Jump to content

Talk:List of motorways in the United Kingdom

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

UK

[edit]

This article is coming along nicely. I notice that motorway currently redirects to freeway. As autobahn has it's own page, I think perhaps there should be info on motorway about how it all started in the UK.

A329(M)

[edit]

Anyone near Reading now what the status of the A329(M) is? It appears to be in two contradictory categories in this list. Cheers Pcb21 10:47 19 May 2003 (UTC)

M26

[edit]

When and if an article is started on the M26 it should distinguish M26 in Michigan. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:31, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is a list of UK motorways--94.193.245.246 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2016 (BST)

Yes, which is exactly why we shouldn't link to the M26 article pertaining to the highway in Michigan. Presumably, 12 years ago when Daniel C. Boyer added the comment above, the M-26 (Michigan highway) article was just called M26, and hence a link to it could have been inadvertently placed in this article. But a lot has changed in those 12 years and both articles (M26 motorway and M-26 (Michigan highway)) are now sufficiently disambiguated, so there is no confusion. (PS why on earth did you edit the timestamp of your comment from UTC to BST? Not helpful.) Bazonka (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Junction details

[edit]

From M40 motorway.

TODO : Would be great if all motorway pages had the same level of junction detail as the M11 and M6. .

M3 (Northern Ireland)

[edit]

A short motorway in Northern Ireland in Belfast that continues east for 1 mile from the M2 (Northern Ireland) motorway.


A1(M) & A194(M) Upgraded A Roads

[edit]

Both final destinations are wrong, the A1(M) Terminates in Washington and the A194(M) in Gateshead, not Newcastle as stated for both

Further disambiguation of motorway names

[edit]

There are enough cases now, especially amongst single-digit motorways, where one or more motorways carry the same number in Britain, Northern Ireland and/or the Republic of Ireland.

I noticed there is no consistency with the disambiguating, e.g. M1 motorway (England) and M50 motorway (United Kingdom). Should we establish a constant on this (considering motorways that cross UK countries like the M4)?

Also, regarding a point above, I have a proposed "exit list" box at M876 motorway - what about its implementation (thoroughly improved first though)?

I think for consistency we should go for "Mxx motorway (Great Britain)" so we don't get some labelled as England and others labelled as Great Britain when they cross borders. United Kingdom is no good for numbers that exist in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, and is best avoided I think. IIRC we seperate articles on railway systems into Great Britain and Ireland on the grounds that they are two networks, both covering an island, and one of which straddles an international border. Motorways are a bit different due to the numbering systems of NI and the Republic duplicating each other. I think it's best to use "Great Britain", "Northern Ireland" and "Republic of Ireland" when there's a need to disambiguate. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Service Stations

[edit]

Please see and use:

Please also see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Knutsford services (at which several new service station stubs are proposed for deletion). Andy Mabbett 29 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Recent Removal of Sub-headings

[edit]

I noticed that a user (Owain) has recently removed the sub headings of 'England & Wales' and 'Scotland' on the grounds that they are "unnecessary section headings. The numbering system is GB-wide". However, I would say it is worth restoring them as they provide useful information. The numbering system may be GB wide, but control of the motorways isn't. Motorways in England are controlled by the Highways Agency, motorways in Scotland are controlled by Traffic Scotland and I am not sure which Welsh body controls the M4 and M48. As each part of the island controls its own motorawys, it is exceedingly useful to have a split list somewhere, and it might as well be here to avoid duplicating the list somewhere else. I would even go a step further and say to split the England and Wales headings into two. Does anyone have any comments on this? Road Wizard 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. Motorways in Scotland are operated by Transport Scotland. Traffic Scotland is the name of their real-time information website. Road Wizard 11:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the information of control of the roads is more suitable on the pages themselves? It it coo complicated to list in a simple way such as this. For example, what happens with the M4 or M6 (when it is finally extended to Glasgow)? What happens with the M62 or M275 which aren't all controlled by the Highways Agency? Categorising this way cannot explain the full situation and adds clutter. Owain (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - details about who maintains the motorways is more relevant for their individual pages. Seperating the tables is unnecessary and not as neat. Bazonka (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to tables

[edit]

