Talk:M23 motorway

Latest comment: 2 years ago by 80.229.148.163 in topic M23

Why the removal of miles from junction list?

edit

In this edit I added miles to the junction list. They were later removed, along with another column in the table. The article has since been fully protected as part of some, apparently, on-going dispute - so I cannot restore my good work.

As WP:UNIT states that the main unit for road distances in UK articles should be miles, with kilometres following in parentheses - as per my edit, I propose to get an administrator to restore my edit. Does anyone disagree with that course of action? -- de Facto (talk). 17:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will object unless miles and kilometres are in separate columns as per WP:RJL. My reason for objecting is based primarily on the concept that if two sets of reading are mixed up in the same column, then people will not read either. The objective in adding the kilometre column is to catalogue junctions in terms of the displays on driver location signs (which I personally use quite often when I am driving). I appreciate that some readers might like to see the miles column to help them plan any journeys, so if somebody wants to add the miles I will not stop them. Martinvl
The additions complied with WP:UNIT, which says that distances in UK articles should be in miles, with kilometres in parentheses after if desired. Once my edit has been restored, you can take the kilometres off if you think it'll look better. But your reason for objection is, I believe, insufficient to prevent restoration. -- de Facto (talk). 17:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
BTW, please continue this discussion on WP:RJL as that is where everybody else is discussing things. (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is better for generic WP:RJL business; here is better for the content of this article, surely? -- de Facto (talk). 17:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The reason you were reverted wasn't the information, it was the presentation, which is a concern of RJL. However, there seems to be no opposition to including them so long as its in a separate column. The convert template displays units, which eliminates the advantages of a table (putting the units in the header row). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Floydian, WP:UNIT states the km should be in parentheses after the miles (like I added it). I used the {{convert}} template to avoid the tedious task of converting and entering the miles again manually. Do you support restoration? -- de Facto (talk). 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think WP:UNIT needs an application of WP:IAR in this case since we're dealing with a table of repetitive variables and not prose. The "mi" and the "km" take up horizontal space that is otherwise already limited. However, just having 62 (100) could be confusing. I'd suggest a mi and km column next to each other, then each cell needs only include a number, and not the units. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The header "mile (km)" covers the column contents - the columns only contain "1.0 (1.6)", etc. {{tl:convert}} can also do 2 proper table columns (if we choose to ignore WP:UNIT), but because of the non-RJL-compliant 2-numbers-per-cell mess employed in this table, convert cannot be used properly (we'd need to use it twice per row!). We could eliminate the km values - and actually comply with WP:UNIT (and use convert to do the work) or have just one value per row (average them) or have 2 table cells (rows) per junction row and use convert. -- de Facto (talk). 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Discussions and decisions about the content of this article are taking place elsewhere

edit

I've discovered that the content of this article is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Road junction lists#M23 revocations (18 Nov 2011). -- de Facto (talk). 17:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M23 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

M23

edit

The information says it starts from Hooley but it should say “Horley” 80.229.148.163 (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply