Talk:Traffic: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SuperMidget (talk | contribs) m Freeway exits in leftdriving countries |
Reassess article. Not near ready for B=-class. |
||
| (85 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|||
{{Expand|date=January 2007}} |
|||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|||
{{HighwayProject}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Transport|importance=High}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|||
* <nowiki>[[Left- and right-hand traffic#Left-hand traffic|driving on the left]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Left-hand traffic) has been [[Special:Diff/750716531|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Left-hand traffic","appear":{"revid":96498622,"parentid":96498577,"timestamp":"2006-12-26T03:59:17Z","removed_section_titles":["Driving on the left"],"added_section_titles":["Left-hand traffic"]},"disappear":{"revid":750716531,"parentid":750715857,"timestamp":"2016-11-21T12:24:08Z","replaced_anchors":{"Vessels and aircraft":"Water vessels and aircraft"},"removed_section_titles":["Terminology","CITEREFKlodt2008","Road traffic","Uniformity","Right-hand traffic","Jurisdictions with right-hand traffic","Left-hand traffic","Jurisdictions with left-hand traffic","CITEREFLesa2009","CITEREF1969","Road racing","Adoption of right-hand traffic","Europe","Americas","Asia and Africa","Adoption of left-hand traffic","Foreign occupation and annexation","Foreign occupation and military transit","Restrictions on wrong-hand drive vehicles","Vienna Convention on Road Traffic","CITEREFAnand2005","CITEREFFamutimi2012","CITEREFIbileke2012","CITEREF2001","Lorries/trucks","Postal and other service vehicles","Rear fog lamps","Trams and streetcars","Trains","Heavy rail","Exceptions","Light rail","Segregated/single line","Vessels and aircraft","Afghanistan","Argentina","Australia","Austria","Bangladesh","Belgium","Belize","Bhutan","Bosnia and Herzegovina","Bolivia","Brazil","Burma (Myanmar)","Cambodia","Canada","CITEREF2014","CITEREF2001","Croatia","CITEREFKincaid1986","Cyprus","Denmark","East Timor","Egypt","CITEREF2008","Finland","The Gambia","Ghana","Gibraltar","Hungary","Iceland","India","Indonesia","Ireland","Israel","Italy","CITEREF2011","Kenya","Korea (North and South)","Kyrgyzstan","Lebanon","Macau","Malawi","CITEREF1970","Malta","Mauritania","Mauritius","Namibia","Nepal","Netherlands","Nigeria","Norway","Pakistan","Palau","Paraguay","CITEREF2015","Poland","Portugal","CITEREF2005","Serbia","Sierra Leone","South Africa","Suriname","Taiwan","Tanzania","Thailand","Trinidad and Tobago","Tunisia","Ukraine","Uruguay","Venezuela","Vietnam","Yemen","Zimbabwe","Bibliography"],"added_section_titles":["CITEREFAnderson2003","CITEREFWalters","CITEREFHamer","Worldwide distribution by country","CITEREFJennings","Traffic behaviour","Rail traffic","CITEREFZhang2016","Water vessels and aircraft","Exceptions to the rule","Myanmar","CITEREF2012","CITEREF2009","CITEREFReedSatchellNichols","CITEREFHerrTurnerCliffordEisenstadt2011","CITEREFRadocaj","Gallery"]},"very_different":false,"rename_to":"Right-hand traffic"} --> |
|||
* <nowiki>[[Left- and right-hand traffic#Right-hand traffic|driving on the right]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Right-hand traffic) has been [[Special:Diff/750716531|deleted by other users]] before. <!-- {"title":"Right-hand traffic","appear":{"revid":96498577,"parentid":96477940,"timestamp":"2006-12-26T03:58:56Z","removed_section_titles":["Driving on the right"],"added_section_titles":["Right-hand traffic"]},"disappear":{"revid":750716531,"parentid":750715857,"timestamp":"2016-11-21T12:24:08Z","replaced_anchors":{"Vessels and aircraft":"Water vessels and aircraft"},"removed_section_titles":["Terminology","CITEREFKlodt2008","Road traffic","Uniformity","Right-hand traffic","Jurisdictions with right-hand traffic","Left-hand traffic","Jurisdictions with left-hand traffic","CITEREFLesa2009","CITEREF1969","Road racing","Adoption of right-hand traffic","Europe","Americas","Asia and Africa","Adoption of left-hand traffic","Foreign occupation and annexation","Foreign occupation and military transit","Restrictions on wrong-hand drive vehicles","Vienna Convention on Road Traffic","CITEREFAnand2005","CITEREFFamutimi2012","CITEREFIbileke2012","CITEREF2001","Lorries/trucks","Postal and other service vehicles","Rear fog lamps","Trams and streetcars","Trains","Heavy rail","Exceptions","Light rail","Segregated/single line","Vessels and aircraft","Afghanistan","Argentina","Australia","Austria","Bangladesh","Belgium","Belize","Bhutan","Bosnia and Herzegovina","Bolivia","Brazil","Burma (Myanmar)","Cambodia","Canada","CITEREF2014","CITEREF2001","Croatia","CITEREFKincaid1986","Cyprus","Denmark","East Timor","Egypt","CITEREF2008","Finland","The Gambia","Ghana","Gibraltar","Hungary","Iceland","India","Indonesia","Ireland","Israel","Italy","CITEREF2011","Kenya","Korea (North and South)","Kyrgyzstan","Lebanon","Macau","Malawi","CITEREF1970","Malta","Mauritania","Mauritius","Namibia","Nepal","Netherlands","Nigeria","Norway","Pakistan","Palau","Paraguay","CITEREF2015","Poland","Portugal","CITEREF2005","Serbia","Sierra Leone","South Africa","Suriname","Taiwan","Tanzania","Thailand","Trinidad and Tobago","Tunisia","Ukraine","Uruguay","Venezuela","Vietnam","Yemen","Zimbabwe","Bibliography"],"added_section_titles":["CITEREFAnderson2003","CITEREFWalters","CITEREFHamer","Worldwide distribution by country","CITEREFJennings","Traffic behaviour","Rail traffic","CITEREFZhang2016","Water vessels and aircraft","Exceptions to the rule","Myanmar","CITEREF2012","CITEREF2009","CITEREFReedSatchellNichols","CITEREFHerrTurnerCliffordEisenstadt2011","CITEREFRadocaj","Gallery"]}} --> |
