Talk:National secondary road
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am trying to come up with a fact-box for National secondary roads; below is my first attempt in the N80 article:
Destinations (NW to SE) | |
---|---|
![]() ![]() |
One problem; it could do with the route-marker logo which appears in all the Motorway and Primary route articles (usually supplied by User:Zoney as far as I can tell).
The box (right) here is obviously copied and modified from the Primary N-series articles; adjusted for the fact that very few towns are bypassed and the roads don't have interchanges.
Would any genius out there like to try and come up with a more refined info-box so we can apply it to my planned series on Nat secondary roads?
I think such a series is a good way of cataloguing the geography of Ireland as they pass through all the main towns, hills, lakes, historic sites etc - they can be built into the link to all of these. Some graphic which maps the road with the various connections (towns, villages, junctions, sites, hills, points of interest, rivers and so forth) in some stylised manner would be great.
And for roads train-spotters we could give the carriageway standard of the various sections; these roads will be evolving for the next 20 years or more. (Sarah777 22:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Zoney Template
R154 Destinations (SE to NW) |
---|
|
This is better, it includes road connections/junctions. Still need route-marker logo to give it a nice presentation. HOW are these generated? (Sarah777 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC))
Removed boldface
I removed the bold mark-up from the road names in the road list table cos I felt it was unnecessary mark-up. I've centered the road names instead to make them stand out. Ga2re2t (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Roads with no article are redirected to National secondary road article?
I've noticed that secondary roads with no article of their own are redirected to this article. Why? Surely it would be more productive not to have redirects and instead create red links to those pages. I know it's not pretty but I feel it would encourage more people to start a dedicated page to those roads. The roads with no namespace of their own appear to be: N56 road, N67 road, N68 road, N69 road, N70 road, N72 road, N73 road, N85 road and N86 road. Ga2re2t (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree - the redirects to the general article were done when there were very few articles I suspect. Red link v no link? I'm neutral; but I tend to leave red links myself. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
- I also prefer to create a basic stub rather than a one-liner; each has a photo and a route-box at minimum as the existence of a one-line stub hides the fact that there is no article. (Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC))
External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National secondary road. 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/20090319162206/http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/GeneralPublications/file,15886,en.pdf to http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/GeneralPublications/file,15886,en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)