Jump to content

Talk:Dartford Crossing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

East London River Crossing

"East London River Crossing" is diverted here. This is wrong: the "East London River Crossing" is a new proposal that has yet to be built. Can someone correct? 86.17.246.75 01:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Crossing - bridge or tunnel or both

I just came here looking for information about the tunnel, and was redirected to this page. So this article is virtually exclusively about the bridge (and the infobox implies there is only a bridge) - where's the article about the tunnel?! Sorry, I'm being slightly cheeky - this article is far too focussed on the bridge. Halsteadk (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 merge

I have proposed a merge of the small amount of information contained in Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 into this article. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tunnel colour scheme?

I seem to remember that the tunnel colour scheme was explained to me as having a meaning - something like brown for Essex mud, then Thames blue, then green for the fields of Kent. Can anyone confirm/elaborate on this? Matt's talk 14:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It was explained to me many years ago by my mother as being green for the fields of Essex, then brown for the mud of the Thames, then blue or white for the chalk downs of Kent... or something like that! 213.132.48.105 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Charges

(wave to @Dr. Blofeld:) : I put "Charges" near the top because I have a feeling the typical reader who would want information on the Dartford Crossing would, as a possible matter of priority / urgency want to know how much it costs to get over it and what payments are accepted. It's also why the information is in a table. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I did have a feeling that was the reason. I just think for an encyclopedia, covering the history and that first is more important than current tolls. Feel free to move it back if you disagree and think it more beneficial to the reader to be at the top! Remember though that anybody can see the table of contents and simply click "Charges" for quick reference and it does state fee in the infobox. How about moving it up above the traffic section? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I just tried this on the iOS version of the Wikipedia app (my tool of choice for reading articles), you get the lead, then sections collapsed. Maybe it could do with being above "Traffic", but for now I don't think it's the end of the world where it is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back. :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I'm just going through the references at the moment check they all (particularly the ones added before I started work) pass muster. I'd also like to fill out more of a history of the tolls which currently goes 1963 - 1984 - 2008 with nothing in between. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dartford Crossing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I'll take this. It may take a few days for the in-depth comments, but here's a few quick ones:
    • Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988 redirects back here
Thanks for that. Looks fine to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The rationale is a little complicated, but I'll try and explain. The photograph comes from the National Archives, the main archive facility for government works. Though the digital scan was made by TNA staff, the original physical file can be found in a file at the main archives in Kew, and my understanding of the file contents is that they are Crown Copyright on the date specified on the file. The file's contents are described here and the description reads "Special vehicles for use in Dartford tunnel. Includes 9 photographs depicting: Motor vehicle: Dartford/Purfleet Tunnel passenger/cycle carrier: interior/exterior views. Dated 1963." Crown Copyright expires at the end of the year 50 years after publication, which in this case was 1 January 2014. According to this link, the WMF's position on a faithful reproduction of two-dimensional public domain work of art (which this is), is public domain itself. I see the file has since been tagged as "Copy to commons", which suggests somebody else shares this view. What do you mean by "bicycle"? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The caption uses the word "Cycle", not "Bicycle", when technically a cycle can also refer to a unicycle or tricycle. I'm not asking who digitized this image. I'm asking how we know the photographer worked for the government. Who took the photographs? The link to the National Archives website doesn't help, as it goes straight to the image and not to an information page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I was getting confused with the caption on the picture itself, as opposed to the one in the article.
From my experience, the copyright of any documentation held within National Archives files is ultimately held by the public body responsible for producing it (in this case the Ministry of Transport as was). It cannot have been anyone else as it would not have ended up in TNA. If a member of the civil service did not personally take the photograph, it would have been done as a work for hire, assigning ownership and copyright to the public body. Indeed, the TNA file in question asserts "Legal status: Public Record". The link I mentioned above to the National Archives was not to the image, but an information page about the original physical file as stored in the archive facilities. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was unclear which link I was talking about. The link on the image file page is not to an information page (which can confirm the provenance of the image) but rather directly to the image itself. That should be cleaned up, to make confirming the copyright status easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Prose