|||
}} |
|||
==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment== |
|||
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Middle_Georgia_State_University/SCIE_1001_Scientific_Literacy_(Fall_2018)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Karriganfoskey|Karriganfoskey]]. |
|||
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}} |
|||
==Disambig needed== |
|||
==File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion== |
|||
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}--> |
|||
{| |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[File:Image-x-generic.svg|100px]] |
|||
| <!--IMAGES--> |
|||
An image used in this article, [[:File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg|File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg]], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status'' |
|||
<!--/IMAGES--> |
|||
;What should I do? |
|||
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review [[WP:CSD|deletion guidelines]] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|||
* If the image is [[WP:NFCC|non-free]] then you may need to provide a [[WP:FUR|fair use rationale]] |
|||
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|||
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try [[WP:DRV|Deletion Review]] |
|||
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant [[:File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg|image page (File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg)]] |
|||
''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --[[User:CommonsNotificationBot|CommonsNotificationBot]] ([[User talk:CommonsNotificationBot|talk]]) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Really needs a disambiguation instead of this. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] 22:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
|||
== Right-of-way prose is scattered == |
|||
==Definition needed== |
|||
Article needs a definition of the word [[User:Nurg|Nurg]] 07:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Right-of-way prose is scattered]]. --[[User:Chaswmsday|Chaswmsday]] ([[User talk:Chaswmsday|talk]]) 23:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== [[William Beaty]] and [[Brian Lucas]] == |
|||
== Difference to the [[Transport]] lemma == |
|||
Those two guys are mentioned in the article but in no way is it explained who they are. Who can help? [[User:KF|<KF>]] 14:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I'm very wondering why there is no mentioning between this equal articles. <kbd style="white-space:nowrap;color:#567;"> → ''[[User: Perhelion]]'' <small>11:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)</small></kbd> |
|||
== The right side of the road. == |
|||
== Sign: Yield to military traffic == |
|||
…is the right; the other side is obviously wrong. |
|||
:Sort of, because 'left' used to mean wrong. But traffic engineers are continually debating which side is better. "My right-hand drive car is better than your left-hand drive car; you can shift with your left. Plus, I can see oncoming traffic with my stronger right eye" etc. —[[User:Last Avenue|Last Avenue]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Last Avenue|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Last_Avenue|contributions]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
The sign labelled "Yield to military traffic" is actually a directional road sign for tanks. The give way sign on top is not related to the military sign below. Additional signs would be white and without arrow on the side (and also otherwise would look different). It seems that another picture might be better here... [[User:Spielball|Spielball]] ([[User talk:Spielball|talk]]) 08:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== From [[Rules of the road]], to be merged into article == |
|||
== "The traffic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] == |
|||
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] |
|||
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect [[The traffic]]. Please participate in [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 28#The traffic|the redirect discussion]] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#FFA352;background-color: #000000;">TheAwesome</span>]][[User_Talk:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="font-family:Courier;color:#12ECFF;background-color:#000000;">Hwyh</span>]] 19:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Traffic == |
|||
See [[Talk:Traffic/Rules of the Road merge archive]] |
|||
