Talk:A508 road

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was proposed for deletion by Chidgk1 (talk · contribs) on 23 May 2023.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northamptonshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northamptonshire-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.NorthamptonshireWikipedia:WikiProject NorthamptonshireTemplate:WikiProject NorthamptonshireNorthamptonshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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.

South end of A508: how best to reflect in the infobox

The A508 ends at a roundabout with four other exits: A5 southbound, local road into Old Stratford, A422 westbound, A5 northbound. So the last junction is with the A5 and the A422. To list the A422 after the A5 implies a sequence that doesn't exist.

No doubt there are other examples of roundabouts with diverse exits. How are they shown? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman Thanks for chasing this up - I have been wondering this for a while too. Whenever I have come across something like this, I just make it look the same as the rest of inf9box, however that does not reflect on the real-world. You could try putting it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman I have added this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. Thanks Roads4117 (talk) 07:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junction icon and text

To my eye, this

A14 ( Junction 2)

looks pig ugly. It's bad enough having A14 twice but to have the Junction number twice is just too much. How about just

A14 ()

or even

A14 (J2)

I prefer the last one. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An icon without text can't be used for accessibility reasons (i.e. persons relying on a screen reader can't read it). I think just "J2" is probably good enough. Come to think of it, even better J2 (mouse-over it to see the difference). -- Dr Greg talk 17:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I preferred the plain text over the icon. So we would get

A14 (J2)

which is good. '"Publish and be d______d!", he cried' [meaning "dazzled", obviously

). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman Sorry for the late reply, but I do too. Roads4117 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of A508 road (May 2023)

The article A508 road has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Transcluded from my talk page.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Rschen7754 has reverted this PROD because Chidgk1 failed to provide any prior justification for their proposal. Unless there is an overall proposal to delete all three- and four-figure A-class roads (which is unlikely), it is not obvious what singles the A508 out for special treatment. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length table

Hello fellow Wikipedians, By the way, due to copyright reason etc, the length table has been copied from my userpage, at User:Roads4117/A508 road length, not some other website :) Roads4117 (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A508 road for deletion (August 2024)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A508 road, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not going through the PROD process, it has been through that before. I have nominated it for fuller discussion at AfD, which is different. That notice cannot be removed until the discussion has concluded. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At another time, I asked "what makes the A508 special" (that it should have an article). Now I want to ask "what makes the A508 special" (that it should not have an article). The faults of this article (and they are too many to list) are not all unique: pretty much all Annn and Annnn road articles have exactly the same list, as do most of the Ann roads and many of the An roads. I would delete all of them, but that will never get consensus. So looking at this article as an example, nothing but the lead and infobox are remotely worth keeping. I expect that is equally true of its peers. So my !vote is delete all Annn and Annnn road articles. If that is not acceptable, then again, what makes this one special. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor after my own heart! WP:NOTDIR applies to a large majority of road articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see that the local names for stretches of the road (It begins as Kettering Road, crosses the River Welland, and continues as Springfield Street, Northampton Road and Harborough Road) have encyclopedic significance. Imagine if the London-to-Holyhead A5 road (Great Britain) (243 mi) included every one; before even getting out of London we'd have Edgware Road, Maida Vale, Kilburn High Road, Shoot Up Hill, Cricklewood Broadway, Edgware Road, West Hendon Broadway, The Hyde, Edgware Road, Burnt Oak Broadway, High Street, Stonegrove and Brockley Hill, and still not have anything worth reading. Yet without those, we might as well merge the Major (?!) Settlements and Route sections, already largely duplications. We have other Annn/Annnn articles like this? I daren't look. NebY (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you didn't miss the former Little Chef beside the A123/B4567 roundabout???

. I kid you not. I think it featured in A5 road. It didn't even have the dubious distinction of being identified as a location in an episode of some cop soap or other. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now revisiting A413 revisited. NebY (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

For anyone not aware, a previous revision from 4 August 2024 has been struck from the article's history, along with the history of every single revision since then. The subsequent edits have not been removed, just the detail. This is because the original edit - adding content about the three bypasses - was a virtually direct copy & paste from another website. Such word-for-word copying is a clear copyright violation which is why it has been struck from the record. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that was just about its only redeeming feature, per the AfD discussion! PamD 13:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Perhaps it's time to take it back to AfD.... 10mmsocket (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]