I have converted the list to a set of tables, which should make reading the information easier. I have also included ‘road signs’ with the motorway number on them; at the moment some of these appear blank but this is just an issue with the thumbnails which I’m sure’ll rectify itself soon. Max Naylor 13:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it hasn't rectified itself. I had a go at fixing it but I didn't really know what I was doing so I gave up. Can anyone else sort this out? If it can't be done then I guess we'll have to revert to a version without the graphics, because information is being lost. Bazonka 11:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the image thumbnails. It's a shame because these looked good, but several of them didn't work and couldn't be seen. This meant that motorways without an associated article, e.g. A46(M) couldn't be identified. Feel free to put them back... but only if you can get them all to work. Bazonka 21:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A while back, I created some SVG images. I'd written the code for bits of it using a text editor, but found that one or two didn't display at all on wikipedia (despite being fine in IE when I created them). Some kind soul fixed them for me, but I couldn't see what had changed to make them work. I think it'll be something subtle in the code perhaps? Richard B 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M5 starting location

[edit]

Walsall, Birmingham or West Bromwich?

The centre of M6 J8 is 2 miles from Walsall - the closest town. It's in the Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell, formerly within the County Borough of West Bromwich - the town centre of which is 2.5 miles distant. It is over twice as far from the centre of Birmingham than from either of the above. The M5 also never enters Birmingham at any point.

The populations of both Walsall and West Bromwich are quite large (170,994 and 136,940 respectively in the 2001 census). They are both far larger than other towns mentioned in the list, such as St. Albans, Hemel Hempstead, Garforth, Swanley and so on. They are both reasonably well known nationally, though admittedly less so than Birmingham. If it is considered by other contributors that the starting point should be listed as "Birmingham", then the M1 ends "east of Leeds", the M9 ends "north of Stirling", the M10 is "north of London" and so on.

