Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject UK geography page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | ||
---|---|---|
Proposed deletions
Good article nominees Featured article reviews
Requested moves
Articles to be merged
Articles to be split
| ||
Did you know? articles[edit]Wellesbourne, Brighton (2024-07-01) • Rosal, Sutherland (2024-05-25) • Newlyn Tidal Observatory (2023-11-20) • Godalming (2023-09-20) • Reigate (2023-09-10) Reached maximum of 5 out of 308 Featured pictures[edit]
In the News articles[edit]Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2021-07-22) • 2009 Great Britain and Ireland floods (2009-11-21) • February 2009 British Isles snowfall (2009-02-06) Main page featured articles[edit]Coventry ring road (2023-07-23) • Combe Hill, East Sussex (2023-01-11) • Brownhills (2022-03-03) • Abberton Reservoir (2021-09-05) • Shaw and Crompton (2021-08-15) Reached maximum of 5 out of 71 Main page featured lists[edit]List of scheduled monuments in South Somerset (2023-12-22) • List of castles in Greater Manchester (2023-04-07) • List of Shetland islands (2022-05-20) • List of freshwater islands in Scotland (2020-04-24) • List of scheduled monuments in Taunton Deane (2018-10-26) Reached maximum of 5 out of 7 | ||
| ||
Archives
[edit]- /Archive 1 – 2005
- /UK or home nations in introductions – August 2006
- /Archive 2 – 2006 – Feb 2007
- /Archive 3 – Feb 2007 – Oct 2007
- /Archive 4 – Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
- /Archive 5 – Feb 2008 – March 2008
- /Archive 6 – March 2008 – June 2008
- /Archive 7 – June 2008 – Dec 2008
- /Archive 8 – Jan 2009 – May 2009
- /Archive 9 – June 2009 – July 2009
- /Archive 10 – August 2009 – February 2010
- /Archive 11 – March 2010 – January 2011
- /Archive 12 – January 2011 – March 2012
- /Archive 13 – April 2012 – April 2013
- /Archive 14 – May 2013 – August 2013
- /Archive 15 – August 2013 – April 2014
- /Archive 16 – April 2014 – August 2015
- /Archive 17 – August 2015 – September 2017
- /Archive 18 – December 2017 – October 2019
- /Archive 19 – October 2019 – April 2021
- /Archive 20 – April 2021 – May 2021
- /Archive 21 – May 2021 – August 2021
- /Archive 22 – August 2021 – October 2021
- /Archive 23 – August 2021 – October 2021 (Historic counties discussion)
- /Archive 24 – October 2021 – January 2022
- /Archive 25 – January 2022 – June 2022
- /Archive 26 – April 2022 – September 2022
- /Archive 27 – September 2022 – October 2022
- /Archive 28 – October 2022 – May 2023
- /Archive 29 – June 2023
- /Archive 30 – June 2023 – July 2023
- /Archive 31 – June 2023 – July 2023
- /Archive 32 – June 2023 – August 2023
- /Archive 33 – August 2023 – September 2023
- /Archive 34 – September 2023
- /Archive 35 – September 2023
- /Archive 36 – September 2023
- From old WikiProject UK subdivisions
Disagreement on Christchurch article re:settlement definition
[edit]There is a dispute at the article for Christchurch, Dorset over whether, how, and in how much detail, the article should cover Bournemouth Airport – a major employer which was in the now defunct borough of Christchurch, but some distance outside the built-up area in a neighbouring parish. This is essentially a difference of opinion on how to handle the ambiguity around defining settlements. If you think you can help resolve this, join the discussion at Talk:Christchurch,_Dorset#Bournemouth_airport. Thanks, Joe D (t) 10:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
York has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire
[edit]Template:Ancient parishes of Northamptonshire has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joe D (t) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Potential to streamline UK places maintenance using Wikidata
[edit]Hi project, prompted by revisiting the UK Wikipedians' "complete todo list" page for the first time in at least a decade, and noticing that it had instructions to add population data to place articles with some very out of date broken links to sources for the data [1], I got thinking about whether there are any better ways to add and maintain up-to-date population data.
I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Potential to use Wikidata here to make our lives easier?, with a proposal for an update to the Infobox that you might have views on.
(If nobody has raised any objections, I'll be bold and have a go at making it happen next week.)