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜 [[Special:Contributions/2409:4043:2E8A:4B5A:0:0:B5CB:1302|2409:4043:2E8A:4B5A:0:0:B5CB:1302]] ([[User talk:2409:4043:2E8A:4B5A:0:0:B5CB:1302|talk]]) 13:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Done that right now. —[[User:Last Avenue|Last Avenue]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Last Avenue|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Last_Avenue|contributions]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== "right of way" is not an informal term == |
|||
:I'm moving the stuff into an archive since it's clogging up the contents. —[[User:Last Avenue|Last Avenue]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Last Avenue|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Last_Avenue|contributions]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 00:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Both "right of way" & "right-of-way" are '''formal''' terms used in legislation; they have a recognized legal meaning & are not "informal" terminology. For example, Colorado statute § 42-4-703, explicitly uses "yield the right-of-way" to refer to traffic priority. "Traffic priority" is actually the more informal term, as it does not appear in relevant legal texts. [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Expansion of intro & images== |
|||
This article should also have a longer introduction paragraph and more images. I can't find the templates for these, however. —[[User:Last Avenue|Last Avenue]] <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Last Avenue|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Last_Avenue|contributions]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== KRETP in california == |
|||
I just looked at the CVC and it appears that california actually requires all vehicles to stay in the right lane except to pass or to make a left turn. |
|||
[[User:64.81.53.207|64.81.53.207]] 15:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Sec. 21654 seems to imply that one is only required to use the rightmost lane if one is traveling slower than the flow of traffic (e.g. a tractor or marginally-able vehicle). The (rare) occurrence of explicit signage stating "Keep right except to pass" instead of the more typical "slow traffic keep right" implies that KRETP is an exception to the rule, only applicable where posted. (An example of such signage is on CA-20 west of CA-16, where there is a passing lane on a winding undivided road. [[User:Speight|Speight]] 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
This ain't "Traffic (USA)" Requirements to use the rigthmost lane in general, except to pass exist in atleast Norway and Germany too, so clearly that's not a California-only thing. --[[User:Eivind|Eivind Kjørstad]] 08:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Merging right-of-way and priority == |
|||
These sections are very similar and contain some redundant info. I recommend merging them. [[User:Speight|Speight]] 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Done, though some cleanup needed. [[User:EdC|EdC]] 06:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Insurance == |
|||
I just read the insurance section. Wisconsin does not require drivers to carry insurance if they meet certain financial responsibility requirements. We should change the language to reflect that. [[User:Monkeythumpa|Monkeythumpa]] 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== U.S. state-specific practices == |
|||
I added a short description and link to the lane splitting article. [[User:Monkeythumpa|Monkeythumpa]] 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Traffic Congestion vs. Movement of Vehicles and people == |
|||
In California, it is common to say "there is no traffic on the freeway" even when there are plenty of moving vehicles, but no significant slowdown due to congestion. How common is it to refer to [[traffic congestion]] as simply "traffic" elsewhere? I feel this meaning might have a place in the article. --[[User:CodeGeneratR|CodeGeneratR]] 15:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== External Links removal == |
|||
Using the policies in [[Wikipedia:External_links]], I removed links from the article. Below, the details... |
|||
* [http://www.ite.org/ Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)] |
|||
* [http://www.best.bc.ca/ Better Environmentally Sound Transportation] |
|||
I do not think the sites above: |
|||
"provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." |
|||
* [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/transport-communications Transportation Communications Newsletter] |
|||
The site above "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET." |
|||
* [http://balashon.blogspot.com/2006/05/traffic.html Etymology of "traffic"] |
|||
* [http://www.amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html Traffic Waves] |
|||
the sites above "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." (and they are not) |
|||
--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:My viewpoints are: |
|||
