text:
Talk:Road pricing

Road pricing petition
I have twice added a line to the 'Criticisms' section, detailing and linking to a current petition against road pricing in the UK. I think that this illustrates the concerns of a majority of the general public on this issue. 'Thisisbossi', why do you keep removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.246.81 (talk) 14 December 2006, 13:40 (UTC)

 * Thisisbossi can speak for himself, but my own view is that the purpose of this article is to explain what road pricing is, not to encourage people to sign a petition against it. The petition currently has 41467 names which hardly counts as a "large proportion" let alone a "majority" of the general public. --RichardVeryard 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * RichardVeryard said it much as I would have said it: an online petition does not do much to forward an encyclopedia article. A link to an organisation's developed website would be much more appropriate, as opposed to one individual's blog, for example, or a collection of relatively useless names.  The "No Tolls" website, while a hideous mess as far as aesthetics go, is a much more appropriate website for providing criticism of road pricing.  Additionally, the links that keep showing up in each of your edits only cycle me right back to this Road Pricing article -- another reason for my reverts.  I have no issue with your edit which added info regarding PAYD, but I do not feel that the petition reference and cyclical link are fit in Wikipedia as per WP:EL. --Thisisbossi 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your feedback. What do you mean by "the links .... only cycle me right back to this Road Pricing article"? I am afraid that I don't understand you there. In response to Richard, I understand your point of view, although many forums and, for example, the vote on here show a majority (73%) against the proposals. I would be satisfied with there not being a link to the petition under 'external links'; Are you both happy with the edit as it currently stands? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.47.246.81 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

 * The petition has been removed pending provision regarding how it is appropriate for Wikipedia per the above comments. --Thisisbossi 03:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Thisisbossi, I understand you now.. Link corrected, sorry, still getting to grips with this... 80.47.246.81 18:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I still disagree with its inclusion, though, but first I'll await additional opinions. --Thisisbossi 01:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To hopefully bump this section and garner some additional feedback: I'd appreciate some more response on the inclusion of this petition, which seems to thoroughly violate WP:EL. The History for the article is getting cluttered with people doing little more than update the date and number of this item which supports a bias against the topic; and is one of numerous petitions of its kind. If there is no adequate response as to how this is acceptable within Wikipedia, this will be removed. --Thisisbossi 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal. The general flaws in such petitions are described in Internet petition, and I can't see that this petition is any exception. I have added a discussion point to Wikipedia talk:External links --RichardVeryard 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an important subject deserving of a quality NPOV article. Continual updating of online petition numbers is unencylopedic and a misuse of Wikipedia.--JBellis 21:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The petition has been removed pending provision regarding how it is appropriate for Wikipedia per the above comments. Thank you all for your input. --Thisisbossi 03:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree, but keen to compromise. I feel that if your issues are with the link to the petition, why remove all reference to it? It would seem to me that considering the huge numbers involved, the petition is highly relevant to any discussion of, or article about, road pricing. As such I have added a link to Reuters news article about the petition, and I also think it is fair to add a POV flag, considering the debate and editing taking place with this article. Also, in answer to RichardVeryard's concerns about internet petitions, the one in question is hosted and maintained by the UK government, and the results are passed directly to the Prime Minister. All signatures are validated with a full UK address, presumably to be verified against the electoral register. The target recipient of the petition is well defined, and ballot stuffing, although admittedly possible, is far more difficult than for the vast majority of 'e-petitions.' Midlandstoday 23:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Now this seems like something I can agree with! Thanks for the link to Reuters, Midlandstoday. --Thisisbossi 01:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge to Toll road
Against - Egads no: they are nothing alike! I suspect this to be vandalism on the part of an anonymous contributor, particularly as he/she left no explanation of his/her intentions. I will remove this tag tomorrow barring any legitimate issues in support of a merge. --Thisisbossi 04:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Vandalism? No, not at all, merely a legitimate but anonymous post. (Please Assume Good Faith, eh? - WP:AGF) I am honestly curious to know why you think these topics are different enough to justify separate articles. -- 201.50.248.179 14:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (I originally added the merge tag)

 * Something that possibly affects this discussion: In the U.S., the term "toll road" is used, however AFAIK the term "road pricing" is never used. As far as I can tell, both of these articles are discussing effectively identical subjects. I think we should merge them. If there is some difference, I think we sould clarify what it is for the Americans. Thanks for your consideration. -- 201.50.248.179 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * This is the difference, as I understand it. Toll roads are specific roads that are subject to charging. Whereas road pricing doesn't just refer to specific roads but to potentially all roads. For example, a large chunk of Central London is covered by congestion charging. --RichardVeryard 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I am extremely wary of such merge tags given the circumstances of the tags insertion. Thank you for your explanation.  You may wish to register with Wikipedia so that such a misinterpretation of your intentions does not happen again -- anonymous posters tend to have some bad connotations.
 * Toll roads are a form of road pricing, but road pricing is not specifically a tolled roadway -- a similar relationship could be that a square is a rectangle, but not vice-versa. There are numerous types of road pricing schemes that would not naturally fit into a "toll road" classification.  One such example would be the aforementioned congestion pricing. --Thisisbossi 03:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with RichardVeryard on this. Generally, 'toll roads' refers to a road or network of roads which charge for their use, as part of a greater 'free' road system. 'Road pricing' refers to a system where a far greater number of (possibly all) roads are charged, especially where there is active variation of prices based on time of day etc. There is a very real difference, and in my opinion a merge of the two articles would be groundless. Midlandstoday 23:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Against -- as per previous discussions. A toll road is a type of road, whereas road pricing is more of a concept. This would appear to be another example of an unnecessary merge. Incidentally, the merge banners were place on 9th Feb and it will be possible to remove them at the end of the week, since the concensus would appear to be 'against merge'. -- EdJogg 13:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Against' -- as per previous discussions and because the rationale behind each is different. Road pricing (or road user charging as it should be called) is about demand management i.e to improve road conditions, tolling is about revenue raising.--JBellis 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Against. Over here in Singapore where road pricing has been around for decades (and which has been the model which London studied before its implimentation), there is incidently no toll road at all. Tolls roads are often typified as being charged for use round-the-clock, as a form of revenue reimbursing the cost of constructing that road specifically. Users often have to pay more the longer they drive along that road, which may be accomplished by passing through multiple gantries. Road pricing typically charged vehicles for entry into a specific zone only during specific periods to ease congestion, and typically involves just one gantry involving a flat fare to be paid irregardless of actual distance travelled within that area. Of course there may be variations, such as the one in Singapore which has two main zones with one within the other, thus there are two gantries to pass through if the user wishes to drive right into the city centre, but the principal of road management remains the same.--Huaiwei 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Against. Road pricing covers entire urban areas, "toll road" only individual roads. Toll road is a subset of road pricing, if anything it should be merged to here. Cambrasa (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

New fangled vernacular
Shouldn't we mention that this is often called "C-charge" in the UK? (Including media news outlets etc.) 138.243.129.4 07:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you missed this line :)
 * London has had a Congestion Charge in the central area since 2003.
 * --Thisisbossi 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Libertarian counterargument
"Note that some libertarians in general, however, favor transfer of roads to private ownership, which is likely to result in tolls for individual roads, set on a profit-maximizing rather than an economic welfare-maximizing basis, which in many cases is likely to lead to a higher toll." -- I'm not sure this is a relevant answer to the libertarian freedom of movement argument. After all, in the libertarian utopia private roads might have tolls, but there wouldn't be high gov't taxes either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.133.86 (talk • contribs)

True, however roads would no longer be free at the point of usage, which is what the "libertarian" ABD wants to preserve, government or no government Cambrasa (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm changing this...

"Note that some libertarians in general, however, favour transfer of roads to private ownership, which is likely to result in tolls for individual roads, set on a profit-maximizing rather than an economic welfare-maximizing basis, which in many cases is likely to lead to a higher toll"

...because it doesn't have a citation, it's most likely untrue, and it confuses the issue. Firstly, and most importantly, it's far too bold a statement to make without a citation. Secondly, to libertarians, the whole principle of privatizing the roads is that, within the free market, there will be competition, which lowers prices. This is backed up by the fact that public schools cost twice as much as private schools (here is a sample study: http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1997/s1997-04.pdf); and that pre-1970 interstate airline fares under the regulation of the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) cost twice as much as within state airfares of similar distance (since they were unregulated and dealt with competition) and decreased in price when the CAB deregulated and competition forces started working again; etc etc, there are many examples. Thirdly, there is an invented dichotomy between "profit-maximizing" and "economic welfare-maximizing". The latter is an invented term and misses the fact that, to a libertarian or economist at least, profit-maximizing is welfare-maximizing for the reasons I've already gone over (companies seek profit> compete> prices decrease> to the benefit of all man). 68.81.97.59 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion & exclusion
In response to the deletion of the New York congestion pricing proposal here, there is no reason (I think) not to include noteworthy proposals from other places, as long as they were considered or studied at the governmental level. Notable failed or stalled proposals are just as important and relevant as implemented ones. It's your job to include them.

From what I found from a web search, Toronto's mayor doesn't want it and Chicago is only in the preliminary stages. If you want to include those cities and others–with sources–you can and I support that. But NY's plan has support at the city and federal level. Even if NY's proposal is ultimately defeated, it has been widely talked about and reported in New York City as much as the New York City 2012 Olympic bid or the West Side Stadium, and is therefore still notable. TLK'in 08:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By all means let's not omit North America, nor let the article ramble too long about a large area where it's all just proposals, either. One or maybe two paragraphs are appropriate for the New York proposal, and a few sentences about each place where the movement is less developed, maybe amounting to a separate paragraph for those.  Jim.henderson 14:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge
I've removed the following

''Various trials have taken place in British cities - the City of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, for example, had experimented with congestion charging as far back as 1993. ''

The para implies there was a real live congestion charge in place, and the source notwithstanding, this is not the case. I'm afraid I don't know more, but i'm guessing maybe it was a very small scale trial with a small number of volunteers or something. (I've lived in Cambridge since 1985, and driven in Cambridge for most of that time, so I would certainly have noticed if there had been a congestion charge at any point.)

Of course, Cambridgeshire is bidding for TIF money so a Cambridge congestion charge is on the cards for the future. Roy Badami 20:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for changing article's name and dividing in two articles
Going a step further to the old proposal to merge this article (see above), road pricing is a very general concept from economics, but in practical terms, as I added to the article, it has two distinct objectives: revenue generation and congestion pricing for demand management purposes. Toll roads are the typical example of revenue generation. Charges for using high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or entering a restricted area of a city are typical examples of using road pricing for congestion management (see for a very comprehensive summary on this subject). Electronic toll collection is a technology that can be use for both of these objectives.

If you look a the specific cases in this article, all but the German one refer to congestion pricing (which I already edit to explain the general economic concept), and most of the cases presented here (Singapore, London, Stockholm, New York, etc.) have their own articles. Therefore, the content of the article as it is now, refers mainly to pricing for congestion management purposes.

My suggestion is to relocate "Road pricing" as a more general separate article, and leave most of the actual text here under a new article's name. The new article's name could be "Traffic congestion pricing" or "Road congestion pricing", even though that the concept and most of existing schemes refer to urban areas, so an alternative will be a specific article named "Urban traffic congestion pricing" (as I called it in the more general congestion pricing article). The specific economic rationale for this pricing system could be included in the article, as it is related with the externalities of auto travel in urban areas, such us air pollution, noise, urban deterioration, and the extra costs and delays impose upon other drivers due to congestion, and mainly, to the more efficient public transportation vehicles.

If this suggestion is accepted, the main "Road pricing" article will have the basic economic rationale for all type of fees, tolls, etc, and a reference for all existing applications in the world. From there, the article will branch out to specific (existing) articles on Toll roads, Electronic toll collection, the proposed new article on "Traffic Congestion Pricing" (from where case specific articles will branch out) and any other related article will be referenced from this new main article.

--Mariordo (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Electronic Road Pricing article - proposed move
And by the way, there is an article called Electronic Road Pricing which refers only to Singapore, city that for some time was the only one to have an urban congestion pricing scheme in the world, but not anymore, since London, Stockholm and other cities have it (as you can check from this article). I try to change the name for "Singapore's Electronic Road Pricing" and added the "worldwide view" wiki banner, but one of the main contributors of that article deleted, and he does not want to recognize that this is no longer a country-specific scheme. You can see that similar articles are called with country specific tags such as London congestion charge or Stockholm congestion tax or New York congestion pricing. For consistency, I think this change would have also to be made.Mariordo (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new article - 'Road pricing in the United Kingdom'
I am proposing to create a new article with a title of Road pricing in the United Kingdom. Does anyone have any comments or observations? Is that the best name? Road pricing is certainly the term used in the UK. I would move some of the detail from this article to this new article. There is also some stray general road pricing content at the bottom of the London congestion charge article that I would integrate. PeterEastern (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have now created the 'Road pricing in the United Kingdom' article and copied the full text from the UK section of this article and reduced the bulk of the remaining section here. PeterEastern (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 * This is a nice article. Nevertheless, you continue to confuse road pricing with congestion pricing. Not only the existing articles here in Wikipedia make clear the difference, but quite a body of transport economics. I am aware that some people confuse both terms, even some journalists in your country. In a nutshell, you entitled the article Road pricing ..., put a banner excluding other charges but congestion charges, and then in the content talk about several charges. I will not edit that article, it is up to you to fix it.--Mariordo (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Can I suggest that we thrash out the difference between 'road pricing' and 'road congestion pricing' on this talk page and then reflect that in all the relevant articles. Regarding who edits which article, please feel free to make appropriate adjustments to the UK road pricing article that you feel are appropriate; it isn't 'my' article after all. Regarding the suggestion of a banner, I note that the current banner reads "This article is about road pricing systems designed to reduce traffic levels and congestion on roads in the United Kingdom. For other toll roads in the UK, see Toll roads in Great Britain." PeterEastern (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Peter, if your intend is to only deal with "road pricing systems designed to reduce traffic levels and congestion ..." then the correct title should be Road congestion pricing in the United Kingdom (in this case "road congestion charges" would not so precise as "congestion pricing"). When you called it "Road pricing in the UK" automatically any direct charges for using the roads are included, so why use a title that does not includes the whole concept?. If you agree, then you just need to do a move article. If you want to keep the article's name, then tolls and other direct charges should be included.--Mariordo (talk) 04:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * PS: Tomorrow I will address the other issues, I am too tired today to focus as required (due to the jet lag). (unsigned comment by Mariordo (talk)) 04:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Does it not make sense to address the discussion below about what the scope of road pricing and congestion pricing are before considering the title of a separate article altogether? However... since you mention it, isn't it evident that many 'congestion pricing' schemes are also considering, or even implementing pricing to improve air quality and reduce other externalities. As such a firm supporter of the current title. Also... is it not clear from the evidence in this article that the term 'road pricing' only came into use in the 1950s/60s to make a distinction between old style tolls which had simple repayment and funding motivations and these new-tangled schemes which included some sort of charge for one or more identified externalities? PeterEastern (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately Peter I won't play your game anymore. You made several conceptual errors, then agreed to the right concept but continue to push edits with the wrong concepts, and to make matter worst, you do plenty of edits so it is almost impossible to keep track of your mistakes and original research. I will remove OR (using google as a reference is blatant OR, this is NOT a place to do your research you need third party sources) and tag those edits with blatant mistakes. Again you are adding content to the Road pricing article as if it is the same as congestion pricing, and adding road space rationing is your OR, as this is not part of road pricing. And your tactic of having several discussions opened at the same time not only makes difficult for me and any other interested editor to follow. You are clearly pushing an agenda and handling technical concepts that you do not properly understand. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a blog to push your ideas. Please do not make me waste my time.--Mariordo (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Suit yourself, however the topics are only still open because they are waiting for a response from you. Notably some questions relating to parking charges, and fuel taxes from the 22 April. Also a section dedicated to agreeing what the appropriate definitions of road pricing and congestion pricing are. Regarding your particular complaint about my using Google ngram as evidence for the etymology of a word, could you please provide evidence of the relevant Wikipedia policy? To me is seems to be an idea resource to use. PeterEastern (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I do also notice that an earlier section on this talk page titled 'Proposed Merge to Toll road' was unanimously opposed. You now seem to be proposing a similar merge for an article spawned from this one. When we have an agreed definition of road pricing and congestion pricing on this article we can reflect it in the UK one and retain the title. PeterEastern (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the reversion
My edits to the congestion pricing article and to this one have just been reverted with the comments Sorry to revert the whole thing but road pricing is different from congestion pricing, what you are doing is original research. and Rv Good faith edit: your ideas of what road pricing and congestion pricing are is wrong, road pric is more general.