  • Dartford - Thurrock River Crossing - Why the spaces between the endash and names?
I don't think I understand what you mean, but the presentation here is because I copied and pasted the official name from its title on the Highways Agency's website ([1]) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, should now be fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The crossing's development started in late 1930s, but resumed after World War II. - better to actually say it was halted rather than simply imply it
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • increased traffic put increased pressure - increasingly increasing "increased"-es are increasingly infuriating (i.e. can we avoid repeating the word so close together? A couple of cases with other words in other places too)
I've fixed this one. I wouldn't have written prose like this deliberately, this either came out from copyediting text around and I didn't notice it, or another editor wrote it and I didn't spot it. I'll have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It has been described by the Highways Agency as "a vital transport link for the national and South East economies" and is signed as a major destination on London's orbital route, the M25, though crossing and its approach road are actually on an all-purpose road (the A282), allowing traffic prohibited from motorways to use the crossing. - I'd split this
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that at the Dartford Crossing, the A282 does not have the status of a motorway. - Per Wikipedia:ITSHOULDBENOTED the phrase should not be included.
Agreed. I'm not sure what this footnote is supposed to convey to the reader. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The proposed Thames Gateway Bridge between these two crossings and the Dartford crossing was given planning permission in December 2004, but was later cancelled in November 2008. - what are "these two crossings"?
The Blackwall Tunnel and the Woolwich Ferry, but I agree this is not obvious (particularly to readers who don't live in London) so I've rewritten this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In #Charges, the table is sandwiching the image.
Fixed (also helped by removing sub-sections and rearranging prose per other comments) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is "charges" before the history of the crossing proper? Makes the History subsection more difficult to follow, as we don't know when "the first tunnel opened", for instance. Also, I'd work this history subsection into the main history subsection.
The idea behind this is that I thought that one of the most important pieces of information a reader would want to know is how much it costs to use the crossing. This article is the first result in a Google search for "Dartford Crossing", so I think it's important to state this information as early as is practical. I've changed "the first tunnel" to something simpler as it's irrelevant in this instance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • For someone looking up pricing (i.e. planning to use the crossing), sure. But for an encyclopedia (introducing the subject from a detached and historical perspective) I don't think the charges are first and foremost. The narrative would be tighter with the charges after history, as we don't have to scramble to find (say) when a bridge opened in order to understand the sentences in #Charges. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've rearranged this. I've left "Charges" where it is as I still think it's important information, but cut the section down so it only states what the current state of affairs is. Nobody who wants to look up the pricing as a priority cares what it was in 2008 or 2012, they only care what it is now. I've moved information about the DART-Tag to the front of the section (and cut it down), as prose later on doesn't make sense. I've also removed the DART-Tag image (which was a problem noted earlier in itself) as the reduced prose causes sandwiching problems, so it was an obvious choice to remove. Have a look now and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we need subsections with only one paragraph (residents scheme, for instance)
On reflection, I don't think so. I'm still a little unsure about how the narrative now works having removed them, as it jumps from a description of what's happening now, then back to first opening. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, historical information is now in the relevant place in "History" (trying to keep it all in chronological order). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • accept change, while the remainder only accept exact change in coins or a DART-Tag - I have the feeling your first "accept" is not the word you are looking for
Fixed (in conjunction with general changes per above) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What is VAT?
Don't know. Ask Ken Dodd. (On a more serious note, acronym properly defined). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If a driver cannot pay the toll in cash or a DART-Tag, they are issued a debt ticket. UK car drivers must produce identification and pay the debt within seven days, while commercial and foreign drivers are refused entry and must turn back. In 2014, it was reported the amount of unpaid tolls had tripled between 2010 and 2013. - This is definitely not supposed to be part of #History
As mentioned above, I've collapsed down the section and moved this into a more relevant place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • People who use this pre-paid system save money per trip. - redundant to the fact that they are charged less.
Agreed. There's a bit of redundancy in this section actually, so I've copyedited it down further. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've swept through the rest of the article and tidied up a bit of prose, so hopefully there should be less to report. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • History section: any pre-tunnel crossings, like ferries and/or rafts, in the Dartford area? Or just the one near Gravesend?
I don't have any sources that say so, and I'd be surprised, as historically Gravesend - Tilbury had been the main ferry route in the area since at least 17th century, and back then, having a town either side of a major crossing was desireable. A quick look at an 1864 map online suggests that the whole area around what's now the crossing was uninhabited marshland. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • the tunnel's design to be improved, which included an improved - this improving clause can be improved
A better idea I feel is if you see an improved, it may be better to write "better" as a better alternative, although better than "better" can be to remove the "better" to better reduce the word count, making the article better. (Fixed) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The first tunnel, a two-lane bore tunnel, - I'd like to tunnel under one of those tunnels
I can't find this, did somebody else fix it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The bridge was opened by Queen Elizabeth II on 30 October 1991[1]: xiii  at a total cost of £120 million (£244 million as of 2014),[2] and the approach roads cost £30m. - I doubt the opening itself cost that many pounds. Construction did.
Fixed Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if even someone in the wilderness of Boise, Idaho doesn't know what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is, but just in case - done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not from Boise, but how about those people on Wikipedia Zero? We'd be their main access to information (although how such readers would reach this article...) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • MP - Link to Minister of Parliament?
Fixed and linked. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • scrapped, - I don't think this is a formal term for "discontinued"
This is a search through the hansard of debates in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom containing the word "scrapped", but I see your point that only British readers may find it acceptable, so changed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The traffic levels at the crossing have decreased overall in the past decade. - Use a specific time, rather than something relative
I've re-ordered the sentence, so it's easier to specify in absolute terms, though one claim is still "since 2004" which may not always be correct in the future. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A total of 1,486,929,267 vehicles have used the crossing since opening as of 31 March 2014. - Since opening as of 31 March 2014... what?
The Highways Agency consulted their statistics on 31 March 2014 and concluded that since records began in November 1963, a total of 1,486,929,267 vehicles have used the crossing. If I take out "since opening" from the prose it becomes clearer. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, or "between the tunnel's opening in 1963 and 31 March 2014"
  • The total income for the financial year up to 31 March 2012 was £72,147,091, while the same figure up to 2013 was £80,331,662. - Rather disparate, giving the number of crossings for 2014 but two-year old data for income.
I don't have a source for the figures to 31 March 2014. Perhaps they have not yet been formally published? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The tunnels are classified as ADR class C. - Meaning...?
It's French - according to ADR (treaty) it stands for Accord européen relatif au transport international des marchandises Dangereuses par Route. Normally I think defining acronyms before use is essential, but I'm not sure that's necessarily the case here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've got no idea - the source just says "the Dartford tunnel is a C" with no further explanation. I've removed the sentence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Now done - though a full explanation of everything that Class C entails seems to run to a UN report several hundred pages long, so I have just given a few examples! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Officers may stop and direct traffic and, so far as is necessary for the performance of any of their duties, on the approach roads, - I think you're missing a verb
This looks like verbal diarrhoea - rewritten. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and as long as people keep reading the Daily Mail it will never change, though the Highways Agency and other traffic authorities all work in metric. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • claimed - Per WP:CLAIM, we shouldn't use this term
Change to "said" - it's a direct quotation. The idea here was just because the spokesman said journeys would be more reliable, doesn't mean they would. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I think Nigel Farage would be upset by one of those comments! Changed. There is nothing at all unusual about seeing Czech, Polish and Romanian lorries using the crossing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Some funny comments in here like "What is VAT?" and "you use mph" which look rather amusing to us Brits but probably baffling to anybody else including Crisco!! We certainly have a unique identity!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and that's one of the good things about a GA review is that things that are obvious to one person can be spotted and fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

And could Ehrenkater (talk · contribs) pop in and say hello? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there :) ----Ehrenkater (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks for your fixes, including the blatant howler of having the times for free overnight crossing the wrong way round! I was just a little unsure about putting speed limits in metric, because they are legal instruments (technically you can go a little faster than 80km/h and still be under the speed limit) and so the best we can do is a guide. I've parked them as a set of footnotes for the time being. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ehrenkater: Your changes are getting controversial. Calling somebody's else's edit "nonsense" is unhelpful. Per WP:BRD, you need to explain changes on talk. It would be sad to get this far and have to fail the GA review per the "stability" criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been through the article again and am happy with the prose.

Regarding the speed limit, I don't feel strongly about this but would prefer that the metric equivalent was shown in the text as per usual, not in a footnote. I agree that you can legally travel at 80.4672 kilometres per hour, but in any case speedometers are not that accurate and the police allow a few mph leeway.

Regarding the article about the need for an additional crossing, the authorities claim that removing the toll booths will speed will reduce congestion, not increase it, so it is not appropriate to say that an additional crossing will be needed when the toll booths are removed.

I would just like to add that the article will need to be changed in October when the toll booths are removed, and it would be useful to flag this somehow.----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Alright, so it seems to me that the only remaining issues are fairly minor, and can be taken up after passing the GA review. Congrats to everyone who has worked on this! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Container for stray reflist

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference tma was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ UK Retail Price Index inflation figures are based on data from Clark, Gregory (2017). "The Annual RPI and Average Earnings for Britain, 1209 to Present (New Series)". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved May 7, 2024.

