Talk:Second Severn Crossing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Air Draught?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm suprised this bridge is nearly 3200 miles long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.85.92 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tolls[edit]

I don't believe that you can still obtain a bill from the toll operator in the event that you have no cash, as people were giving false details and not paying. Now you are taken across to the access road and sent back across the bridge to find some cash (known locally as the drive of shame). If anyone knows any different, or has been given a form recently, happy to accept it. If not I propose to alter this next week. Mlongcake (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For most motorists using the bridge, Tolls will probably be the most important topic. But for the general encyclopedia reader, I'd suggest not. So should this section be moved lower down in the article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea to make it reasonably consistent with Severn Bridge, which goes:
  1. History
  2. Component structures
  3. Post-construction changes
  4. Tolls
  5. etc...
Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite agree. No WP:MS order for bridge articles?! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In Mississippi...???!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously - I had a look at some of the "good articles" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges - not many similar to this one, but they all seem to start off with information on their history, which seems most appropriate for this one as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved the Tolls section down the page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credit/Debit Cards[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is surely a reliable source...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Change of primary units[edit]

This article was written using customary units as the primary units, and with metric as secondary. I have reverted a recent edit which swapped those around. I believe we need to discuss such a bold change as a switch of primary units. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors disagree with you. The references do not use yards, and it is customary in bridge articles to use feet and metres, not yards. --Bob Re-born (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Three red herrings don't convince anyone. There is no reasoned consensus for a change to which units are primary. Whether the references do or don't use yards is no reason to change the primary units, it might be a good reason to use feet, rather than yards though. The same for your last point. I can see a good reason to use feet rather than yards but can't see any reason given to change the primary units from customary to metric units. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At some time in the past the units were changed to imperial for no good reason and errors were introduced by whoever made the change. All that I have done ius to revert the work of somebody who was changing units for the sake of making the changes. You will also notie that I have filled out the infobox as well, taking values from a university engineering department's website (or is a university civil engineering website not worthy of following?) Martinvl (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the previous change was uncontested then, and passed unnoticed. Now though, any new change will need to be discussed and reasoned, and a consensus reached before such a drastic change is made. I haven't seen a valid reason yet for such a change, just red herrings, like your one about following the practice of a university website. What is wrong with using feet rather than yards, but keeping the customary units as primary? Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect that's wrong. This is not a radical change, it is making the article a) as it was and b) like other UK bridge articles. Nothing more to discuss. --Bob Re-born (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with using yards instead of feet? When one is calculating the tensions in the stays, one resolves the tensions into vertical and horizontal components. If one is working is SI, one would use newtons, if one was working in the foot–pound–second system, one would use pounds-weight (with the units of acceleration being measured in feet per second squared). As you can see, the units of length used in the design of the bridge are either metres or feet. It is therefore obvious that whoever used yards was trying to prove a point and did not know the first thing about engineering. To an engineer, the use of yards in this context sticks out like a sore thumb. Moreover, all engineering work in the UK is done using metric units; moreover, at the present time the majority of practising engineers in the United Kingdom received their university education in metric rather than imperial units. If you look at the two engineering-oriented citations that were provided, you will see that there is no mention of imperial units at all, also, when I was checking the measurements in the article against those in the citation, I noticed a number of conversion errors. The articles now match the citations item by item. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another bunch of red herrings. Can't you discuss the point here rather than inserting irrelevant speculations about what units engineers might have used or what units university academics use? Let me remind you of the main point again: the article was written in customary units and (after a brief period using metric) has had them as the primary units for years, a radical change to that should be discussed before being actioned and particularly if challenged. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion on User talk:Cap-Saint-Martin’s talk page about the units. Rather than to continue two discussions in parallel, I am continuing here. Firstly, he and I looked at the units that were used historically on this article. The situation as I see it is:

  • 10 September 2006 – The length of the bridge was quoted as being “3.186 miles (5128 m) long”. The article did not quote any other measurements.
  • By 29 December 2006 that article had more than doubled in size. A number of additional measurements regarding the bridge’s construction were quoted in metric units.
  • On 8 July 2007, convert templates were applied to all units of measure. The length was the bridge still had miles first, but all other measurements had metric units first.
  • The first edit war regarding units of measure broke out on 26 January 2010 when an anonymous editor changed everything that was metric first to imperial first. The changes were reverted the same day with the summary “Revert change to imperial units. The article is long established with metric units”.
  • On 31 August 2010 (the day after the August Bank Holiday), User: 91.108.47.145 made 21 edits in which he made some textual corrections, but also set imperial units first, hand-calculating them. In so doing, he introduced a number of errors and also used yards for distances in the horizontal direction. On the same day he made similar edits to the article Forth Road Bridge and also here to the article Scammonden. The Forth Road Bridge edits were reverted the same day. In the edits to the article Scammonden he changed feet to yards. It was later discovered that the text he changed in that article was copyright (written by engineers) so the whole section was deleted.