:*''ITE'' - This is the professional institution of North American & Australian traffic engineers and one of the more prominent professional institutions elsewhere. I'd say it deserves to remain here as a resource. |
|||
:*''Traffic waves'' - Agreed. This info could be worked into the article with this website serving as a reference or a better reference if one can be found (though this article, whilst itself written in an unprofessional manner, does give generally valid information). |
|||
:*''BEST'' - Agreed. There are plenty of similar programs: no need to list them all. |
|||
:*''Transp. Comm. Newsletter'' - Agreed. There are professional newsletters available such as ITE & Traffic Technology Today which aren't based on social networking sites. |
|||
:*''Etymology'' - Agreed. As with the traffic waves, the etymology can be incorporated into the article with a reference provided; though we need a better reference than a blog. Use the blogger's sources or find better ones. |
|||
:So of the five, I'd say we keep ITE and work the info on traffic waves and etymology into the article w/ appropriate references. --<b><span style="color:#00A86B;">[[User:Thisisbossi|Bossi]]</span></b> (<small>[[User talk:Thisisbossi|talk]] • [[:commons:User:Thisisbossi/Gallery|gallery]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thisisbossi|contrib]]</small>) 19:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::In my view, '''ITE''' definitely should stay — there is ample precedent all over Wikipedia for including links to the professional societies and associations relevant to the topic at hand. While the the '''Traffic Waves''' link would be indeed be ''more'' relevant if its information were covered in the article, the lack of such coverage warrants some [[WP:Be bold|bold]] editor adding text on the subject more than it warrants removing the link. As for the '''BEST''' link, it seems to me directly relevant to some of the newer ideas and practices in traffic engineering and management. I agree with [[User talk:Thisisbossi|Thisisbossi]] that there are many similar organisations, but that fact doesn't render this link irrelevant. If some editor thinks this link is a poor choice, the preferable action would be to ''replace'' it with a better one (after obtaining consensus, if the replacement proves controversial). |
|||
::I agree with removing the links to the web forum and to the etymological information; web forums almost always make problematic links, and the etymology of the word could very easily be incorporated into the article. |
|||
::I am not happy that [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] unilaterally declared even the relevant and debatable links "linkspam" and chose to remove the lot of them summarily. It is one thing to remove ''actual'' linkspam, but the definition of linkspam does not include "sites [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] doesn't happen to like". Wikipedia is a cooperative effort based on consensus, not a dictatorial or competitive one. And obtaining consensus means a lot more than quoting ''one'' provision from the WP external-links guideline and baselessly asserting it applies to all of the links removed when it clearly does not. Please read the ''whole'' external-links guideline, and pay especial attention to the parts about common sense and consensus. --[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I do not think this is the case. I am following the rules. You can debate the sites according to the rules, like Bossi did above. |
|||
:::For the record, I do not have anything against any of those sites. I understand there is not a rule called ""sites [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] doesn't happen to like", and that there is not a rule "sites [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] like a lot" either. Please, why did you restore the sites, based on what rule? |
|||
:::Further discussion on the remaining links: |
|||
:::*I do not see any reason for ''Traffic waves'' be in the article. I am not saying that the article is bogus, but it definitely is not a [[WP:RS]]; the author is not a recognized expert in the field. Is Traffic Waves a term that is used anywhere outside of the linked page? Just asking; a quick Google brought mostly links to that same page. |
|||
:::*''ITE'' and ''BEST'' are valid and informative sites, but I do not see specific reasons for them to be in the article. If the only reason is that they are prominent associations, we could put a long list of associations and departments from all over the world, transforming it in a link farm. Maybe pointing the link to a specific area of the site that relates to the article could make it a better resource - right now the homepage for ITE has just some institutional news and advertising for selling books. Or if they have valid and useful content, they could be used as a source and incorporated in the article.--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 19:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]], I understand your concern that the article shouldn't become a link farm, but this amounts to a red herring sliding down a slippery slope, if you'll excuse the torturously mixed metaphor. We haven't got a problem in this article with anything near an overwhelming number of links. Nobody's proposed adding tens or hundreds of links to associations from all over the world — we're talking about a grand total of ''three'' links here, so I think we ought to keep the debate centred around what ''is'' (whether or not a maximum of three links ought to remain), not what you're afraid might possibly someday under certain eventualities potentially happen (an unmanageably large number of links). If someday the list of external links grows to unreasonable size, we can deal with that problem at that time, as it seems. |
