Talk:Curb

English

Per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, contributors follow the rule that when an article is started in one English variant (US English in this case), it should be kept in that variant. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Curb (road) → Curb – Clear primary topic. Red Slash 00:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – no clear primary topic. Instead, restore the disambig page to curb where it was before you scrambled things yesterday. Dicklyon (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

What other possible use is there? A certain type of horse injury? Does that really have precedence over a curb? No other topic looks like it even could have a claim to the title (which is all that matters here--it's fine to mention stuff like the Nickelback album but that would never have a claim to the page because it's not something anyone could reasonably expect to find when they type in "curb"). Red Slash 01:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, it is a clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, yes it is. LCS check (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support. CZmarlin (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Sidewalk" vs "Pavement"

• I took the pavement out of the lede block. Sidewalk is a known definition worldwide, even if it is not a primary usage in England. The article is confusing if pavement is defined in the beginning in the UK way, then is used throughout the article in the American parlance, to mean road surface (i.e. tarmac in british english). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The difficulty in making definitive statements is there are frequently wrong, and so it is in the case. It is incorrect to state sidewalk is a known definition worldwide. It is used outside the US, but it is not universal and not readily recognition everywhere. Equally pavement is used outside the UK. American editors would be as well to remember that America is not the world, and terms used there are not standard use everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.189.241 (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

And in which part of the world (where you harbor your obvious anti-American feelings) have they never seen any American television? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Please attempt to remain civil, and also avoid whining about anti-American feelings just because someone notes that the use of English differs outside the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.99.189.241 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User RGloucester, please refrain from changing the word "sidewalk" to pavement in an American English article. It makes no sense to say that a curb holds up a pavement, when the curb is holding up a sidewalk. It may give structural support to the asphalt, but changing the wording willy-nilly to your preferred version of english is causing confusion, and precisely why we have ENGVAR. Cheers, ~ip user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article uses American English, but this policy should not prevent the clarification of terms for British readers. I'm not sure how many of them need clarifying because I'm familiar with both sets. Dbfirs 09:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, replacing the word 'sidewalk' with 'pavement' is not a clarification for british users, as much as it is an obfuscation for American readers. Pavement in the USA/Canada many countries that aren't england, means the road surface. So if a curb seperates the pavement from the road surface that means absolutely nothing to an American, Canadian, or anyone who wasn't born upon the shores of Great Britian. ~~ipuser 94.14.212.141 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Would there be any harm in having two different articles for the different languages? SovalValtos (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Active Wikipedia editors long ago decided not to fragment their efforts into separate language variant fiefdoms. This article should explain both the North American terminology and the British terminology early in the article, and then use North American terminology consistently within the article. Occasional "translations" to British terminology could be strategically added for clarification, but need not be inserted at every opportunity. One goal of Wikipedia is for readers to learn more about language variants in other parts of the world, rather then isolating them in exclusive language "ghettos". This is all explained in WP:ENGVAR, which I encourage you to read. Reify-tech (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments and links User:Reify-tech I am not pushing any point of view, just exploring the possibilities for what seems a particularly contentious article. Where can I find the decision policy or guideline "not to fragment their efforts into separate language variant fiefdoms"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SovalValtos (talk • contribs) 18:12, 30 June 2015

There would be considerable harm in it. Each Wikipedia article is about a topic, not a word. Were there two separate articles about the same thing, either every edit would have to be made twice, or the articles would eventually have different and possibly conflicting information. Ibadibam (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curb. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113062449/https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/chapter-3 to https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/design/dqab/hdm/chapter-3

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) 15:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)