Construction of first tunnel

An early civil engineer experiments with cut-and-cover tunnels through rivers

I'm not an engineer and I find the description of the building of the first tunnel very confusing. 1. '... pilot tunnel in 1936, created by driving compressed air through the ground' - this is meaningless. Maybe the air pressure in the workings was increased to reduce water seepage? Was the tunnel built using a shield? 2. '[work] ... resumed in 1959, using a Greathead Shield' - as one would expect for a deep underwater tunnel. 3. 'The tunnel was built using a cut and cover method with sheet piling, with a secure strutting system, built with the trenchwork in the tunnel rings.' I can't believe that the underwater section was built using cut-and-cover, which in any case contradicts the previous sentence. Maybe the approach tunnels were built thus. The last part of the sentence makes no sense to me. Could someone please straighten this out? I've looked at a few websites but none had details of the construction. PhilUK (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@PhilUK: The pilot tunnel is cited to Jardine & McCallum 2013 p 248 which says "Following a compressed air pilot tunnel (1936-38)". The cut and cover claim for the tunnel is cited to Puller 2003 p 104, but if you look at that page you'll see it's talking about underground telephone exchanges in London. Since common sense says you can't create a cut-and-cover tunnel under a river - how are you going to remove the water while doing it - I've removed that sentence. I bought this up with Dr. Blofeld and Demiurge1000 the other day since the same paragraph says the tunnel was bored a few sentences later, and it can't be both, but the issue seems not to have been resolved in the article. By the way, sometimes a quicker way to get these issues resolved if they're linked off the main page is to report them at WP:ERRORS. Hope that's of use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thanks, that looks a lot better. Jardine & McCallum's book doesn't say whether a shield was used for the pilot tunnel; the fact that they specify a Greathead shield for the 1959-61 bore implies not. However, we need more sources ...
I'm not an expert on Wikipedia and will look at WP:ERRORS. PhilUK (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
The best place to start is with a simple Google Books search. Broadly speaking, books are held in high regard compared to websites for source material, as they require a greater effort to write and there is the author and publisher's reputation at stake. Journals such as New Civil Engineer might have the information. One of the regulars can explain how to cite book material in an article, which is slightly tricky at first but gets easier with practice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

"They are" V "he is"

bossrat believes "If a driver cannot pay the toll in cash or a DART-Tag, he is issued a debt ticket." sounds better,
I disagree and think "If a driver cannot pay the toll in cash or a DART-Tag, they are issued a debt ticket. sounds better and makes more sense,

Since we both don't agree with each other I've started a discussion in the hope others will give there input
Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Per this mild edit war between Bossrat (talk · contribs) and Davey2010 (talk · contribs), as the one who got the article up to GA status, I will put my opinion in. The grammar for "If a driver" (third person singular) ... "he is issued" (still third person singular) is correct. There is a problem that the driver may not be male, but that's an unfortunate fact of English. If we had something like the French on, we would have less problems (mind you, they have ils, which can mean all-male or mixed-gender).

Discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely brilliant with grammar sadly, Ah, well I reverted exactly on the male bit but If it is correct then I have no issues with it staying, Thanks for your input, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we both started a new section at the same time. Anyway, I think bossrat's version is correct per this English grammar course which states for generic pronouns (which this is as we don't know the gender of whatever driver) "Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals." The easiest way out of this, however, is to rewrite the sentence so this ambiguity is not required - have a look now. (And see Talk:Genesis P-Orridge for far worse). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for help, & thanks for resolving/rewriting :), Have a nice day, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
In scientific tests[citation needed], the presence of a cute kitten can alleviate the stressful effects of editing

Davey2010 (talk · contribs)I do not know how to use the talk section and so have merely edited the replies that I saw when I checked my log in. I was astonished to find support for my change; if you read my page, you'll see the arguments that I have had with some of the fascists (I think that's okay, it's Nazi that they get cross about) on Wikipedia. I have two strong suits: languages and driving/motorcycling and I cannot think of two subjects more likely to yank people's tails than those. I am not an expert and I make mistakes. I am not beyond learning, but wherever I see the third person singular used with a plural pronoun, I change it. I cannot help myself, even though I know that the battle is lost, well and truly lost. I know that language evolves and I know that people said 'themselves' or even 'themself' in the middle ages and that "if it was good enough for Shakespeare and Austen, it should be good enough for you." I have heard it all. I fight, because I believe that the convention stems from an extension of the evil force that is 'feminism.' So strong is it that some writers have taken to using using 'she' - 'you know, to balance things up.' It's a little like those who argue that the slavery debt will never be repaid. The apologist creed has emasculated men and the world is on the way to destruction. I am sure that I am considered a fascist, but I think that my principle is stronger than the liberal attitude of my critics. At least I believe in something, something which has the support of grammar books.

That you said that you thought 'they are' 'sounded better' indicates, if you'll forgive me, that you are likely to be considerably younger than I. I corrected the entry, because it was grammatically incorrect (ignoring the P.C. arguments that I have mentioned) not because it sounded better. A lack of grammatical education has given rise to a lack of grammatical education and you cannot be blamed. The question is, how will this engagement affect your future action? Bossrat (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You've used the talk page section as designed by the presence of your comment above, though don't forget to sign your posts by ending your comment with four tildas. (~) We use talk pages to avoid edit warring, where editors override each other's contributions. This is important, because persistently over-riding anyone runs the risk of earning a short block, regardless of who is actually right (if anyone). Then on the talk page, talk about the content, not the other editor(s). Don't even bring up the word fascist (unless it's actually something to do with facism per se, obviously), and this week is a really bad time to bring up feminism (as per the Jimboboard). As it is, we reached a compromise that avoided the grammatical problem and got rid of a comma in the process, so I think the matter is closed. Now, everyone look at this kitten. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
they are is always correct in BrEng when talking about uncountable entities. Nanonic (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I should've used the talkpage instead of reverting so I apologize for reverting you, To be fair It wasn't a case of "sounded better" - It was more a "gender" thing...,,
I've never had to revert any grammatical additions so it's never been a problem and since this is the first grammar issue I've had in the 2/3 years I've been here I'd say It's very unlikely to reoccur, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Dartford peer review

The Dartford article has recently had an overhaul, and as follow-up has been nominated for peer review. Since editors to this article are likely to know something about Dartford as well, any edits you can make to the Dartford article or comments on the the peer review itself would be very useful. Thanks in advance! Jdcooper 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


I have had a play around with it. There is lots that I can add - when I have time!

