Talk:A1079 road

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force. Yorkshire Mid‑importance A1079 road is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It makes sense: keeping the articles together. Thoughts? --TFoxton 18:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Two articles, one piece of tarmac seems a waste of time. Regan123 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Road is a more than just a part of the A1079 - it's a community and distinct part of Hull. Keep the pages seperate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghr265 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not beign a local its hard for me to eb sure, but this article seems to say the A1079 loses its primary status when it becomes Beverley Road. This suggests they are actually two pieces of tarmac that happen to connect to each other, rather than one being a subset of the other. I also can't see where Beverley Road could be included in this article - the focus of the article is not so much on the road itself (as this page is) but on the housing and shops that line it. On balance I'd argue they should remain separate though Beverley Road could do with better sourcing and a clearer claim to notability.

Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A1079 road/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 23:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A1079 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/20070928011419/http://217.174.251.13/road_lookup?map_type=risk&country=GB&road=a1079 to http://217.174.251.13/road_lookup?map_type=risk&country=GB&road=a1079
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070802002641/http://217.174.251.13/library/pdfs/news/20070624_GB_Results_Table_1_2_final.pdf to http://217.174.251.13/library/pdfs/news/20070624_GB_Results_Table_1_2_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]