Talk:M4 motorway

message: 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)
replies: text: Because nobody had written about it! Paul Weaver 01:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Junctions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Special features 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Systemic bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Primary destinations 

message: 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: ).  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Jeni, actually it's not a mess in the least. Keep cool, stay rational, address the issue. Tfz    22:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of admin tools by partisan admin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Speed checks system 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chippenham 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Split into M4 bus lane completed by this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  M4 bus lane section - proposed split 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of Junction 11 picture 

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: See MOSFLAG - the use here is purely decorative, and by the looks of things (certainly from those editors here), nationalistic pride issues.  Why do we need a 37-point flag when the word "Wales" and the word "England" imparts the same information?  The various straw man arguments made about "Traffic Wales" etc have no influence whatsoever on whether or not we should be putting flags on road lists.   Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welsh and English flags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So do I  London and South Wales  –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start and end points 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is a muddle. To create an horizontal timeline would be an excellent project for the improvement of this article. Volunteers step forward! –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 10:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will volunteer - work is under way.  I can squeeze it into a page width - 17 columns in all. Martinvl (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guessed you would take up the baton. Well done, Martin, and thank you!Sincerely,Gareth Griffith-JonesThe WelshBuzzard21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes, well done Martinvl. I hope there aren't any "device issues". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How is this one? Martinvl (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey!  that was quick!I like it very much. Let's replace the existing, appallingly-difficult-to-read one with this –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Martinvl (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a huge improvement in my opinion. Very well done. (Apparently there used to be an opening timeline in the M62 motorway article which, for some reason, has now started to attract some attention, as you will know. Not that I am making any pleas or suggestions, haha). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

text: You are clearly being difficult. You are well aware of the previous timeline long-established in this article  also without any references, aren't you? –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, and how dare you assume that I am "well aware" of it.  This timeline is crap and explains nothing to anyone.  Seriously Gareth, you're beginning to test me with your inability to understand where I'm coming from.  Your assumptions, so far, have been 100% incorrect.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I've re-added the tag.  Is the table saying that junctions 9 to 18 were all built in 1971?  Is it saying that junctions 7 to 9 were opened well before junction 1?  It's entirely unintelligible to a non-RJL expert.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: California State Route 52 passed FAC about a month ago.  --Rschen7754 06:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The California State Route 52 is different to the M4 in one major respect - construction started at one end and progressed westwards to the other.  If you go to this version of the M4 you can easily see that in 1977 the M4 consisted of four sections.  At one stage the M25 consisted of six sections of motorway which were eventually linked up. The table near the start of A1(M) motorway shows that there five sections of the A1 is classified as motorway. Martinvl (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Sure, but a lot of American roads were constructed like that. California State Route 56 was constructed from both ends. Interstate 8 and Interstate 805 were constructed completely out of order, but I have not converted the relevant newspaper clippings on my hard drive into articles yet. --Rschen7754 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Interstate 696 was constructed from 1961 until 1989 in three sections. First the western third, then the eastern third and finally the center. That article passed FAC last year. U.S. Route 131 was converted to freeway in several sections that weren't continuous over a period of several decades; that article passed FAC in 2011. Imzadi 1979 →  10:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline suggestion 

message: Various clean up tags have been added to this article and I was wondering if anyone can help with any of them:
* Elevated and heated section - I have searched for sources which can deal with the "citation needed" tag related to the disuse of the road heating due to cost. I can't find anything - can anyone help?
* Notable junctions - has a banner suggesting that the embedded lists need to be better defined or incorporated into the prose
* History - the eighth paragraph has a "clarification" tag about the bus lane no longer being used - can anyone help with this? I note the fourth paragraph has the same/similar information, perhaps they should be combined. (sorted - see note below PeterEastern (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some work on the bus lane text and have removed the related clarification tag, which doesn't seem to be justified any more if ever. PeterEastern (talk) 08:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ciht.org.uk/motorway/stats.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207181941/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4sscscheme.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4sscscheme.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310164651/http://www.halcrow.com/Our-projects/Project-details/Second-Severn-Crossing-England-and-Wales/ to http://www.halcrow.com/our-projects/project-details/second-severn-crossing-england-and-wales/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210221222/http://www.trafficengland.com/map.aspx to http://www.trafficengland.com/map.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903120036/http://www.traffic-wales.com/resources to http://www.traffic-wales.com/resources
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008114756/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4lswscheme.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4lswscheme.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008115613/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4sscscheme.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4sscscheme.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081231035742/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4wales.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4wales.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315074917/http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/history.shtml to http://www.severnbridge.co.uk/history.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130314104707/http://www.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/our-network to http://www.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/our-network/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420220803/http://www.southglos.gov.uk/mcmshosting/ui/sites/council/Applications/RoadReport.htm to http://www.southglos.gov.uk/mcmshosting/ui/sites/council/Applications/RoadReport.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127094705/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4chisslou.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4chisslou.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311002900/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4slomai.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4slomai.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102140113/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4londswind.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m4londswind.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110122052452/http://www.motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/m4wales.htm to http://www.motorwayarchive.ihtservices.co.uk/m4wales.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120707142823/http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=416512 to http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=416512
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321084329/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23751213-the-sweet-little-chiswick-flyover-hits-50.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/lifestyle/article-23751213-the-sweet-little-chiswick-flyover-hits-50.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090626122652/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/19089.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/19089.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100713000524/http://www.reading.gov.uk/ltp/General.asp?id=SX9452-A7832CD2 to http://www.reading.gov.uk/ltp/General.asp?id=SX9452-A7832CD2
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120908073038/http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/m4vmgpillboxpage.htm to http://www.pillbox-study-group.org.uk/m4vmgpillboxpage.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530154411/http://www.hanson.biz/files/pdf/magazine/2006/2006Q4_op.pdf to http://www.hanson.biz/files/pdf/magazine/2006/2006Q4_op.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125221609/http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m4/exitlist to http://www.cbrd.co.uk/motorway/m4/exitlist
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Former Tolls pre-decimal