Talk:M4 motorway: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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?!? |
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. [[User:Owain|Owain]] 14:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC) |
: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. [[User:Owain|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? |
|||
Revision as of 00:46, 16 December 2006
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?