Talk:Second Severn Crossing

message: Does anyone know the air draught of this bridge? It seems like something that would be easy to find out, but apparently not. I'm curious as to whether it's high enough to allow, for instance, the Prince William to enter. PeteVerdon 22:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This site gives the navigation clearance (which I presume is what you mean by air draught?) as 37 metres, which wouldn't be enough for the Prince William since its masthead height is 45 metres. Why would you want to sail a tall ship up the Severn, anyway? --YFB ¿ 22:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks - that is what I was looking for, yes. The reason I wondered (and it was only idle curiosity) is that the design of the bridge appears to have in mind the goal of allowing ships into the estuary. Otherwise, why bother with the suspended section? However, a moment with Google's aerial view shows that there isn't anywhere worthwhile to go if you did take a ship under it - I suppose I imagined that there was more up there. PeteVerdon 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air Draught? 

message: I can confirm that the Second Severn Crossing most certainly accepts payment by card. I traveled across it the other week and paid by card. All the booths have Chip and Pin machines. I cannot provide a linked citation to this, but in addition, the Westbound 'Cash only' sign on the M4 has been covered up. The information in both the article and on the Severn Bridges official website are wrong (although the latter looks seldom updated anyway). I am happy for there to be 'nothing' in the article on CC/DC, but it is very much wrong to claim they do not take them when they do.
I cannot speak for the original Severn Bridge as I haven't been on it recently, but this all applies to the Second Severn Crossing (although I wouldn't be suprised if the original bridge now takes cards too) Dvmedis (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough (although some editors say "verifiability trumps truth on Wikipedia" - even truth bourne of first hand experience, apparehtly). So it seems that things can sometimes move faster than Mike Penning says they will. And I thought The Caerphilly Observer had it's finger on the Ministerial pulse too! D'oh!! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "I have used them" is original research. Wikipedia is based on verifiability - so provide a reliable source that shows credit cards are now accepted on the bridge(s) --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 20:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, it is. But I suspect Dvmedis may not be the only one who recently paid to cross that bridge by means of a debit card. And I suspect that s/he may have been motivated by a desire to not let this article look hopelessly out of date and useless. But compared to the bridge's own website, maybe it doesn't look so bad? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this has just proved common sense is dead. Fair enough. I've tagged the section with a banner warning people that the information within is potentially (certainly) wrong; for all the good it'll do. Dvmedis (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is surely a reliable source...?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me - especially because it supports the existing references for introduction prior to the Ryder Cup and then subsequent withdrawl for a short time. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess part of the confusion has arisen with pin-required credit/debit cards and remote ones. But that's hardly any excuse of the bridge's own website which still says only cash and cheques. Obviously they ought to be selling copies of The Argus from all the booths. Cash only of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credit/Debit Cards 

message: I have undone User:Cap-Saint-Martin’s changes for the following reasons:
*A stand-alone description of the estuary is inappropriate in the form that Cap-Saint-Martin left it – it must be related to the rest of the article.  It should not have been moved out of its former section, though a short description could have been added to the section “Background”. 
*Cap-Saint-Martin’s removal of the first sentence was inappropriate.  Had he checked the history of the article, he would have seen that it appeared in the second version of the article (the first was a redirect).  At that time nothing was referenced.  The text looks to me as though a citation could be found in the consultation documents which will have been filed in various public libraries in the area.  I therefore want that line restored – I don’t care if it has a “citation needed” flag – we need to find the citation, not delete sentence.
Martinvl (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it. Enough is enough. Do the research first, bring your results here for discussion, then update the article if that is agreed upon. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't edit war - either of you.  I've made a few more minor amendments, changed one sub-heading, and tagged one sentence that isn't - but I think can be - referenced.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ghmyrtle, but I removed your tag as that is a summary of the rest of the section - which is referenced. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think that's fair, though I've combined the two paragraphs.  A paragraph of text without a reference at the end is often a green light to taggers (like me)...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I have completed the unravelling of the section "Setting".  Although the section "Environmental impact" might seem a little large at the moemnt, I think that there is a lot more that can be written about the design and construction, and also about the financing of the project. Martinvl (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cap-Saint-Martin's changes 19-March-2012 

