User talk:Regan123

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Regan123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Here are some recommended guidelines to help you get involved. Please feel free to contact me if you need help with anything. Best of luck and happy editing! Budgiekiller 14:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikipedians Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Motorway exits

You've used road numbers go behind destination is a standard but you've yourself made the change in the last 24 hours. It cannot then be a standard since you've made the change to make it so. Use talk pages before you make large scale changes. Since you're new and have made limited edits, I suggest you read Wikipedia's help on how to use edit summaries and edit pages on Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. Thanks, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect Captain, the pages I linked to were already in that format before I came across them. The format also matches most fork signs that you will see on the roads concerned. I have just reviewed the motorway pages and find the following have the numbers first:

M1 motorway, M6 Toll, M9 motorway, M11 motorway, M18 motorway (after your latest reversion), M23 motorway, M60 motorway, M62 motorway, M69 motorway, M180 motorway, M271 motorway, M602 motorway, M606 motorway, M621 motorway & A3(M).

These have numbers last:

M2 motorway, M3 motorway, M4 motorway, M5 motorway, M6 motorway, M8 motorway (albeit in a different style table), M10 motorway, M20 motorway, M25 motorway, M26 motorway, M32 motorway, M40 motorway, M42 motorway, M45 motorway, M49 motorway, M50 motorway (Great Britain), M53 motorway, M56 motorway, M66 motorway, M73 motorway, M74 motorway, M80 motorway, M275 motorway, M876 motorway, M898 motorway, A57(M) motorway, Leeds Inner Ring Road, A167(M), A194(M), A404(M) motorway & A601(M) motorway.

The following do not have tables:

M48 motorway, M54 motorway, M55 motorway, M57 motorway, M58 motorway, M61 motorway, M65 motorway, M67 motorway, M77 motorway, M90 motorway, A1(M), A38(M) motorway, A48(M) motorway, A308(M) motorway, A329(M) motorway, A627(M) motorway, A823(M) motorway and none of those in Northern Ireland.

The M27 motorway was a mixture of both and I put them into one order. Out of those tables it is 2 to 1 with the numbers at the end. I don't see what your problem with changing them all to be the same is and why whilst admonishing me for making "major" changes you have now reverted two of them (one twice). Wouldn't it be simple to have them in the same format? The M2 looks the neatest myself and is the format I would like to follow... Regan123 21:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting road numberes after the localities served makes it difficult to see with which roads a motorway intersects. The ppoint of having the road number first is so that it is clear to with what the junction leads to, example, exit 10 leads onto Ax and serves Smalltown and Bigcity. Putting the road number last hides the road number. In the event of a motorway junction there is no locality served and the only object the junction served is another motorway, which goes against the scheme you were implementing. Look at the talbe o the M180 motorway article, the reader knows exactly what the motorway intersects with, and serves.

It is also confusing to have the junction numbers in the middle of the table, as opposed to to the left, followed by both Eastern/Western and or Northern/Southern exits. This creates a talbe where the reader has to change reading point instead of reading left to right.

Also, you've been over chaptering the said articles, with sections containing no more than two lines. Expand these sections, or don't add superfluous sections. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 05:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This still ignores the fact that the majority of the routes already done have followed the after format & road signs use the after format. On the M180 motorway you have connected a (rather good) map which shows the road number intersections. Also by putting the road number in bold, it stands out anyway. Any motoroway/motorway junction will show the destinations not the numbers first on the ground. Directional signage is all about which way to X not which to the MXX or Axxx. The best option I can see is Town A (Mxx), City B (Axx) which is how most people navigate. I still don't see the need to move away from the layout on twice as many tables. In fact with the maps (which I don't know if you are going to do more of), the page is offering both structures, so allowing people to navigate Wikipedia how they wish to.

As to the junction numbers on the left I don't see a single one with that design. It is the format often used on many other sites, not just Wikipedia. Regan123 11:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand we need consistency. Even if other articles have the layout you've edited in doesn't necessarily mean it is the best, sometimes, changing a majority of articles to match a smaller number is necessaty to increase clarity of articles however dawnting the task. I agree on the conjugation of destination/road grouped together, but with road number first, alternating road # and localities to follow. The hardest on British highways is to find clear road numbering as it's hidden behind the area's smallest village name ;) Boldning the road number was a good idea, which is why even though I moved the road numbers back left, I kept them enbolded.

I am studying the possibility of creating other maps, but it is harder to do on longer motorways (think M1, M5 and M6) as their length means attaching several images together and isn't so easy to include in an article (the M18 article is an example), also motorways that are axed horizontally (M180) are easier to represent. I am currently looking at the possibility of creating more maps, and I will do so depending on the motorway's topology. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. What I think we need to do is open this up to get other people's opinions, as I don't think we are going to agree on the post pre :-). If your happy with that then how do you want to go about it? In the interim I will continue with the number second layout when I update the pages as I want to get on with this whilst I have the time to spend on the upgrades - I will not change an exisiting one. If the consesus is for pre-destination numbering then I will more than happily adjust them myself - I am not trying to pre judge the outcome.

