Talk:Oxford–Cambridge Expressway

Name needs changing

The present title implies a precedence between the cities. Railway lines usually have a dash between termini - e.g., Oxford–Bicester line. I suggest we rename this article to Oxford–Cambridge Expressway (with redirects from the present title and from Cambridge to Oxford Expressway). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. All the Government reports etc refer to 'Oxford to Cambridge Expressway', so changing the article title would introduce unnecessary confusion. Tomintoul (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand that argument and suspect that it will prevail. Unfortunately as much of it as exists already is from Cambridge to M1 J13 (all but Caxton Gibbet to A1 at St Neots) but no matter. I doubt we'll see spades in the ground much before 2040 so in the meantime the argument is what our American friends would call moot. I'll put in a few redirects for now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Amendments to 'Criticism' section by anonymous editor

An anonymous editor keeps amending straightforward direct references to published criticisms by adding subjective prefaces such as 'Despite...' and 'Although...'.

I have reverted these changes but ask other editors for support.

Tomintoul (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Subjective prefix"

An anon editor has prefixed various items where local interest groups have complained about "the route" with the (true) phrase "Despite no route being selected yet". I suggest we need to use this talk page to reach a consensus on how best to reconcile the competing views.

The anon editor (who is strongly encouraged to create an account) is probably not aware of policy wp:Bold, revert, discuss which says that editors may add content but, if it is challenged by reversion, they should use the talk page to argue for its inclusion. It may be the editor who reverted may not have support, but we get nowhere with "oh yes it is/oh no it isn't" add/revert/add/revert pantomime.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Has the whole principle of an expressway been debated publicly?

Not that I have seen. Local authorities have promoted the Arc and argued for better east/west infrastructure. There has certainly been strong pressure in Cambridgeshire for the Caxton Gibbet / Black Car "leg" to be built and favourable comment in the local press at the announcement that it is finally going to be done. Is that it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Has a route (through Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire) been decided?

Strictly speaking, no but a "corridor" has been selected and it may seem to some to be quibbling over words to object to this petty detail. On the other hand, it does not make sense to argue that an SSI or AONB "is going to be destroyed" without credible reason to believe that this will happen (and consequently difficult to avoid the impression that it is a proxy for opposition to the whole scheme, no matter where it goes).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The section is entitled 'Criticism' and contains straightforward links to published articles'. It correctly makes no judgement about the whether the criticism in the articles is justified or not; it is a factual record of published comment.

Prefacing a link with a preposition or conjunction such as 'Despite' or 'Although' makes a subjective judgement on the article – whether the article is wrong or wrong is irrelevant.Tomintoul (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The statements added are neither subjective nor inaccurate, and offer important context in a section that is by its nature bordering on being npov. (where is the equivalent list of supportive statements?)÷

Wikipedia should not be used to pursue political agendas. If a criticism section is to be accommodated at all, then the full context of the criticism should be clear and obvious. The fact that a route has not been selected is highly relevant to any reader wishing to obtain a neutral and accurate understanding of the validity of any critism of 'the route selected'.

Ps. Using misleading edit summaries littered with false claims about subjectivity is not good editing practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8E6E:9400:9D47:4110:2F5B:F107 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous editor: You are in breach of WP:BRD and are edit warring. You were Bold, I Reverted and it now needs to be Discussed. Tomintoul (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. I acted to urgently fix serious npov issues in the text. Bringing articles up to basic quality standards does not come under Brd protocol. A series of noncontextualised links to politically motivated and demonstrably misleading polemics is unencyclopaedic. Without sufficient factual couching, the entire criticism section of the the article is bordering on being an exercise in propaganda, and will have to be removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8E6E:9400:9D47:4110:2F5B:F107 (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In your opinion.

It is not for editors to construct arguments for or against a proposal, but merely to report honestly what wp:notable people or WP:reliable sources say. Balance is restored by finding opposing views that meet these standards. From your edit comments, you already know this. It should not be difficult since all the councils from Wiltshire to Norfolk have been pressing for this for the last 10 years. The current quibbling about the detail is for electoral purposes and has no significance. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Opportunities to alleviate congestion around the Arc’s major economic centres such as Milton Keynes

The article quotes the DoT's RIS2 Strategic Roads Network strategy (11 March 2020),

We are now pausing further development of the scheme while we undertake further work on other potential road projects that could support the Government’s ambition for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, and benefit people who live and work there, including exploring opportunities to alleviate congestion around the Arc’s major economic centres such as Milton Keynes

— Department for Transport, Strategic Roads Network report RIS2.

References

Does anybody know what this is about? Clearly it is not the current A421 from J13 to Kingston, as this is already being dualled. There is not a lot that can be done about Standing Way, it is already dualled but has lots of roundabouts that nobody is going to grade-separate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

In the budget earlier this week, the Chancellor announced extra money for the NHS. He has to get it from somewhere, so my guess is that he's diverted it from the roads, such as the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

NHS spending is instead of the EU membership sub, obvs. /s He just needs to get past the £4.5Bn spent already on exit preparations.

