Talk:A151 road

This article, particularly the 'Description' section and the footnotes, is still in the process of construction. (RJP 12:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) By the time it is edited down a bit, it might scrape under the 32kb limit. (RJP 13:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC))

Section moved from article to talk

Caution

While maps are useful in illustrating features of the road, the means of providing them are complex and likely to leave the reader in limbo. They are therefore in course of being placed in footnotes to be used by readers who wish to enquire more deeply. If you wish to use them, first read the note at the head of the footnotes section. Unless you are making a serious study, these map links are best avoided. Clicking on the footnotes superscript will take you to the note in question unless it is in brackets. In that case, it is not yet working.

The above is more suitable for this talk page, rather than the article itself. -- User:Docu

Geology

The information on geology is interesting, but would it not fit better on the village pages than the description of the road? Is it a normal part of a road page?--Brunnian (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Geological information is not a normal part of a road page but it certainly should be. It is not possible to understand the course of a road without learning of the geology which lies under it. The people whose horses sank to their hocks in mud certainly saw the point in finding a firmer bit of geology to divert onto. Where a road winds, the geology is usually a major factor governing where it winds to. (RJPe (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC))

Bourne bypass

The section from Stamford Hill to Bourne crossroads to Spalding Road is no longer A151.

With the construction of the Bourne Bypass the route round the south-western quadrant, a few tens of metres up the A15, and then round Cherryholt in the South-eastern quadrant is now designated A151, and West Road, West Street, and Spalding road in town are the B1193.

--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A151 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/20050406115505/http://www.bl.uk:80/collections/treasures/luttrell/luttrell_narrowband.htm?middle to http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/luttrell/luttrell_narrowband.htm?middle
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420083534/http://www.bl.uk:80/collections/treasures/digitisation.html to http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/digitisation.html

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) 22:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

cite tags

@Pppery: So, according to Wikipedia:HTML_5#cite, the <cite> tag is supposed to include the title of the work and other contents of the citation itself. On this article, the <cite> tags don't do that; they only enclose the word "Note" and the ID number, which is apparently semantically invalid HTML. You're right that WP:CITEVAR says not to change the citation format needlessly. I think in this case, that means that this page should keep the list-defined references, but to be valid HTML from what I read on Help:List-defined references that should be done with <ref> tags. That page also says that reference IDs should be names, not numbers, to prevent confusion and avoid the need for manual renumbering. In this article there are IDs like fn_(8a), which I think is showing the problems with renumbering. -- Beland (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)