|||
::::I agree with you that links should point to the most relevant page on a site, particularly in cases where that relevant page can be difficult to find from the homepage. However, I believe it is inappropriate to use this common sense idea as an excuse to nuke links. It is more appropriate to ''fix'' a link that doesn't go directly to the relevant page. |
|||
::::The external links guideline contains rather clear langauge denoting it as a ''guideline'' and explicitly recommending that its provisions be applied with common sense and reason. It is not a stone-tablet statute by which for you or anyone else to write figurative tickets or stand in judgment of those perceived as violators. There will be many different interpretations of the grey areas in the guideline, and — discarding the obvious cases of miscomprehension — it isn't helpful or productive to assert that yours is more correct than mine or vice versa. Please remember to [[WP:ASSUME|assume good faith]]. We are dealing in this case with some links that do not run afoul of the clear go/no-go provisions of the guideline (e.g., links to purely commercial sites — which I hasten to emphasise to you is what linkspam ''actually'' is). That being so, it'll be most productive to discuss the links and work toward consensus. Summary deletion and improper dismissal of non-spam links as "linkspam" is damaging, for it discourages people posting better links (why bother, if they're just going to get deleted as "linkspam"?). Just something to consider. You certainly had a valid point on some of the original links, and there may well be better links than the ones we're now discussing; it's not so much what you said as how you said/did it that was problematic, IMO. --[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 23:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Let's try to separate this. First, content: |
|||
* I believe that, of the three links that remain, ITE and BEST are good sites, but thecurrent links do not point to anything particularly useful or related to the article. I prefer by far to '''not''' have a link than to have a link to something that is '''not useful'''. Using this rationale, we can have 3 or 3,000 links there - the important thing is that all of them are useful and extend the reach of the article. Or, if you think that ITE is a good thing to link to, why do not put a see also there? They have an article, and their home page just have commercial and instituional messages. And about BEST, why are they so special or different from other similar organizations that they should be here and the others not? Talking about the link farm, I said that the article '''could''' become a link farm if we put all the deserving organizations there. That said, maybe the best is just to put a "dmoz" template. |
|||
* About the "traffic waves" site, I still do not see why it is there. It looks like it is the work of a non-expert that is not mentioned anywhere else. |
|||
Now, about your critics to my behavior, I left a message in your talk page. |
|||
--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Take a critical look at the I/me/mine language you're using, together with the slippery-slope arguments you seem to favour, and you may begin to understand why your behaviour is coming off as more autocratic than coöperative. It is evident from your contribs page that you are on some sort of a crusade against what ''you'' consider linkspam. I've no interest in a countercrusade; others are already noticing what you're doing and calling you to account for it. Neither have I any interest in a pissing contest with you. I have contributed to what consensus may arise by speaking my mind regarding the links in this article. --[[User:Scheinwerfermann|Scheinwerfermann]] ([[User talk:Scheinwerfermann|talk]]) 05:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You are both good editors and I would hate to experience otherwise from either of you. Please keep this page on-track with the issue of the external links; and keep personal aggravations on your user talk pages. --<b><span style="color:#00A86B;">[[User:Thisisbossi|Bossi]]</span></b> (<small>[[User talk:Thisisbossi|talk]] • [[:commons:User:Thisisbossi/Gallery|gallery]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thisisbossi|contrib]]</small>) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Back to content: Bossi, do you think there is any special area the link to ITE could point to? S. wants to keep them the way it is; I want ITE to be redirected (I guess a good compromise would be link to their article), BEST and Traffic waves to go; Dream wants to keep ITE, BEST and Traffic Waves. You mentioned you like ITE and do not care much about the others. The only major problem I see is the traffic waves article, which does not seem to be WP:RS, but your input would be very important on that.--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