"The Channel Tunnel Rail Link passes under the bridge,(between the bridge supports) on the Essex side. It passes over the exit ramps of both tunnels. The actual trains are obscured by large screens." Pretty sure these screens are there so that the drivers are not distracted by the speeding trains coming over the bridge as they exit the tunnels. Anyone can confirm this?

Need to research about how radio stations work down in the tunnel. Something about leaky feader if i remember correctly. (should anyone want to listen to radio down there... --Screen42 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the screens, those are throughout the CTRL, and they are to stop tresspassing, and vandals. JoshBosh 01:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but they are in a position that no one would be traspassing at that height! Still think it is to prevent distraction--Screen42 13:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I confirm that I (and probably others) suggested the screens to avoid distraction of motorists, to the Union Rail consultation before the CTRL was built.92.20.153.189 (talk) 09:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The official name according to [2] seems to be "The Dartford - Thurrock River Crossing" perhaps the name for this article should reflect that. There is already a redirect in place to the page from Dartford Tunnel so one could be added for Dartford Crossing Allan Edwards 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vertical clearing of the bridge?

The article should mention the vertical clearing of the bridge.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Hatfield Tunnel

The article incorrectly implies that the Hatfield Tunnel is on the M25; it is actually on the A1(M) motorway. I would suggest 'a motorway tunnel at Hatfield' rather than 'one of the motorway's tunnels at Hatfield'. 94.197.121.91 (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone with "the nearby Hatfield Tunnel", which is more or less what the HA source says. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Project banners and ACR

Both the UKRD and HWY banners use the same coding to display the ACR notice, and neither of them can notify either project in any way. The only "notice" would be the line in the banner on this talk page,and nothing more. ACR isn't suppported in the Article Alerts system either. Since this article is on a British topic exclusively, it falls outside of the HWY scope.

As a side note, if UKRD is so inactive, perhaps it might be germane to float the idea of merging it into the European task force of HWY in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 10:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That was kind of the whole point of boldly changing some of the main pages to strip a dead project out, but they were reverted. Did you have a specific comment on the content here? Also, do you normally use use acronyms before you define them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Protection

I am disturbed to find (and I hope the presence of Donald Trump in the universe allows me to feel this emotion at this time) that right in the middle of having a dispute with Ritchie33 over the layout of this page and whether it contains details like a tariff table, it has now been locked by Ritchie333 and I cannot edit it for the next four days - not even to correct minor issues like spelling (although I'm sure, since it's been thoroughly reviewed, it all checks out......). This cannot be right - at the very least, I'd expect such decisions to be made by people who are impartial. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quite obviously very disturbed. If this is your reaction when a few of your edits have been reverted, I'm afraid your time at Wikipedia is likely to be a huge frustration for you and a massive unproductive time-sink for other editors. You've been editing only since 21:20 last night? I'm really not sure that the past 26 hours have been a good investment. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not. Hopefully going forward I will find people who are not like you, people who actually bother to read my statements and respond with a constructive attitude. What you do with your time is no concern of mine, but if you feel like being my mother is a role that brings you some benefit, go right ahead, it's a free country. Clarion Collar (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't "feel like being your mother", thanks. Could you just clarify for us all whether your first edit at Wikipedia was at 21:20 on 13 October? You seem somehow to have a lot more experience of Wikipedia processes. And you seem to have very rapidly built up a much larger "head of steam" over this article than one would normally expect from a novice or even from a passing experienced editor. But it seems you've now decided against seeking dispute resolution? That's quite a huge wall of text you've laid down over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I take it form these repeated attempts to profile me, it's somehow "normal" here for people not to be all that bothered about basic issues of quality, and if they are, they only deal with them using one or two sentences, even if the problems are wide ranging and extensive. And if they get no response or an unsatisfactory one, they just shut up and walk away? And that novices are usually too scared or intimidated to react when faced with someone like Ritchie, jealously protecting his work, based on the slimmest of reasoning (that nobody has identified these issues before, so they must not exist, or that Wikipedia is here to present readers with pricing information first and foremost). That is normal for Wikipedia? I'm not disagreeing with you, it would explain a lot after all - there must be some fault in the system if articles like this can be so easily rated "Good". It's bang average is what it is. Yes, there are worse here, but that's not saying much. Maybe people here really don't like it when people build up a "head of steam" over the dogged protectionism surrounding bang average stuff, but again, that would explain a lot about the general level of quality here, if true. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Could you just answer my question? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I have never heard of Ritchie before, and this is not some kind of blood feud. Happy now? Or is it really so amazing to you that he can piss people off this easily? How much is it to join this fan club you seem to be the spokesperson of? Can anyone join, or do you have to pass some kind of loyalty test first? Clarion Collar (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you not see my question? It's this: "was that your first edit at Wikipedia, at 21:20 on 13 October?" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That was the one I believe I was answering. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
But you didn't answer it, did you? I was expecting "yes" or "no". I realise that's quite a short answer for you. But you have a choice there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I choose life. Yes, obviously. It is obvious. It was obvious. You have a choice to stop being so obtuse, please take it. Clarion Collar (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering at the forth time of asking. How do you feel your first two days of Wikipedia editing have gone? Please don't confuse my continued scepticism for obtuseness. I remain wholly unconvinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute

"When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here."

I am disappointed to find that a large amount of work I put into this article yesterday (taking it from this state [3] to this one [4]) has been summarily reversed, save a small part, the removal of duplicate info on speed limits, which if it weren't for that I would have believed that no thought had gone into this act at all. I have been asked to use the talk page by the person who did it, Ritchie333, so here I am.

The issues with this article that I attempted to fix are below, listed in separate sections so that they can be discussed separately.