Therefore I contend that the start should be listed as the nearest significant town, which is Walsall. Failing that, it is within the former County Borough of West Bromwich, so that should be the second choice. Fingerpuppet 06:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J8 is within yards of Birmingham. The distance to the city centre is immaterial. Other sources use "Birmingham", without even qualifying it as "near", including all three of the external links on M5 motorway, [1], [2], [3]. Your Leeds/ Sterling arguments are straw men. Andy Mabbett 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
J8 is within West Bromwich (and Sandwell MBC). The northwest extremety of the junction is within Walsall MBC. It is 1 km away from the edge of Birmingham at its closest point, and further from the centrepoint of the junction. Requiring consistency is not a straw man argument. Using secondary sources is not the same as using sources such as Ordnance Survey mapping. Fingerpuppet
Removing "near Birmingham" in the face of three cited refs is OR. Andy Mabbett 10:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But you could certainly argue that using Ordnance survey maps to base data on is original research. The data isn't exactly presented to you - you must have had to measure some distances from the OS maps to present some of the figures above, for example. If reliable secondary sources suggest that the start is "Birmingham", then we could certainly include that here. The sources that Andy refers to above look pretty reliable. By the term "Birmingham", most people in the UK would assume it's the wider conurbation (with Birmingham being the dominant place within the conurbation), rather than necessarily the metropolitan borough. Richard B 11:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on a minute - are you lot all desperately claiming that examinining boundaries and locations is original research? So suddenly if I look on a map and state something like "Manchester is nearer to Salford than it is to Glasgow" that I'm suddenly doing original research? That doesn't make any sense at all - as the Ordnance Survey are saying such a thing hence is it not original research. Compiling my own mapping survey would be original research.
Citing inaccurate references is also not exactly good practice, especially if people are claiming that untruism that is Birmingham = West Midlands. I'm not saying that it is inaccurate to suggest that the M5 starts "near Bimingham". It is, however, more accurate to say that there is a nearer significant settlement - which is the point being made. Walsall is of a similar size to Milton Keynes, and West Bromwich is of similar size to York - both are significant towns and could be more accurately said to be the locations that the M5 starts near to (or in, in the case of West Bromwich). Fingerpuppet 12:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "desperately claiming" anything; and no-one is claiming that "that is Birmingham = West Midlands", so please avoid red herrings. Andy Mabbett 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a suggestion of Richard B that perhaps Birmingham = West Midlands on the sources you gave. Fingerpuppet 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't say that it was, just that a lot of people see it that way - in the same way that, say, most people would say that everything inside the M60 is "Manchester", even though it obviously contains bits of Salford, Trafford and other boroughs etc. Walsall and West Bromwich may be populous towns in their own right, but I would think that many members of the public from outside the West Midlands wouldn't locate them that close to their true locations on a map of the area with place names removed. I would think people would do better with Birmingham. York and Milton Keynes are similar in population, but are largely separate from other urban areas - so stand out more in their respective areas. Small towns in Wales are often regionally significant (and signposted from miles away), because they are largely remote from anything of similar size, so they dominate their local area. West Bromwich and Walsall, whilst large in population, have a much larger neighbour nearby, so are not the most significant/influential settlement in the locality. This will be true of many satellite towns of major cities. If all the sources say that it goes from Birmingham to Exeter, then they don't necessarily mean "from the metropolitan borough of Birmingham" - they most likely mean "from the urban area where Birmingham is the dominant settlement". Richard B 14:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Official government documents referring to the "The M5 Birmingham-Exeter Motorway". Andy Mabbett 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and the M1 is the London-Yorkshire Motorway[4], but we have a more accurate description of its location instead of "Yorkshire". Please don't accuse others of giving red herrings when you are guilty of that yourself.
Your comments still do not alter the fact that both Walsall and West Bromwich are significant towns, and both are closer to the end of the M5 than Birmingham. Therefore "near Walsall" or "in West Bromwich" are better than your more less accurate "near Birmingham". Fingerpuppet 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "giving red herrings"; I'm citing sources. Andy Mabbett 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people think the M5 starts in Birmingham when it actually doesn't is a good reason to use Wikipedia to correct their incorrect beliefs. We shouldn't use it to state an inaccurate fact just because that's what people beleive! Bazonka 19:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wording concerned was "near Birmingham". Andy Mabbett 19:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is less accurate than the original "near Walsall" or the alternate "in West Bromwich". Fingerpuppet 19:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative to the utter disagreement, how about a generic "Linking the M6 in the West Midlands conurbation to Exeter"? Then I think we might all be happy. Fingerpuppet 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just "Linking the M6 at Great Barr in the West Midlands to Exeter" which is what it said in the first place ...and it actually ends at Exminster not Exeter ;) Bazonka 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great Barr is not widely known, outside the local area. What about "Great Barr (on the Birmingham/ West Bromwich/ Walsall border)."?. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with that compromise. Fingerpuppet 12:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added that. Andy Mabbett 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Signs"

[edit]

What do the facsimile signs in this article add to it? --John (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot. Some of the images don't work either. I'd be quite happy for them to be removed. Bazonka (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think. --John (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M10

[edit]

The M10 article says that the M10 is no longer a motorway, so this article needs to be updated correspondingly. 62.60.106.214 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Well spotted. Bazonka (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M80

[edit]

The M80 is complete. See here: [5] Why are my changes being reverted? Matt-thepie (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong, but I understood that the western part of the motorway was extended from Stepps to Mollinsburn, and that the A80 in between the two M80 sections was being upgraded to motorway standard, but not to become an actual motorway (presumably to enable prohibited vehicles to use it). See [6]. Bazonka (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you're right - the article I just cited refers to "the new 18 kilometres of motorway", which must mean that the A80 was upgraded to motorway status as well as motorway standard. Sorry about that. Bazonka (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's all M80... I saw the blue signs being put up in the upgraded online section this summer, whilst stuck at 40mph ;-) Matt-thepie (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the south coast, not "The South Coast"

[edit]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with your undoing my edit, Bazonka. Please give your reason why you think it is wrong.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made two changes in your edit: 1) "South Coast" to "south coast" and 2) "Portsmouth" to "New Forest". I don't object at all to your first edit, but the second is totally wrong. I should have been more careful when reverting - sorry about that. I'll put "south coast" back. Bazonka (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick response, and for what you have just done.

This October, I drove from The Home Counties, via M25, M3 and M27 (westbound), and left the motorway at its conclusion. I immediately drove into The New Forest and spent a week on the south coast at Barton-on-Sea and Milford-on-Sea. My edit reflected the fact that the motorway (M27) does not end in Southampton, but the M271 does.

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at a map. Junction 1 at the western end of the M27 is near Cadnam in the New Forest; Junction 12 at the eastern end is in Portsmouth. Therefore it is an error to say that the motorway goes from Cadnam to the New Forest - that would be a very short motorway! Bazonka (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Point taken. That was a stupid error... careless mistake, not ignorant mistake. So, please, read above as now corrected. Do you agree that it is Cadnam and not Southampton?

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how precise you want to be. The motorway starts just outside Cadnam, which is about 5 miles west of Southampton. But Cadnam isn't a place that most people will have heard of, whereas Southampton is. I think the current text strikes the right balance: "running from Cadnam, west of Southampton, to Portsmouth". Bazonka (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Good conclusion. I'll look forward to another debate with you at some time. Good to come up against "a good dude".

Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A46

[edit]

Google maps yesterday changed the A46 between Newark and Widmerpool to motorway status. The road is coloured orange and it will not take you that way if you say to avoid motorways. And for those that say google maps doesn't know the difference between a motorway and a dual carriageway, I can tell you it does because between Widmerpool and Leicester (dual carriageway) it will take you that way if you say to avoid motorways and it is coloured in yellow. My question is: isn't this enough evidence to support my claim that this part of the road has been changed to a motorway?--2A02:C7F:C802:4000:5489:546:A979:BBE6 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the A46 really has become a motorway, where are all the newspaper articles, or any other publications, to confirm this, and why isn't the road labelled "A46(M)". My guess is that Google Maps have made a mistake. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Google Maps is absolutely not enough evidence. I have checked local news sites, Highways Agency, and other websites, and there is not a single scrap of evidence to back up your claim. Bazonka (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have reported the error to google maps and agree that there is not enough evidence to support my claim2A02:C7F:C802:4000:A037:216C:76F:1D79 (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of motorways in the United Kingdom. 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) 08:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A3(M) "bypass"

[edit]

This article previously described the A3(M) as "A motorway bypass of the standard A3", and the A3 road article also described it as "a bypass of the A3 road". However, I disagree with this. A bypass is a road that avoids a built-up area, town, or village. You don't bypass another road. Moreover, a bypass should return to the original route once it's gone past the thing it's bypassing. The A3(M) diverts from the A3 near Horndean, but then takes a different direction and terminates at the A27 near Havant. It never rejoins the A3. You could then take the A27 to rejoin the A3, but that is really stretching the definition of bypass. A much better description is "alternative route" rather than bypass, although in this article I don't see the benefit of adding any such description at all. Bazonka (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Gateway to the North

[edit]

Uh, is there any truth/reference for the M1 being nicknamed the 'gateway to the North'? The only 'nickname' for a motorway I know is the London Orbital.Turini2 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I've removed it. Bazonka (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of motorways in the United Kingdom. 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) 15:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former M65

[edit]

"Not considered important enough to carry a two-digit number, it was redesignated as M621, as it was planned to link the M62 to the M1."

Is there any evidence it was numbered with that purpose in mind? Bearing in mind that:

  • M62 was always intended to have a direct interchange with M1;
  • Having M1 the terminate in central Leeds (now M621 J4-7, and eastern approach to junction 3) was a temporary measure, as it was eventually intended to be rerouted onto the never-built Kirkhamgate-Dishforth scheme, and the remaining stub would have been renumbered M110 or M111.

Also, in very early plans, the number initially chosen was A62(M), as it parallels the A62 from Gildersome,[7] - based on that, my view is that the number 621 was chosen to incorporate the '62' element into it, but as there doesn't seem to be any definitive evidence either way, I think it'd be best to remove the speculative elements from that statement altogether. Rhythdybiau (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 03:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of motorways in the United Kingdom → Motorways in the United Kingdom – This current article is the only real article on motorways in the United Kingdom yet it is officially classed as a list. I believe the title should be changed to bring it into line with Irelands article and the article be reformed to include other aspects of British motorways which do not currently feature in this article (ie info about the history of British motorways as well as info about the signs ect). MOTORAL1987 (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there isn't much prose in this article currently and the list would be split out of a good or featured article due to length, I suggest that it would be better to just overwrite the Motorways in the United Kingdom redirect with the prose directly. Note that we do have an extensive article on Road signs in the United Kingdom so the content about it in the new article should only be a summary with a main article link. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than happy to support that and thank you along although I do think the article does need some information adding to it about the history of motorway in the United Kingdom. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
We do have information about the history of motorways on the Roads in the United Kingdom article, and information about modern motorways in the United Kingdom section of the Controlled-access highway article. I agree that those are both fairly obscure places and that the information should be consolidated in a Motorways in the United Kingdom article, but I think that should be kept separate from the List of Motorways article. Failing that, perhaps some additional redirects would help?JayAmber (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Lists has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Highways has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

M96

[edit]

Should the M96 Fire Service College training motorway be added to this list? -- SGBailey (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not a real motorway. Bazonka (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, and support the idea that the M96 should be listed. Of course provide details about it, and say clearly it is not connected to the UK's network of roads/highways etc. Worcestershire1 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support your idea that the M96 should be listed. Of course provide details about it, and say clearly it is not connected to the UK's network of roads/highways etc. Worcestershire1 (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a motorway. It's just a bit of old airfield that's pretending to look like one. Bazonka (talk) 09:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it might be 'pretending to look like one'; it is serving a particular useful purpose. If this is included in the description of the M96 then that is OK. The important point is that the M96 should be listed. 92.9.175.224 (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of motorways, not a list of things that kind of look like motorways but aren't. Bazonka (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

It appears that most of the sources on this article mainly come from one source: pathetic.org.uk. I highly doubt that this is a reliable source that can be used on Wikipedia. What do you guys have to say about it? Reev132 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly one year late, but the source is self-published, tertiary and lacks references to secondary sources of information for the most part. Definitely unreliable. Yasslaywikia (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This problem has been resolved in the latest revision. Yasslaywikia (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Prodded

[edit]

Fails WP:NLIST. 59.100.163.90 (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve challenged the PROD per Wikipedia:GEOROAD. Feel free to take the list to Wikipedia:AFD if you feel it still doesn’t fulfil notability requirements. Yasslaywikia (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the ordering of the table

[edit]

I've always thought the table of the motorways needs to be in a different order, whereby instead of it being numerically ascending, it sorts using the first digit after the M. What I mean by this is that instead of the list beginning with:

  • M1 > M2 > M3 > M4 and so on

...instead it becomes:

  • M1 > M11 > M18 > M180 > M2 > M20 > M23 and so on

The reason I think this is better is because of the road numbering scheme and how it leads to motorways in a specific region having its own zonal prefix digit. So for example, the M18 is a motorway that leads off the M1, the M50 leads off the M5, the M40 is in roughly the same region as the M4 etc. Hence it makes more sense to me to put these together in such an order where these relatable motorways are next to each other instead of being separated by a sea of other motorways. Plarety (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Plarety @Plarety2 I've removed the unsourced names you added to the list because they're hard to verify outside of blog sites, which we can't use to source information on Wikipedia due to their unreliability. I believe it would be best to omit motorway names from the list unless they're notable (e.g. Mancunian Way) since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of information. Motorway names could be included in their articles so long as they're sourced properly. See this talk page discussion I opened one year ago on the M2 page as an example why some motorway names (e.g. Medway Towns Bypass) are hard to verify and shouldn't be included in their article and related articles and lists. Yasslaywikia (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazonka: @Richard B: I am mentioning you for being around when the table was first made here.

Go ahead, be bold and manually sort the table rows to match the zonal logic, but also add some form of text to explain the ordering. The current numeric order will still be available by simply sorting the column. However, I suspect that others will not like it — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 09:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer it to be in normal numerical order, but I don't feel strongly about it, and won't object if it's changed. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go ahead with it then. Plarety2 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I have also just added some of the distinct official names of the motorways, like M25 the London Orbital Motorway, A38(M) the Aston Expressway etc. in the route descriptions in the tables. I think it fits well here. I used this as a source although most of them already list those names in their respective articles. --Plarety2 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_motorways_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1240951897"