Also, he is proposing massive borrowing: capital projects like this come out of a different cookie jar whereas the NHS comes out of the recurrent pot. I suppose the 40 hospitals might be capital budget but their annual ongoing costs (not much less than the build cost) have to come out of recurrent = taxes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Name changed with no debate

An editor has renamed this article Oxford–Cambridge Expressway when the official title of the now defunct proposal was always Oxford to Cambridge Expressway. Does anyone care? Tomintoul (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As the editor concerned, I cannot defend my action except to say that it was done in good faith. Most transport articles of the style "A to B" have been changed to "A—B" and, without really thinking about it, 'just' did the same for this one in the belief that it had been overlooked. I apologise for this error.

I believe that I will need administrator help to revert it because it needs Oxford to Cambridge Expressway deleting to make way for move. I'd rather not do that unless anyone feels it should be done.

For 'full disclosure', this is not only of historic interest. I should draw editors' attention to the fact that Government has reopened the question of East-West transport infrastructure again – see last para of Oxford–Cambridge_Arc#Future. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I don't see why you shouldn't be able to move it back. Have you tried? What messages does it give? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As I assume you can see, I have reverted the move, which is something that I've never done before. No difficulty whatsoever. I have seen other move reversions but they always seemed to need the target deleting to make way for move and that needed an administrator. But now I'm not so sure. Thank you both for your patience. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The move was correct. Whatever 'the official title of the defunct proposal' was, the expressway went (was intended to go) both ways. ——Serial 22:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I agree but I should have asked questions first and shot after. WP:BRD. Hopefully we can have that discussion now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for recognising the procedural error and reverting the change. I maintain that the official title – Oxford to Cambridge Expressway – take precedence over the Wiki convention. Tomintoul (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia's own style guide exists to resolve such contradictions. MOS:ENBETWEEN applies between compounds (in ths case Oxford and Cambridge) when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between... Here, the relationship is thought of as parallel, symmetric, equal [or] oppositional. Examples given include the Paris–Montpellier route and a New York–Los Angeles flight, etc. Cheers, ——Serial 14:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how it is possible to say that there is an "official title" in the absence of an Act or SI. The style "A to B" was certainly used in the NIC report and adopted by the local press at the 'Oxford end' because that where the opposition is strongest and this style is the most effective to attract Oxfordshire readers. As a comparator, take the style "London to X" (where X is Brighton, Bristol, Birmingham or even Edinburgh) that would have been prevalent 100 years ago: every one of them on Wikipedia follows MOS:ENBETWEEN. So it seems to me that the case needs to be made as to why this article should not comply with the MOS rather than that it should. What makes it so special that it should merit a special exception? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: any thoughts on this? ——Serial 15:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Highways England oversaw the project and always documented it, and referred to it, as 'Oxford to Cambridge Expressway'.Tomintoul (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume that Highways England has its own style guide. So does the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Economist, Harvard – and so does Wikipedia. Why would we want to follow another organisation's style guide without very convincing reason? I'm still not seeing such. "Because they use it" is not a great argument to my mind.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In the case of railways, such as London and Birmingham Railway, there's always an Act of Parliament that incorporates the company and defines its legal name. Railways like this one were always "X and Y Railway", not "X to Y Railway", because traffic was normally bidirectional - passengers travelling to Birmingham would probably wish to return to London at some point (I wrote on a similar matter at Talk:Settle–Carlisle line#Requested move 27 September 2016).

Roads are similarly bidirectional, except for one-way streets which are usually quite short. Are there any relevant Acts of Parliament (or Statutory Instruments) that give a name for this route? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither as yet nor immediately in prospect. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The name has again been changed without consensus.Tomintoul (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks to me that you were the only one objecting, so there was a consensus for the change. In particular, a strong opposing consensus would have been needed for the name not to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good. A number of editors disagreed with your original title. Now leave the bloody thing alone. The MOS is clear; that you don't like it is unfortunate but nothing stronger. ——Serial 17:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

'A number of editors...' ? Two as far as I can see here: you plus JMF. The comment from Redrose was neutral. And there's no need to swear in your reply.Tomintoul (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64 referred you to his comment at the RfC regarding Settle–Carlisle line (where they stated their opposition to the word "to", with arguments that didn't need rewriting here). Finally, the MOS trumps everything unless their is a substantial number (10+ ?) of editors who agree that this is a special case for an exception to made. For this article, neither applies. Occasionally you lose a debate, that's Wikipedia, warts and all. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Dicklyon's Massive-Multi-Move-Request a few years' back effectively established a new paradigm wrt 'to' v. '–'—something specifically referenced by the closer. ——Serial 17:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)