I hope this process does not take too long, because I actually came back here today continue my work, not explain previous work that I believed was self-explanatory (but which I explained in some detail should anyone not understand it), as there are numerous other issues with this article that are outstanding. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that I can put months, if not years, of work into an article and bystanders can just edit about with it on a whim and then complain when challenged. The article can't have that many problems as it is a good article and undergoing an A-Class review, and certainly nobody else has identified any significant problems with it. As you can see from this table, I have done the majority of work, gathering together a consensus of thoughts on opinions and worked closely with people to try and get a balance. There are far worse articles out there, pick anything tagged with requiring more references for verification or disputed neutrality. Sorry, but you can't walk in off the street and make major changes to an article that has had established consensus for some years now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you saw sense and toned down your original response. That was wise - although you're still making arrogant presumptions which don't persuade me to work with you at all, such as this idea I made my changes on a whim. Just because I didn't seek advance permission from you to change what you clearly see as your property, doesn't mean they weren't thought out. And it's not like you couldn't tell that either - my very first edit made it clear these were reasoned changes based on a review Wikipedia's other articles. Your disappointment means frankly nothing to me, not now I know how little mine means to you. I can't account for why other people simply went along with these numerous issues, but the most likely explanation based on your conduct seems to me that they decided it wasn't worth the effort to oppose you when it concerns your work - I note that others have made the same objections I have, such as the issue of why Charges is before History. I can see right now in the history, examples of you fighting with other people trying to make improvements, deploying this same excuse you are attempting here. I think all you're trying to do is preserve as much of what you have authored as you can, as opposed to working constructively with others to find an actual balance. If you seek to prevent me from making changes to Wikipedia on the sole basis I just walked in from the street, I suggest you think very hard if that is the right attitude to have, or whether you have even understood what Wikipedia is (and on the basis of you thinking charging information is the most important thing on this article for readers, it's clear that's a potential blindspot for you). I'm happy to have my objections dismissed if they are given proper consideration by people who show a willingness to address them, but if you think for a second that I will just walk away because you tell me to, or try to claim others agree with your work when that appears to be a distortion of the truth at best, then think again. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

History section should come first

The reason for this edit [5] was pretty obvious, so I'm surprised it even needs to be discussed. It should be clear to even the casual reader that the standard layout of Wikipedia articles is to have the History section, if one exists, at the beginning. A quick look at similar related articles, such as Blackwall Tunnel, Severn Bridge and Humber Bridge, confirms this. And even when there is no actual History section, such as in Forth Bridge, it' clear from the layout employed there, that a narrative telling of the history is intended as far as section positioning is concerned. That is not the case here, where History is just seemingly dumped in the middle, with non-History information before and after it, for no apparent reason (as expanded on below). Clarion Collar (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I've found from usability testing articles that you should organise an article so that people can find the information you're looking for. As the first of the five pillars states, "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". My other half and my friends read some articles on here and think "jeez, this is an awful lot of technical mumbo jumbo, who writes this rubbish?" So we put information that is useful for casual readers first, then put the in-depth stuff at the bottom. See A303 road, where basic details are put at the top and more in-depth stuff done later. As for Blackwall Tunnel, I should probably re-arrange that when I've got a minute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but why am I supposed to care what you and your other half are doing to Wikipedia articles, or what testing you claim to have done? And if you're going around shifting History sections away from the top, then quite clearly you have a hell of a lot of work on your hands. There is simply no interpretation of "encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" that makes Wikipedia a travel guide. I am not going to accept that this article should be arranged so that charging information is the first thing people can find unless or until you can come up with some specific support for this frankly nonsense idea, which quite clearly goes against standard practice as implemented by presumably thousands more people than just you and your other half. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of a tariff table is completely inappropriate

The reason for this edit [6] was also pretty self explanatory. I find it horrific that this so called encyclopedia is including a specific pricing table. I see from above that the reason for this (and for including it before History), is apparently because "one of the most important pieces of information a reader would want to know is how much it costs to use the crossing.". Seriously? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide or part of the UK government's communications estate. The only place people wanting information like how much it currently costs to use it should be going is the official site. The only encyclopedic element to this information is that different charges exist for different classes of vehicle, including free classes, plus the fact there are residents schemes, hence why I specifically left that in. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"I find it horrific" - I find it horrific that Donald Trump's getting away with groping women, this is just an encyclopedia article. "The only place people wanting information like how much it currently costs to use it should be going is the official site". How do you know - where is your source of information? Again, see WP:5P. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
How do I know that people looking for how much the Dartford Crossing costs should not be looking for it in Wikipedia? Are you actually asking because you can't figure it out and have somehow missed my explanation, or are you just playing dumb? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" (first entry in 5P), that's how I know. There is nothing more complicated about it than that, than the obvious fact I cannot find out from Wikipedia how much my local cinema costs, or what the current price of petrol is at my local petrol station, or how much it costs to get a train from London to Edinburgh (if I am put off by the congestion of the crossing and don't want to drive). "Wikipedia is not a travel guide." "Wikipedia is not a FAQ". "Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue". It's as clear as day. What possible support can you find for thinking otherwise, other than your own personal opinions and desires and dubious use case "testing"? Clarion Collar (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It contains numerous examples of redundant text

As well as the speed limit change, the reason for edits like this [7] were to reduce the sheer amount of duplication in this article, and put related facts together. I cannot think of a single good reason why a reader would not want to know that this is the easternmost crossing of the Thames as the very first piece of info in a section purporting to be about its location, and if the intention is to inform readers that it is the only crossing east of Greater London, I see no reason why they have to deduce that from two different sentences in two different sections ( "It is about 20 miles (32 km) east of the centre of London, outside the Greater London boundary" and "The crossing is the easternmost road crossing of the River Thames, and the only one that is east of Greater London"). These two sentences are so obviously related I cannot fathom why anyone would think it sensible to reverse my change, which unified them and refocused the remains of the latter onto the thing it was actually talking about - alternate routes. Other examples of this sort of disjointed and redundant placement seem to be everywhere, and formed a large part of what I was going to fix today - diversions due to high winds seems to be mentioned in three different places for example, and info on charges is duplicated in History and Charges and elsewhere, as if nobody had even put any thought into what differentiates historical info (e.g. the toll booths were removed on this date) from descriptive info (e.g. the charging system works by npr). Clarion Collar (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The general arrangement is all over the place

The rest of my edits [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] were aimed at fixing the most obvious problem to any reader that comes here and reads the whole article - it's frankly all over the place, and the sections barely make any sense, both in their naming, ordering, and what is actually in them. The general impression I got when first arriving here, was that either the article has never had a proper review looking at the whole thing (which I am now being told is not the case), or that someone was intending to artificially increase the word count by pointlessly ensuring the sort of duplication I described above exists across sections. The specific issues I sought to fix are enumerated below, in no particular order ironically (but there are more on this theme too).....

1. Information on Alternate routes is placed miles away from info on Congestion, despite it being highly related information.

2. Information on proposed relief crossing doesn't have its own section, even though it's obviously of standalone importance. Instead, it's just dumped inside "Alternative routes", which is highly illogical as a route that does not exist yet is hardly an alternate route in the sense of the phrase established in the prior paragraph (i.e. diversionary routes). And again, there's no logical reason to have that information placed miles away from the info on congestion)

3. Information on the design capacity and its current usage is placed in an entirely different section to the line "Because the design capacity has been exceeded"....clearly no thought went into that, because who in their right mind would be looking for the line "The design capacity is 135,000 vehicles per day, but in practice the crossing carries around 160,000" in the section titled "Location"? It makes no sense whatsoever.