Cheers, Joe D (t) 15:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Counties - ceremonial or historic
[edit]I've just been signposted to the archived discussion on use of flags in county infoboxes, after I brought this up on the How To Write About Counties subpage. Personally I err towards including (non-council) county flags in the infobox, with an explanation in the body if needed. As previously discussed, a lot of these flags are not only supported by councils (which I appreciate do not always cover entire counties), ceremonial officers and the flag institute, but also with some government releases and planning permission implying these hold official status - this has been largely discussed in the above archived discussion. As far as I can tell part of the ongoing discussion is to as to whether they represent historic or ceremonial counties, which rather begs the question which of those are the infoboxes and articles intended to represent. Evidently predominantly the current ceremonial county, but I note most county pages include both a 'historic' and 'ceremonial' map again within the infobox as well as dates of establishment etc, and the lack of separate page for the former entities leads me to assume that whilst predominantly about the current county, there is nothing to prevent historic discussion. Would a compromise which covers all bases perhaps to include those flags which are unambiguous (ie leaving out those which haven't had any even indirect recognition) in infoboxes, but with caveat of maybe labelling them as "historic flag of fooshire"? ~~~~ BryceIII (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:UKCOUNTIES states we don’t usually recognise historic counties as existing as separate from the modern ones, nor with their former borders. So the county articles cover both, and naturally the modern county is prioritised. As it has been argued the flag technically is only for the historic county, it therefore cannot be in the modern-focused infobox. The discussion is still recent and not fully concluded. I did also raise the idea of an altered caption in the template. DankJae 13:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are editors here who would die in a ditch rather than see flags in county infoboxes. I say pick a fight you can win. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reading both this comment and your one on the 'How to write about counties' subpage, I think your position is based on two slight (and very understandable) misconceptions.
- The first is that the county flags have official status. They don't, really, despite being mentioned in the British government's 'Flying Flags' guideline. The Flag Institute is an independent charity, and its registry carries no legal weight. The flag authority for England and Wales is the Earl Marshal, and as far as I know he hasn't taken any steps to officially recognise the county flags.
- It is clear, however, that many of these unofficial flags are in popular use and some do have a degree of recognition from local councils etc. Personally, I don't think this is enough to warrant a place in the infobox, but it's certainly enough to warrant inclusion in the enyclopedia.
- The second thing is that the flags themselves are mostly not historic, with most being designed after 2000. I think I'm right in saying that several were created with the intent of representing an historic county – Lancashire's has certainly been flown in what's now Greater Manchester – but describing them as 'historic flags' wouldn't be accurate except in the few cases where they are.
- I do think the county flags are quite a knotty subject to untangle, and they're related to the counties discussion which is even knottier. It's why I've become quite focussed on establishing what the flags actually are, as I think it's only once we've done that that we'll be able to establish a proper approach to them. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Removing redirects (re-creating pages)
[edit]CLARIFY - the discussion below is about reverting the blanking & redirecting some time ago of nearly 50 poor-quality road articles to a single list. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not "to a single list" but to the relevant one of A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme and its sisters. PamD 15:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this finds you well. There is an ongoing discussion taking place at the following articles, regarding whether the current redirects should be removed, which may be of interest to this WikiProject:
Please see the necessary talk pages for more information. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 Could you clarify this? The first link, Talk: A109 road, has no mention of any disccussion but A109 road redirects to A109 dab page, no problems there. The second, Talk:A110 road, redirects to Talk:A110 road (England), where you have made a complicated statement which ends up with "
If I don't hear anything back in the next few days, then I will more than likely remove the redirect
". A110 road should, and does, redirect to A110 as there are several roads there (2 roads and a motorway). What do you mean by "Remove the redirect"? A110 road (England) should redirect to A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, as it does today, until there is an article about the road itself. If you have sources to create an article, you can do so, overwriting the redirect. What is the problem? PamD 14:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- In short: If by "remove the redirect" you mean "delete the redirect", don't do it. If you mean "write a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect", then do it. PamD 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did some digging PamD and I think what the editor is saying is undo the original redirects, e.g. diff. That would be a bad thing IMHO as all the redirects seem to have been done of the right reason. Writing a completely new article, like you say - go ahead. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 A less controversial but useful job would be to ensure that all these roads are represented in the lists like List of highways numbered 109, which doesn't include the English A109. See List of highways numbered 1#United Kingdom for the way it's done (eg under U for UK not E for England). PamD 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would but I will be busy from now until Sunday, so someone else may have to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry: it's not an urgent job and has been left undone for probably years in some cases. There is no time limit. PamD 14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Roads4117 (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, digging around a bit more, it seems as though this is a bigger thing, as lots of the articles do not include the United Kingdom, or if they do, then they do not include B roads. Roads4117 (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- No hurry: it's not an urgent job and has been left undone for probably years in some cases. There is no time limit. PamD 14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would but I will be busy from now until Sunday, so someone else may have to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. Roads4117 (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seconded. Keep the redirects until a dedicated article can be made. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, I hope that you are well and sorry for over-complicating things! That was totally a mistake on my behalf; I was meant to write Talk: A109 road (England) and Talk: A110 road (England). What I mean by remove the redirect as in short, revert the edits by @Ajpolino and @Ritchie333, to create a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect. The reason why I put the message on the talk page and did not do it straight away is because I wanted a consensus and overall opinion on the matter. The editor that redirected some of the pages, @Ajpolino, has given this move the go ahead on my talk page. I hope that answers all of your questions! Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule will always be: if you can produce a well-sourced article on the road, do so. Don't just revert to an unsourced previous version. PamD 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 And have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) to be reminded of considerations around notability: we don't just need proof that the road exists and goes from A to B via C (which can be well summarised in a list like A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme), but that there is something notable about it - follows line of ancient Roman Road, was built as a turnpike road, has been the subject of numerous controversial planned new schemes, etc. PamD 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See A82 road and A215 road and the other UK road Good Articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Good articles for ideas about road articles and sourcing. PamD 14:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I wonder how many other UK roads should really be converted to redirects, if A132 road (England) is typical: the only "source" is Google maps. Is it time for another sweep through to redirect unsourced roads with no claim to notability to their relevant lists? PamD 15:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See A82 road and A215 road and the other UK road Good Articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways#Good articles for ideas about road articles and sourcing. PamD 14:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117 And have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A2199 road (2nd nomination) to be reminded of considerations around notability: we don't just need proof that the road exists and goes from A to B via C (which can be well summarised in a list like A roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme), but that there is something notable about it - follows line of ancient Roman Road, was built as a turnpike road, has been the subject of numerous controversial planned new schemes, etc. PamD 14:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule will always be: if you can produce a well-sourced article on the road, do so. Don't just revert to an unsourced previous version. PamD 14:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In short: If by "remove the redirect" you mean "delete the redirect", don't do it. If you mean "write a well-sourced article overwriting the redirect", then do it. PamD 14:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would be much better if you had the discussion in a single place rather than create a virtually identical discussion on 49 different articles (discussions that should always be posted at the bottom of the talk page b.t.w. - as you failed to do at Talk:A1066 road). When you look at the blanked/redirected articles you'll see they were nearly all unreferenced and ranged from virtually empty stubs to unsourced articles chock-full of original research - see the last revision of the same A1066 article as an example. I don't see any compelling reason to overturn what was a really good move for Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason why I put the messages on 49 different articles was because I had already put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, but then no-one replied, plus as well I wanted editors to know that there had been a consensus on restoring the page, unlike in February 2018. Roads4117 (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you remove all 49 discussions to save any further confusion and focus any feedback here? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I spent my whole Thursday putting them up, for potentially no reason, and as well, I am unavaliable later, so it would take forever. Roads4117 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can take them down in a couple of minutes if you want me to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, anyone responding should be directed here and their response shown here. If no-one's responded, a simple notification that there's a discussion here would be better than the current text. NebY (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. I'll happily do that. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done! Each in individual discussion now has a reply pointong back to here. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great! NebY (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes just redirect them all here. Then there is no more misunderstandings and miscommunication. Roads4117 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've also fixed the few talk pages on which you top-posted. Next time you might want to click "New section". 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the very least, anyone responding should be directed here and their response shown here. If no-one's responded, a simple notification that there's a discussion here would be better than the current text. NebY (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can take them down in a couple of minutes if you want me to. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would, but I spent my whole Thursday putting them up, for potentially no reason, and as well, I am unavaliable later, so it would take forever. Roads4117 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Roads4117: You need to clarify what you are asking people to support or oppose. Do you mean "Revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles", or "Work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article"? PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, my aim would be to revert the redirects, but over time, collaborate with other editors to create a well-sourced article. Roads4117 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just do them one at a time? Revert one, upgrade it to a well-sourced article demonstrating notability, then move on to the next one. PamD 04:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamD, that was my plan; do them one-at-a-time, and try my best to make the best possible article (and even maybe aiming for Good Article (GA) contention). However, currently I think/know I am a long way off that. This is because an article I was the main author of, A508 road, has recently been nominated for deletion, as you can see at this link here. Therefore, I would probably (definitely) need a little help to get me on my way (just one or so article(s)),then I can do the other 47/48 articles by myself. Regards, Roads4117 (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why not just do them one at a time? Revert one, upgrade it to a well-sourced article demonstrating notability, then move on to the next one. PamD 04:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @PamD, my aim would be to revert the redirects, but over time, collaborate with other editors to create a well-sourced article. Roads4117 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Support
