Talk:M4 motorway

Junctions

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)

Special features

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)

Unencyclopaedic

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

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)

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)

Primary destinations

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)

Unwarranted move

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)

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)

Just for peopls reference...

• M4 motorway 6614 hits last month
• M4 motorway (disambiguation) 584 hits last month.

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)

• M-4 (Michigan highway), a former designation for the M-134 and M-10 Michigan state highways
• M4 layout, an automotive design that places the engine in the middle of the vehicle and drives all four wheels
• M4 motorway (disambiguation)
• M4 Vacamatic, a semi-automatic transmission made by Chrysler
• Highway M04 (Ukraine), a road in Ukraine part of the European route E50
• Metroad 4 (M4), a metroad in Sydney, Australia
• Covington Municipal Airport (Tennessee) FAA LID

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)

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)

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)

Please show me where this is stated? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

• Oppose move the articles listed above wouldn't even belong on the M4 motorway disambiguation page, so its pointless listing them. Per the stats given the UK M4 is clearly the primary topic. Jeni ^(talk) 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• note User:BrownHairedGirl is unnecessarily introducing redirects in articles that link directly to M4 motorway, worth keeping an eye on these disruptive edits. I've seen users banned for this type of disruption before. Also note that the same user moved M18 motorway earlier today, a quick google suggests that the M18 in the UK is also primary. Jeni ^(talk) 19:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Abuse of admin tools by partisan admin

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)

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)

Jeni, actually it's not a mess in the least. Keep cool, stay rational, address the issue. Tfz 22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
    • • Well.. since this is the English Wikipedia... well, do I need to say more? Jeni ^(talk) 22:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
        • 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)
            • You say "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". Yes, that's systemic bias in a nutshell. Thanks for confirming it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

Just for peoples reference...

• M4 motorway 6614 hits last month
• M4 motorway (disambiguation) 584 hits last month.

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

But as explained above M4 Motorway would be the natural disambiguator, and hence the high hits. Tfz 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - reasons stated above and earlier. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support, we need good navigation systems at Wikipedia. There are many M4s, and there will be more added as the encyclopedia expands. Tfz 22:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Jeni ^(talk) 22:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And if you are going to use that argument, then surely Dublin shouldn't be a primary topic, as that hinders navigation to all the other places named Dublin in the world. Jeni ^(talk) 12:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • See Dublin (disambiguation). Which of the other uses there do you think comes within an order of magnitiude of the significance of the capital city? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say I'd support such a move did I? I was merely pointing out that in Tfz's argument for blatant disregard to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, articles such as Dublin would need to be moved in the interests of "good navigation systems at Wikipedia". Fwiw I think Dublin, Republic of Ireland is a very appropriate primary topic in that situation, but Tfz obviously wouldn't agree. Jeni ^(talk) 12:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Tfz didn't say that there can never be a primary topic, just that the selection of a primary topic hinders navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • London is a primary topic, Dublin is a primary topic, Paris is a primary topic. Jeni, I think you are being a bit facetious, I did get a chuckle from your logic.) Tfz 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The British M4 motorway is the oldest and longest of the various motorways bearing the 'M4' designation. It is one of the busiest highways in Europe with some stretches carrying 155,000 vehicles per day.[11] The fact that it is a gateway to London (and elsewhere in the UK) from Heathrow Airport will make it familiar to many international readers. I don't accept BrownHairedGirl's argument that infrastructure in Pakistan is 'more important' than infrastructure in the UK, because it is a more populous country: Pakistan has a much smaller economy than the UK, a smaller road network, and fewer motor vehicles per head of population.Pondle (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Comment: I didn't say it was more important. I pointed to some ways in which it could be seen as more important, but concluded "I'd prefer not make a value-judgement either way". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - Keep It Simple. Why make life harder for the majority of readers and editors? Re the rather heated introduction, I recall an incident in May when, boot on the other foot, a certain admin objected strongly to, and reverted, a series of block moves made by another editor without prior consultation. This admin was subsequently severely rebuked for misuse of tools when putting a block on that editor while in dispute with him/her.Motmit (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Keep It Simple" for readers is a great principle, which is why using the primary topic as a dab is a great idea, because as per my point 4 above it allows the use of automated wikipedia tools to identify all misplaced links (see WP:DPL), and further tools to help ensure that they point in the right place. That's what makes life easier for readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pondle, at least for now. This matter only reduces to "Simple: there are M4 motorways in many countries" if you are unaware of the facts. The M4 motorway (Hungary) is not yet built, and neither is the M4 motorway (Pakistan). The Irish one is quite properly a redirect to N4 road (Ireland), as it describes a road that is mostly not (yet) motorway. That leaves the British one, an arterial route from London to Wales, and the Australian one, which is a short sector of toll road in Sydney. On this basis, the British one is enormously clearly the primary topic. Do your homework before moving stuff around or calling on others to do so, I suggest. --John (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

