Talk:North Circular Road

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radial/Orbital[edit]

Look up the definitions of radial and circumferential. You may not like the latter, but ‘radial’ is simply wrong. Do you think ‘orbital’ is better? Useddenim (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Radial" is what is in the source used. All content in a Wikipedia Good Article must be verifiable to reliable sources. Though CBRD suggests "radial" is used for spokes around a hub. Best not have anything at all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Looking at the reference you linked above, both Page 77 and Page 85 use the word ‘orbital’. None of the three mentions of ‘radial’ refer to the North Circular Road. Useddenim (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realised that, but I felt the prose made sense without using any adjective at all, just saying "Proposals for a route avoiding Central London" works. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

@Amisom: Please do not remove large sections of the lead, that make the article biased and not adhering to WP:NPOV. The article had a closely scrutinised good article review by SilkTork where it was agreed that the article had the right balance. The whole of the "Environment and safety" section is cited to multiple reliable sources including the Parliamentary Hansard, BBC News, the Sunday Times and various local council reports. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: - I read the first sentence of your message and was unaccountably reminded of WP:OWN; I wonder why that was.
Unfortunately, the section I removed is WEASEL because nowhere in the article is there a citation to the suggestion that Henlys Corner is an "urban street" (which it obviously is not) and congested and a contributor to urban decay. Or do you disagree? Amisom (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it's a common insult thrown around by people who don't do any writing on the article but like to pick fights with other editors. (I see this is not your debut at this sort of thing... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very hostilely for someone who is supposed to hold a position of responsibility round here. Amisom (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've just added a source. Would you like me to add another one? Have you ever driven the North Circular from end to end, because it doesn't sound like you had. I've been stuck at the lights with the A1 and wondered when the traffic is ever going to move. And this view of Finchley Road seems to give the impression it's urban and congested, which matches with what I've seen when I've driven in the area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a policy saying that editors can only edit articles about places they have been, please point me to it. If not, then I don't think your point is particularly helpful. Amisom (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also that Google view is (1) not the North Circular, (2) not a valid source and (3) not congested. Otherwise good. I've made a slight adjustment to your lede and hope we can draw a line under this whole sorry affair. Amisom (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The revised 'shorter version' of the lead was poor, especially as it left a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Further refs have been added to the article text to cement the context so I fail to see why this is being perpetuated. Maintaining the integrity of an article does not equate to WP:OWN. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing's being perpetuated. At the time I posted on the talk page there were not sources in the article. Amisom (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK here's how we're going to do it. Sort the lead out within 24 hours - cite all the claims made - or I'll start up an WP:RFC to get some outside input in. See you tomorrow evening. Amisom (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you just said you "hope we can draw a line under this whole sorry affair"? The main driver here is not to give a bland account of where a road goes (as quite rightly criticised here, for example) but put some social and political context into it that make the average reader understand why it's important to have an article on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was until sagacious matey decided to revert again. I'm fine with social and political content so long as it's accurate and cited. At the moment it's neither. Since you two have repeatedly reverted my attempts to fix it and clearly know best, you can have 24 hours to fix it yourselves before I ask others for some opinions via an RfC. Have a good day. Amisom (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything that's inaccurate or unsourced, sorry, and what is there does seem to tie in with my understanding of the place. The reason I mentioned personal experiences of driving the North Circular wasn't because I'm a reliable source (I'm not!) but rather if you want to talk about the veracity and structure of an article, it behooves you to understand the topic and have some appreciation of what is appropriate to present to the reader. 'Tis all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Amisom's rollback rights, and posted a warning on his user page that he is close to being blocked for not being here to build the encyclopaedia due to his disruptive edits. I have banned him for the time being from reverting any editor, and from removing content from Wikipedia articles. After a successful period of adding useful sourced material to the project, the bans will gradually be lifted. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative name[edit]

sometimes called the Angel Road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.218.94 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the area where the original road was Angel Road. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. No such user (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Circular Road → North Circular Road, London – South Circular Road was moved to South Circular Road, London in 2015. Firstly, the naming inconsistency looks ridiculous. Secondly, it appears that North Circular Road is even more ambiguous than South Circular Road. My WP:BOLD move was reverted without appropriate explanation. — Smjg (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The London one does get more views[[1]] (noting some of the stats are for North Circular Road, London when the article was there. If moved North Circular Road (disambiguation) should be moved to the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The London road would appear to be the primary topic. It's also better known than the South Circular Road, so the inconsistency does not look ridiculous unless you don't believe in the Wikipedia practice of having primary topics (which is a discussion for elsewhere). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believing in the practice of having primary topics doesn't equate to believing in the principle being inconsistently applied. What's your evidence that it's better known than the South Circular Road? Furthermore, do you not think the London one is the primary topic for South Circular Road as well? — Smjg (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:ATDAB this is expected and gives Chicken v Turkey (bird) as an example of 1 that requires disambiguation and 1 that doesn't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. There's a lot more similarity between "North Circular Road" and "South Circular Road" than there is between "Chicken" and "Turkey". This is not only in the forms of the expressions, but also in the ranges of meanings covered by the terms. Besides, the PT for "Turkey" is very much a matter of debate. — Smjg (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Highways has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's a road, there is no primary topic. Dublin and Limerick both have a circular road similarly divided into north and south halves, and a 2015 movie has the title North Circular Road. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Not an obvious primary topic over the other roads of the same name. Tevildo (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it was just the film that would be one thing, but there are other roads with the same name. --Rschen7754 18:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: as nominator at the GA stage. --Rschen7754 18:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m neutral on the issue, but cheers for the heads up. The Dublin SCR is on my todo list.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Ritchie333 on this issue (coming out neutral), although I do like consistency, so I will support the move. Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, clear primary topic. "South Circular Road" is a different term and completely irrelevant. —Xezbeth (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that this is a divisive issue. It looks to me like these comments go to show that, even if there is a primary topic, it isn't a clear primary topic, thus supporting the move.... — Smjg (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. John (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The London NCR is overwhelmingly the primary topic for this term, with total page views of around 8,000 over the past 90 days (combining the period when it was moved with the rest of the time when it's been the PTOPIC), with just 543 for Dublin and 116 for Limerick. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't seem like a strong reason to move, and arguably the South Circular Road decision was wrong anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose along the same lines as Amakuru. This year's pageviews show that the London road has more than a ten-to-one advantage over all the other possibilities combined, which is easily in primary-topic territory, and it hasn't been argued that the other entries possess enough long-term significance to outweigh that. Note also that per policy, disambiguation is an area where "Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Circular_Road&oldid=1209419447"