Talk:Dual carriageway

message: With Australia can you provide more images of Sydney Motorway Network and the Hume and the Pacific Highways? You currently only show Melbourne! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.57.62 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: There was a short entry regarding Switzerland. It was completely wrong! Hence I removed it. (Many autostrasse are NOT dual carriageway in CH, a few are, but a motorway is called autobahn.)
You are welcome to restore a corrected (and verified) entry, but please also remember notability issues - an entry on Germany would be certainly more relevant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tang Wenlong (talk • contribs) 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switzerland 

message: The historic sign on Savery Avenue in Carver, Massachusetts says "Savery's Avenue / First Divided Highway in America / Presented to the public in 1861 by William Savery".  The Carver, Massachusetts page on wikipedia also refers to it.  I found a local Massachusetts article on it 
Is this information solid enough to be included in the Dual Carriageway article? Faolin42 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savery Avenue 

message: Dual carriageway → Dual roadway — The term "carriageway" is not universally used. The articles name should be renamed to "Dual Roadway". Roadway is more universally used. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Strictly speaking motorways in the UK are a subcategory of dual carriageway ie all motorways are dual carriageways (there were one or two insignificant single carriageway motorways, but I think they have all gone) but not all dual carriageways are motorways. In popular speech though, because "non-motorway dual carriageway" is too much of a mouthful and "dual carriageway" is used instead, this creates the false impression that dual carriageway and motorway are different categories.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a good analogy is the with finger versus thumb: technically a thumb is a finger in the same way that a  motorway/freeway is (almost always) a dual carriageway, but in common usage they are thought of as different things rather than one being a subcategory of the other.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

text: *I'm pretty certain it wil be split if not renamed. The title is entirely British centric, and that is not what WP:ENGVAR is about. The ony thing ENGVAR supports is keeping the prose in British English. The title of the article falls under WP:UCN - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well making two nearly identical articles based on a vocabulary difference is ridiculously out of sync with the purpose of ENGVAR, which is intended to diminish and prevent bifurcation of the encyclopedia along dialect lines. The legal diffs really are not different enough to support a split and maintain two unique articles about two unique concepts beacuse really it's one concept. Not sure where your certainty about processs comes from, I'm still of the opinion that such a split is undesirable and would eventually be reconciled by thoughtful consideration of reliable sources which state that the terms are equivalent.Synchronism (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then it should be established that this article is not just about the legally termed "dual carriageway" in Britain, but about divided roads with opposing directions of travel. As such a more appropriate and universal term should be used. Divided road is simple, makes no reference to a legal "type of road", but is simply a description of the subject. A divided road is a road that is divided. In Britain, divided roads are often classified as a "dual carriageway", though motorways are another type. In North America, they take a variety of forms and may be low traffic boulevards or high speed freeways. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

