Talk:A59 road

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Merseyside Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal A59 road is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Style

This article is a bit too wordy for me, which is why I've added the {{essay-entry}} template. See A1 and A66 for good examples of how a roads article should be laid out, and not simply a narrative of all its waypoints, which is not useful for an encyclopedia. See wp:mos. — superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 21:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed section

The section indicates that it is in Yorkshire this may be so from Skipton onwards but the part prior to this is in Lancashire. Also the section quotes the West Riding of Yorkshire which is no longer in existance since the 1974 local government reorganisation.

Keith D 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. Lancashire and Yorkshire have never been abolished. In 1974, the government created new administrative areas which change all the time. Gisburn is part of administrative Lancashire, but it is also part of the historic county of Yorkshire, hence the 'welcome to Yorkshire' sign on the road to Gisburn, which was unveiled in 2004! If we're talking about administrative areas, why don't we just say that the road runs through the Region of the North-West, the administrative counties of Sefton, City of Liverpool, etc, the Ceremonial Counties of Merseyside, Lancashire, North Yorkshire, the historic counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire, or now, and likely in the future, we should say that it runs through the Liverpool City Region into the Central Lancashire City Region and into the Leeds City Region. Take your pick! Isn't it better to stick with the names that don't change every 5 years or so?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativename (talk • contribs)

Lancashire?

Liverpool is not in Lancashire. The A59 enters Lancashire north of Robbins Island (SD 384 040). Prior to this it is in Sefton and Liverpool City. ...

Actually Liverpool has been in Lancashire since Liverpool was built on Lancashire soil. The historic county of Lancashire has never been abolished despite local government reforms - it remains the same as it has done for the last 900 years. I think you are getting confused with administrative counties - administrative Lancashire is the area administered by the County Council of that name, which is indeed a much smaller area than the historic county. Ordnance Survey only show administrative areas, which is why you will be hard pressed to even find Merseyside on a map!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Imaginativename (talk • contribs)

... Ordnance Survey also shows A59 starting at the end of the M53, in Wallasey (SJ 300 912)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.134.94 (talk • contribs)

I think this article was written by someone who was working to pre-1974 descriptors of counties, hence the comment above about West Riding of Yorkshire. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

this article wasn't written by someone using pre-1974 descriptors of counties. They just weren't using administrative or ceremonial counties. Sefton and Liverpool City aren't counties either (in Tyne and Wear, Berkshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, South Yorks and West Yorks admin/ceremonal counties, the single tier top level administrative areas aren't counties, even if they function as them, and similar things elsewhere in the country are admin counties (but not ceremonial, except Bristol and Herefordshire). Basically the counties that existed before local government was changed in 1888, 1964, 1974, 1986, 1997, etc still do because the whole thing is a mess. The A59 can be said to go through the following counties (treating the Mersey tunnel as not the A59) - Lancashire and Yorkshire (West Riding, North Riding and York) or Merseyside, Lancashire and North Yorkshire or Merseyside, Lancashire, North Yorkshire and The City of York, depending on which county system you use!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.83.167 (talk • contribs)

This is a very old debate on Wikipedia, however, it is Wikipedia policy (based on consensus and reference material) that we use the current, "administrative" county system when describing places on Wikipedia. There is an overwhelming consensus within the editting community to apply this policy, and not take the minority view (rightfully or wrongfully) that the historic or former administrative counties still exist as the primary geographic frame of reference. Breach of this will likely see IP addresses and accounts blocked indefinately and/or articles protected by an administrator. Jza84 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A59 road/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Requires style change, as per tag
Requires photographs
Copy edit for WP:MOS

Keith D 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A59 road. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul

I have tackled a cleanup of this article over the last week, moving much of the history into a new section and finding some new material. I have moved the junction list to a new section but it still looks excessive and messy so I am not too sure how to arrange that.

@Ritchie333: As someone who has road article experience, can you offer any suggestions how this junction section can be handled? Not sure every road/junction even needs a mention. Also whether there is any advice for alternate sourcing (I have been able to utilise millbank systems and historical maps usefully). Thanks. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: The most important thing is to write for the opponent - if you want to go nuts on opening dates, mileage and history of the tarmac, click here and go to town, but over here we're writing for the layman reader. And in that regard, I think junction lists with just numbers are meaningless, beyond basic motorways and a few well-known routes. People remember names better than numbers, which is why your phone has an address book, why the internet would never have worked without the Domain Name System, and why A406 road and A205 road redirect to North Circular Road and South Circular Road, London respectively.

For the A303, I did something different, and put in trunk / primary roads (including where they went), but also rivers, railways and Stonehenge (how can you not mention the most famous thing on the road?) The article is now a GA and I've had no complaints. So an easy thing to do is mix up things a bit, and maybe include things like the Forest of Bowland, the Settle to Carlisle railway and the Yorkshire Dales. Those are much better reference points to somebody who wouldn't know the A6069 from the A6031.

What I would really like to do is basically re-appropriate the railway strip maps such as Template:Marshlink Line RDT that show the route and junctions in a line. These have a long-established history in Britain, going back to John Ogilby's historic strip maps, though to early AA itinerary books in the late 19th / early 20th century, right up to the present day with things like exit list diagrams on CBRD. Why can't we do something like that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I agree the junction list with numbers is meaningless, though I simply copied this from the infobox as-is until I could figure how best to tackle it. Not sure I could use sabre-roads wiki as a reference though, even though I have tried to determine some info from that prior to then finding a more RS. I like how you laid out the A303 article.. perhaps this article could adopt a similar approach, whilst not mentioning every single junction but rather a focus on the landmarks! Not sure about the strip maps though.. depending on the road (and junction) length, it could get very long and it would perhaps be quite a big job for that to be re-appropriated for highways.. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I ever get round to taking M25 Motorway to GA, I will probably split the junction list (if it's still there) out to List of M25 Motorway junctions. This has already been done with West Coast Main Line diagram. Another point to consider is - does anyone drive the A59 from end to end? If not (and I suspect not), it might make sense to have 2-3 separate tables, one for each portion of the route. Obviously, if you go for landmarks, make sure each one is verifiable to a source. Easy if it's a river or railway that physically crosses the road, for things near it, we'd need a reliable source that has the landmark and road together. Hopefully that's some idea how to progress. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well i've managed to condense it quite significantly by removing minor roads, but perhaps if it grows again I could add region separator rows. I think it already looks alot better going down the approach you suggested. The majority of references throughout are either maps or parliament answers, though I guess they are probably the most reliable sources you can get, when it comes to roads and changes! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

York End

The article describes the A59 as ending at a zebra crossing at the junction of Tadcaster Road and Nunnery Lane. Trouble is, these two roads never meet. The only zebra crossing on Nunnery Lane is at the Bishopthorpe Road end of the street. Tadcaster Road terminates at Knavesmire Road, where (heading into York) it becomes Mount Vale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:AF17:D101:D98F:FDBD:D713:D8BC (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]