message: Does anyone know, why I have to pay the charge only when I got to Wales and the way back is free?
I did, as many foreigners, the mistake when I went to Wales the 1st time: I paid the fee and spent some hours with my wife in Wales. Then we thougt: hey, let´s safe the money and we used the narrow raods back to Churchdown. It was a nice but time consuming way back through the mountains of Wales. But I was happy! Yes, 6 lbr saved! - then next morning at work a Welshman told me that the way back was free.
What is the reason for that? I only see one possible reason: the GOV calculates that 90% of people who enter Wales, will also go back, anytime. So they let them already pay the charge for the way back. But this is only an assumption...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toll, only in one direction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Second Severn Crossing. 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/20130315074917/http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/history.shtml to http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/history.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310164651/http://www.halcrow.com/Our-projects/Project-details/Second-Severn-Crossing-England-and-Wales/ to http://www.halcrow.com/our-projects/project-details/second-severn-crossing-england-and-wales/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/TollPrices2010.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/TollPrices2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927174238/http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/toll_prices.shtml to http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/toll_prices.shtml
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) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On this, as well as the Severn bridge article, it only mentions that the toll charges are to be halved.  But they don't mention that the government subsequently (in July) announced that they are to abolish the charge completely (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40671900).  Any chance of someone with better skills and knowledge being able to update this and the other article? Smoothy (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I normally complain bitterly about including things, in an encyclopedia, that have not even happened. But in this case I think it's fully justified. (Even if that decision were to be eventually reversed, for whatever bizarre reason a post-Brexit Westminster government might think up.)  Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolls to be abolished? 

message: What is the rationale for the edit swapping Wales and England to "England to Wales"?
Is there any consistency across the rest of Wikipedia's articles on which direction is "more logical"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.248.115 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess it matches the original. And, of course, it does hint at the crushing oppressive jackboot of Saesneg imperialism. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Not "swapping". Restoring to how it always has been. Following the Sun! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I noticed it had been changed and almost took it upon myself to revert it but then thought "What's the point?" just as I thought about the original change, and left it to someone else. I'm pleased it was changed back by someone who can't be accused of anti-Welsh feeling (I haven't either but I could be accused). I would expect a Welsh person though to feel good about the direction of travel being England to Wales. In another context, UK railway lines in the direction of London are always called the "up line". It doesn't bother me much because it is simply convention but if I could be bothered I would probably see it as a London-centric view. Therefore to talk of the road going from London to Cardiff for example, seems more friendly to those of us not of the metropolis. Even if everyone isn't in agreement with my view or with that of Gareth Griffith-Jones, let's not have an edit war over something so trivial. SMeeds (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, . Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

text: It's hardly a burning issue, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More "Logical" to travel from East to West? 

message: I have edited the article in accordance with the new name, however the page needs to be moved itself. Please can someone do this? Nathan A RF (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing redirect was "Prince of Wales Bridge (United Kingdom)", as there is also a "Prince of Wales Bridge (Canada)", so I have moved it to that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *You could have point. The official site still calls it "M4 SECOND SEVERN CROSSING". 86.187.175.118 (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: * Maybe they didn't know it was getting renamed? There was a ceremony to formally name the Prince of Wales Bridge but they didn't publicise it Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Let's hope Camilla had some loose change for the toll. Looking forward to the Duchess of Cornwall Bridge in due course. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text:  Kingsway and Queensway do have some local use though (if a Scouser needs to distinguish which one - although "Old" and "New" tunnels are still the more common).  A better example might be the Runcorn Bridge, which no-one outside WP or a local council office has ever called the "Silver Jubilee Bridge". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - I agree.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)...".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: *I'm not even going to mention Meghan Markle officially becoming the Duchess of Sussex. If everyone, including the bridge website itself and all motoring organizations like the AA, continue to call it the "Second Severn Crossing" (which chronologically it always will be, of course), any new "official name" is just a bit meaningless? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

text: That was a fact, though, wasn't it? Nor sure how unusual that is for a Royal engagement. Did they check "Court Circular" in the morning of the day in question? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Court Circular doesn't announce stuff, it just records the past. Even then , it only said, "visited the Second Severn Crossing". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link and the clarification. "... and were received by Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Gwent (Brigadier Robert Aitken)." But yes, a bit vague. And not directly relevant to the point made by that article text. It does seem a bit unusual, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the renaming ceremony took place in the toll office on the side of the motorway - not somewhere open to the public (unlike a school or a hospital) where locals can queue up to catch a glance etc! Far better just to say ceremony x happened on date y Paulharding150 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge renaming