User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Soothing R  21:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sign
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added. Soothing R  21:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

UK maps
Well you cant have all the external links in the page like it was, so i personally think that the page should just be deleted because i dont really see a need for it. Zwilson14 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not my opinion thats wikipedia's policy. Zwilson14 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it also Wikipedia's policy to delete comments from people you don't like or disagree with? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving SABRE to the side
I would recommend moving the article to your userspace and working on the article. This worked well with the Monochrome_BBS article. As an when I can, I'll help with that as I agree that this is the singlemost authoritative network for UK roads & history information. Consider also getting in touch with the Portal:Transport, possibly by adding Category: Road Transport, or perhaps urban geography.

I guess the fundamental point to answer is: what is the criteria for adding an encyclopaedia article about SABRE? 50 years in the future, is someone going to want to know about SABRE anything that can't be gleaned from the "About Us" page? With the Mono article, we had to prove by means of academic and journalistic references why Mono was relevant. And there's still a lot in that article which skirts close to "original research" Davoloid (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Finding references
Another idea: Have a look through the referrer logs to see where links are coming in, especially if there are any from Wikipedia. E.g. Nothing I can see for the M1 article, thought the M6 points to CBRD, as does the London Ringways. Still hard to work out how to demonstrate that means SABRE is an authority... hmm. Davoloid (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. Thing is, I don't really have time to work on the article, and was kind of hoping somebody with more experience (or time on their hands!) here could clean it up and put it into shape. If you can lend a hand with this, that would be great.

We have plenty of links coming in from Wikipedia alright, though I'm not sure of the actual ratio. Here's a list. Part of the motivation for doing this is to try and build some bridges between Wikipedia and SABRE which have been not just broken, but comprehensively demolished, after some "enterprising" users copied content from our site, then complained we were an "unreliable source" and deleted the links, which resulted in a massive flame war (mostly on SABRE).

To play Devil's advocate, if articles on SABRE (and, by extension, CBRD) aren't authoritative sources, what's stopping me from deleting all of them and pasting "" over all the relevant articles? The fact they haven't been must mean at least people trust them enough.


 * On this point, if significant amounts of the Wikipedia content are identical to the SABRE/CBRD articles, there is probably an easy way to drop a "This article contains material taken from a copyrighted source, without proper citation", in fact there is: Copyright_violations I suspect it might be better to liaise with the Roads portal people.Davoloid (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a quick look, and the pages seem to have the citations put back (M12 motorway was one of them). However, the mud has kind of stuck on this one. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the article talk page, we have got praise and acknowledgement from the NLS, the Highways Agency and Cambridge University, and I'm currently in talks with the Ordnance Survey about some other stuff - but this is all via email - there's no point in them documenting our conversations on a website, because it's of no interest to anyone else. It's a bit difficult to prove things! If you can think of anything else that's worth getting hold of, let me know.

--Ritchie333 (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok that list is very interesting. A comparable would be something like the IMDB, as seen here The_Emerald_Forest. As we see there, the IMDB has a lot of external sites referencing it and articles commenting on it. There's also a history, development of the site as well as criticism, which you *may have* for the SABRE network but the onus unfortunately is on the article writer to find them.

If the NLS, Highways Agency etc and Cambridge University have praised SABRE, all well and good, but have they cited the website or otherwise commented in any published documents?


 * No, but we've never really thought about asking them to. To be fair, the NLS are actually waiting on me to give me some stuff back to them, which I've done but need to take a trip up to Edinburgh to see them! We would have been mentioned on their website if we'd decided to do a presentation at one of their seminars, but I couldn't get the time to do it, so I had to turn it down! --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime I'll see what I can do...Davoloid (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have found another citation - a book on road development (that I bought in Waterstones) written by Joe Moran, in a chapter discussing road numbering and history, has half a page that talks specifically about SABRE and what it does, and includes the website in the acknowledgements. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts


A tag has been placed on Society for All British and Irish Road Enthusiasts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Imzadi 1979  →   21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never posted an article on this before - indeed, I think this is probably the first article I have ever created. Please could you link to the previous discussion. I would also be interested in any further comments you have that I have mentioned on the talk page. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore that, I was looking up something using Twinkle (an automated script) and I didn't intend to tag the article. Anyways, I think I've replied to everything, and I think we're pretty much agreeing on most things. As for any strife between UKRD and SABRE, I'll just state that there's been plenty of ill-will and bad feelings between UKRD and USRD/CRWP, more so with USRD. Several editors, spearheaded by Jeni, have taken any opportunity at international collaboration and problem-solving as an opportunity to claim anti-American sentiments and scream that we're anti-British. (That's why I commented the way I have about SABRE, because I truly want to cover the group in an appropriate manner, but I don't want to be accused of being anti-British.) I'm sure they feel the same about us in reverse. For the most part though, UKRD is pretty quiet and inactive these days, CRWP (Canadian Roads WikiProject) is a bit more active and USRD is quite active. We're in the middle of a stub-reduction drive with the goal to expand 2011 stubs in the year 2011. (Yes, that's a lot of articles, but we have over 10,000 articles so far in the US, not counting lists.)
 * There's an IRC channel devoted to the roads projects on Wikipedia. Details on accessing it are at WP:HWY/IRC, but suffice it to say that most of the time it's mostly Americans in there and Zoe from the UK. We have a regular Canadian editor as well, but he's not always around. Discussion varies between other topics besides roads like sports and politics, but we do discuss a fair amount about the Wikipedia articles too. All are welcome to join us.  Imzadi 1979  →   17:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what it basically boils down to is we'd like a credit - if WP policy is that to be a link, then that's fine by me. It's quite hard to get any definitive research about UK roads from the various archives and institutions out there. I understand in the US you can get plans and schemes pretty much on demand online, due to US State and Federal Government documentation being public domain on publishing, which is not the case for the UK. The National Archives has a lot of information tucked away, but a lot of it's missing - I seem to recall only a tiny fraction of Ministry Of Transport plans survive in archive facilities. One of the most frustrating things to have lost is the MOT originally published draft maps of the original road classifications in 1922, and sent them out to regional divisions for comments. The returned comments survive, but the maps have been destroyed.
 * Anyway, my point is that a lot of hours, blood, sweat and tears have been poured over the research of UK Road History from a face of indifference versus adversity, and all we ask is return is that people who want to reuse that information give the researcher credit for getting it. Otherwise they just get annoyed. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, we don't have the those luxuries here in the States. State government documents are subject to copyright, and our highway systems are all under state, not federal, control. (Yes since the 1970s the state DOTs have to file environmental impact studies with the US DOT for approval, but rarely are those documents actually useful for documenting much in our articles, assuming we can get at a paper copy of the older files.) We do have the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at the federal level, and analogs at the state level, but FOIA requests are not free. Ask any of my counterparts in USRD, and they've probably heard of the FOIA request I made to MDOT to get some documentation to verify the timeline of M-28. MDOT's FOIA officer told me that it would cost $1000 for the research time and copying expenses to locate documentation for 11 specific changes to the highway. In the end, I had an archive of old state maps scanned from the Library of Michigan (71 maps for $73) and cited them to document the changes.
 * I understand wanting credit, but there's a fine line here. Sadly, we aren't supposed to be using SABRE as a source. It's possible to do something similar to what I do with http://www.michiganhighways.org : I take Chris Bessert's timeline for a highway as a starting point, and then verify that timeline using the old state maps I have. Where the two differ, and they do, I use the official state-produced source. In all cases, that's what I cite. Where I can, I find newspaper articles at the library to use as source material instead of the maps. Now, SABRE can be used as an external link, a "see also" kind of thing, which is what I do with Bessert's website, but it really shouldn't be used as a citation in the articles. SABRE-hosted maps published by the government though, they can be used. A good editor would add a courtesy link to the online version of the map, like I did with the ODOT maps on U.S. Route 223 since they are online.  Imzadi 1979  →   18:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of document transcriptions we host as well, one of which I've used as a reference in Great Britain road numbering scheme. The actual source here is the original published booklet by HMSO, but it's incredibly rare (The National Archives don't have a copy) and as far as I know SABRE is the only place that has a transcription of it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That would also be an acceptable source for an article, IMHO, because even though SABRE's servers are the ones hosting the transcribed copy, it's still ultimately a government document. It might help to place a scanned copy of the booklet cover on the site as well as further proof of authenticity, but either way, that's the stuff that SABRE can provide to both the larger community and the community of Wikipedians looking to do research on UK roads. Let me be clear though, if there are direct copies of text from SABRE's wiki on Wikipedia, they should be removed and replaced with uniquely worded statements of the information, hopefully cited to the source(s) the Sabristi used originally.  Imzadi 1979  →   20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
I'm just someone who does a bit of advertising here and there, doing popup ads, pay2click etc. I didn't write the TVTropes entry, someone else different did. Sorry if you think it's spam or a hoax. In case you're wondering, I'm [this guy]. --Julaime6606 (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

UK roads v US roads
I didn't want to tie up the discussion on WT:UKRD, but I wanted to ask you how roads in the UK are different than roads in the US? I think road signs and driving on the other side of the road are cosmetic issues. Fundamentally, roads get you from Point A to Point B. It's our job as editors to talk about the in-between parts. –Fredddie™ 00:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The main things that spring to mind are
 * The system of classification is different - hub based rather than grid based (plus there are two hubs). A road that branches off another road will have a number totally arbitrary to the parent.
 * Unlike the majority of US highways, which were built and classified in the last 100 years since the Lincoln Highway, the majority roads in the UK, particularly non primary roads and roads in London evolved from historic coaching routes or cart tracks that had been in place for centuries, and frequently serve pedestrian and cycle traffic in addition to vehicles. The A501 road is the equivalent of a major highway in London, yet people think nothing of crossing six lanes of traffic on foot.
 * There is no definitive list of classified roads in the UK held by the Department of Transport. Numbers are occasionally duplicated or created out of sequence - a recent example being the former A38 road through Selly Oak, Birmingham becoming the B38, in complete violation of the numbering rules. Many roads inside London, and all of them inside the Congestion Charging Zone, are un-numbered and are not displayed on maps, although classification may theoretically exist. If I was feeling malicious, I could AfD a list of 'A' roads in London as failing WP:RS and you'd be stuck to come up with any, because they don't exist! Google Maps is full of mistakes and OpenStreetMap isn't really a reliable source as anyone can go in and add road numbers to a route without any peer review. --Ritchie333 (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited A30 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)