Talk:A4232 road

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A4232 road article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A4232 road was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 9, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
August 5, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Cardiff Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Wales may be able to help!

Untitled

This page needs a lot more work, some of the information is not 100% correct. Seth Whales 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page now completely updated. Seth Whales 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junction names

I have not been able to find the official names of the St Fagans Slip Road or the Techniquest Slip Roads, so I have used the "common" names used Seth Whales 23:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I telephoned Cardiff Council and spoke to a Senior Technician (Transport) who confirmed that the junctions do not have "official" names. Seth Whales 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Way

Southern Way is all A4232, not A4161, as on Google Maps and others. Having travelled along it and took note of the signs. Seth Whales (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs (re GA)

Hi folks. One basic thing that the reviewer is likely to comment on: fill out all the details for the references. Some of them are complete (or reasonably complete), but much of the lats two-thirds need completing. Just a heads up. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next job...more details of references...noted. Thanks, Seth Whales (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job done (I think??). Seth Whales (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that'll be one less thing for you to worry about later. I'd consider merging the short Doctor Who and Torchwood paragraphs. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Job done. Seth Whales (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Junction names etc.

I have already established that no "official" names of junctions exist. I have however referenced the names of junctions which are commonly used...Please do not keep reverting the edits without consensus on this talkpage...thank-you. Seth Whales (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence that the terms you have provided are used as actual names rather than as points of reference? 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate, I have already established that no "official" names of junctions exist from Cardiff Council. I have however referenced the names of junctions which are the names commonly used. More information is better than less information, therefore please do not keep reverting the edits. Like most junctions / roundabouts, they are purely descriptive, therefore roundabouts are generally named after a public house for example, which is on the roundabout itself. This is an established norm. Seth Whales (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, the name "Techniquest Sliproad" would refer to a sliproad called "Techniquest Sliproad", and not "the sliproad signposted for Techniquest" - that's a point of reference. Sometimes, less is more. Take a look at the arguments put forward at WP:USEFUL and WP:NOHARM for more (or less, as the case may be) on this. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, I have already added references to the junctions, Here I have cut and pasted the paragraph from the reference regarding the Techniquest Sliproad "Come off at Techniquest slip road, turn immediately left into Adelaide Street, at the junction go straight across James Street and into Mount Stuart Sq, (our offices are opposite the now closed Barclays Bank or at the rear of The Coal Exchange)". I reiterate, there are no "official" names of junctions, only names that are commonly used, this applies to the Culverhouse Cross Interchange as much as the Techniquest Slip Road. I am therefore not proposing to delete every junction name in the article. The only "official" names of junctions refer to the junctions on the M4 motorway, i.e. junction 30 and junction 33. Seth Whales (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Come off at Techniquest slip road" evidently means "the slip road that is signposted for Techniquest". "Culverhouse Cross" appears at the top of the road signs, in the part which identifies a junction, and therefore is the name of that junction. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Come off at Techniquest slip road" obviously means "Come off at Techniquest slip road"...the common name for the junction. Culverhouse Cross is also the "common name" for the junction...the road has no "Official names" for its junctions. if you wish to check with Cardiff Council, please be my guest. Seth Whales (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check page 110 of the current Highway Code. It gives examples of signs for junctions called "Park Street Roundabout" and "Turpin's Crossroads". At Culverhouse Cross, the name "Culverhouse Cross" appears in that position on the signs. Therefore it is the name of the junction. Now can you please stop adding redundant, duplicate information to the article. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate for the umptenth time, there are no "official" names of junctions, only names that are commonly used, this applies to the Culverhouse Cross Interchange as much as the Techniquest slip road. The only "official" names of junctions in the entire article relates to the junctions on the M4 motorway, i.e. junction 30 and junction 33. I have taken time to telephone to check with Cardiff Council, if there are any problems with this information, I suggest any editor please do likewise. This is now the end of this futile discussion and I now consider any edits to alter the junction names to be vandalism as the junction names have very good sources including the National Assembly for Wales. Seth Whales (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I spoke to Cardiff Council on this very matter between 15 August 2007 and 3 October 2007. It took me many occasions to contact the person responible for name streets/roads in Cardiff. He gave me his name, but I have not recorded it on this page because a. I wouldn't want to put any persons name onto Wikipedia, b. He asked me not to anyway and c. If anyone could be bothered to check with the Senior Technician (Transport) at Cardiff Council, they would discover that it was the same information that was given to me, i.e. no "official" names exist for the A4232 road only "unofficial" names which the Council use to describe the junction, i.e. if the junction is in Culverhouse Cross, they would call it the Culverhouse Cross interchange for reference or ease of use. As I said earlier if the edit is reverted again I only consider it vandalism and will be reverted accordingly. I did not spend all that time trying to contact the correct person for anyone to feel that they know best and to vandalise this article. Seth Whales (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I drove that road last week. The name "Culverhouse Cross" is there in foot-high capitals in a box at the top of the signs in both directions. I fancy that it appears on the A48 and A4055 approaches to the junction too. The exits for MoWL and Techniquest have no such designations on the signs. I think there may have been a name tag on the signs for the Leckwith exit, but I'm not sure. In summary, stop adding redundant information backed up with bogus citations. They are either from sources with no authority or taken out of context. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm the sources, the first is an informational display for the proposed access improvements. It does not feature the words "St Fagans slip road" anywhere. It does refer to it being the exit for the Museum, but the exit description we have already includes it. For Techniquest, you quote "Directions to BITC", but BITC are clearly not an authority on on matter - the exit in question is signposted "Techniquest, Museum", and in the absence of a name it would be logical for their description to show some means of identifying the exit. The references at Brains and CBTC do not refer to any "Lamby Way Roundabout". To think this would all have been avoided if the people that said "oi, you're removing sourced information" had actually bothered to check the sources, but no, I've got to do your work for you (even though I shouldn't have to). 217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