I do agree they are different which is why I did not propose a merge.

Here are the descriptions I included in the about banners for four related article (congestion pricing, road pricing, toll road and road space rationing) to try to make the scope of the articles clearer and reduce overlap:.

 * Congestion pricing article: 'This article is about the theory of congestion pricing and its use with airports, public transport and utilities, roads, waterways and elsewhere. For congestion pricing as applied to road traffic specifically, see Road pricing.'

 * Road pricing article: 'This article is about charging for use of a road or all roads within a zone based on various criteria for the purpose of reducing transport demand and influencing the mode of transport. For traditional fixed road tolls, see Toll road. For non-financial methods of reducing demand, see Road space rationing.'

 * Toll road: 'This article is about roads for which a charge is made. For information about area wide scheme introduced since the 1980s, see Road pricing.'

 * Road space rationing: 'This article is about non-financial methods of reducing traffic levels from motorized vehicles. For financial methods to manage demand, see Road pricing.'

Now.. I do agree that one could consider that 'Road pricing' includes 'road tolls' as well as congestion pricing which relates to the use of road space. You will notice that the road pricing banner did not say that road tolls were not a type of road pricing, but only that the article didn't cover road tolls. I do agree that my lead was probably incorrect, which used to read ''Road pricing (also road user charging, congestion pricing, road tolls) involves charging fees for the use of a road facility for the purpose of reducing transport demand and influencing the transport modal choice. Charges typically are based on the time of day, the number of vehicle occupants, current road congestion levels or possibly other factors.''

I am now going to reinstate my last versions or these two articles and adjust the lead of road pricing.

Can I request that we discuss the matter here before reverting again.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have now completed the reinstatement of my last versions of these two articles and have adjusted the lead of road pricing as per my proposal above. I look forward to have a discussion about any remaining issues here. PeterEastern (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Peter you got your definitions wrong. Road pricing is any charges for road users for any purpose and not necessarily congestion or demand management (conventional toll, toll by weight via GPS as it is done in Germany, parking charges, congestion charges, etc.). Congestion pricing or congestion charging is using prices to reduce demand (for any transport mode, not just roads), though it is in roads where the policy is used the most, and that is why the summaries of existing schemes are there). Actually the FHWA is now using the term variable pricing, which reflects better the nature of congestion pricing. You are changing the definitions in the lead to fit your idea of road pricing and congestion pricing, and I think you are aware this is considered original research in Wikipedia. Please continue the discussion here before engaging in an edit war, and believe the existing versions have priority over the changes you are proposing.--Mariordo (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I am puzzled. Do you not agree that by your own definition, all that congestion pricing schemes that relate to roads there therefore also road pricing schemes? As such it does not appear to be wp:or if we choose to include the bulk of the road congestion charging related content in the road pricing article? For sure, there are other types of road pricing, but we can add that to the road pricing article as well. Also.. if we retain all the road related content in the more congestion charging article, then I don't see how are you going to create 'balance' for the article in relation to all the the types of congestion charge? Personally I think there is a really interesting article in the making there, but it is necessary to remove all the detail about road congestion charging to make it work as one adds detailed about public transport, utilities etc. Lets keep a summary of road congestion charging in the article for sure, but not all of it. PeterEastern (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have now added a FHWA reference to the definition of road pricing in the lead which, I believe, matches with your description above btw. I am puzzled because your last edit reverted the lead to an earlier incorrect definition which only covered congestion related charges. I believe that this most recent edit has reinstated the lead as per FHWA definition and added a reference. PeterEastern (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, so now I am completely baffled Mariordo. You previously reverted one of my edits and requested a citiation to support my version. I corrected the article and provided a citation and left a message for you on this page. You have now reverted the article to a much earlier version supported by a broken link and haven't touched the talk page. 19:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please address the issues I raised below. It is not only about the definition. This might help move forward the discussion.--Mariordo (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I am sorry I had to undid some good edit you did in this article, but I was really concerned about leaving wrong concepts for our readers. I would help you next week to restore the content and improvements you did not related with the disputed issues. I can produce transportation economics textbooks supporting the articles as they were before your edits. Please be specifican about your doubts. I am aware that early on, road pricing and congestion pricing were treated as synonymous, but for several decades the literature has made a difference, as well as in practice. Nowadays some people still get confused about the terms. Just google a bit to check this out.--Mariordo (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I would request that we make no further edits to either article until we have established what we are trying to achieve. PeterEastern (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Peter, As you are the one proposing radical changes to the articles, I suggest that we should review your proposed edits in an open forum and come to consensus before implementing some or all of them. The articles, as they stand, are mature, and Congestion pricing is a GA, so it is best that we err on the side of caution before making major changes.  Ebikeguy (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * For sure, lets have the discussion first, and thanks for joining it. I would however say that the congestion pricing article may well be a good article, but there are only passing references to telephones, utilities, railways, buses, metro and internet which leave me wanting more. Currently over 50% of the content is concerned with roads. Personally I think the article would be infinitely better is the roads stuff could be moved. Also... if the roads stuff is not moved then do we retain duplicate information in both articles as now, or delete most of the roads stuff from road pricing? Happy to hear what people think. PeterEastern (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Peter, I apologize for doing more reversing, but I have not realized the entire scope of the changes you did, and I was trying to preserve some of it. As it was the article became a hybrid of the original with a huge piece of the congestion pricing article (which you copied here and organized differently). Showing the original article facilitates the discussion for those editors that are not familiar with the article. Let's be clear also that you are the one who make this article looks like a mirror of the existing congestion pricing. Furthermore, I believe the first clarification that needs to be made is that road pricing is not the same as congestion pricing (as stated in your edits). Can you produce reliable sources supporting your claim that road pricing = congestion pricing (as per your edits)? Second question, if road tolls, bridge tolls, etc are part of road pricing, why do you insist on giving undue weight to congestion pricing (as per the way you organize the article, and the huge amount of information you imported from the congestion pricing article). I think this is a mother article, road pricing, from where other articles branch out. Third: The congestion pricing article main coverage is about roads simply because most of the transportation and economics discussion about congestion pricing, as well as the real world implementations and attempts are about automobile trips in urban area networks (not about roads per se). Clearly, if there were enough material, we could have separate articles for congestion pricing in urban areas, in rural roads, in airports, in waterways, etc., but the fact is that there isn't. Existing congestion pricing applications are the ones shown in the congestion pricing article.--Mariordo (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * You ask me again to say that road pricing is the same as congestion pricing. I again will say it is not. But I will also say again that congestion pricing that relates to roads is a type of road pricing. As to your observation that the text you reverted on road pricing was a 'mirror' of the text in congestion pricing, that was only the case because you had reverted my edits where I had culled the content of congestion charging down. Finally, you ask why I give 'undue weight' to congestion road pricing within the article - that is because there is alreadyy a Toll Road article and that is why I put an 'about banner' at the top of the article explaining that this article focused on congestion road pricing and that the toll road article covered 'traditional' pricing mechanisms. PeterEastern (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you have all done well to bring the issues to the Talk page and discuss them calmly in the way you have. I support what Ebikeguy has said about reviewing proposed changes and coming to consensus before implementing them. As he says, "The articles, as they stand, are mature, and Congestion pricing is a GA, so it is best that we err on the side of caution before making major changes". Johnfos (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitions of 'road pricing'
The current lead to this article states:

"Road pricing is an economic concept regarding the various direct charges applied for the use of roads. The road charges includes fuel taxes, licence fees, parking taxes, tolls, and congestion charges, including those which may vary by time of day, by the specific road, or by the specific vehicle type, being used.[1] Road pricing has two distinct objectives: revenue generation, usually for road infrastructure financing, and congestion pricing for demand management purposes. Toll roads, toll bridges and toll tunnels are the typical examples of revenue generation, covering maintenance costs or as a means of raising funds for other purposes. Charges for using high-occupancy toll lanes or urban tolls for entering a restricted area of a city are typical examples of using road pricing for congestion management purposes.[2][3]"

It is unfortunate that reference 1 is a broken link. I note that reference 2 doesn't mention that fuel taxes, license fees or parking charges are related to road pricing - it only mentions that parking costs may be reduced with reduced traffic. The 3rd reference is probably the best. It is a link to the FHWA road pricing page which doesn't mention fuel taxes etc either:

"Road pricing involves charging fees for the use of a roadway facility. The revenue generated may be used to pay for highway operations and maintenance or as the primary source of repayment for long-term debt used to finance a toll facility itself. There are two primary variants: Tolling involves the imposition of a per-use fee on motorists to utilize a highway. Historically, these fees have involved fixed, distance-based tolls that vary by vehicle type, but not by time of day. Their primary purpose has been to generate revenue. Pricing involves the imposition of fees or tolls that vary by level of vehicle demand a highway facility. Also known as congestion pricing, value pricing, variable pricing, peak-period pricing, or market-based pricing - this manages demand by imposing a fee that varies by time of day, location, type of vehicle, number of occupants, or other factors. While pricing generates revenue, this strategy also seeks to manage congestion, environmental impacts, and other external costs occasioned by road users."

That definition does however match well with my most recent version of the lead (which was reverted back the the top one):

"Road pricing (also road user charging, congestion pricing, road tolls) involves charging fees for the use of a road facility. More recently charges are often made for the purpose of reducing transport demand and influencing the transport modal choice where charges typically are based on the time of day, the number of vehicle occupants, current road congestion levels or possibly other factors. Traditionally charges were made for Toll roads, Toll bridges and Toll tunnels for the purpose of recovering construction costs, covering maintenance costs or as a means of raising funds for other purposes.[1] Where road pricing is used for the purpose of reducing transport demand it is recommended that charges are based on the costs imposed on others, including environmental costs, social costs and road congestion. Proposals have often been met by sufficient opposition that implementation of schemes has been abandoned. Where schemes have been introduced, traffic volumes have typically dropped by 15% and traffic speeds have increased. (Reference 1 is to the FHWA road pricing page quoted above)"

That last version was revert to the first version with the comment 'restoring the article to its original state and definition of road pricing, as supported by reliable sources' which it isn't!

Any thought? -- PeterEastern (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I notice Mariordo has said in the section above that "I can produce transportation economics textbooks supporting the article as it was before your edits". Perhaps it would help if Mariordo actually did supply more supporting references, to allay some of your concerns. Johnfos (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The reliable sources requested were included in the lead (all of them have a url to follow and check the content), and the dead url was restored (which includes the text Peter is complaining about). As these sources shown, the original definition was right. Note that the new/modified definition states: Road pricing (also road user charging, congestion pricing, road tolls).. which is incorrect. As the paper by Small and Gomez-Ibanez explains, road pricing is a broader group of policies that include congestion pricing, toll roads or parking taxes. Clearly road pricing ≠ congestion pricing, and road toll ≠ road pricing. Since Peter has acknowledge this differences in definition, I do not understand why he insits his definition is correct. Once we agree on the definition, we can discuss about the undue weight issue I raised (see WP:UNDUE), which I believe was caused in part by the inaccurate definition proposed (assuming road pricing is synonymous with congestion pricing/congestion charges).--Mariordo (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * For the avoidance of doubt, could you confirm that the lead I provided was supported by the FHWA reference I gave (quoted above)? I would also respectfully note that you appear to be using that source (reference 3 at present) to now support a claim that road pricing includes fuel duties, vehicle licenses and parking fees - which it doesn't mention. PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Now that the link to the Texas Transportation Institute is working, I do agree that there definition is broader and includes fuel taxes etc. Indeed their definition matches my definition of 'motoring taxation' which doesn't seem to be that useful. To quote: "an umbrella phrase that covers all charges imposed on those who use roadways. The term includes such traditional revenue sources as fuel taxes and license fees as well as charges that vary with time of day, the specific road used, and vehicle size and weight". PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I do wonder how relevant the paper by Small and Gomez-Ibanez is now in relation to defining current usage, given that it was published in 1998. I take a look at the paper now but a page number would be helpful.PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have now checked this paper, but can see no clear statement on the referenced page (213) to support a claim and that road pricing includes fuel duty, parking fees etc. PeterEastern (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I note the earlier claim in this talk page section that 'As the paper by Small and Gomez-Ibanez explains, road pricing is a broader group of policies that include congestion pricing, toll roads or parking taxes.' I can't find that reference and note that the person who claimed that it did has not responded to my request. As such I am working on the basis that the earlier claim was incorrect. PeterEastern (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * The Singapore paper from 1996 is both old and un-searchable. Can you either provide a page number and quote to support its inclusion, or possibly we discount it due to age? PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Also.. with reference to the Singapore paper, could you check that this supports a claim that fuel and parking fees are part of road pricing as you seem to suggest by its use in the lead (as reference 4)? This phrase on page 2 seems to imply that it is not. "The other aspect of demand management is the restraint of vehicle usage through the levy a charge on motorists based on the quantity, place or time of the use of their vehicles. Generally, the more one uses his car the more one has to pay. The road pricing schemes, petrol tax, diesel duty, and parking charges are measures in this category." I read that to mean that petrol, diesel and parking charges are demand management devices, but are not included in road pricing? PeterEastern (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Given the lack or response I am now working on the basis now that there is no support from this paper that fuel charges and parking charges re part of road pricing. PeterEastern (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Given the differences, I suggest that we now do a review of current definitions used by transport authorities around the world and see where there is agreement and disagreement. I will create a table with some results which we can then extend and then draw our conclusions. PeterEastern (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I have several reservations to the comments you made above:

 * Economic theory does not gets outdated the way you assumed. Most of the theories developed by Keynes and Friedman are still valid today. Just the same, the good old concepts developed by William Vickrey in the fifties (the father of congestion pricing), as well as by Small, Gomez-Ibanez, Verhoef and Button teachings, all recognized transport economists, are still taught at graduate schools (transportation planning and economics) around the world. For one of the latest academic books on this topic check Small, Kenneth A.; Verhoef, Erik T. (2007). The Economics of Urban Transportation. Routledge, New York. ISBN 978-0-415-28515-5. In particular check chapter 4. Pricing, sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 (take a peekhere).

 * What has changed with time is the practical implementation (thanks to new technologies and advances in IT), not the definition. Singapore was the pioneer, and with more than four decades of experience, still is. They are now implementing variable congestion pricing on real time, so that the charges change during the rush hour according to the level of congestion. So, info about Singapore is not dated, instead, they have been the world's reference. Even public officials from London visit Singapore before the implementation of the of the London congestion charge. Also, their congestion pricing scheme is the most comprehensive in the world, and includes fuel taxes and parking fees.

 * Can I draw your attention to my request above for you to provide a page reference in the Singapore paper to support your claim that Road pricing includes 'fuel taxes and parking fees'? For the avoidance of doubt, I am interested to know if they include these taxes within there definition of 'road pricing', which is the subject of this article. It would also be useful to have an understanding of their definition of congestion pricing. PeterEastern (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I not that I am received no response to my further request for evidence relating to fuel duty and parking charges. As such I have removed the 'citation' needed on the relevant sentence of the lead relating to this subject. PeterEastern (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not edited the way you think. Multiple references means the content is a summary of the content in those references (without original research), you do not need to reference word by word. With the exception of numerical figures or claims of the first, the most, etc, there is no need no reference each line. If you want to drop fuel taxes and other fees from the definition, is fine with me, these are just examples of road charges, and actually not everybody agrees in what direct road charges are, so let's keep the minimum common denominator. In fact, for the particular case of congestion pricing, direct charges means "out-of-pocket" expenses, and fuel taxes should not be included. And by the way, the VTPI definition here is a cut-and-paste, word by word, so it needs editing, as the way it reads now is against Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights and plagiarism.