4. There is information about the crossing's strategic importance placed in "Location" too. This makes no sense, and for want of a better existing section, I would have thought it obvious that such informatoin deserves its own section.

5. There is no overall Operation section, even though the over-arching theme of a lot of the non-History sections is operation of the crossing - permissible traffic, safety, diversion arrangements, charging system, etc. It is pretty silly for there to be no recognition of this basic fact in the overall design of the article layout and section organisation, but this appears to be a side effect of Ritchie333 being determined to make this article be primarily of use to people wanting to use the crossing, rather than it being an encylopedia article. On that score, there is arguably too much operations type information here - just as Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, it's not a traffic management educational resource either, but I recognise that it is likely going to be impossible to stop people trying to add banal observational stuff like this just because they can, so it might as well be here in as concise and logical form as possible. Clarion Collar (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, too long, didn't read - see if somebody else agrees with your changes and work out a consensus. In the mean time, chill out, stop taking things personally and come back when you've calmed down a bit. If you feel particularly aggrieved, you have the option of taking matters to the dispute resolution noticeboard Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to read the short version then: The article has no logical layout and clearly related information is scattered around across the page (for examples, see long version). While I'm sure you will ignore this short version too, I'm just making a point to others that you have absolutely no intention of answering any of these objections in any kind of serious manner, and this is all just part of the game you're trying to play, the goal of which seems to be to get me to go away with the least amount of effort. My emotions are none of your concern - it would serve you better to reflect on whether the things you have written so far are coming from ego and anger, or if they are the product of calm and considered reflection. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have filed https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Dartford_Crossing.23Content_dispute Clarion Collar (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

General comment

  • I disagree with Clarion Collar's assertions under the various headings created above and below. The article was given a thorough GA review by a very experienced editor and it is presently being reviewed by members of the Highways WikiProject who are familiar with, and experienced in, this type of article. I see Ritchie333 actually invited Clarion Collar to comment there to no avail. The question about it being officially the A282 has been dealt with previously – it is commonly known as part of the M25. Further, I think the article was protected, not because of Clarion Collar's edits, but due to a suspected IP hopping block evader who seems to have targeted several other articles Ritchie333 has worked extensively on and has now appeared on this article too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC) As I was unsure where the most appropriate place to respond to all the TLDR text above and below, I have just added this comment to the bottom of this section.
  • It's not exactly convincing when someone simply says "I disagree" in response to a very detailed list of specific complaints. Just like it's not every convincing when someone says an issue was previously dealt with, but can't be bothered to say where so others might fact check that dubious sounding claim. I don't know why you're claiming Ritchie invited me to that page, as he certainly didn't say anything about it to me - now I know, I shall go and give my thoughts there presently. It does indeed appear that Crisco 1492 is very experienced - as I said above, he spotted the problem with the placement of the History section and the prominence of "Charging", but Ritchie just blew him off the way he has done here with his nonsensical claim that offering up pricing information is the most important part of this article for readers. You have declined to say anything specific, so I guess blowing me off is your intention as well. If we want to know for certain why Crisco didn't respond, or didn't spot these other issues, then I guess we have no choice but to invite him here. Clarion Collar (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sagaciousphil. I was one of those reviewers and I did not think it was misleading or unclear that the bridge itself was A282 but generally considered to be part of the M25. –Fredddie™ 15:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure an American would be in the best position to judge this specific point. As a Brit, I don't feel remotely qualified to say how much importance is put on Interstate or other road designations in America. If you believe it's not unclear, can you explain why people seem to be trying to correct/clarify it? Do you seriously not see the inherent potential for confusion in a sentence like "The crossing, despite not being under motorway restrictions, is part of the M25 motorway's route". That doesn't raise any questions for you? What if we swapped Interstate for Motorway in that sentence, would that still not raise any issues for you? I cannot explain why Ritchie or this other person think it's not an issue for an encyclopedia to be so loose with basic facts, but maybe you're more willing to take me through the thought process here? Clarion Collar (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • My nationality has nothing to do with anything, so shame on you for making it an issue. I reviewed the article at ACR and did not think the article was misleading. At all. –Fredddie™ 21:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't believe you in the slightest on this specific, narrow, issue, but I can hardly prove it. Some answers to the questions, or some indication that you had some idea of why other people, seemingly British people, are continuously attempting to clarify it, might have convinced me you know enough to be making a judgement, but I won't push it. It seems to me that the way things work around here is that if you say something with enough conviction, people are obliged to accept is as the truth. Even if there is objective evidence to the contrary (for clarity, that evidence being that there is ongoing confusion, not that you are an American). Clarion Collar (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You really shouldn't blame people for being Americans, you know. Especially when they have Orange Hitler to deal with. But yes, you seem to be equating conviction with truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
How's that? An actual example would be convincing. Otherwise, ironically, this is just another example of what I was talking about. As for blaming him for being American, I'm guessing he had no choice in the matter, so that would seem harsh. I can only repeat my point that I would not feel remotely qualified to comment if the situation were reversed and this was an article about an American crossing with US classifications. If he feels differently, some indication of why would be helpful, that's all I'm saying. Otherwise it is simply just another statement of conviction. Clarion Collar (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps you and Freddie differ more than just on nationality? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarification it is actually the A282, not the M25, in the introduction

One of the disputes Ritchie seems to be having with other users as he attempts to maintain the article in his preferred state, is something I was going to address later, so I might as well add it here as part of the dispute resolution above. The article already quite correctly details that, in simple road classification terms, the crossing and its approaches are actually the A282, not the M25, and the reason for this is to allow non-motorway traffic to use it. While not exactly common knowledge, you'd be hard pressed to claim this was not a well known fact in Britain. Not quite pub quiz trivia, but not quite road nerd trivia either.

To any reasonable person, for the purposes of an encyclopedia, which strives to be accurate of course, it follows that the crossing itself is not a motorway, and that any time someone refers to it as being "part of the M25", they are obviously not intending to convey that it is actually a section of the M25, but merely that it exists to complete the circle formed by it.

Explanations like this [14] however, and that oddly worded footnote B which he added [15] in August, give me reason to believe he doesn't accept the above as a basic fact, and is somehow trying to use the existence of phrases like "part of the M25" in sources to convey to the reader that these phrases are literally true (even though it doesn't make sense because the article makes it explicit it is an A-road in "Location" and implicit in the introduction).