See User talk:Ian13#Compromise. Seth Whales (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: "I am prepared to compromise for a second (see below) and last time, on this article. I am prepared to change the junction names from say "Culverhouse Cross Interchange" to just "Culverhouse Cross" and "St Fagans slip road" to "St Fagans" etc.throughout the infoboxes. I am doing this on the condition that 217.36.107.9 does not revert the above edit and never edits any part of A4232 road again (sorry I have to put this in, but this user has shown to be disruptive already by having a 24 hour block). I have now changed the article accordingly and hope this puts to bed this utterly futile edit war". Seth Whales (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This offer is not a compromise, for obvious reasons. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are an uncompromising individual...all the best. Seth Whales (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an edit to it, attempting to incorporate both revisions. Ian¹³ /t 21:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me...thanks Ian13. Seth Whales (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it nobody bothered to read this. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and I accept they are pretty poor sources, but original research is disallowed as well. However, I think it has also been pointed out that junctions don't have official names. Because of this, it seems sensible to go with any name on the roundabout, or if it has a well known name, then that. Now, these sources could be said to show that it is a known name for the junction, but the sources themselves do indeed have no real authority, so probably aren't much use even being in the articles. So, my personal observations:

St. Fagans is the region that the museum is in, and therefore, in absence of a name, it seems like a suitable name (it is after all a junction with St. Fagans).
The Techniquest name serves no obvious purpose, and just repeats the destination of the slip road.
Whilst Lamby Way/Rover Way may not be an official name, the roundabout is a junction to those roads, so the name seems appropriate.

Any objections to this view? Ian¹³ /t 15:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

UK Tourist Sign T203 - English museum or art gallery.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

After reviewing this article, I am concerned that it no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There are lots of uncited passages
There is a yellow banner in the "Route description" section from 2021 that should be resolved.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

A4232 road

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of uncited statements throughout the article, and there's a yellow banner asking that information be displayed in a table, which should be resolved or removed. Z1720 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.