On the smaller entires, I do have some work to do on some of them that have had sections added with little copy - I have the references but need to go to bed at some point!!!! I will add to them shortly.

I don't know any of the motorway/road relatd projects so do not know where to begin with such a process. Until then, conventions dictate that changes should not be made. I do not indend on changing other motorway articles as they are outside my study area. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If I can butt in on this coversation. I think it's more natural and less subjective for the article to follow what is on the ground - i.e. the road signs - and this means both destinations and route numbers, as they appear on the road signs. Lists of these are available on the CBRD website. In the UK, route numbers almost always appear after (i.e. below) the destination, perhaps except on some gantry signs, where vertical space is limited. If multiple routes meet at the same junction, then you'll get <destination 1><route 1> then <destination 2><route 2> underneath. On a motorway, the route number is in a different style, larger font to the destination - which might follow the convention on some articles with the route numbers in bold. Not using the actual destinations and numbers shown on the road signs would amount to original research in my books. I'm also convinced that we should be using the motorway's "control destinations" - i.e. the places shown as the "straight on" destinations, rather than primary route destinations in the infobox. Again, the primary destinations are somewhat subjective. Given that there are a good number of motorway articles, and the vast majority need a considerable amount of improvement. I might look into the possibility of starting a project for their improvement. Richard B 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for the note. I don't disagree that some of the motorway articles need some improvement, I have been doing some fairly extensive work on them recently, and would apprecaite your comments as to what you think is right and wrong. I have left the junction lists alone (save M27 motorway and M271 motorway as I didn't want to get into an edit war. Currently I am planning to do the M58, M61, M65, M66, M67 articles next. Also I think the M4 & M5 articles could be a lot more detailed, particularly regarding the history sections. The motorway service stations need a particularly large amount of work done on expanding stubs and added the missing articles. As a refernece point I am particulalry pleased with the M20 motorway article and would like to get that level of detail and references as a minimum. As for the route box, then Template:UK motorway routebox has a limited talk pageRegan123 19:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NI motorway pages

Good job tidying up the Northern Ireland motorway pages! They look good now. --Tireoghain2 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:A3road.png

Thanks for uploading Image:A3road.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A New User and Junction Name

Hello... I'm a new user (no, really!). Anyway, I think I've got the hang of how this thing mostly works, and have added a couple of articles, and amended a couple of others.

I noticed that your name appears on a lot of those about roads so thought you would be as good a person as any to talk to about this...

I currently have a list of road junctions. It is, fair to say, quite, quite rubbish; owing to the fact that there are a lot of road junctions, and very little of me to research and write about them.

So I thought Wikipedia would be a good place to move the list over to. I notice that there are a few already on there, e.g. Spaghetti Junction, Cambridge Circus, etc. however, some of these are mixed with list of American junctions etc. What I thought might be a good idea is some sort of common format (well, a template really) that could be used when creating these, and then they could be linked to all the 'road' pages of the roads that met at the junction.

Any thoughts that can help me out?

C2r 21:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi C2r and welcome to Wikipedia! I think I recognise that user name from SABRE:-) Anyway assuming this is your list [1] I think the first thing to do is to put it up as a table, something akin to List of B roads in Great Britain and then expand the most notable ones into articles like Gravelly Hill Interchange or Magic Roundabout (Swindon), which has a good map. What we need to do as well is make sure that Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom contains all the junctions currently on Wikipedia before cleaning them up if needed.

It would be nice to have a standard info box, see Avonmouth Bridge as an example of using a standard template, but I haven't found one on Wikipedia yet - let me know if you see on. What I have done at the A38(M) motorway page is put a wiki link into the junction table. If we have formal names, then maybe this could be another action. We could then add links back to a List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom based on your information.

As for your list, then maybe something from WP:TOOLS#Import:_Conversion_from_other_formats might be of some help, depending in what format it is in.

I have already had a preliminary discussion with Richard_B about creating a UK Roads project, which could cover this kind of thing - would love to know if you feel like being part of it.

Hope that covers the base point, but let me know your thoughts, opinions, suggestions etc. The UK road articles on Wikipedia need a dramatic improvement to say the least! Regan123 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello; yes an imaginitive name, for sure.... and yes, that's my list to date..... What I think I will do then is try and amend the Category:Road junctions in the United Kingdom page by importing my list (shouldn't be too difficult, as I have kept to a uniform HTML format). Having had a play with the 'B'Roads page, a main index, with sub-pages for different junctions looks like the way to go - certainly it would allow lots of data to be added quickly )to the category), and then individual articles expanded later.