As an uninvolved party, I would like no-one to revert anyone. I am saying this as an experienced editor, not as a boss.(No pun intended.) I agree with what was said by [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]], and the three topmost links should be kept, and the lower down links should be removed/kept out. I do like what has been said though, and all points have been quite valid. <<tt>[[User:Dreamafter|<font color="crimson">DREAMAFTER</font>]]</tt>> <sup><[[User talk:Dreamafter|<font color="purple">TALK</font>]]></sup> 21:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks! I am still not sure if Traffic Waves is reliable ([http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/tfaq.html#11 that's why]) and the other links should point to some specific area of the site that would be specifically related to the article. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]] •</small> (Since I removed the duplicated links, Dreamafter is saying that ITE, BEST and TrafficWaves should stay and YahooGroups and the Etimology site should go).--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
The three remaining links are clearly inappropriate. ITE is a fine organization, but it is not the authoritative outside source on "traffic" - not enough nexus to the article. Traffic waves is a self-published site that's not comprehensive, just a curiosity. BEST is a political advocacy site, which wouldn't be appropriate in most cases, and it's not specifically about traffic. I would just delete these all as a matter of course were it not for the revert war and the fact that they've been in the article for some while (meaning as a matter of procedure that those proposing deletion have some burden of showing their edits to be correct). [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 17:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::As a "consensuus attempt", I will remove the three links and move ITE to "seealso".--[[User:Legionarius|Legionarius]] ([[User talk:Legionarius|talk]]) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Reference to this site would be helpful== |
|||
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071219103102.htm |
|||
talks about how traffic jams could be fixed by how a person breaks, its like that saying taht a butterfly in china can cause a tornado in wiscousins, type of thing. {{unsigned|Eeemmad|01:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
==Freeway exits when driving left== |
|||
Eh, this seems like a mistake, or otherwise it's unintuitive for people from 'right driving'-countries: It says most freeway exists are on the right side for both left and right driving countries. I suppose in the UK freeway exits are on the left side? [[User:SuperMidget|SuperMidget]] ([[User talk:SuperMidget|talk]]) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:35, 17 May 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Traffic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karriganfoskey.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
[edit]
|
An image used in this article, File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SaoPaulo FariaLima.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Right-of-way prose is scattered
[edit]See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Right-of-way prose is scattered. --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm very wondering why there is no mentioning between this equal articles. → User: Perhelion 11:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Sign: Yield to military traffic
[edit]The sign labelled "Yield to military traffic" is actually a directional road sign for tanks. The give way sign on top is not related to the military sign below. Additional signs would be white and without arrow on the side (and also otherwise would look different). It seems that another picture might be better here... Spielball (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
"The traffic" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The traffic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Traffic
[edit]𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜 2409:4043:2E8A:4B5A:0:0:B5CB:1302 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
"right of way" is not an informal term
[edit]Both "right of way" & "right-of-way" are formal terms used in legislation; they have a recognized legal meaning & are not "informal" terminology. For example, Colorado statute § 42-4-703, explicitly uses "yield the right-of-way" to refer to traffic priority. "Traffic priority" is actually the more informal term, as it does not appear in relevant legal texts. ProphetZarquon (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)