As plenty of people seem to have tried, to no great success, I think it is more than appropriate to find some form of wording which briefly, very briefly, clarifies that the crossing and its approaches is not a section of motorway but an A-road in the introduction (and that it has a number, the A282). It cannot be enough to simply say in the introduction that "The crossing, despite not being under motorway restrictions, is part of the M25 motorway's route" in the introduction, not least because that immediately puts into the mind of observant readers the very obvious question - how can a road that is not under motorway restrictions, still be a motorway? Clearly, this is why people have been trying, and failing, to clarify it.

It should be noted that, in common with my above complaints, the actual clarification, as confusing as it is with that footnote beside it, is tucked away in the middle of the "Location" section, so casual readers are not likely to notice it, even if that's what they're looking for confirmation of. It's hard to believe this arrangement has been the considered conclusion of multiple reviewers, but Ritchie claims it has. Some actual proof of that might not go amiss, even if it is a link to an explicit comment in a prior review (I can't see it in the one above), instead of just shutting down the article to stop the dispute, as appears to have happened (it's certainly stopped me getting involved, even though I suspect without his explicit prior approval, Ritchie would have removed my efforts as quickly as he did before). Clarion Collar (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You're creating vast walls of text here, the main purpose of which seem to be to attack User:Ritchie333. My guess is that you must have a massive grudge against him for some reason and that you've created a new account to grind him into the dirt. The speed with which you've posted a dispute suggests you are well-versed in the wikpedia processes. Sorry to "comment on editor and not content", but it just all seems a bit too obvious. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's a poor guess then. I've exclusively referred to Ritchie so far because it is he who ignorantly reversed all my work, then told me to come here, only to blow me off with his nonsense views about what this article is for and a generally dismissive and arrogant attitude. If you find something suspicious in that sequence of events, or think that I progressed this dispute with the "speed" I have, or you think that out of the two of us, it is me who is doing the grinding into the dirt, well, I guess there's nothing anyone could tell you about what is and is not obvious in this world. Most people will presumably have no problem figuring out that Ritchie came into this dispute with the attitude that I am a piece of dirt on his shoe, to be wiped off on a mat. You did see the original version of his response to me? Or are you and he just friends, and this is come kind of reflexive defence of a mate of yours? Clarion Collar (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I have a lot of respect for User:Ritchie333's general editing ability. I'm not so familiar with yours. But I have much less respect for your general approach. Your constant hyperbole is not really compatible with collaborative effort. I think you should try and concentrate calmly on content issues and put aside all of this vitriolic snark. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You would be more familiar with my editing abilities if you bothered to review my changes and the reasons for them, which you would have done if your purpose here was to actually discuss the content issue rather to be commenting on my supposed inadequate approach. Your faith in Ritchie's ability seems to be hampering your ability to make basic assessments of his work, his claims, or indeed to appreciate his ability deliver snark of his own. Or perhaps you agree with his opening statement, that I blundered in here without thought? That I came in "off the street" to "fuck with" his article? As if I'm some kind of vagrant who has stumbled into a gentlemen's club on the Strand. You're entitled to think that if you want, only it is rather contradicted by my own explanation which accompanied my very first edit, making it clear the edit was being done with prior thought and research, an approach which is mirrored ironically by my level of detail in using this talk to address issues, which you and others seem quite happy to use against me. If you want to discuss the content issues, I'm ready and willing, just don't take me for a fool, as Ritchie seems keen to do. If you value his opinion, if you think he talks sense and knows his stuff, then kindly furnish me with some evidence that Wikipedia is in fact supposed to be a travel guide, and that articles like this on toll roads should be arranged with a tariff table, which should be presented in a section in the first part of the article, to accommodate readers who want to use Wikipedia first and foremost to find out how much it costs to use this crossing. If you can do this, and if you can treat my other objections with similar diligence, then maybe my opinion of your approach will change for the better. If not, I will assume the status quo here is that Ritchie's work is not open to question, and that if issues have not been spotted by other people they must not exist, meaning if vagrants off the street then raise them, they are to be rebuffed, with haste. Clarion Collar (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I've looked at all your proposed changes. Once again here, you seem to be launching into a personal battle with Ritchie. That's not really helping the article. Who are these "vagrants off the street" exactly? Where did this phrase ""fuck with his article" the article come from? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A vagrant lives on the street. Which is where Ritchie claimed I came to Wikipedia from, to fuck with his article. [16] On a "whim". Without obtaining his prior consent or consulting all the people he claims would not agree that any of these things are issues, because he has diligently worked with all of them for years, and knows their opinions intimately. People like me, the newcomers basically, are simply not entitled to change articles that have been reviewed in this manner to his evident satisfaction - we're supposed to shuffle off and work on other stuff, if we must stick around at all. You sure you've read everything here? You seem terribly ill-informed about what has gone on between us so far - I suggest you read it all, if you are in any doubt about how or why this dispute was immediately framed as a personal battle, between me, the itinerant off the street, and he, the noble guardian of this "Good Article", which has no flaws and needs no correction. Except this one [17] of course. Blink, and you might not even spot that error was identified (and already fixed) by me, not him. He nobly clarified this is what he had done elsewhere, in a page I was apparently meant to know about through clairvoyance, but as we're establishing, people don't read these "walls of text", the tedious back and forth of "dispute resolution". Not that much is getting resolved around here right now. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Clarion Collar put yourself in Ritchie's shoes for a moment. Would you be upset if someone came out of nowhere and started tearing into an article you'd worked on for a couple years? I know I would be upset. –Fredddie™ 21:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
That's not a fair question, as he and I are quite clearly completely different people. If I cared that much, I would likely not even be writing for Wikipedia, I would seek out a platform which gave me explicit rights and control over my work. He has no such rights here, as far as I am led to believe. The whole approach seems entirely selfish to me. It's as if none of you appreciate the role of reputation and reception in an enterprise that is so heavily dependent on simply goodwill. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to have been exactly overflowing with "goodwill" yourself here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I had high hopes that my changes would be taken in the spirit they were offered, namely improvement, and that any issues with them would be thoughtfully discussed in an atmosphere of mutual respect, and that I certainly wouldn't be talked down to or otherwise dismissed simply on account of my status as a newcomer. I took care not to break anything, or indeed go against any fundamental aspect of Wikipedia as I understood it, which is namely that it is an encyclopedia not a travel guide or FAQ, and its articles should in theory have sensible and consistent structures, and be free of basic issues like duplicated or disjointed text. Then I met Ritchie. And then his official spokesperson. And you're both doing a grand job of teaching me all about the real Wikipedia, the one that's not advertised on the box, and you're doing it with so much goodwill I feel practically overwhelmed at your generosity of spirit. You do realise, in your capacity as his official defence counsel here, that he actually said to me over at that A-class page, "do not remove reliably sourced information without consensus, it can be seen as disruptive". Now, far be it from me to keep on questioning his motives, but don't you think that would have come out differently if he had been specific, and told me not to remove the tariff table that I removed with a specific statement that it was inappropriate for an encyclopedia but which he added and defends on the basis it is the most important part of the article, because that could be seen as "disruptive"? By person or persons unknown, but presumably Ritchie. Clarion Collar (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm an "official spokesperson" for no-one, thanks. Your continued sarcasm does you no favours. If you find it so difficult to edit this article - by all means try another one. Best of all, it seems, try one where Ritchie or I don't appear. If you find it impossible to edit Wikipedia altogether, in the way you think you should be allowed to, you may have to just stop. But it's your tin now too, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
You certainly sound like him. Your feedback at the A-class review is pretty much in total agreement with what he has said, your only departure to the party line of 'nothing to see here, move along' being to accede to putting "The crossing is the busiest in the United Kingdom" in the introduction. Due to the aforementioned protection, I can't actually edit the article for another eight days, so maybe you'd like to add that yourself as an obvious improvement which was inexplicably missed in these reviews, assuming you're not waiting for Ritchie's prior approval. No need to thank me for spotting it by the way, all the way down there in the "technical mumbo jumbo" area of the article. And you (or Ritchie, if it's him) can of course have all the credit when it's added, you've all worked so hard after all. Clarion Collar (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use that as better section heading? In over 9 years here I can't recall discussing with anyone more embittered and snarky. I'm really not sure that you will ever find Wikipedia a satisfying place. But, being optimistic, at the last count there were 5,263,172 other articles, some of which might need your diligence and attention. You wouldn't want to be seen as a WP:SPA, would you. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, now I looked up what SPA means, I'd be quite surprised if they thought that label applied to me. I'm intrigued - what possible reason would this theoretical person have to think my involvement here is somehow to do with promotion or advocacy? I would have thought anyone would be able to tell that, all things considered, I clearly fall into the "well-intentioned editors with a niche interest" category of SPA, and therefore, if anyone was trying to "tag" me as an SPA, rather than that being a sign I am up to no good, it's more than likely only going to reflect badly on the tagger, because they are clearly only doing it because they are annoyed that my niche interest is hampering their ability to control an article or articles they perceive to be their (or their friends) territory or exclusive property. I would imagine the sort of person who would do that, is the same sort of person who regularly suggests to opponents that wouldn't it be better for them if they just went away and found another article to work on, and stop bothering them, because, y'know, it's clearly upsetting you. I'd suggest if you don't want people to think that's a description of you, maybe you should drop the whole idea that I am open to suggestions to tootle off somewhere else as some kind of alternative to seeing this dispute through to a conclusion, not least as you surely know by now that I have no such interest in doing that. Just to piss on your cornflakes though, I shall presently go and improve an article I noticed was rubbish a while ago but didn't have the time or inclination to do anything about it, just to show you how easy it is to do when there is no gatekeeper/keymaster combo present, as I don't believe there is over there. But even if there is, I have no doubt they will be more open and receptive to my assistance than here. Or at least I have a faint, lingering hope. P.S. I like the whole concept of "tagging" different users that you seem to use here - tell me, does that come with the yellow star included, or do users have to apply it themselves? I have MSPaint and am quite the artist, if it helps. Clarion Collar (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, what a heart-warming display of WP:AGF. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
So Ritchie decided to "tone down" his language after five minutes, and yet you insist on repeatedly using his original wording as a stick to beat him with? That doesn't seem very productive. Use of the term "vagrants" and "itinerants" seems to be you're own overly strong interpretation of "bystanders"? But let's get this straight, you're also blaming him for fixing something you wanted fixing? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
He toned down the language, but the approach was the same. But let's wait and see if it has changed, as I am obviously aware he has not been around since yesterday. My interpretation is valid, unless this is a place where you get to decide how I should be thinking? I'm not blaming him for fixing it, just pointing out the oddity of how it somehow became his fix, in the official record of who has done what to this page. The page he claims to have mostly written himself. Maybe that's true, or maybe he's just been putting his name to those changes he deems acceptable, while dumping everything else. "As you can see from this table, I have done the majority of work". Quite. Clarion Collar (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
He toned down his language without being asked to do so. I don't think you should be repeatedly reminding him of something he thought better of. I very much doubt that he'd ever claim to have written anything entirely on his own. It just doesn't ever happen at Wikipedia. But "majority of work" looks about right if you look at the history. I think you're reading too much into a simple fix with edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarion Collar won't be contributing to this conversation further as he has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention a liar. Quelle surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

