feel there may still be more to clarify on the use of SABRE as a source. We don't need to remove all links to SABRE, but they should not be used as the only reference to an event. The "external links" section of an article should be "kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article" (from WP:EXT). Links to SABRE (where they belong in the external links section) do provide added interest to the reader and by keeping the SABRE prose where it belongs (on SABRE and not on Wikipedia) a reader can find that extra in-depth and unsourced information if it interests them. There is often cleanup needed on external links, as sometimes advertising and spam can sneak in under the radar (such an example would be for the owner of a garden centre to link Woodham Nursery on the tenuous basis that it's on the A22).

Likewise if within an article there is an inline citation to SABRE, it does not mean that sentence should be struck, but rather that an attempt should be made to find a more reliable source for the assertion. Once that's been done, then both citations can be left in place, with the better one appearing first. Or if that search then shows the assertion made by SABRE to be incorrect, that is when the assertion and source should be struck, and the reason stated in the edit summary or talk page.

Where SABRE does come into its own for developing WP articles is as a really useful starting point for history and routes etc, from which a wider search can then be made to verify the claims there before adding them to Wikipedia as facts (and in many cases with a lot less detail!)

I hope that's useful to you, I'm now watching this talk page so if you want to query anything by replying here please do, but bear in mind I often go several weeks at a time without looking in to Wikipedia so you may not get an answer for a while. Thanks for your enthusiasm, it's much needed in WP:UKRD as there are many articles and not many road warriors! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 10:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Baldy Bill Thanks for letting me know. I thought that we should remove all occurances of SABRE Roads, as per the following three examples:

1. Fram said that we have more than 150 roads articles using the Sabre wiki as a reference apparently[1]. Perhaps the roads project can do a cleanup project to remove all these instances at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1109#Copyvios of Roads4117 (08:05, 29 September UTC), so I thought that we should do that. After all Fram is a highly experienced editor, being here for 17 years, and making almost 231,000 contributions in that time.
2. At User talk:Roads4117#Sabre, Girth Summit said that 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.. They went on to say that 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.. Girth Summit is another good editor, being here for 15 years and has almost 77,000 contributions next to their names.
3. You (Baldy Bill) said at User talk:Roads4117#If you change the length of a road... back in August that You are right - SABRE is a secondary source, as anyone can make changes without any form of editorial control, plus it is unstable. You are a.so an experienced editor, being at Wikipedia since 27 November 2010 (or for 12 years) and having 4729 edits in that time!

Hope that makes it a bit clearer to where I am coming from. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Yes it does make it clearer where you're coming from. I think there is an issue of different interpretation here. The copyvios at the ANI specifically refer to copying material from SABRE which is an absolute no-no, all content added to WP should be in the contributor's own words, unless making a direct quote in quotation marks such as a politician's speech. The point of the ANI being raised was not about purging all existing links to SABRE, it was about adding new content from there - if the only place material can be found is on SABRE then it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, if there is existing non-contentious material in WP articles it doesn't need to be removed unless factually incorrect - if in any doubt you can add the template Template:Unreliable source? to flag the problem, so that if another editor agrees then they can remove the material by consensus with you, or look up a better source themselves. When I started editing 12 years ago I did a lot of reading that I was pointed toward regarding verifiability and reliable sources, and what it boils down to is identifying which type of organisation published the resource. Stuff published by individuals is less reliable than stuff published by governments (political opinions aside!), social magazines are less reliable than broadsheet newspapers.

What we should - at least in my humble opinion - be aiming for is improving articles by adding reliably sourced material, which in turn will naturally lead to the better sourced material causing the poorly sourced material to be deprecated when the better source proves it to be incorrect, biased, incomplete or irrelevant. You'll see in the History section you asked me to write for A35 road that it's supported by a variety of sources (and none of them SABRE!) - if one of them is ever found by another editor to be substandard, then the whole article doesn't fall over because the rest of it is broadly sourced. If we take that approach to the "worst" articles out there, just like the discussion between Ritchie and John about the A68, then incrementally the whole project becomes better, there is no rush and no deadline.

Incidentally, in case this comes across as me defending SABRE, I have no investment or interest in SABRE - I hadn't heard of it before I came across it in discussions such as this.

Anyhow, I certainly wasn't intending to "burn" you for removing the link, and I haven't reverted your edit, 'twas merely a suggestion/advice that it's not necessary to remove existing links unless they're detrimental. Which you've replied to and discussed, so that we've reached some consensus that we're not editing in opposing directions, which I think is how it's all supposed to work... who really knows? Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 13:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Baldy Bill, I see what you mean about the ANI - they wanted me to stop using SABRE (or any other website) to copy off it and paste on to Wikipedia. If I find any other articles with SABRE being used as either a reference and/or an external link, then I will flag it with the unreliable source template. I completely agree with you that what we should be aiming for here on Wikipedia is to be aiming for is improving articles by adding reliably sourced material, which in turn will naturally lead to the better sourced material causing the poorly sourced material to be deprecated when the better source proves it to be incorrect, biased, incomplete or irrelevant. Also, like what you said, good examples of these are the history section which you added at A35 road (thanks for that), and the extra content and references John and Ritchie333 added at A68 road in September/October (btw thanks for doing that you two). Regarding the A22 road, should I re-add the external link with the unreliable source template, just to see what other editors in the community think, or should I keep it as it is for now? Thanks. Roads4117 (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roads4117, my gut feeling is leave as is, little point adding it back for now. If someone else vehemently disagrees they can take it on themselves anyway. What the article needs most are some reliable sources for the History section, if you read it with a critical eye you can easily ask "well who says so? Anyone could have made that up." Also per the criteria at the Wikiproject - that's the key target, to have a reliably sourced history section and a lack of trivia.

I see that you generally use the mobile editing interface. I've never tried it myself, but I'm inclined to think more complex edits such as reading large documents, copying citation URLs, publisher names, page titles etc are likely to be easier on the desktop site. Whatever works though! Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 10:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Baldy Bill OK then - I will just wait until somebody disagrees with me! Roads4117 (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

A2212 road

Hello Carl, how are you? I was wondering if together you wanted to do a rewrite of the A2212 road article? If not, then that is fine - just wondering. Roads4117 (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your interest. In theory, yes, I would like the idea of rewriting the article on A2212 road. I have never collaborated with another Wikipedian on an article, but I would be open to the idea. My editing patterns are a bit sporadic, I have been very busy outside Wikipedia lately with work and family things, I go from not editing for weeks, to spending a whole day researching and editing depending on when my free time is, it may be a while til I get free time, so if you can put up with that. When I make an article, my preferred way to write an article afresh on a less known topic, is as a draft in my own username space, and cut and paste it into the main space as a full bodied article, in the hope that if a user comes across a larger and sourced article, rather than a work in progress, they would be more impressed, and less likely look to delete it. Whether that happens that way? I also tend to write the lead last, when the other sections are complete, and summarise the main points of the other sections, but that's just me. I am conscious about the copyright issue that came up with another road recently, I would want to try and avoid that. I tend to usually work on one article at a time, my current one is Grove Park Nature Reserve, under construction in my username space, which coincidently is on the A2212 road. [[2]]

 Carlwev  20:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Carlwev OK then, I am happy with that. Should I create a shared userpage for us - we could communicate and correspond with each other on the user talk page, and write it up on the user page, but only a suggestion - I am still happy to do it your way. Thank you Roads4117 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)