This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M4 motorway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?!?
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)
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)
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)
There's also a WAG map of primary destinations here [1] Pondle ( talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
Would these motorway disambiguation page discussions not be better served by opening an RfC? Tfz 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would've opted for M4 motorway (England and Wales). Oh well, too late. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is no need for these flags to be used, they are purely decorative. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Chaps, I'm no-one's sock, and I have some issues with the timeline, too.
Hope that helps, -- Dweller ( talk) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
–
–
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh Buzzard|
12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This timeline is clearly a vertically-oriented timeline. Martinvl ( talk) 08:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
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:
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.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
A couple issues in the various ideas so far:
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.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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".-- Nilf anion ( talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Various clean up tags have been added to this article and I was wondering if anyone can help with any of them:
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
M4 motorway article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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?!?
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)
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)
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)
There's also a WAG map of primary destinations here [1] Pondle ( talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{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)
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)
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)
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)
Would these motorway disambiguation page discussions not be better served by opening an RfC? Tfz 21:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
BritishWatcher ( talk) 14:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I would've opted for M4 motorway (England and Wales). Oh well, too late. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is no need for these flags to be used, they are purely decorative. The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Chaps, I'm no-one's sock, and I have some issues with the timeline, too.
Hope that helps, -- Dweller ( talk) 10:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
–
–
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh Buzzard|
12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
This timeline is clearly a vertically-oriented timeline. Martinvl ( talk) 08:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
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:
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.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
A couple issues in the various ideas so far:
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.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 12:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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".-- Nilf anion ( talk) 13:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Various clean up tags have been added to this article and I was wondering if anyone can help with any of them:
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)