 * I believe that we are discussing the lead of an article on 'road pricing'. As such we need to agree whether fuel taxes, license fees, parking taxes are considered to be road pricing or not. As far as I can see it is only The Texas Institute which includes them in Road pricing. Do you agree? To be clear, when the Singapore article uses the term 'license' they are referring to a 'daily charge' not to an annual vehicle license disk. PeterEastern (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * No response to this request for clarifation. PeterEastern (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Let's move forward, and please propose specific changes to the original definition (as it is today), and reach consensus here, so we can discuss about the organization and content of the article. I do not see the purpose of making the list of definitions below(unless you are planning to introduce a terminology section), when I think there is no longer confusion about road pricing and congestion pricing, and the existing definition in the lead is fully supported by reliable sources and reflects the definitions from those sources.--Mariordo (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Personally, I would prefer it if you made suitable adjustments to the article that you feel are appropriate and accurately reflect the references. Feel free to draw on text that I have offered, but for the next few days, but I am not intending to make any edits to this article or to the congestion pricing article. Regarding your citations, I would suggest that it is good practice to provide a single high-quality reference at the end of each 'claim' in the article. I also feel that it is unnecessary to normally provide multiple references, especially when some of them contradict the preceding claim (for example that most of the of the references don't include fuel taxes etc.) PeterEastern (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * The purpose of creating the list was to establish the range of definitions and to help to inform how we described road pricing in the lead. I have now done that and I believe the lead reflects these sources. PeterEastern (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of definitions
I suggest we build up a table of official definitions of road pricing from different organisations. Please add to this table as you see fit. PeterEastern (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Definitions

Definitions of 'road pricing' and 'road congestion pricing'
There is a continuing discussion about the distinctions between 'road pricing' and 'road congestion pricing'. Possibly we can agree on the definitions of these in this section and then reflect that across the different articles. I have had a quick go at two initial definitions. PeterEastern (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: are congestion charging schemes that incentivise use of green vehicles actually congestion charging schemes, or are the in fact 'road pricing' schemes'. If so then how to we manage them? PeterEastern (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I will answer in detail but please check Ecopass and Milan Area C so we are in the same page.--Mariordo (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Requesting a rain check. Peter, I will provide answer to all your questions, but as I said before in the other talk page, please be patient and wait until next Monday night (US West Coast time), when I will have time to address in depth all your questions and concerns (now I am only doing quick edits that do not require focusing too much). And please be patient. I know you are acting in good faith and trying to improve the articles, but you are also rushing your edits, so please wait a bit. Some of these issues are not black and white, there is a lot of gray territory as several of these subjects overlap, that is why I need time to answer properly. I do not like to spend time in discussions, I rather prefer to produce to content and update existing articles.--Mariordo (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I will look forward to continuing the discussion on your return, however I will continue developing a range or articles, including these ones cautiously and carefully in the mean time. I say that because Wikipedia articles have many contributors and watchers. We can discuss any changes that I, and others, make in due course. I also know that you are acting in good faith with the view to having the best articles we can on this subject area, however I would encourage you to not rush to the revert button. I say that because on a number of occasions you have reverted my contributions only to later accept the changes as improvements after discussion. I suggest that we maintain a suitable mixture of edits and discussion because we are unlikely to resolve the grey areas without appropriate levels of discussion. PeterEastern (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please adjust the following definitions below and leave a comment above regarding the change you have made. Lets continue until we are happy with the final text.
 * Definitions

 * Road pricing are "direct charges levied for the use of roads, for example road tolls or distance based fees for access to a facility, or congestion charges to discourage travel at times of heavy traffic congestion, or high-occupancy tolls, or any charge to discourage certain classes of vehicle, fuel sources or more polluting vehicles. The term was uncommon before the 1960s."

 * Road congestion pricing is "a system of surcharging users of roads that would be subject to excess demand to regulates demand and make and reduce traffic congestion without increasing road capacity."

Repeated inclusion of 'citation needed'
I note that the a 'citation needed' tag has been added three times to the lead sentence that reads "Annual vehicle taxation, excise taxes on fuel, and parking charges are not generally considered to be 'road pricing". The claim as written appears to be supported by the terminolgy section which has citations to a number of key sources, all but one of which do not include any mention of fuel taxes or parking charges. It is of course hard to include a citation which relates to the lack of evidence for something directly. I would also like to highlight that my requests to editor making these changes on this subject has not responded to my requests for clarification in earlier sections of this talk page. As such I would suggest that the evidence for the claim is sufficiently clear and that the citation needed tag should be removed. Any thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Peter, verifiability is the cornerstone of Wikipedia, otherwise this will become a blog. As the policy WP:Burden states, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Once I requested a citation, it is innapropriate to remove the tag without providing one. The article has properly supported by a RS the fact that in Singapore those taxes are considered part of road pricing, and that's it. The addition of that third paragraph is entirely your creation, and proof of it, is that you even try to include road space rationing, which is a non-monetary policy, therefore, not related to road pricing, but similar to any demand management policy, so if we go in that direction, the list will be endless and not related to the topic of this article. Therefore, adding any such concept without reliable sources is considered original research in Wikipedia, even if I know it is right (I am a professional urban transportation engineer but adding technically correct content w/o citations or citing myself is not allowed in Wikipedia, the content has to be verifiable by a reliable thrid party source).

 * Ironically, I think the solution is simple, just to delete the third and last paragraph of the lead, or, produce a reliable source listing the exceptions to road pricing. It is up to you which way to go. But you cannot justified the lack of a citation based on content you created with sources that do not say so. As per MOE the lead shouldn't have inline citiations (as the content should be supported in the main body of the article), but even for a GA, if an issue is controversial or a RS is requested, such citation should be introduced.
 * --Mariordo (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * PS: You have opened so many discussions that really I don't know where to start on Monday. Please, chose a page and consolidate the questions/issues you have in mind . Also, you have to consider that you edit Wikipedia at work and part of your job (as stated in your user page) but I do not. I edit here as a hobby on my free time. Therefore, it is not fair for you to expect me to answer immediately, and do not interpret silence as a sign of approval. Also, I think we have cleared several concepts already that were not so clear to you (i.e. road pricing ≠ congestion pricing, congestion pricing can have fixed or variable fees,...), but you did not went back to fix edits you made with the ambiguous concept, and it is not fair to expect me to fix all of it. I have other topics I would like to edit in the following days, and mainly, to finish the expansion of the HOV lane article. My research on that article is finished and I just need time to do the edits. So please, let's try to focus on any remaining doubts to move forward. You have done several good reorganizations of content and copyedits, so let's try to joint forces in improving the articles, not in endless discussions.--Mariordo (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Given that the point of contention is the wording relating to fuel taxes and parking charges you may wish to refer back to the section I created titled 'Definitions of road pricing' and respond to my questions for clarification from the 22 April on the subject which remain unanswered. Personally I think we would make more progress by taking a bit more time to bottom things out on this talk page rather and rushing to revert. Please note that before my intervention in this article the first sentence claimed unequivocally and incorrectly that "Road pricing is an economic concept regarding the various direct charges applied for the use of roads. The road charges includes fuel taxes, licence fees, parking taxes, tolls, and congestion charges, including those which may vary by time of day, by the specific road, or by the specific vehicle type, being used" using a broken link to the source. On investigation this has been found to be a minority view. I disagree about removing the 3rd and final paragraph - given the confusion we have had over what is part of road pricing and what is not, and given the differences in official definitions I think it is all the more important to spell it out in the lead. PeterEastern (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

 * You did not answer one key question I made you. Where do you want me to start to addressing your questions tomorrow night? Please chose a talk page and summarize the pending issues in order of priority, or just drop here the links to the pending discussions in order of priority. Thx.--Mariordo (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 * ? Is my response above not clear enough? It reads Given that the point of contention is the wording relating to fuel taxes and parking charges you may wish to refer back to the section I created titled 'Definitions of road pricing' and respond to my questions for clarification from the 22 April on the subject which remain unanswered. Start there, give me time to respond and then lets see where we get to. It may also be helpful to respond to the 'Definitions of 'road pricing' and 'road congestion pricing'' section. PeterEastern (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Expert tag added
For the record, an 'Expert needed' tag was added to this article today with the comment "requesting expert opinion (the editor of the most recent edits seems to be confused about the difference between road pricing and congestion pricing), I have tried to help (see talk but he continues to include content mainly about congestion pricing".

The 3rd para of the lead, which contained a discussion about parking fees and fuel duty was removed at the same time with the comment "(rmv more primary research --> you need a reliable source to say it is a minority view, as written is your original research as you are drawing conclusions from the limited sources available)".

A reference to Google ngram which indicated that the term 'road pricing' came into use in about 1963-1964 was also removed with the comment "rmv blatant original research (the editor draw this conclusion using Google, this is primary research". I note that my questions for clarification on the matter from 22 April remain unanswered.

A similar tag was also added to the Road pricing in the United Kingdom article at the same time with the comment "adding tag to request expert opinion, the editor who created this article seems to be confused about the technical meanings of road pricing and congestion pricing".

I note that my questions for clarification from the 22 April remain unanswered. I was surprised to find that the person from whom I am awaiting these responses has made numerous edits to other motoring related articles, in particular to articles about various models of green vehicles, over this period.

Given the lack of progress and the fact that my involvement in these articles was primarily in order to create clear accurate definitions for them, I am now coming to the conclusion that this matter will not be resolved without arbitration. For the record, virtually every edit I have made to the congestion charging article over the past few weeks has been removed the comments along the lines of 'this is a good article, don't change it'. Personally I think it is a pretty poor article, but that is a subject for another time and another talk page. It is however relevant to this issue.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I also note that the 'expert' tag includes a request to 'Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article'. No section explaining the issue was added to this talk page by the editor who added the tag. Personally I don't think we need an outside expert, I am sure we can sort it out within the Wikipedia community. I am also am very doubtful as to whether an expert who is not already an experienced Wikipedia editor would dare to enter this particular discussion given the nature of the debate so far. PeterEastern (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 * I have removed the 'expert' tag for the reasons given above - please can other people come into this discussion or we are going to have to put it to 3rd party mediation. I have also removed the 'about' banner because a link to congestion pricing is naturally provided within the first para. I have also reworked the lead for clarity and to remove references from the lead (except for one claims which have proved controversial). References for all claims are available in the body of the article. PeterEastern (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Since the tags were added due to your edits it is completely inappropriate for you to remove them . And one more time, silence does not means approval or a green light to go ahead. Here we work by building consensus, silence is not consensus. and worst even, because I have questioned some of the content you added. As you said, we need to wait for a third party to participate. So you have to wait.--Mariordo (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

 * Peter, I do not want to waste more time in discussion with you, but please! get familiar with Wikipedia policies. As you can check here, "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." but you continue to do so. You need a reliable source that says "a minority ..." otherwise is your original research, as you are drawing conclusions from a pool of five definitions. I will continue to apply rigorously Wikipedia policies to your edits given your disregard for such policies, your repeatedly neglect of such rules and removal of tags placed precisely because of edits made by you. You really need to study what WP:original research is about and WP:reliable sources. And finally, what I do or don't on Wikipedia is none of your business, it is my free time and I will spend it as I like. Neither I am under no obligation to answer to every silly question you ask. And Silence does not means consensus.--Mariordo (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Signing off for the time being
I am signing off from editing this and related articles for the time being after experiencing more reverts and less engagement than with any other subject on Wikipedia over a 4 year period. After one month I have still not had a response from Mariodo to my request for him to justify using certain references to support the claim in the first sentence of the lead that road pricing included fuel taxes and parking charges and then today he again removed the last reference to parking charges and fuel duty from the lead (which clarified that parking charges were not included in any of the definition of road pricing used as a source for this article and that fuel taxes were only included in one out of five definitions).

I have considered raising our disagreement on one of the dispute resolution boards, but have concluded that it is probably not worth the effort because the article is no longer wrong, it just isn't as good as it could be. I will continue to watch the article and may get involved again if any new people start contributing.

For the record I spent about about 30 minutes this evening polishing the wording of the lead to make it read better without changing the meaning. These changes were unfortunately reverted yet again within 12 minutes of my submitting them. I am sure it could be improved, but here it is in case anyone wants to use any of it in the future:

Road pricing (also Road User Charges) are direct charges levied for the use of roads, including road tolls, distance or time based fees, congestion charges and charges designed to discourage use of certain classes of vehicle, fuel sources or more polluting vehicles. These charges may be used primarily for revenue generation, usually for road infrastructure financing; they may alternatively be used to reduce peak transport demand and the associated traffic congestion or incorporate a price for other social and environmental negative externalities associated with a choice of transport such as air pollution, noise and road casualties.

Toll roads, toll bridges and toll tunnels were often used primarily for revenue generation; charges for entering a city centre, for use of low-occupancy vehicles using High-occupancy vehicle lane lanes and for use of vehicles with higher emissions typically include a cost for other externalities. A minority view holds that road pricing includes more generic motoring taxation, such as fuel taxes and annual vehicle license fees. Parking fees are not considered as road pricing.

Many recent road pricing schemes have proved controversial with a number of high profile schemes being cancelled, delayed or scaled back in response to opposition and protest.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Road pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301021437/http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/tunnels/html/tolls.html to http://www.panynj.gov/COMMUTINGTRAVEL/tunnels/html/tolls.html#faq8
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807161643/http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/minneapolis.htm to http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/minneapolis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Road pricing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080807161601/http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/seattle.htm to http://www.upa.dot.gov/agreements/seattle.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080421115116/http://www.cfit.gov.uk:80/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm to http://www.cfit.gov.uk/map/southamerica-chile-santiago.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215151551/http://www.costaneranorte.cl:80/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf to http://www.costaneranorte.cl/pdfs/tarifas10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Road pricing. 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/20070709043015/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____10911.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____10911.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930205105/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=676098 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=676098
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703093159/http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____21106.aspx to http://www.vv.se/templates/page3____21106.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090302073502/http://www.tollroadsnews.com:80/node/2848 to http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/2848

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Editathon June 17
Just a heads-up that as part of an editathon I'm leading on June 17, new editors might be making some edits to this article. I'll be following up shortly afterwards to check for copyright compliance and other quality issues and will clean up stuff if needed. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Road pricing


text:
Agent Cody Banks

Agent Cody Banks is a 2003 American action comedy film directed by Harald Zwart. Frankie Muniz stars as a 15-year-old who has to finish his chores, avoid getting grounded, and save the world by going undercover for the CIA as a James Bond–type superspy. Hilary Duff, Angie Harmon, Keith David, Cynthia Stevenson, Daniel Roebuck, Darrell Hammond, Ian McShane, and Arnold Vosloo co-star. It was filmed in British Columbia and was released in the United States on March 14, 2003.

It was the first major film project for Duff apart from the film spinoff of Lizzie McGuire, as well as for Harmon, who had just come off a three-year stint as Assistant D.A. Abbie Carmichael on NBC's Law & Order. Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London was released the following year. Agent Cody Banks's executive producers include Madonna (whose then-production company Maverick Films acquired the script) and Jason Alexander (he was originally attached to direct before being replaced by Vic Armstrong, who was ultimately replaced by Zwart).

Plot
Cody Banks, a 15-year-old high school junior, applies for a junior field ops position at the Central Intelligence Agency's Special Activities Division after completing a training summer camp. Answering to his handler Agent Ronica Miles, Cody is called upon a mission to find information about a scientist named Dr. Albert Connors. Connors is employed by a SPECTRE type organization named ERIS led by Dr. Brinkman, and his henchman François Molay. As all CIA agents are known to Brinkman's organization, the CIA uses the unknown Banks, who is placed into the prep school of Dr. Connors' daughter Natalie, the William Donovan Institute.

Cody soon finds he has no social skill with girls and has no time to do this while balancing his chores and homework. The CIA decides to help by doing his chores and homework, trying to build his status, and going into the school to set him up with Natalie. The CIA also assemble a varying team of "experts" to train Cody into how to talk to girls, and issue him with a variety of gadgets with various functions.

Eventually, Cody befriends and falls in love with Natalie after rescuing her from a falling a ladder while putting up a banner, and he is invited to her 16th birthday party, where he goes undercover to her father's lab. Cody finds that Brinkman plans to use nanobots — which can destroy any carbon or silicon-based substance — to destroy the world's defense systems so he can threaten anyone who opposes him. Since the nanobots are inactive in the cold, he plans to use ice cubes to distribute them. After Connors, Brinkman, and François leave the lab, Cody tries taking one of the ice cubes, but melts when in his possession.

After Cody fights some delinquents at the party, the CIA suspends him from the mission. Meanwhile, with Connors refusing to aid him in his plans, Brinkman has François and his henchmen bring Natalie into his base in the Cascade Mountains. Meanwhile, Cody, disobeying orders to avoid Natalie, eats ice cream at a local restaurant with her. Cody attempts to explain things to Natalie but François and a group of henchmen ambush Cody and abduct Natalie.

With Cody removed from the mission, he gives his brother Alex the $5,000 from the CIA in exchange for keeping his disappearance a secret. Knowing Natalie's location via a tracking device in a necklace he gave her as a birthday present, Cody travels to the mountains using a rocket powered snowboard and other devices. After being discovered by Monica, Cody persuades her to help him rescue Natalie the pair infiltrate the laboratory and Cody rescues Natalie, also explaining the truth about why he went out with her.