text: There is a difference in that at least in the UK "dual carriageway" is a class of road separate from motorways and single carriageways, whereas "divided highway" appears to be a description of several classes of road such as freeways and expressways, which already have articles. Cjc13 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the information should be split off to the appropriate title, and then they should have a hatnote or two to navigate between them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose moving.  When I did the same search, "divided highway" had 178,000 results, while "dual carriageway" (the correct search term) had 495,000. –Fredddie™ 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Not always that much access control though.  I was giving one extreme.  Think the high-end divided highways in West Virginia, US 90 in Louisiana from NO to Lafayette.  Some access control but grade intersections and traffic lights too.  Not all expressways are dual carriageways and certainly not all dual carriageways are expressways.  Dual carriageways really are the same as divided highways but with a deeper conceptual weight that is felt more prominently with the higher speed rural version.  Thus, though all divided highways are technically dual carriageways, the conceptual framework, only in my opinion of course, is more like in this diagram.  —  AjaxSmack  02:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting way of representing it. What I'm proposing is that instead of titling an article (which currently covers all of those types, save maybe boulevards) after a small facet of the broader subject, that we create a title more encompassing. Obviously the "title" I've slapped on this image is not what I'm proposing, but perhaps it will make the idea more obvious. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "roads divided at the center" is, I think, what I meant by "divided highways".  Quite a few boulevards (think Lake Shore Boulevard in Toronto) and a few expressways (e.g., parts of Highway 104 in Nova Scotia) aren't divided at the center.  —  AjaxSmack  02:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There are always exceptions to everything (especially with roads. If you can imagine a layout, it's probably been done.). Although the title in this case is North American centric, the concept I'm trying to get across is that we could potentially cover expressways, freeways, dual carriageways, autostrada, autobahn and divided urban arterials all in one article without using a title that is centric to any one particular topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: *ENGVAR is for the contents. Titles follow WP:UCN. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find anything there to suggest it shouldn't be applied to titles. Anyway, the Google hits mentioned above satisfy UCN. Thanks :-) Two guidelines satisfied! Jeni (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That assumes those terms are synonymous, which half the opposing arguments on here say is not the case (because they are a unique class of roads in Britain and Ireland). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for not assuming good faith, an always endearing attribute of yours. I actually undid the archival, not the request to move closure. The reason I did that is that I'm still discussing possible ideas with other editors that are beyond the scope of the idea originally proposed by urbannerd. Feel free to close it, but it would only necessitate opening another discussion. In other words, yes, the consensus is established and I'm aware of that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Floydian, perhaps the "Divided Highway" redirect should be deleted and a new article started. It seems most people who came to the rescue of the proposed name change are from Britain. (no surprise there) They don't seem to realize that nobody uses that term here, nobody. Since they put up such a fuss, it only makes sense to start a new article named "Divided Highway" or something similar. I would contribute to a new article. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are editors from both sides of the ocean here, but the most vocal argument seems to be that they are official road classes in Britain and Ireland. If so the article should cover that. Most references to motorways should go in the motorway article, which should be merged with the freeway article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK dual carriageway means nothing more than a highway or road divided down the middle by a central reservation or barrier (grass, kerb/curb, fence or whatever) that separates traffic going in opposite directions.  If there is no central barrier it is a single carriageway.  The road can be a housing street, a shopping street, a country lane, a major road, a minor road, a trunk road, a motorway or whatever - all that counts is that traffic going in opposite directions is separated by something more than a painted line.  -- de Facto (talk). 20:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Should Central reservation be merged into here? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  There's enough specialized content to warrant an independent article.  —  AjaxSmack  04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Oppose a split of divided highway.  It's an unneeded (POV) content fork.  A divided highway is a dual carriageway and vice versa.  The issue here is what the title should be.  —  AjaxSmack  04:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue here is that each artcle has become an collection of examples of freeways/motorways. I'll plan something out in my sandbox and come back with a proposal at WT:HWY. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: The article has been tagged with a 'proposed merge' with Local-express lanes. Personally I don't see the benefit for such a merge as both articles are pretty long already and discuss very different types of road. I have cleaned up their leads to make the distinction clearer. I suggest we leave the articles as they are. PeterEastern (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Mild oppose... they are different enough that I prefer them separate. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

text: *Seems a clear-cut decision then that the proposed merge is not appropriate. I have removed the 'merge' banner and added a reference to Local-express lanes in the lead. PeterEastern (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with Local-express lanes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dual carriageway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205114951/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/speedmanagement/speedknowyourlimits
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is linked to the french article :fr:voie rapide/:fr:route express and to the italian article :it:superstrada.
As a european union regulation translates voie rapide and superstrada to english as express road I am surprised to not see this in the tile of this article.
As the UNECE translates route express to english as express road I am also surprised to not see this in the tile of this article.
I know that in United-Kingdom and in Ireland, there is no express road as on these Dual carriageway, traffic is (in those countries) open to any kind of user, anyway, (and even with Brexit) there are also people using wikipedia in Europe, so wikipedia should also consider european people.
So here is my quesiton:
* Is the content/title of this article incorrect?
* Is the link to :fr:voie rapide/:fr:route express and to :it:superstrada incorrect?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.104.227 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Express road 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dual carriageway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312014538/http://local.aaca.org/bntc/mileposts/1924.htm to http://local.aaca.org/bntc/mileposts/1924.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified