Jump to content

Talk:M4 motorway

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

Junctions

[edit]

Does anyone know why there are no Junctions 31 and 39? Were they surplus to requirements?

Timrollpickering 19:40 Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

When construction of the M4 happened piecemeal, the last junction at Newport was 28, the exit to the line of the A48(M) was 29, and the planners decided on three intermediate junctions before picking up at 33. J31 is thought to have been intended to hook up with the A469 to Caerphilly (which really does need the relief). As for 39, the article is inaccurate - there is a 39, however it has only one slip road, and that leads onto the motorway. Chris 20:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason the bus lane isn't mentioned? Thryduulf 16:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because nobody had written about it! Paul Weaver 01:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Special features

[edit]

Anyone any idea why the page generator leaves such a big gap after the word 'controversy' in this section? I've looked at the source but see no reason?!?

It doesn't. There is an external link icon there. Perhaps it didn't load for you for some reason? It may also be a browser bug. There are several known bugs with IE 6 that aren't present in Firefox for exmaple. Owain 14:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic

[edit]

Seems there's wiki moderators here who think that articles should be "encyclopaedic". Judging by what gets deleted it is obvious that the whole entire article is "unencyclopaedic".

It's not good enough for an uneducated individual with a login to randomly deface articles just so they can feel something other than the pathetic truth of their life history.

I suggest that such "helpful" (sarcastic) authors attend a university, particularly a science-based course, and learn some realities about fact vs fiction, and logic - particularly when hypocratic reasons are cited for defacement of articles.

Also I suggest that those authors who enjoy defacement of this article actually try and commute on the M4 before making any future changes to this article. But then what's the point of trying to educate a man who believes he has all the knowledge he will ever need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.155.82 (talk • contribs)

Systemic bias

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously longer and more important M4 motorways, e.g., M4 motorway (Russia). I believe M4 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the English Wikipedia. Anyway, that Russian motorway may be longer, but more important is personal opinion. Marky-Son (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary destinations

[edit]

Cardiff International Airport may be an important airport in Wales, but it is not on the list of primary destinations on the United Kingdom road network. Seth Whales (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a WAG map of primary destinations here [1] Pondle (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map appears to be showing just primary settlements, hence why Cardiff Airport isn't on there. So why isn't an airport that over 2 million passengers travel to each year (the majority of which probably using the M4) not a primary destination whereas Heathrow and Manchester are? Must a destination receive so many travellers to be classed as primary? Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like your argument is with the DfT or the Transport department at WAG rather than an article content issue! Aside from the map, I notice that the A4050 and the A4055 serving Cardiff Airport aren't green-signed - green signs usually indicate primary routes leading to primary destinations [2] Pondle (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A report by the WAG in 2003 [3] discussed access to CIA, and the tone of the report indicates that they consider CIA to be a major destination (although they do not specifically state that). The tail end of the report mentions that the contractors' preferred option is a new trunk road toward the CIA (section 4.6.3), and that the route to the airport, both in the short and longer term proposals, be considered for adoption as a trunk road. (section 5). I don't know of further developments since this.

Also, the map's data is as of 2002, and may not be current.

It's been a while since I drove along the M4; does anyone recall if distance markers (or whatever the technical name for the signs) list distances to CIA as well as other locations? I know that CIA is signposted, but so is Cardiff Bay ("use junction 32 for the Bay"), which I'm sure we agree does not warrant being listed separately. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Various lobby groups have been calling for a better road to the airport for many years. The latest on the WAG website states that they are undertaking a consultation exercise. [4] Pondle (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG please move this page back!!!! BritishWatcher (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC) God damn it, there was no agreement to move this article and no reason to,. M4 is the clear primary topic showed by the view stats. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted move

[edit]

I see no discussion linked from here about a possible move, and certainly nothing anywhere that one has been agreed. Move reverted and move protection in place for the time being therefore. --AlisonW (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq|M4 motorway (United Kingdom)}} M4 motorway → M4 motorway (United Kingdom) — Just making the requested move official. Jeni (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I have struck out Jeni's RM here, because:
  1. The move which was reverted was to M4 motorway (Great Britain), not to M4 motorway (United Kingdom). Northern Ireland operates a separate namespace for motorways, so for example there are two M1s in the UK, two M5s etc. "United Kingdom" would be a non-standard disambiguator which could not be applied to other motorways in Great Britain
  2. It crossed in the post with an actual move proposal below
  3. It is not helpful to conflate a move proposal with a discussion on the merits or otherwise of a WP:BOLD move. Let's separate the substance from the procedure --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for peopls reference...

Without any doubt at all, this is the primary article and deserves the primary spot so i strongly oppose any attempt to move this page. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia navigation must come first, and all the above roads share the M4. It's false national pride to try an hug these spots, and whether it requires an RfC to iron out Motorway pages will have to be decided. Tfz 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please list the page views for each of those articles. As we have talked about before, just because there is more than one thing with the same name doesnt mean there is no primary article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia must come first. Hits are not relevant when it comes to motorways. Primary names are reserved for things like Statue of Liberty, and the likes, certainly not country motorways. That's not the spirit of WP. Tfz 18:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where this is stated? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tfz, I beg to differ as "primary targets" are *precisely* aimed at what the majority of readers are seeking. Nothing is "reserved" nor is the reverse. As you put it, the Wikipedia *reader* must come first, and it is clearly that the British M4 is the primary target sought by readers. More to the point, this move was not agreed upon by the majority of editors - and thus was vandalism - which is why I reverted the move and the concomitant changes made. --AlisonW (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"More to the point, this move was not agreed upon by the majority of editors - and thus was vandalism" no it wasn't, it was a dispute - how can you be an administrator and not understand the difference? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the move wasnt vandalism, it was annoying and wrong as there was no debate especially after whats been happening over on the other motorway articles. But considering the move was made by an admin as well, lets avoid getting into an admin fight on this page please, i go to the admin noticeboard for that entertainment, lets please focus on the issue.. This is the primary article and should not be moved. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons for considering it 'vandalism' are detailed in a thread on my talk page, but I saw this as a part of the whole mess of Motorway move madness which has been happening just recently. If it truly was unconnected, then I apologise for using the term. --AlisonW (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats just wonderful. How moving articles is going to help restore calm on these issues i dont know! BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
looking at the M18 ones, it seems reasonable for that one to be a dab page. However please please please please, in future can everyone intending to move one of these damn motorway articles atleast RM it so edit wars dont break out as people revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are moved here at Wikipedia every minute of the day, it's just another process. It wrong to get too excited because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or to call names. The article can always be moved back, as happened here, and then some discussion take place. Whatever outcome pertains at the end of the day is the way Wikipedia works. There are no winners or losers on this score, it is all part of the evolution of the encyclopedia, that's all. Tfz 21:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not so easy for us non admins to move things back, it creates a mess which we then have to call someone else to deal with. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is process, and that process requests that moves which are likely to be controversial are discussed first! When you initiate a move you see the statement "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read mw:Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." and looking at the list of proposed moves you will see that most editors recognise it is useful to have a discussion even for moves not thought likely to be disputed. These, though, are clearly major articles and require proper open wide consultation *in advance*. --AlisonW (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a major article, and it's controversial because you made it so. I think it is best to stay rational, as it's merely a content dispute, and nothing more. Tfz 21:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google image search shows that the first few pages are exclusively relating to the UK M4,[5] and a google web search also favours the UK M4 as a primary topic.[6] Jeni (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin tools by partisan admin

[edit]

Alison, you are way out of line here.

The first rule of being an admin is not to use your admin powers in a dispute in which you are partisan. You conflated this as being part of a series of moves on motorways, and you have already stated your position on those moves (see these two comments on the M2: [7][8]). Then after those comments, and despite all your pontificating here about page moves requiring consensus beforehand, you took it upon yourself to move the M2 article to what you thought was a better name. No consensus, and you knew that a discussion was underway ... but you acted unilaterally, pre-emptinmg the outcome of that discussion.

Yet when I moved this page unilaterally (being WP:BOLD, when there was no discussion underway), you falsely accused me of "vandalism", and then misused your admin powers to favour your position by protecting the page after you had moved it. You were involved: you should not have used your tools.

Now you quite the bit about "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read mw:Help:Moving a page for more detailed instructions." as if that justifies your actions. So what exactly were those dire consequences? They were that links would need to be disambiguated, which is what I was doing. You knew that, because you simply mass-reverted my edits.

I will post a RM below, but I hope that Alison will unprotect this page and stop using her admin tools to her advantage in a content dispute in which she is partisan. That's particularly important given that she doesn't know how to use the tools properly (she deleted the dab page), and hasn't read the relevant policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you didn't make stupid moves in the first place, knowing full well that they are controversial, we wouldn't be in this mess. Jeni (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, actually it's not a mess in the least. Keep cool, stay rational, address the issue. Tfz 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC?

[edit]

Would these motorway disambiguation page discussions not be better served by opening an RfC? Tfz 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, each page will still need to be discussed on its own merits. If the users from Ireland would agree to generate consensus before blindly moving pages, all of these problems would be solved. Jeni (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, talk of Irish editors 'blindly moving' is offensive and unwarranted. I have carefully considered each move that I have made, including doing the necessary changes to incoming links. The only blind actions in all of his have been your blind mass-reverts of my edits, in which you didn't even bother to check that you were undoing disambiguation. You are confusing "blind" with something you don't agree with, and there is a difference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is blind moving, its plainly obvious from the problems caused with the M1, M2 and M3 that moving the M4 will cause issues. It is clear that the move was disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. If your move is ok, why was it reverted by someone other than me, and contested by myself and somebody else? You could have easily seen that this page had already been moved, then moved back as controversial. You were participating in nothing more than a move war. Jeni (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, you're confused. It can't be both a blind move and a deliberately controversial step in a move war. So why not take a breaking from casting aspersions on other people's motives until you can engage brain enough to make up your mind what you are alleging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each case is different yes, several people who opposed the move for M1 supported the move for M2, there for to try and put this into one RFC would complicate matters.
Although if you were to ask just a simple question about IF page hits should be taken into account to help determine primary topic or a dab page should always take priority then that might be useful. Alternatively, making a post on the disam project, who are the experts on these matters might be more useful and get more policy based views than just general feedback / opinion that RFC might bring BritishWatcher (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. There is clearly no consensus to conduct the page move. Support for it is somewhere around 20-30%. This discussion has gotten rather nasty, and I encourage all involved to be civil rather than go down the path of WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My move of this page to M4 motorway (Great Britain) has been clumsily reverted by a partisan admin who has falsely accused me of vandalism and doesn't know how to use her admin tools. She deleted the dab page rather than moving it, and ended up recreating it badly, and then set about blindly reverting my other edits. It's a real pity to see tpo see a situation like this made more difficult by an admin who has gone out of who doesn't understand policy :(

Anyway, here's why I think that M4 motorway should be moved to M4 motorway (Great Britain).

Simple: there are M4 motorways in many countries, and we need a very good reason to prioritise one over all the others. Each will be of differing importance to editors in different countries, and we need some clear evidence that one matters more than the others.

  1. Hit counts are a highly misleading tool when one article is at the primary topic, because the figures for the status quo need to be read as reflecting those editors who didn't follow the hatnote to the dablink. It's small and easily missed, and I see no evidence on what proportion of those who encountered an an article on something else in such situations actually used the dablink. Some editors presume that most will, but I see no evidence for that, and plenty of useability studies stress that editors will speed-read and will rapidly go somewhere else if they don't find what they are looking for.
  2. Hits are a bad way of measuring the importance of a topic, because many of those hits will come from elsewhere on wikpedia. So if an article has many internal links (e.g. from articles on all the towns and villages nearby), that will boost the hit-rate ... not because of any intrinsic importance of the subject, but because of the existing systemic bias. This is is a vicious spiral, in which the more prominence an article gains through cross-linking, the more some editors argue that its prominence should be further enhanced. The "evidence" they cite is actually just a feedback loop.
  3. Leave aside hit counts for a moment, which are in any case a self-reference, and try assessing this on externally verifiable facts. Pakistan has a population three times of the UK, so it's arguable that the infrastructure of Pakistan is more important than that of the UK. I'd prefer not make a value-judgement either way, but I see no WP:RS evidence for the claims that the British M4 is a more significant topic (remember, wikipedia is not a reliable source). What about the Hungarian M4? It's a major international route in central Europe, linking Hungary to Croatia, whereas the British M4 is a domestic route which does ot travel to an international border. Why is the Hungarian to be deemed so much less important than the British motorway?
  4. There is a very important indirect reader benefit from using a dab page as the primary topic, because it can be maintained by editors. Since any incoming links to a dab page are misplaced, they get flagged upo by the bots which hunt for links to dab p\ages, and it's then it's easy to use popups to fix them ... but if another article is in the primary topic, then we have a double-whammy of misplaced links not showing up as a self-evident problem, and popups being unavailable to fix them. That creates a permanent impediment to editors ability to help readers by ensuring that internal links point in the right direction. When a link from an article on Pakistan leads a reader to a British motorway, what's the guarantee that they'll search on another few steps for the correct article, rather than just using the back button? Keeping the primary topic as a dab page allows us to maintain those links and avoid subjecting the reader to that.
    Note that after the (now-reverted) move I was busy doing that disambiguation today, and have found a number of misplaced links which were not readily evident when buried in the mass of other links.
  5. There is an important systemic bias issue here. If ambiguities are resolved in favour of major western nations, then readers will find it harder to reach articles on other parts of the world, and some will give up ... which creates a self-reinforcing loop, in which obscuring articles on non-western issues reduces their relative hit-rate, justifying further obscurity.
  6. Finally, the default treatment of ambiguity is to disambiguate all articles. Editors seeking to make one article the primary topic should be making a clear case for creating an exception, rather than self-referentially pointing to the effects of a previously created exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per the existing move discussion above. Is there really any need for this duplicate? A Google image search shows that the first few pages are exclusively relating to the UK M4,[9] and a google web search also favours the UK M4 as a primary topic. The first 3 pages of results for M4 motorway on Google News all favour the UK motorway, only 4 other non UK articles feature [10] Jeni (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This is a brilliant example of a misuse of google hits.
      1. The Hungarian and Pakistani motorways are not in primarily English-spealking countries, so a search which prioritises English-speaking countries by including the word English-language term "motorway" unsurprisingly throws up hits from an English-speaking country.
      2. Google News searches publications which a) have a web presence and b) are selected by google for inclusion in that service. So naturally it favours UK news media over Pakistani ones
      3. Google image search returns pictures. Which country has more resources to put pictures on the web? The wealthier one, Britain. So hey presto, more British images, further skewed by the language issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well.. since this is the English Wikipedia... well, do I need to say more? Jeni (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No Jeni, you don't need to say more, because you reveal a deep misunderstanding and you'd do well stop digging yourself in deeper.
            Here's the problem: this is not as you claim "the English Wikipedia". It is not English nor Spanish nor German nor Chinese -- it's just an encyclopedia written in the English-language, not one designed to exclude the perspectives o non-English-speakers. See WP:CSB for a more detailed explanation of how seriously the problem is taken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
            • Perhaps you should stop misinterpreting comments ;-) I didn't mention English as in England did I? And you know that for a fact. This is a discussion about the primary topic, not about if the topic should be included in the encyclopaedia. The fact that we on the English language Wikipedia strengthens the fact that an article in a country which speaks the English language has a stronger claim to a primary topic than one which does not. Remember that primary topics are there to aid navigation, giving the reader the article they are most likely to be looking for. An English speaker reading the English Wikipedia is much more likely to be looking for an article on a road in an English speaking country than an article on a road in a non English speaking country. Your comments would be more valid if this was an AfD discussion, but it isn't, so they aren't. Good night :) Jeni (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see so this is more about a campaign to make the English wikipedia less relevant to English speaking wikipedians, what a great cause. Ofcourse there is a bias, shock horror there are dozens of other language wikipedias which probably have exactly the same problem. The overwhelming majority of people that contribute to this English language wikipedia are from certain parts of the world, the overwhelming majority of people that read the English language wikipedia are from certain parts of the world. What a complete waste of our time here.
The situation with M2 motorway showed this is not some unfair form of bias. When in that case there was no clear primary topic it was turned into a dab. However M1 motorway was the clear primary topic for reasons stated there, and M3 motorway is the clear primary topic for reasons stated here. That seems pretty fair to me, ofcourse its totally unfair and unacceptable for all the British Motorways to have the primary spot just because they are British motorways, but nobody here is advocating that.. theres been dab pages at the prime spot for some motorways for a long time, it must be handled in a case by case basis. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BritishWatcher (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for peoples reference...

The current article is clearly the primary article and needs the primary spot. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But as explained above M4 Motorway would be the natural disambiguator, and hence the high hits. Tfz 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and See For the time being the principle of least suprise suggests we should stick with the status quo but it's something we need to keep under review.©Geni 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol dont be too sure, from some peoples comments here it seems as though they would want to move the M25 aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a good idea ... provided we're talking of moving the M25 mway rather than the article about it. I suggest moving it a long way north, so that it ceases to be clogged up with all those London commuters. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, the M25 is meant to keep Londoners from getting out of London, we cant move it and free them! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it does seem like punishment for the outcome of the Ireland naming vote. I was expecting the fallout to be directed towards British Isles, although its clearly going to be more widespread. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I'm British myself, but I don't see why we have an exclusive right to this title - many countries have an 'M4 motorway', and that title could refer to any of them. The only reason the article on the British motorway is most developed and most linked-to is because of our (understandable) systemic bias towards English-language countries: we have more editors from the UK than, say, Hungary. That doesn't mean there's a primary topic here. The same goes for all other road articles. (Comment copied from Talk:M3 motorway, where the same discussion is going on.) Robofish (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would've opted for M4 motorway (England and Wales). Oh well, too late. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed checks system

[edit]

This section has significant problems with it - it's conflating temporary and permanent speed restrictions, those enforced by static camera, those sometimes watched by camera vans, and sections of average speed enforcement through roadworks, some of which is unreferenced and other parts out of date . Also, with it's precise positioning of cameras, it's reading like a guide for motorists. I'm not really sure that we need any of the section, as nothing is unique to the M4. If any of the content is encyclopaedic, it should be discussed generally at an article about speed limits or speed limit enforcement in the UK rather than here. 16:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Chippenham

[edit]

I note that Chippenham is listed here as a primary destination on the M4. Chipenham itself is a primary destination but is 3 miles off Junction 17 of the M4 and does not appear on any of the route confimration signs so should it be included here? ZoeL (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M4 bus lane section - proposed split

[edit]

This section seems to be getting out of balance with the main article. I have other content that I would have added had it not already been too long for the context of the article and the subjest is likely to continue to generate more content over the next 2 years during the experimental closure. I therefore propose that we split it into a new article. We would of course maintain a stub summary section in this article. Please put any comment you have here. PeterEastern (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable as you have further material to add, and more news / reports will come in over the next two years that will extend the detail further. Keith D (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split into M4 bus lane completed by this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Junction 11 picture

[edit]

The picture showing the M4 at J11 was added in good faith, but is adds very little to the article. That junction has a number of interesting feature - a 80 m pedestrian bridge, a bus lane that has its own bridges over the motorway, to mention just two features. The phioto in question did not highlight any of them or any other novel feature of the junction. Martinvl (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh and English flags

[edit]

There is no need for these flags to be used, they are purely decorative. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You, as an American, are welcome to your own opinion. This is Wikipedia though, and someone who is self-styled as The Enforcer has no place here apparently interfering just for the sake of it. Regards –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The M4 has two distinct parts - the English part and the Welsh part. The flags assist the reader in quickly seeing the break-point between the two. I know that it is written in the text, but this RJL has almost 50 junctions, not to mention services etc, making a "half-way marker" desireable. Martinvl (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support retaining the flags. There are differences in terms of responsibility between those lengths of the motorway in Wales and those in England, and the flags assist readers in showing where the division of responsibility lies. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've now added a couple of sentences to explain this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No different than the change of maintenance between the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Michigan Department of Transportation on U.S. Route 131 at the state line. The flags are unnecessary and should go. Imzadi 1979 → 14:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could add the county flags for each junction too. No the flags are not needed and should go.--Charles (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether or not the flags stay or go, those last two posts clearly fail to understand government administration in the UK. We are not talking about sub-national administrative divisions, we are talking about different countries (albeit within a single sovereign state), each of which has responsibility for different parts of the route (which counties do not). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana and Michigan are separate U.S. states, each co-sovereign with the federal government in a federal arrangement; they are not just "sub-national administrative divisions". Each state is responsible for its own highway systems, meaning its very much a similar situation to this one, and no flags are necessary to decorate that border. Imzadi 1979 → 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
England and Wales are likewise each responsible for their own transport systems - the Highways Agency and Traffic Wales. Martinvl (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's really in dispute. The point is, why do we need the nationalist pride flag emblems at 37pt when we already have the names of the countries? Flags are not needed. (Incidentally, I see "Traffic Wales" has no article and is not actually mentioned in the prose at all. Perhaps that's something Welsh editors or similarly interested editors could address?) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic Wales is just an information site. The Welsh Government's transport responsibilities, including responsibilities for its motorway maintenance, are handled by one of its internal departments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, not the point really. We're talking about the decorative flags. No doubt the M4 goes between England and Wales, but it also goes between Monmouthshire and Avon. Yet we don't denote those. I think the words "England" and "Wales" do an adequate job and MOSFLAG recommends we don't just sprinkle these decorations willy-nilly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't addressing your "point" - I was correcting the suggestion that Traffic Wales should have its own article. It shouldn't. By the way, Avon hasn't existed as an administrative area for 17 years. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so grateful you corrected me, thank you! I'm sure this now explains why the Welsh flag and the St George Cross should be used on this list...... shurely?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any comment on that issue for nine hours. Many other comments in this thread are ill-informed and/or provocative (verging on offensive), so I've corrected them, to the extent that I can be bothered. For what it's worth, I think the flags are not "purely decorative" - they are helpful guidance. But, as others say, WP:MOS suggests otherwise. Shrug. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bummer, isn't it? MOS says otherwise, this is a MOS issue. We shouldn't be using these flags, as demonstrated by those editors who have commented here. So let's remove them (but obviously keep the real info, i.e. England and Wales....) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tee hee! Gareth, I note you state "You, as an American, are welcome to your own opinion." which I guess is aimed at me. How little you know! (Are you actually a bird?) And yet you show distinct tinges of being from across the pond, demonstrating a stereotypical inability to detect irony! But thanks so much for your misguided opinions! In other news, there is no need for these flags, as adequately explained above. Next we'll be putting county flags.... goodness me, this is still Great Britain we're talking about, unless of course the flags are there as some indicator of national pride? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was misled by this, "Hopefully, as an outside observer, you'll ultimately be more successful. Keep it up!" —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 8:30 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0) — yesterday on your Talk page. Either way you are "something else" when it comes to administrators on Wikipedia! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 19:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I sure am. I'm the "enforcer", I'm that kind of bad-ass guy that needs to own everything I do.... YEAH! Not really. I'm just a guy, standing in front of a girl, telling her I love her, etc. I just want decent outcomes that hopefully align our presentation of these kinds of things throughout all of Wikipedia. If all this negativity is drawn from the Six Nations, I don't stand a chance.........! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, ha! Well said! Not so sure about any "negativity" though ... not on my watch. We have to look at the inclusion (or not) of the little flags as to whether or not they assist the reader from other parts of this planet. Surely that is the whole point of the project as a whole. Symmetry is important and I desire it up to a point, but not at the expense of loss of clarification –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you know what, I've been advocating the lovely graphics for motorway symbology, both M-roads and A-roads, and then I arrogantly show up and say "let's not have national flags". Now, I've thought about it a bit more since, and consider that we have MOSFLAG and all that jazz, and we already denote the border between England and the other place with words like "England" and "Wales", and I'm still not entirely convinced that showing flags will help our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Imzadi1979 is mistaken when he says that the change between Indiana and Michigan on U.S. Route 131 is the same as that between England and Wales on the M4. The situation is similar, but I don't think US State Flags have the same significance as national flags. Also Charles' suggestion to "add the county flags for each junction too" seems to be a complete straw man. But perhaps Rambling Man can show us exactly where the relevant advice lies in the WP:MOS? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See MOSFLAG - the use here is purely decorative, and by the looks of things (certainly from those editors here), nationalistic pride issues. Why do we need a 37-point flag when the word "Wales" and the word "England" imparts the same information? The various straw man arguments made about "Traffic Wales" etc have no influence whatsoever on whether or not we should be putting flags on road lists. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this an old thread, but there is very strong argument for the flags (or text) to denote the Anglo Welsh border. (Personally I'd prefer flags, they are easier and quicker to understand, but I see how people from outside the UK context may not be familiar with them).

The reason why I think the emphasising the Anglo Welsh border is responsibility for the motorway is divided along that border. It is not merely a matter of administration, (who fills in the pot holes) it is smarter of policy making (e.g. who decides whether to there should be a smart motorway). As for the the comparison with the USA. Perhaps state flags would serve a purpose on similar articles there. However a potential difference with American motorways is that the Interstate system is a 'federal' one, whereas in the UK responsibility for the motorways are devolved. Fourthedit (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Start and end points

[edit]

In the opening paragraph, should we say it runs between London and South Wales, or between Chiswick and a point near Pontarddulais? I think that the more general statement is much the more helpful to readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, a general statement will be more helpful in the opening paragraph, which is meant to summarise. Pontarddulais is mentioned soon after, in any case. And essentially it is London, not just Chiswick, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So do I — London and South Wales  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Timeline

[edit]

Do all timelines have to be shown vertically? Would this one be better horizontal? I guess that might need a lot of rework to produce. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a muddle. To create an horizontal timeline would be an excellent project for the improvement of this article. Volunteers step forward! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will volunteer - work is under way. I can squeeze it into a page width - 17 columns in all. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guessed you would take up the baton. Well done, Martin, and thank you!
Sincerely,
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well done Martinvl. I hope there aren't any "device issues". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this one? Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! — that was quick!
I like it very much. Let's replace the existing, appallingly-difficult-to-read one with this –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Martinvl (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a huge improvement in my opinion. Very well done. (Apparently there used to be an opening timeline in the M62 motorway article which, for some reason, has now started to attract some attention, as you will know. Not that I am making any pleas or suggestions, haha). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you three may understand what that table means, but how the hell does anyone else? It's unreferenced, has no key, has no explanation, and is inaccessible. Not a "huge improvement" by any means, a total shambles in fact. No wonder the UK RJL project is a ridiculed. Please fix it so the rest of the world outside you three can actually understand what it's trying to communicate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly being difficult. You are well aware of the previous timeline long-established in this article — also without any references, aren't you? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, and how dare you assume that I am "well aware" of it. This timeline is crap and explains nothing to anyone. Seriously Gareth, you're beginning to test me with your inability to understand where I'm coming from. Your assumptions, so far, have been 100% incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the tag. Is the table saying that junctions 9 to 18 were all built in 1971? Is it saying that junctions 7 to 9 were opened well before junction 1? It's entirely unintelligible to a non-RJL expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear timeline table

[edit]

What's the timeline table/bar chart telling the user? Also, the "time" axis seems to be the wrong way around. Our other kid (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up! Compare with the previous timeline before making an ass of yourself in public! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What previous timeline? Our other kid (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I scroll throught the article for the first time and see a block/bar chart/histogram under the heading "timeline". There needs to be at least an explanation as to what the events being depicted are and why the time axis is upside down! Our other kid (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Examine the History and you will be able to compare the present one with its predecessor –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does time generally flow from top to bottom, or from left to right? Or which way does it generally go (in English, at least?) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Time can go either way provided that it is clearly labelled. I have no problem with timeline in reverse chronologiucal order (I normally write my CV that way), or in chronological order. In Special relativity it is normal for time to be on the vertical axis, but for exponential decay it is on the horizontal axis. In other words, as long as things are clearly labelled, don't get stressed about it. Martinvl (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Histograms, which this looks like, normally have the origin in the bottom-left, and values increase along the x-axis from left to right and up the y-axis from bottom to top. Timelines usually have time increasing along the horizontal axis from left to right, with events marked along it. Our other kid (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Histograms are connected with statistical distributuions. This is not a statistical distribution, it is a bar char.
For the record, the last time I had this discussion was when my first kid, then aged 6, was introduced to family trees at school (as a way of introducing history at infant shcool). The teacher showed a family tree with time in the vertical axis. When I showed him an Ahnentafel, it had time in the horizontal direction. He asserted that teacher was right and that I was wrong, refusing to accept that either was acceptable.
Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For what record, and how is any of that relevant to this discussion about a very unclear histogram or bar chart? Our other kid (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the timeline graphic is very clear. And a big improvement on the previous one. That's just my personal opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't RamblingMan offer his opinion here? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Probably because he is too busy being rude to me on my Talk –[reply]
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post script Need to look at the History to read the worst of it –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you two (Martinevans123 & Gareth Griffith-Jones) talk to "RamblingMan" like adults? Pathetic, the pair of you. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I talked to "RamblingMan" like a non-adult? Who's our other kid? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This pathetic "small text" "Why doesn't RamblingMan offer his opinion here? Martinevans123" crap. Anyway, I'll leave you and the Welsh Front to your business, I'll keep making sure that you don't "own" the M4 article, which is poor, and which this "table" has done nothing than add confusion. Thanks. Oh, and thanks. Diolch. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hostility? Your banner is really quite colourful. I like contribuing to poor articles. How many confused editors do we have at the last count? Who's Our Other Kid? Diolch yn fawr. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What, for instance, is the blue block in the cell at (1–5:1996) telling us? Our other kid (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that junctions 1-5 were there at least 17 years ago? Do you have a counter-proposal or even an example? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't junctions 1-5 there in 1995 or 1997 - there's no blocks for those years, and what are the Xs? Our other kid (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was all finished by 1996? And it seems there were some years in which no sections were completed? Martinevans123 (talk)
So what do we think the blue block in (1–5:1996) is for again - if 1–5 was finished in 1965? And the Xs? Our other kid (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an extremely unusual edit for a first-time editor to make. Editors are reminded of the existence of the checkuser function. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly in line with my suspicions, PCW. It doesn't add up when you see the user's contributions to date ... all on this subject, all made today –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How should I have flagged what I perceived to be a problem? How can the checkuser function help clarify the timeline here - or do you think it is already abundantly clear? Our other kid (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's amazing how quickly new editors pick up "useful" tools like banners when they don't like someting, isn't it. Or am I just rambling on here? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't mention the war!" He'll come back and I need a drink –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but do you think I'm making a fuss about nothing? Do you find the timeline to be an exemplary example of how to clearly and unambiguously present the history of the M4? Our other kid (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're "arguing intelligently", not "making a fuss". All graphics have their limitations, I guess. But what's your counter-proposal? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can fully understand what the timeline is for yet, because I currently can't see any purpose to it. When/if I can see its purpose, I might be able to offer an alternative way of portraying it. The problem I have is the blocks, like that against 1996 for junctions 1-5, for which I cannot see a purpose. Our other kid (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The checkuser function is used to help assess whether different named accounts are operated by the same user. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that matter, and how will that help make the timeline clearer here? Our other kid (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the timeline, I'm talking about whether your account is a sockpuppet of User:The Rambling Man, which is something I suspect to be the case. I quote from the sockpuppet page: "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to a block of all affected accounts, a ban of the user (the sockmaster or sockpuppeteer) behind the accounts (each of which is a sockpuppet or sock), and on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia and its sister projects". I am seriously thinking of filing a checkuser request. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [Note: This comment has been struck out as per this. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead and do that, although User:Martinvl seems to think it's someone who isn't me, unless I've already been banned? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we ditch the sock accusations, it's hardly constructive. Either request a checkuser or quit it... this is painful to read! Jeni (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That 1-5 was still finished by 1996 and hadn't been demolished of course! (bound to happen some day?) The height of the blue columns gives some idea of how long different sections have been there (especially if the years are read). I think the Xs are just stylistic details... unless they represent good old British construction techniques which don't seem to have changed at all in the course of 35 years! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is 1996 significant to juntions 1-5 then, and why are most of the other years of that sections life missing? Our other kid (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's significance is that it makes 1-5 one of the oldest sections? But what exactly do you think is "missing"? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a block by 1996 for junctions 1-5, but not by 1995 and not by 1997 (and not by most other years from 1961 to the present day either). That suggests that 1996 had some significance to junctions 1-5 that neither 1995 or 1997 (or all the other missing years) had. What is that significance? Our other kid (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps, I'm no-one's sock, and I have some issues with the timeline, too.

  1. Telling people to view the history to understand the chart isn't a good response. Articles need to make sense to a first-time visitor, not just experienced Wikipedians. If it's not intuitive, it needs fixing.
  2. I have no problem with time going down a vertical axis, but it is misleading that the time axis is so distorted. There are eleven bars and the top five represent just less than 50% of space, but six years out of 35 construction time or 51 to date. This could be fixed by making the chart that has one row for each year. This fix would also address the issue raised above, that the apparently odd choices of year wrongly implies significance in columns where there is no special significance.
  3. The chart implies that all sections were planned from the word "go", just that some took more than 30 years to become actuality. Is that accurate?

Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dweller for your observations. All most helpful. A good base to continue from –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we all want the best for the article, just have different start points with it. If we can all stay calm, like your ideal response, we'll get there. Let's just hope we don't have to wait 35 years to get there. Or pay a toll. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This all smells fishy to me.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may come in with my opinion, the current chart isn't easy to read... it took me a while to work out what was going on! Now, if time was horizontal and the sections were vertical, it would be a lot easier to understand at a first glance. Jeni (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's still confusing, as I said above "Is the table saying that junctions 9 to 18 were all built in 1971? Is it saying that junctions 7 to 9 were opened well before junction 1? It's entirely unintelligible to a non-RJL expert." I'm not even sure why this is required? Could the "opening date" or whatever the purpose of this table is, go in the main junction table if it's really useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'd oppose cluttering up the junction list any further! A separate diagram, if done in a clear, accessible and concise way, IMO, is preferable. If I get some time later I'll try to knock something together as an idea/example :-) Jeni (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeni! Glad to see you here! This thread all started by Martin Evans asking, "Do all timelines have to be shown vertically? Would this one be better horizontal?"
For those unfamiliar with the former timeline ... here it is ... Opening timeline

 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a timeline, it's more a junction line. What about something with the years along the horizontal, left to right, chronological and linear, and the junction numbers laid along it as they opened? Our other kid (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is precisely why I posted it here for such as you and/or Ramblin' Man to see why Martin Evans posted the first comment, way back here on March 9. You seem to agree with what replaced it now(?) –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 20:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is that neither of the "solutions" is a timeline, both are confusing, and really, is there any point in this at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't agree. I think what replaced it is terrible. It's still not clear to me why junctions 1-5 have a block for 1996 but not for all other years they were there. What's special about 1996 where j1-j5 is concerned? Our other kid (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both are attempts to illustrate the fragmentary development of this long motorway over a long time span. They have a significance here, in my opinion –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps (as is shown by the confusion) a purely graphical approach is not appropriate to explain such a confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An essay could replace it, complete with citations, and this could be a solution ... who would want to write it, I wonder? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it doesn't need to be a big deal, it should fit in with the history of the road. I fail to see any audience that specifically wants to know how long Junction 24 has been in existence. It's entirely out of context and pointless. This information should just be woven into the background of the development of the motorway. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I take it that you may be volunteering to make the edits? –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which of my entities are you referring to? I have no time for your nonsense and bad faith, why not do it yourself. All I care about is ensuring we just don't insist on the kind of rubbish presentation that we currently have now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This timeline is clearly a vertically-oriented timeline. Martinvl (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current so-called "timeline" block diagram is an appalling, hideous, terrible, uninformative waste of space, and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Apologies to whoever drew it, but I hope I am making myself clear. It must go. What is needed is for someone to approach the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop with a proposal for an animated map, of the sort shown here, or more specifically here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main criticism is the confusing content, not the direction. What are the vertical stacks of blocks telling readers about the junctions, and why isn't the time scale linear and why is the time scale [in]complete? Our other kid (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that the "timeline" on this article (old) is not actually in chronological order, so it's not so much a "timeline", more a disorderly jumble of confusing information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So... is someone going to draw up a proposal for the graphics lab? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure this is really needed at all... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends what you mean by "needed". A well-designed clear diagram (or map) would be a helpful addition to the article. Something like the Brighton rail map to which I linked is clear and informative. There's no reason why something similar should not be drawn for this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, I missed your link. Yes, that seems like a very good idea. Presumably for the GIF to be created, you'd need a series of still images each showing the state of the overall M4 at the various milestones? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If a graphics expert can be found there willing to draw it, we would only need to point them in the direction of an overall map, with a list or table showing which sections were completed when, and they could draw it up. Worth a try? Or, at least, seeking advice there. I'll find their noticeboard, and see if anyone from there wants to join in this discussion. Input now requested.Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can readily produce a SVG base map of the current M4, with junction markers and separate paths for the sections between each junction. That allows easy creation of time-slices (which can be further developed into a GIF). File:Metrolink route map.svg and the files derived from it here illustrate what can be done. A few things to consider:

  1. What to show on the background map (other roads, towns, boundaries, labels)?
  2. What time-slices are actually needed. When each new section opens, or annual ones, or whatever?
  3. A detailed, chronological list of when sections opened and any realignments. The Second Severn Crossing is the most obvious one and means the M48 needs to be included on the base map to show the route pre-1996. The same goes for other realignments. The relevant dates for the Heathrow spur are also needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nilfanion, and thanks for a very constructive suggestion. In the absence of any negative comments I assume that others are happy with your proposal. (Strange, isn't it, that when someone actually suggests a good workable proposal, all the disputants just melt away?) Anyway, I suggest that, if you can, you draw up a map on the basis of (1) no other information apart from the coastline - just show the road line; (2) time slices on the basis of the dates the individual sections were completed; (3) the article (and bar chart) should give the main dates of construction - the SSC (M4 replacing what is now M48) was opened in 1996, and (according to this) the Heathrow spur was built in 1965 together with the adjoining sections. Does this give you the information you need? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that's a good approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. I melted away once I was accused of running sockpuppets, not really because I wasn't interested in solving the problem![reply]
I was waiting to see what proposals were made before adding any comments. I am not that much of an egotist that I will oppose anything that displaces what I have produced, on the contrary, I will try to learn from what might be proposed.
At this stage I think it appropriate to make an observation – it we are planning to produce a map, we should ensure that it is useable. If displayed as a thumbnail, it should not exceed 300 pixels, but as a strip across the entire page, we could, at a push, expand it to 900 pixels. Given that the motorway is 300 km from end to end, that means allowing 3 pixels per kilometre. The shortest segment, (J28-29), is 2.6 km, implying that on the timeline, it would be just 8 pixels in length. On the other hand the longest segment (J9-18) is 125 km implying a length of 375 pixels or 42% of the map’s width. This imbalance will could cause some problems and, if the authors concerned are not careful, could make the map less helpful than was originally envisaged.
Martinvl (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. We can probably change the scale of the maps within the GIF if required, but this information really needs to be in the prose rather than just graphically displayed in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my post. Absolutely nothing of this needs to be in the prose, it needs to be in the designer's notebook. Martinvl (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to re-read anything. The point is that information in any decent article shouldn't be conveyed purely graphically. You should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to relate User:Ghmyrtle's statement "if you can, you draw up a map on the basis of (1) no other information apart from the coastline - just show the road line;" to reality. Martinvl (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well do that in your own time and place, and once you come to a conclusion, I'm sure we'll all be glad to hear from you. In the meantime, there should be a focus on not relying on a single image (or a multi-image GIF) to impart this information to our readers. Certainly the current (and previous) "timelines" are not cutting the mustard. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with that - the information should be set out in prose, with an illustration as suggested by Nilfanion if that helps to give additional clarity. Is that what you are saying? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the image should augment information given in prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Map of M4 (see description for meaning of colours)

Ok, I've uploaded the map to the right, which should illustrate what can be achieved graphically. The colours are just to demonstrate. More context on the map would help (at minimum London and Cardiff, maybe other cities as well as the M5 and M25). And J32 is missing for some reason

IMO a map-based approach is better than the other timelines here, simply because the SSC can be handled correctly without an awkward footnote. A graphic cannot replace prose, but should be a supplement to it. An obvious example here is the Port Talbot bypass. Text can explain it was built as the A48(M) and didn't become part of the M4 until later, whereas a graphic struggles to get both "built in 1966" and "built as the A48(M)" across.

I'm don't think a timeline section is required, as any illustration(s) showing the M4's development should just be integrated into the history section. With regards to display: Unless there's a very good reason no image should not be larger than thumbnail, as it could overwhelm the text and cause problems with formatting. If the reader wants to look an image at higher detail they can always click through to the image's page.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you. My suggestions:
  1. I suggest that we do add some city and town names, for context - certainly London, Reading, Swindon, Bristol, Newport, Cardiff, Swansea. Also, name England and Wales.
  2. I think it would also be useful to number a few of the junctions, but not all of them (it's reasonable to assume that people can interpolate when necessary).
  3. Is it your intention that, when completed, this be animated, as per the Brighton rail example?
Thanks again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An animation is certainly possible and I can do that if wanted. However if a static image can give the same info (eg by use of colour) then that's preferable, because the reader gets the info immediately as opposed to waiting 20 seconds. One issue with a static image is displaying the SSC.
Thinking about this some more, the purpose of the image (animated or not) is to show the M4's fragmentary development. That doesn't require annual slices, and displaying less may give more. Just using 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980 and 1996 shows the major events (London-Reading, Bristol-Cardiff, Reading-Bristol, Cardiff-Swansea, SSC) more clearly, at the cost of not showing minor things (eg J5-J7), which are barely perceptible in a thumbnail in any case.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the work that Nilfanion has put into the maps to date. I agree with him that selected slices would be more appropriate than annual slices. However, the choice of which slices to use is highly subjective – the first section of the M4 was the Slough bypass (1961), the Bristol bypass was built concurrently with the opening of the Severn Bridge, but the Reading bypass (1971) was the last section to be built in England. On the Welsh side, the Port Talbot approach (4.6 km/2.6 mi) remained the only section in West Wales for a period of six years. This suggests that maybe we need 10 slices – the ten years marked in the tabular timeline, though as Nilfanion says, this will render some sections barely perceptible (which is what I was trying to say in my posting of 18:08, 18 March 2013 and which is why I baulked away from trying to represent the timeline graphically).
BTW, how difficult is it to create an image with a button to step through the images rather than the reader being bound by what the editor though was the most appropriate timing?
Martinvl (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While we're awaiting inspiration, we could have a simple table like this:

Opened 1961 1963 1965 1966 1967 1971 1972 1977 1980 1994
Section J7-9 J5-7 J1-5 J18-23
J39-41		 J22-28 J9-18 J44-46 J28-29
J32-35
J37-39
J46-49		 J29-32
J35-37		 J41-44

Almost anything would be better than what's there now (and than what was there before that). Our other kid (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Our other kid's inclusion of that table, in preference to that devised by Martinvl - which is ugly and incomprehensible. A simple table like that could usefully supplement the map proposed by User:Nilfanion. Or, alternatively, we use the old vertical timeline rotated 90° to the horizontal - which should be an easy change to make for anyone with technical skills beyond my own. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
M4 timeline (1691 - 1966 only, J1 - J2 only

What about this one? I have only included a small part. I could add a few relevent town names above the relevant junctions. Martinvl (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did the M4 exist in 1691? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How else did the Duke of Monmouth plan to get to London? :-)
Good to see a healthy sense of humour with both of you –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is adopted, should the junction be kept as they are (the western-most junction on the left), or should they be reversed (Junction 1 on the left). Also, should the Heathrow spur be included and should the Second Severn Crossing be included? Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep western end to the LHS (like a map)
Include spur from Junction 4 (it is part of M4)
Include both crossings (all part of the motorway's development)
Thanks –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 22:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need that graphic. The interim table was just to present pure facts. But then again I'd need to consult with my other socks.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the above graphic is workable. Both bridges, the Heathrow spur, A404(M) and A48(M) need to be displayed - they either are part of the M4 or were part of its mainline - and anything off the present mainline cannot be easily shown on a line.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple issues in the various ideas so far:

  1. They do only show "open" or "not built". "Under construction" information should also be provided - motorways do not pop into existence fully built overnight - and this information would more clearly show how the route developed.
  2. Geographical accuracy is not required from a map. Its a nice feature to have, but an approach resembling an RDT may be better.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that Nilfanion draws an animated map or diagram, on the basis of his own view of best practice and what is required. I'm confident - on the basis of Nilfanion's work elsewhere - that it would be beneficial to the article, but if necessary it could be tweaked a little when we've seen it. At that time, we could discuss what additional timeline - if any - needs to be included in the article as supplementary information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either nobody is listening, or everybody is ignoring the maths. In the thumbnail that I pasted above, the very short section represents 2.1% of the section of motorway (J1 to J23: 203 km ) depicted. If we showed the whole motorway (J1 to J49: 320 km), it would represent 1.4% of the motorway. There is another section of motorway not depicted in the above thumbnail (J28 to J29: 2.6 km) that is even shorter and would represent 0.8% of the whole route - less than half the size of the section in the above thumbnail. Bouncing the decision onto Nilanion without propper guidance is hardly fair - best practice might well be to decline to do the job on grounds of difference between the largest and the smallest sectors involved. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of that, but I don't think it's very important. What is important is to have a graphic that shows when the major lengths of the motorway were opened. And, it's important that we (at least, those of us who were not responsible for it) agree on something that allows us to discard the horrible graphic that is in place now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Animated

And there's an animated version (showing 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1996). Some slight tweaking might be useful, for example adjusting the font size make it legible the thumbnail (how wide will it be?). The 5 date slices are a deliberate choice on my part, as I believe these provide the best overview of the M4's development. IMO breaking down to year-of-opening is too precise and may cause the reader to misinterpret.

For example, the Newport bypass opened in 1967, 8 months after the Severn Bridge. Both were part of the same development phase and were under construction at the same time. In fact, its likely that the intention was to open both simultaneously. If the opening of the Newport bypass was delayed due to construction difficulties, that is something worth a sentence in the text. Splitting that development into two phases may give the misleading impression that the Severn Bridge was opened, and then the Newport bypass was built.