However, Dr. Brinkman holds Natalie hostage and puts an ice cube with a nanobot inside on her forehead to make her father program the system. Cody activates a series of explosive charges he and Ronica planted throughout the base, and in the ensuing battle, Ronica fights off several of Brinkman's men, and Natalie places the ice cube with the nanobots into his mouth, causing the nanobots to devour him from the inside out. Cody later defeats François and sends him to the CIA using the SoloTrek XFV, before fleeing the exploding facility with Ronica, Natalie and Dr. Connors. The CIA welcomes Cody back to the team and congratulates him for completing the mission, and Cody and Natalie start a relationship.

Cast

 * Frankie Muniz as Agent Cody Banks, a 15-year-old teenager who applies for the junior ops division
 * Hilary Duff as Natalie Connors, Cody’s love interest, a 15-year-old teenager
 * Angie Harmon as Veronica "Ronica" Miles, Cody’s supervisor
 * Keith David as CIA Director
 * Ian McShane as Dr. Brinkman, leader of the ERIS who wants to take over the world
 * Arnold Vosloo as François Molay, Dr. Brinkman's right hand man.
 * Martin Donovan as Dr. Albert Connors, Natalie's father
 * Daniel Roebuck as Mr. Banks, Cody's father
 * Cynthia Stevenson as Mrs. Banks, Cody's mother
 * Connor Widdows as Alex Banks, Cody's 10-year-old younger brother
 * Darrell Hammond as Earl
 * Peter New as Rosychuk
 * Noel Fisher as Fenster
 * Jessica Harmon as Natalie's friend

Production
For his participation, Muniz was paid $2 million, the highest paid to a child actor at that point since Macaulay Culkin. Agent Cody Banks was developed as part of a broader strategy by MGM to make less-expensive films that can appeal to younger and niche audiences. Both Muniz and Angie Harmon did most of their own stunts. The film used Media.net’s Edit System Dailies to transfer pre-digitized Avid system files from the post production facility Rainmaker in Vancouver directly to the pic’s editing rooms in Los Angeles without having to wait for tapes to be delivered, allowing producers and executives to receive their viewing copies half a day sooner than through the traditional method. Principal photography took place in 2002 in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Reception
On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, Agent Cody Banks holds a 38% approval rating and an average rating of 5.2/10 based on 104 reviews. The critics consensus states, "Should satisfy young teens, but offers nothing new for those who are familiar with the formula." On Metacritic, it has a score of 41 out of 100 based on reviews from 24 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale. Roger Ebert gave the film 2.5 out of 4 stars. He said that kids would probably enjoy it, but, unlike the Spy Kids series, adults would probably not.

Agent Cody Banks opened at #2 with $14 million behind Bringing Down the House's second weekend. By the time the film closed on July 31, 2003, it earned $48 million in the US and an additional $10.9 million internationally, adding up to a total $58.8 million.

Frankie Muniz's character is asked twice if he is "in special ed". When the film was released on home video, MGM included an apologetic paragraph in response to criticism regarding these lines.

""

Sequel
Muniz reprised his title role in the sequel, Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London, which was released on March 12, 2004. Duff and Angie Harmon were replaced by different characters played by Anthony Anderson and Hannah Spearritt.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Agent Cody Banks


text:
Dayton Miller

Dayton Clarence Miller (March 13, 1866 – February 22, 1941)   was an American physicist, astronomer, acoustician, and accomplished amateur flautist. An early experimenter of X-rays, Miller was an advocate of aether theory and absolute space and an opponent of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.

Born in Ohio to Charles Webster Dewey and Vienna Pomeroy Miller, he graduated from Baldwin University in 1886 and obtained a doctorate in astronomy at Princeton University under Charles A. Young in 1890. Miller spent his entire career teaching physics at the Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, Ohio, as head of the physics department from 1893 until his retirement in 1936. Following the discovery of X-rays by Wilhelm Röntgen in 1895, Miller used cathode ray tubes built by William Crookes to make some of the first photographic images of concealed objects, including a bullet within a man's limb. Active in many scientific organizations, Miller was a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. During the 1920s, he served as secretary, vice president, and president of the American Physical Society and as chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council. Miller was a founding member of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA) and was the ASA president from 1931 to 1933.

Aether research
In 1900, he began work with Edward Morley on the detection of aether drift, at the time one of the "hot" areas of fundamental physics. Following on with the basic apparatus as the earlier Michelson–Morley experiment, Miller and Morley published another null result in 1904. These experimental results were later cited in support of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Miller continued to work on refining his experimental techniques after 1904, conducting millions of measurements on aether drift, and eventually developing the most sensitive interferometer in the world at that time.

Dayton Miller performed over 326,000 turns of interferometer    with 16 readings each one, (more than 5,200,000 measurements). They showed what appeared to be a small amount of drift (about 9 km/s, 1/3 of the velocity of the Earth around the Sun). With white light and 32 m arms he could see nearly always the same result:
 * A shift amplitude of 0.12 ± 0.01 fringe, incompatible with zero.
 * A shift phase that points to an apex in the constellation Dorado.

The amplitude analysis suggests a drag of aether. But the analysis of phase suggests that the Solar System goes towards the constellation Dorado at a speed of 227 km/s. These results were presented by Miller as a positive indication of the existence of an aether drift. However, the effect Miller saw was tiny – much smaller than would be expected for a stationary aether. In order for these results to be consistent with an aether, it had to be assumed that the aether was dragged along with the Earth to a much greater extent than aether theories typically predicted. Values that high could be eliminated due to other physical phenomenon like stellar aberration, which put upper limits on the amount of dragging. Furthermore, the measurement was statistically far from any other measurements being carried on at the time. Fringe shifts of about 0.01 were being observed in many experiments, while Miller's 0.08 was not duplicated anywhere else, including Miller's own 1904 experiments with Morley, which showed a drift of only 0.015.

Based on an error analysis, Miller's critics argued that he overestimated the precision of his results, and that his measurements were actually perfectly consistent with a fringe difference of zero—the null result that every other experiment was recording. However, Miller continued to defend his results, claiming that the probable reason for the so-called null results were that they were not being done at high locations (such as mountain tops), where the ether wind (drift) was supposedly much higher due to less ether drag. Einstein was interested in this aether drift theory and acknowledged that a positive result for the existence of aether would invalidate the theory of special relativity, but commented that altitudal influences and temperatures may have provided sources of error in the findings. Miller commented: "The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. [...] He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature."

During the 1920s a number of experiments, both interferometry-based, as in Miller's experiment, and others using entirely different techniques, were conducted, and these returned a null result as well. Even at the time, Miller's work was increasingly considered to be a statistical anomaly, an opinion that remains true today, given an ever-growing body of negative results. For example, Georg Joos reprised Miller's experiment using a very similar setup (the arms of his interferometer were 21 m vs. the 32 m in the Miller experiment) and obtained results that were 1/50 the magnitude of those from Miller's (see Michelson–Morley experiment). However, Miller claimed that the explanation for results of the experiments of Georg Joos were because they were done at low altitude in the interior of a building, where the aether wind was very low.

Shankland analysis
In 1955, Robert S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti performed a re-analysis of Miller's results. Shankland, who led the report, noted that the "signal" that Miller observed in 1933 is actually composed of points that are an average of several hundred measurements each, and the magnitude of the signal is more than 10 times smaller than the resolution with which the measurements were recorded. Miller's extraction of a single value for the measurement is statistically impossible, the data is too variable to say "this" number is any better than "that"—the data, from Shankland's position, supports a null result as equally as Miller's positive.

Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was partly due to statistical fluctuations and partly due to local temperature conditions, and also suggested that the results of Miller were due to a systematic error rather than an observed existence of aether. In particular, he felt that Miller did not take enough care in guarding against thermal gradients in the room where the experiment took place, as, unlike most interferometry experiments, Miller conducted his in a room where the apparatus was deliberately left open to the elements to some degree.

In Shankland's analysis, no statistically significant signal for the existence of aether was found. Shankland concluded that Miller's observed signal was spurious, due mainly to uncontrolled temperature effects rather than to the observed existence of an aether. In addition, some mainstream scientists today have argued that any signal that Miller observed was the result of the experimenter effect, i.e., a bias introduced by the experimenter's wish to find a certain result, which was a common source of systematic error in statistical analysis of data before modern experimental techniques were developed. (This effect was not addressed by name in Miller's early textbook on experimental techniques; see Ginn & Company, 1903).