[edit]Comment copied from User talk:Roads4117#Un-redirectifying road articles
- Hi Roads4117. I see you posted on the talk pages of a handful of road articles I redirected several years ago. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Sadly, I doubt there's anyone else watching those talk pages. I support undoing the redirects. Back in those days I was wiki-young and wiki-impatient and got wrapped up in an effort to reduce a backlog of uncited articles. Now with a bit more time, I think it's clear the encyclopedia is better with those road articles intact, than with the redirects to a list that just shows "from", "to", and "notes". I'd suggest you just go ahead and revert right away. I don't think anyone else is likely to notice and comment on those pages. It looks like I hit 19 road pages, all on the same day here. If no one objects and you don't get around to it, I'll undo this weekend when I have a moment. No need to wait for me though. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support an attempt to work through each of the 49 roads and carefully create a well-sourced article, where sufficient sources are available and the road is notable, perhaps initially based on reverting to the previous version but then adding good sources and making it an acceptable article. PamD 15:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, be free to re-create any page with a well-sourced version (which I think you mentioned) meeting WP:GEOROAD. But don’t just revive any of the poorly sourced older versions. DankJae 15:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support overwriting redirects with individually written well-sourced articles that demonstrate notability. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose
[edit]- Oppose any suggestion to revert all 49 redirects to unsourced/otherwise dubious articles. PamD 15:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I object to you doing a mass-revert. Wikipedia is way better off without a bunch of mostly unsourced original research. Less is sometimes much better. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. In my view, no roads at all are intrinsically notable. WP:GNG still applies. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose mass reverting redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now the action to create redirects has been taken, article recreation should be considered on a road by road basis with regard to the usual notability and sourcing expectations. Poor articles previously existing does not give them a right to re-emerge. Rcsprinter123 (lecture) 23:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've taken some time to read through the discussion. I oppose performing a mass-revert. If these routes are notable, then it would be better to write an article per route than mass-reverting all of the redirects. There is no need to rush the process of article creation. --hmich176 08:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, yes I strongly oppose this action. Will mass reverting redirects help the Wikipedia user? I don't think so. Redirecting it can give the user some information even if it is not enough to create an whole new article for the road. SethWhales talk 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the roads qualify for stand-alone articles at all, then write articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and have significantly greater value to our readers than entries in a list article. The mass posting to article talk pages includes "
I cannot see what singles out the A109 or A508 for special treatment
".[2] A508 road is not a good model; it is padded with commentary (the only area in Leicestershire to be included in the Sunday Times Best Places to Live 2023 guide
), trivia (some allotments and Market Harborough cemetery on our right
), continual breaches of MOS:WE (We turn right onto Northampton Road from Springfield Street
), and more (We also now have to say goodbye to Kelmarsh, and hello to Maidwell...
) - it's only recognisable as a Wikipedia article by its formatting. I can't see what's singled it out for special treatment either. NebY (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)- @NebY, these breaches have since been removed by Steinsky. Roads4117 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- The next thing someone should do is take out the whole "Distances" section. Full of original research and excessive detail. Surely there's no place for things like this on Wikipedia? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I believe it's beyond redemption, so A508 nominated for deletion 10mmsocket (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NebY, these breaches have since been removed by Steinsky. Roads4117 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Ulshaw Bridge#Requested move 19 August 2024
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/30px-Information.svg.png)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ulshaw Bridge#Requested move 19 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aprilajune (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinates and "region:GB"
[edit]Many of the article this project is interested in have coordinates, for settlements, areas, buildings etc. But a lot of them don't have the "region:GB" parameter in {{coord}}, so when the reader clicks on the coords and gets to GeoHack they aren't offered UK-specific links, and don't get easily to OS mapping (via Bing or UK Streetmap) etc. (There are also problems of over-precision, but that's another story).
I don't know much about bots and their operation, but I could imagine a really useful bot with an algorithm like
- Select an item on a UK geographical entity. (How to identify: either category tree, or of interest to this wikiproject?)
- Does it have coords? If not, ignore
- Are they displayed in the title (to focus on coords which represent the place itself, and eliminate the case where the article mentions that the place is twinned with somewhere in Australia and gives its coords)? If not, ignore
- Do the coords include "region:GB"? If so, ignore
- Do the coords include "type:" (or any other commonly-used parameters of {{coord}} which go in the same slot)? If so, then add "region:GB_" immediately before "type:"; if not, add "region:GB|" immediately before "display".
Or something like that.
Would it be a good idea? Is there a bot enthusiast out there who'd be interested in this?
I've just realised that my ultra-careful approach there, only looking at coords which are displayed in the title line, wouldn't actually help with the case which has brought this to my mind today, where a list has a lot of coords - I was looking at Listed buildings in Yealand Conyers, one of @Peter I. Vardy:'s heroic collection of similar lists. Hmm. But I leave this here as a suggestion for a future bot or AWB project or any other approach to help make our clickable coordinates more useful for our readers. And at the very least a reminder to you all to include that "region:GB" in any coords you add. Any thoughts? PamD 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A508 road, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A508 road until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)