• Oppose for completely obvious reasons stated above. Black Kite 01:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, the British M4 is clearly the primary topic because of the incomplete or short nature of the other M4s, whereas the British M4 is one of the most important motorways in the British network. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support I believe that the "Primary topic" argument in this case is a red herring - it's a simple case that there should be consistency in article naming. --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that it is true that there should be consistency, because you will have some motorways that are more notable than others. I don't think there's any question that M25 motorway should be moved to M25 motorway (Great Britain), for example. Equally, it could be (and is) argued that the Irish M50 should be the primary topic for the M50 motorway link Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Oppose That the British motorway is the natural primary topic may be seen from the number of books devoted to it, including: Sunbelt city?: a study of economic change in Britain's M4 growth corridor‎; M4 sights guide‎; Traffic flows on M4 Motorway 1961-1970‎ and, the clincher, The M4 Cats. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly primary topic. Keith D (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Clearly the primary topic - of the other roads two aren't built and two are much shorter and less significant. Of the two that are built neither article is at the plain M4 motorway (disambiguation) either. Google, google news and even google scholar all seem to suggest the British road is the primary topic as well. Dpmuk (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As stated above--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the English language version of Wikipedia, and this is the motorway that most English-language readers would be looking for if the searched for "M4 motorway". The disambiguation link at the top of the page does the job of directing other users to another article if that is what they're looking for. Rawclaw (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, clear primary topic. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Blackkite and others. It is obviously a primary topic. Regards, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Obviously", "clearly" ... those are just assertions rather than persuasive reasons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, given the overwhelming body of evidence presented above for the primacy of this road, and speedy close because it's becoming apparent that these moves are being undertaken as part of a policital campaign byIrish users not happy at the result of WP:IEPOLL. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Before assuming bad faith, it's a good idea to check your facts. I supported the outcome of the poll at WP:IECOLL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ..." Either you're engaged in the politically-motivated campaign of moves, or you have really crap timing. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
      • If you want to believe that I am doing something as part of a political campaign in opposition to something for which I voted after long arguing for it, that's your privilege. But your flights of fantasy aren't a brilliant way to persuade anyone that your reasoning is sound. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 29 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)

• Comment It seems to me that there ought to be (if there isn't already) a uniform WP rule regarding streets or roadways. I think that unique or famous roads, like Park Avenue, or Fifth Avenue, or Broadway, may not need a qualification by the country or city. But obviously a term like M1 requires first a DAB. So this Conflict must be due, in my opinion, because there's no WP uniform rule covering highways. In the USA Route 66 is famous. So why not take a break and decide the broader issue of uniform WP rules governing also the Roman road. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Motorway I'm surprised this article just dangles in Wikispace. For one thing, at the moment it informs us that "Motorway" is used in the former British Empire related states (it is not used in the United States commonly). Accordingly, I would ask this: is there an M4 motorway in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc. If not, what need is there for the parenthetical qualifier, Great Britain? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Speed checks system

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

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)

M4 bus lane section - proposed split

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)

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)

Split into M4 bus lane completed by this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Junction 11 picture

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)

Welsh and English flags

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

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)

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)

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)

PS: I've now added a couple of sentences to explain this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Start and end points

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)

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)

Openining Timeline

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)