The changes to the article Second Severn Bridge were not noticed until yesterday. As can be seen from the above investigation, the only measurement that was quoted in imperial (not customary) units was the length of the bridge. Everything else was in metric units until User: 91.108.47.145 decided to tell engineers how to do their job. Martinvl (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you have confirmed my finding, that the article started life with customary/imperial units primary and (after a period of metric) has had customary units as primary, unchallenged, for the last 2.5 years. That sounds like customary units are the long established primary unit. If my reading of WP:UNIT, as recommended to me on my talkpage by The Rambling Man, is correct, and as I said there, I see plenty of tolerance for the use of customary units in UK road articles and note too the clear instruction at the top of the page that says a switch from one style to another needs a substantial reason unrelated to the choice of style. I'm not saying there isn't such a reason, but am saying a discussion is required, at least, before such a radical change is made in the article. So you need a substantial reason to now change the style of the article and you have not yet provided such a reason. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is both a roads article and an engineering article. It started off life as a primarily a roads article, but as it expanded, it became an engineering article. You will notice that in my additions to this article, I kept miles as the primary unit of measure when discussing lengths of road, but used metres when discussing engineering structures. My chronology above shows that the switch to imperial (BTW, they are called "imperial units" in the United Kingdom, the Americans use "Customary units") was sneaked in one bank holiday after an earlier attempt had failed. BTW, you will notice that this morning I aligned the way in which miles are used to the way in which they are used on British roads today. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand you here. Are you giving the substantial reason required for your change of the primary units from customary/imperial to metric as because when it was last changed back to customary 2.5 years ago, it was done on a bank holiday? Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting the changes that some muppet made on 31 August 2010 when he decided that the length of the bridge should be expressed in yards - every semi-decent engineer knows that bridges were never designed in yards - in pre-metric days the FPS ("Foot-pound-second") was used, but this bridge was designed using SI. If you go back to the article as it existed on 30 August 2010, you will see that metric units took precedence. I was restoring that state.Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More red herrings:
  • Articles do not have to use the units of design, it would be better if they used the units that the readers will be more familiar with.
  • You could have used feet rather than yards without swapping the primary units to metric in the entire article.
As the article had been stable with customary/imperial units as primary for 2.5 years it should be restored to that condition until these discussions decide whether to accept your proposed radical change. You seem to be hell bent on forcing your preference for metric without any reasonable argument to support it. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the use of yards had to go. In such circumstances we revert to the last stable version before the erroneous edit was made. That is my position and I am not going to enter into any further discussion. Martinvl (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content of article[edit]

I've reverted these changes that seem to me to be not relevant to this article. They are about the estuary as a whole, or the SSSI / SPA / Ramsar site in particular - but they are not about the Second Severn Crossing. Those points of information should be given in other articles. This is not an article about the Severn estuary as a whole - it is an article about an engineering structure. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section was still under construction. I had found a number of references relating to the construction clouding the water and bridge affecting (or otherwise) the bird's flightpath. The section that was there was to establish the context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:37, 19 March 2013‎
In that case I don't think anyone will object if you reinstate the information, once you have the full text and references ready. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's true so long as the information specifically relates to the SSC and is not general information about the Severn estuary or the SSSI, etc., which is what the information that was added (with a photo of a wading bird, etc.) appeared to be. It would be relevant to know whether environmental concerns raised before the bridge's construction have been proven to be valid in practice - concerns raised at the time, but where we have no subsequent information, are of relatively low importance. More generally, the point about Wikipedia is that, unlike paper encyclopedias, general background information should not be contained within particular articles - it should be contained in relevant articles that are linked to this one. This is an article about the SSC, not about the Severn estuary or its ecological importance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworked the section that was removed: I cut back a little on the detail of the ecology of the estuary while added a good deal of information that is directly related to the bridge. I trust that what I have written is approriate. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article now gives a very one-sided view of the environmental impact of the crossing. A whole "environmental concerns" section has been constructed by stringing together unrelated information from: a document review relating to wading birds (which concluded that there was no evidence of any negative effect) and other disparate sources (most of which don't, or barely, mention the crossing) about the environmental costs of the crossing, and embellished with an overly detailed and irrelevant hyper-linked list of bird species and pretty pictures of nature from elsewhere in the world. Yet nothing at all has been written about the environmental benefits of the crossing to provide balance. I think that this new section exaggerates and misrepresents the environmental case and should be removed. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the section is well-written and well-referenced - it seems to me that it is - but whether it gives undue weight to the negative environmental effects (at least, some of them - it doesn't address questions of whether, for example, it has led to increased fuel usage). There's no valid reason to remove the section, though there may be scope for some trimming. If reliable sources can be found setting out environmental benefits, of course they can be added. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is not referenced at all and does not reflect or summarize the rest of the section. The second paragraph looks like nothing more than an excuse to provide an overly hyper-linked list of birds and other creatures and the subsequent paragraphs exaggerate or even misrepresent the content of the references and does nothing to enlighten readers about the true impact on the environment of the crossing. It should all be removed. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I'm also conscious of the fact that you may be transferring your irritation with one editor over one issue onto this separate issue - if so, please don't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree? Can you explain for us then: how you think the the first paragraph is reliably sourced, the point of the list of wildlife species in the 2nd paragraph and the value of the addition of latin names and the links for mudflat, Severn Estuary, English Stones, invertebrate and Salt marsh and explain the interpretation of the other paragraphs with reference to the sources provided. Please reconsider your last point. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point of links is to give information to readers. However, I do note that the Mersey report that is referenced stated: "In conclusion there is no evidence to indicate that the M4 Second Severn Crossing has had a significant ecological impact on the wading bird interest of the Severn Estuary or poses a future threat." That point does need to be made more clearly in the text. I'm happy to support a balanced section, but threats that "It should all be removed" don't seem to improve the prospect of that happening. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even the section title is misleading because the references do not express concerns, just observations. The list of birds is irrelevant and, as you found out for yourself by glancing at the reference, the rest is nothing but mischief making. If there is a story to tell about impact on the environment, then it needs to be properly researched and neutrally presented - this section does not fit that bill. And thanks for the strike-through. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked it slightly to align with what is supported. Cap-Saint-Martin (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cap-Saint-Martin's changes 19-March-2012[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

User:Cap-Saint-Martin's account has been blocked indefinitely as he is a sockpuppet of DeFacto, an editor who was banned about a year ago. DeFacto has launched a number of sock-puppet attacks on me - the changes he made to this article were not for the benefit of the article, but were to disrupt what I was doing. I feel that the section "Settings" (which was a compromise based on Cap-Saint-martin's disruptive actions) is a little out of place. In view of this I would like to split that section, intgegrating the material into the sections "Background" (the bit about the mudflats), "Design" (the bit about the railway tunnel) and "Environmental impact" (the description of the wildlife). I also intend to reinstate the some of the material removed from "Environemntal impact" (even if it is uncited) so that we have a handle on which to hang other information relating to environmental issues. If anybody objects violently, please let me know. Martinvl (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Toll, only in one direction[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tolls to be abolished?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

More "Logical" to travel from East to West?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Not "swapping". Restoring to how it always has been. Following the Sun! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 16:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well said, S Meeds. Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 16:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly a burning issue, is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Bridge renaming[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Strong oppose WP:COMMONNAME is dead against this being called the "Noddy and Bigears Bridge". There is zero use of this title, there is strong opposition to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert renaming... wait and see. My initial reaction was much like Andy's... though I then looked at Queensway Tunnel and Kingsway Tunnel and thought, well, maybe there might be some logic behind it. However, I think a considered position would be to wait and see whether the new name does become the accepted name, for example on the official site and in press coverage. So, revert now and review later. Other linked pages like Severn crossing need to be consistent with this one - I held my nose and edited that page yesterday. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good point - I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an RfC, so I don't think we need to !vote. I was aware of the opposition to the renaming and the controversy in the press, but had assumed this was a simple change to what was already a redirect. Happy if someone wants to revert and we then have a period of assessment and/or a formal RfC for the move. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Not sure if that should be grey or blue.[reply]
  • The bridge renaming has occurred officially. It may still be called the Second Severn Crossing locally but the official name is the Prince of Wales Bridge. That's it. It has been renamed and should stay renamed here Nathan A RF (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Have reverted the move per WP:BRD, if someone wants to set up a requested move, feel free to do so. Jeni (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the renaming section - whilst the renaming 'process' was controversial I feel the paragraph on the page is heavily weighted and far from neutral. It relys heavily on one source (WalesOnline) which is often in the same league as MailOnline for sensationalism. I particularly take issue with: "...ceremony held at the toll plaza without any prior press release or other official communication from the Government" Paulharding150 (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
The Court Circular doesn't announce stuff, it just records the past. Even then [1], it only said, "visited the Second Severn Crossing". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Severn_Crossing&oldid=1209598809"