Other endeavors
Dr. Miller published manuals designed to be student handbooks for the performance of experimental problems in physics. In 1908, Miller's interest in acoustics led him to develop a machine to record sound waves photographically, called the phonodeik. He used the machine to compare the waveforms produced by flutes crafted from different materials. During World War I, Miller worked with the physical characteristics of pressure waves of large guns at the request of the government. Dayton Miller was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1921. He was a member of the National Research Council in Washington, D.C. from 1927 to 1930.

Published works

 * Laboratory Physics, a Student's Manual for Colleges and Scientific Schools. (New York: Ginn & Company, 1903)
 * Extract from a Letter dated Cleveland, Ohio, August 5th, 1904, to Lord Kelvin from Profs. Edward W. Morley and Dayton C. Miller., (Philosophical Magazine, S. 6, Vol. 8. No. 48, Dec. 1904, pp. 753–754)
 * On the Theory of Experiments to detect Aberrations of the Second Degree. (with Edward Morley, Philosophical Magazine, S. 6, Vol. 9. No. 53, May 1905, pp. 669–680)
 * Report of an experiment to detect the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Effect (with Edward Morley, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. XLI, No. 12. 1905)
 * Final Report on Ether-drift Experiments (with Edward Morley, Science, Vol. XXV, No. 2. p. 525, 1907)
 * The Science of Musical Sounds (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916, revised 1926)
 * Anecdotal History of the Science of Sound (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1935)
 * Sound Waves: Their Shape and Speed (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937)
 * Sparks, Lightning and Cosmic Rays (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1939)
 * The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth (Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933))

References and external links
Main
 * "Dayton Clarence Miller". Today in Science, March 13 - births.
 * "Dayton Miller images". American Institute of Physics, 2003.
 * William Fickinger "Miller's Waves" an Informal Scientific Biography 2011.

Other endeavors
 * Dayton C. Miller Collection online and full collection finding aid at The Library of Congress.
 * Dayton Miller's acoustics collection, describing his research in acoustics
 * "The Phonodeik". The science of musical sounds.
 * "Professor Dayton Miller's Research in Acoustics ". Engineering Sciences E-129.
 * "Crookes x-ray tubes" Dittrick Medical History Center, Case Western Reserve University. 2004.

title: Dayton Miller


text:
Dimerization (chemistry)

In chemistry, dimerization is the process of joining two identical or similar molecular entities by bonds. The resulting bonds can be either strong or weak. Many symmetrical chemical species are described as dimers, even when the monomer is unknown or highly unstable.

The term homodimer is used when the two subunits are identical (e.g. A–A) and heterodimer when they are not (e.g. A–B). The reverse of dimerization is often called dissociation. When two oppositely-charged ions associate into dimers, they are referred to as Bjerrum pairs, after Danish chemist Niels Bjerrum.

Noncovalent dimers
Anhydrous carboxylic acids form dimers by hydrogen bonding of the acidic hydrogen and the carbonyl oxygen. For example, acetic acid forms a dimer in the gas phase, where the monomer units are held together by hydrogen bonds. Many OH-containing molecules form dimers, e.g. the water dimer.

Excimers and exciplexes are excited structures with a short lifetime. For example, noble gases do not form stable dimers, but they do form the excimers Ar2*, Kr2* and Xe2* under high pressure and electrical stimulation.

Covalent dimers

Molecular dimers are often formed by the reaction of two identical compounds e.g.: 2A -> A\sA. In this example, monomer "A" is said to dimerize to give the dimer "A\sA". An example is a diaminocarbene, which dimerize to give a tetraaminoethylene:

Carbenes are highly reactive and readily form bonds.

Dicyclopentadiene is an asymmetrical dimer of two cyclopentadiene molecules that have reacted in a Diels-Alder reaction to give the product. Upon heating, it "cracks" (undergoes a retro-Diels-Alder reaction) to give identical monomers:

Many nonmetallic elements occur as dimers: hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens (i.e. fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine). Noble gases can form dimers linked by van der Waals bonds, such as dihelium or diargon. Mercury occurs as a mercury(I) cation (Hg2(2+)), formally a dimeric ion. Other metals may form a proportion of dimers in their vapour phase. Known metallic dimers include dilithium (Li2), disodium (Na2), dipotassium (K2), dirubidium (Rb2) and dicaesium (Cs2). Such elemental dimers are homonuclear diatomic molecules.

Many small organic molecules, most notably formaldehyde, easily form dimers. The dimer of formaldehyde (CH2O) is dioxetane (C2H4O2).

Borane (BH3) occurs as the dimer diborane (B2H6), due to the high Lewis acidity of the boron center.

Polymer chemistry
In the context of polymers, "dimer" also refers to the degree of polymerization 2, regardless of the stoichiometry or condensation reactions.

One case where this is applicable is with disaccharides. For example, cellobiose is a dimer of glucose, even though the formation reaction produces water:

Here, the resulting dimer has a stoichiometry different from the initial pair of monomers.

Disaccharides need not be composed of the same monosaccharides to be considered dimers. An example is sucrose, a dimer of fructose and glucose, which follows the same reaction equation as presented above.

Amino acids can also form dimers, which are called dipeptides. An example is glycylglycine, consisting of two glycine molecules joined by a peptide bond. Other examples include aspartame and carnosine.

Inorganic dimers
Many molecules and ions are described as dimers, even when the monomer is elusive.

Boranes
Diborane (B2H6) is an inorganic dimer of Borane. B2H6 exists as a structure where two hydrogen atoms bridge the two boron atoms.

Aluminium
Trialkylaluminium compounds can exist as either monomers or dimers, depending on the steric bulk of the groups attached. For example, trimethylaluminium exists as a dimer, but trimesitylaluminium adopts a monomeric structure.

Pyrimidine dimers
Pyrimidine dimers (also known as thymine dimers) are formed by a photochemical reaction from pyrimidine DNA bases when exposed to ultraviolet light. This cross-linking causes DNA mutations, which can be carcinogenic, causing skin cancers. When pyrimidine dimers are present, they can block polymerases, decreasing DNA functionality until it is repaired.

Protein dimers
Protein dimers arise from the interaction between two proteins which can interact further to form larger and more complex oligomers. For example, tubulin is formed by the dimerization of α-tubulin and β-tubulin and this dimer can then polymerize further to make microtubules. For symmetric proteins, the larger protein complex can be broken down into smaller identical protein subunits, which then dimerize to decrease the genetic code required to make the functional protein.

G protein-coupled receptors
As the largest and most diverse family of receptors within the human genome, G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) have been studied extensively, with recent studies supporting their ability to form dimers. GPCR dimers include both homodimers and heterodimers formed from related members of the GPCR family. While not all, some GPCRs require dimerization to function, such as GABAB-receptor, emphasizing the importance of dimers in biological systems.

Receptor tyrosine kinase
Much like for G protein-coupled receptors, dimerization is essential for receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) to perform their function in signal transduction, affecting many different cellular processes. RTKs typically exist as monomers, but undergo a conformational change upon ligand binding, allowing them to dimerize with nearby RTKs. The dimerization activates the cytoplasmic kinase domains that are responsible for further signal transduction.

title: Dimerization (chemistry)


text:
Talk:Zorglub

Comment on content
Zorglub as a character is more complex than an "arch-vilain": unlike Zantafio, Zorglub is not evil, or even amoral: he is actually astonished and anguished at the consequences of his actions with zorglvertising (people eating soap). He personifies the risks of science without a conscience, as he does things just because they are possible, not cause damage or even get him all the power he could get from it. This is made particularly explicit by his relationship with Zantafio, forcing readers to consider the existence of such a moral position between "good" (Spirou, Fantasio, possibly Champignac), and "evil" (Zantafio/Zantas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.217.133 (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the former and moved Zorglub article
Without trying to appear to be anti-non-English speaker, but this article really doesn't make any sense. Can someone please turn it into something meaningful? RickK

5 July, 2003

Revert to article
I boldly moved back the bulk of the text from the previous placement in Characters in Spirou et Fantasio for a couple of reasons. The material is of a size that justifies its own article, it has at least one interwiki, and at the previous location, the text was considered to be simply entries to a list, and therefore not acceptable for image illustration under WP:FAIRUSE. M URGH  disc.  22:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Zorglub. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070301124424/http://www.spirou.com:80/spirou/personnages/zorglub/index.htm to http://www.spirou.com/spirou/personnages/zorglub/index.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Zorglub