Talk:Longdendale Bypass
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the UK Roads WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the UK's road network. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-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. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the UK geography WikiProject. | |
[edit] Neutrality
This page is really lame. Pro and anti groups keep taking out facts and adding others in to present a biased picture. A user called DanHooper (Swampy?) seems to only edit this page, but do so every 10 minutes. Can it be suspended? It's no use to the user who just wants the facts behind the project.
It's true that some of the comments left by people of differing opinions are more or less biased, but I've tried to edit this page into a neutral article and keep it that way. Perhaps that's why I'm always editing it, because others choose to use it as a battleground (naming no names of course). But on what basis should this page be suspended? It provides a portal for info about the issue - from all sources - more so than anywhere else. I've added links to pages and references that are 'pro' as well as 'anti', which is pretty balanced IMO. If you don't want people to have access to the information, that's no basis for suspending a page. Put in a complaint if you're serious. As for my handle, it is my name, but you clearly don't have a sense of irony. BTW, want to leave a sig or are you nameless troll? --Danhooper 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- neutrality is not bad now. I have taken out some loaded phrases and have tried to separate facts from positions by ensuring they are not muddled up in the same paragraph. PeterIto (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Links
this page is now full of links to pro/anti bypass pages - suggest they are all removed?
Awwww didums Sean Parker-Perry, just because you have had to delete your blog and now no other person is writing a pro-bypass blog/website you want the links removed *sniff*. It is all useful, relevant and far more detailed information than what a Wiki page can provide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Longdendale_Bypass&diff=prev&oldid=127112205
--Gayboy-ds 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think the links are fine, I have split them into proponent and opponent to make it clearer. References are essential, the more the better (as long as they back up a relevant claim in the article) PeterIto (talk)
[edit] Reordered sections
I have come to this article for the first time today having been reviewing details of a number of road schemes in wikipedia. I have moved the text around a little to let the argument hopefully flow better. First 'what is it and what is proposed', then the 'the history so far', then details of supporters of each side, then the alternative proposal. After that some orphans sections 'traffic figures' 'climate change' etc, which probably need a framework to get them somewhere more obvious to fit. I rolled safety and cost into the background section because they seemed not to warrant a section of is own and tidied the leader. PeterIto (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have done some more formating and given it a general cleanup. This is a useful resource and could be a very good resource, but needs some more work. Various references are dead and need to be re-sourced. It would be great to have a couple of pictures, possibly one of a main street blocked with traffic (lorries and noise and mums with pushchair) and also one the intended route (birds, bees, trees etc). PeterIto (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