Anyway, let's see if I can extract the actual remarks on content and do something with them, which are:

  • History section should come first - I think everyone has put forth their views on this, and seems to be six-of-one, half a dozen of the other.
  • Inclusion of a tariff table is completely inappropriate - I think I, Martin and Fredddie all thought this was okay to leave
  • Simplify "The crossing the easternmost road crossing of the River Thames" to "The crossing spans the River Thames" .... in my view, being the easternmost crossing is incredibly significant and explains why so many people utterly hate it, I would like to not have to go all the way to Dartford to drive from Folkestone to Mersea Island (compare with how much the crow flies) but that's pretty much my only sane choice.
  • Alternative routes - I actually like the trim CC did here, but I've gone even further, because "With none to the east, the next nearest vehicle crossings" leads me to think "With none of what"?
  • General arrangement - the problem with the reorganisation is then the sections are small. Again, all I can say is that I hallway usability test articles by getting some non-editors to quickly read them. We spend a lot of time talking about uninvolved admins, maybe we should get our articles to be proof read by uninvolved editors? ;-)
  • "this appears to be a side effect of Ritchie333 being determined to make this article be primarily of use to people wanting to use the crossing, rather than it being an encylopedia article" - this comes back to a long-held belief of mine that this page should be for a general-purpose reader; and of the cross-section of people I interact with regularly (many of which are well outside the typical Wikipedia editor demographic), the general view of Dartford is "I hate it with a passion". The hardcore road enthusiast has got http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Dartford_Crossing and http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m25 (note the latter says "Please direct all enquiries about the tolls to gov.uk. This is NOT the Dartford Crossing official website." which shows people do look all over the internet for information), the seriously hardcore geek has got the London Ringways and South Orbital Road papers held in the National Archives, which has more facts and figures than you can shake a stick at.
  • A282 - the current version of the article as I read it says "a major road crossing of the River Thames in England, carrying the A282 road between Dartford in Kent to the south with Thurrock in Essex to the north" - I assume this is resolved?

I think that's about all I can extract from above, any other thoughts? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dartford_Crossing/Archive_1&oldid=1200408598"