As for a template.... I think it wouldn't be too difficult to create a standard one (though I'm not quite sure how to add it to Wikipedia and 'call' it in the same way that, for example, the towns and villages ones are created.

With a UK Roads project, yes, I would like to be a part of it... (and stole the motorways userbox from you! Though of course, sometimes my spare time is more limited than at other times (part of how I've got so far with my own junction list page, before it all got too much! From what I can see, the wikipedia database does provide some protection against sabotage (my main concern with the format being so open; that it is succeptible to vandalism by eco-warrior types who might not understand the neutrality of merely categorising such things).

It seems that we could make something quite user-friendly with the tools provided by wikipedia, linking town, road, and junction articles and indexes into a comprehensive, easy-to navigate encyclopedia... Of course, a lot of that does rely on us setting things up nicely to begin with. I do like the idea of linking to junction pages from the motorway lists, and then those linking back to the UK roads junction category - that seems straightforward.

Anyway, what do you reckon.....?

C2r 19:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest we should start off small and see where it goes. I think a single page like the B roads list would be a good way to begin and then lets grow it organically from there. What we need to remember is Wikipedia is not a travel guide so we have got to keep it notable. I think if you can get the list online and lets link the existing junction pages up to it and then redirect other junction names to the list first and lets move on from there.

I have some ideas for a template, but need to think about how to code it first, which will be a steep learning curve to say the least!

Don't worry about vandalism, they are enough people patrolling around to stop it and obviously we can watch out as well.

Let me know how you get on with the list and then the sky is the limit. Regan123 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first live draft is up.... - List of Road Junctions in the United Kingdom - Entry in the list for Almondsbury Interchange is edited to the style I think suits the page best, links where appropriate, including one to an already existing article for the junction itself. I've been looking at templates too, briefly, and think similar to UK Towns and villages might work... but I think initially I'll concentrate on tidying up this list, as it's still not perfect. Do you have any particular thoughts at this stage? C2r 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking good! I haven't got much time to go through it tonight, but I will have a look at the weekend and come back to you. So far, very impressive work! Regan123 23:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Cheers - I've just completely reformatted the A section to the style I'd ideally like to retain on the page, and set up discussion notes on the talk page for the article about how I have decided on how to do various things and rules which I've been working to, which are of course all open to debate if anyone can think of better ways of doing things or reasons not to do certain things...! Let us know when you've got the junction page sandbox up and running...

Regards C2r 12:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your note on my user talk page on my user talk page, to sort of keep a history of the thread going over there.....C2r 22:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tulse Hill

He has just warned me off editing that article before I even had a chance to look at it! MRSC • Talk 07:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Charming! Thanks for your help. Regan123 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gipsy Hill - Edits reverted

Two of your edits to the Gipsy Hill article have been reverted. The first did the opposite of what it was claimed it did in the edit summary. Alec - U.K. 15:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you mean this edit then I removed a sentence that made no sense. I also removed two square brackets that were unrequired. Also, see this page which confirms the latitude / longitude coordinates for Gipsy Hill.Regan123 21:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the palace

Yes I think it is the same person. MRSC • Talk 06:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came to post a message to you - but my guess is that this post is about the same thing. I had hoped the problems had gone away. --ArmadilloFromHell 19:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep the posts looked oddly similar. I noticed the changes to Crystal Palce were similar. I'm not sure why they aren't being made under the same name though. Regan123 21:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some users don't always log in, I've seen it often that you get the same IP addresses and username, and they don't even know they are not logged in. I think that's what happened in the past. I think that from Nov 9 on (after a prolonged attempt to get many other users to respond in their talk pages), it's a deliberate intent to stay away from the warnings on the talk page. It's the same editing style, the same words in many cases, and the same mistakes in spelling. However, there seems to be the addition of porn related articles that was I do not think was there before. --ArmadilloFromHell 21:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The range of articles is certainly more "interesting" but the problems remain the same. I have also forgotten to log on once. It is quite annoying when you realise you have knackered up your edit history, but I think you are right. This is looking like a deliberate attempt to avoid the history. Regan123 21:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My patience is exhausted - see Disruptive_and_inconsistent_editing_-_Alec_-_U.K.

Not sure if it is the "done thing" to add a comment. If you think it is OK I would like to support your statement. Regan123 23:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can add comments, I think that I'm not supposed to go around telling people to. I think it's ok to inform you since you have been involved, and I guess you can mention it to anyone you think is appropriate. --ArmadilloFromHell 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rail Stations in London and South East

Regan 123,

Thanks a lot for your work on updating templates and adding photos of rail stations around the South East. You're doing a good job !

Eventually all 2,000 odd rail stations in the UK will be templated and pictured. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but some day soon.

Thanks again

User:Whohe!

Thanks for the note. Every so often I enjoy something quite repetitive. I'm thinking of choosing another county and going through them as well. Let me know if there is an area that needs work on... Regan123 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)