The broader periods also circumvent the small lengths that Martinvl is so worried about. It simply ignores them as they are insignificant events as part of an overall overview. The precise opening dates of the Maidenhead and Slough bypasses should be mentioned in the text, along with other pertinent information, but there's no need to show that graphically.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This animated version is surely just what Ghmyrtle must have had in mind when he introduced the Brighton Railway above. I consider this version to be fit for purpose. Thank you –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, thank you Nilfanion. I've added it to the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent addition, nice work Nilfanion. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. We just need quality prose now to do justice to that beautiful image. Our other kid (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline suggestion

[edit]

Is there another road article, from anywhere in the world, with a timeline that looks good? It'd have to be a road that took a large number of years to build. If we can find some examples, perhaps we can find consensus that one of them is a good model. --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 52 passed FAC about a month ago. --Rschen7754 06:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The California State Route 52 is different to the M4 in one major respect - construction started at one end and progressed westwards to the other. If you go to this version of the M4 you can easily see that in 1977 the M4 consisted of four sections. At one stage the M25 consisted of six sections of motorway which were eventually linked up. The table near the start of A1(M) motorway shows that there five sections of the A1 is classified as motorway. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but a lot of American roads were constructed like that. California State Route 56 was constructed from both ends. Interstate 8 and Interstate 805 were constructed completely out of order, but I have not converted the relevant newspaper clippings on my hard drive into articles yet. --Rschen7754 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interstate 696 was constructed from 1961 until 1989 in three sections. First the western third, then the eastern third and finally the center. That article passed FAC last year. U.S. Route 131 was converted to freeway in several sections that weren't continuous over a period of several decades; that article passed FAC in 2011. Imzadi 1979 → 10:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junctions in infobox

[edit]

The infobox mentions as major junctions its connections with the following roads: M25, A308(M), A404(M), A329(M), M32, M5, M48, M49 and A48(M)... anyone see the pattern there?

I'd point out that a road being a motorway does not imply its a major road, and being a major road doesn't mean its a motorway. For example: The A308(M) is an inconsequential spur, while the A34 is a major trunk road (and a European route) and is clearly much more important. So why is the A308(M) mentioned, but the A34 isn't? Or for that matter, why isn't Junction 4 mentioned (with the Heathrow spur?)

While "major junction" is not quite the same thing as "junction where it meets a major road" - its hard to define it in any other way. However, it certainly is a distinct concept from "junction where it meets a meets a motorway".--Nilfanion (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If one is looking for a criteria against which to measure, one could catalogue trunk roads (within England) - see this map. This would mean dropping the A308(M), A309(M) and adding the A34, A419, A36. Within Wales, as per the map of major Welsh roads) this would mean dropping the A48(M), but adding the A448, the A470, A465 and A48. Martinvl (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is this ultimately a subjective question, and needs to be answered by what is best for the particular road in question, and is not necessarily something that can be answered objectively (eg "all roads in the following classes").
With regards the trunk roads - all that means is its a road managed by central government agencies as opposed to by the local authority. Trunked routes are generally the more important, but there's no guarantee. The trunk roads that meet the M4 in Wales are the A449 (J24), A4042 (J25a), A470 (J32), A4342 (J33), A465 (J43), A48 (J49) and A483 (J49) - not just the 4 you mention. Significantly the A48 from J41 to J42 is a trunk road, but isn't a primary route (because it parallels the M4).
That said for the M4, the junctions with trunk roads seem to be a sensible starting point. Some thought is needed to work out which to include.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed

[edit]

Various clean up tags have been added to this article and I was wondering if anyone can help with any of them:

  • Elevated and heated section - I have searched for sources which can deal with the "citation needed" tag related to the disuse of the road heating due to cost. I can't find anything - can anyone help?
  • Notable junctions - has a banner suggesting that the embedded lists need to be better defined or incorporated into the prose
  • History - the eighth paragraph has a "clarification" tag about the bus lane no longer being used - can anyone help with this? I note the fourth paragraph has the same/similar information, perhaps they should be combined. (sorted - see note below PeterEastern (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Some discussion about what needs to be done or whether the tags and banners can now be removed would be helpful.— Rod talk 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on the bus lane text and have removed the related clarification tag, which doesn't seem to be justified any more if ever. PeterEastern (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on M4 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on M4 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M4 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M4 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M4 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Counties?

[edit]

Why are (pretty much) obsolete counties as such as 'West Glamorgan' or 'Dyfed' mentioned?

The article should either use current subdivisions or not use them at all. The road is the responsibility of National Governments, UK Government (for England) and Welsh Government (in Wales) so there is an argument that only the Wales/ England border matters.

Obviously it would be desirable to have consistency with other articles on other motorways, but I thought it helpful to kick off a debate here rather than wade in and edit first. Fourthedit (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In other articles, English ceremonial counties are used. The equivalent in Wales are the preserved counties: Gwynedd, Clwyd, Powys, Dyfed, West Glamorgan, Mid Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and Gwent. This is because while there is, in many of these, no county wide governmant, each of these counties has a Lord Lieutenant and a High Sheriff, similar to how the "metropolitan counties" like the West Midlands and Tyne and Wear have these officials but no county wide government, or how Lord Lieutenants and High Sherriffs represent unitary authorities within their county boundaries.
While some of the principal areas are considered counties, others are merely county boroughs. Thus, the preserved counties are the lowest level at which counties are consistent.
Preserved counties, therefore, continue to be used as subdivisions, and I would suggest that to replace, say, 'Entering Dyfed' with 'Entering Carmarthenshire would be akin to replacing 'Entering Greater London' with 'Entering Hillingdon' at the other end, and continuing to add the other London boroughs and English councils it passes through. This may make the table more comprehensive, but it would also clutter it up with all this information. While it may be something to consider across all motorway pages, with the system as it currently is, I think preserved counties are best. Mozartnut (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former Tolls pre-decimal

[edit]

The page on the Severn Bridge lists the initial 1966 toll as 2s6d (one-eighth of a pound, equivalent to 12.5p), but this page says 12½ pre-decimal pence, which would be 12½d, or 1s½d, which isn't what I think is intended (and which would be a very inconvenient amount). I understand the price should be given in £sd in 1966, but I think this is actually new (decimal) pence labeled incorrectly as pre-decimal pence. Nn26376 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent image addition

[edit]

Do editors think this image belongs in this article? I would say no, as it's just a lane marker, on the slip road of the M5, that leads to the M4. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense. It's a picture of the M5 taken on the M5. If you don't revert its addition I will. Good job! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP 123.103.210.115 has now tried to add it four times. So we are nearing WP:EDITWAR territory. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so if two of us have removed it for a valid reason, what we have simply is a disruptive editor - he's the one warring. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Road signs in the United Kingdom would be a suitable location. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He / she has posted bad images there too. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M4_motorway&oldid=1249377365"