Talk:M2 motorway (Great Britain)

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

Untitled[edit]

A229

Removed the description of the A299 as being a "motorway-standard" dual carriageway. It does not have hard shoulders and has several at-grade roundabouts, such as with the A28. However, it is still a good quality dual carriageway road.

A2

Changed description of the A2 to be "motorway-standard", as this has four lanes of traffic in each direction plus hard shoulders, of the same quality as the M2.

Medway Towns Bypass

The M2 in not merley a Medway Towns bypass, its more of a road to access North Kent. the M2 in conjunction with the motoway standard A2 (blackwall tunnell to m2 j1) and the thanet way (A299) Pickle 12:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not going past primary destinations?[edit]

The M2 is also the longest motorway not to go past any primary destinations

How exactly are we defining "going past" a destination? Maidstone, a primary destination, is less than four miles from the M2 at one point. That's about the same distance away (or closer) as the centres of Cardiff from the M4, Sheffield and Nottingham from the M1, Bristol from both the M4 and M5, Stoke-on-Trent from the M6 etc. etc. - in all of these cases, you'd say that the particular motorway runs past it. What are the criteria for chosing which primary destinations are qualifying if were discussing which ones the motorway "goes past"? Richard B 23:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The M20 "goes past" Maidstone, and the town is signposted as a destination on the M20, not just as a local destination at a junction like it is from the M2. The M2's destinations are London, Canterbury, Channel Tunnel and Dover, and it does not go past any of them.
But those aren't "primary" destinations, they're the motorway's "control" destinations - i.e. those shown as the forward direction on the motorways. Maidstone is a primary destination (i.e. shown in green on most road maps) and as I said, is closer than several places from other motorways - it's just that the M20 is also between the M2 and Maidstone. Richard B 08:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the M2 goes nowhere near Maidstone. About 5 miles at the closest point. Ben W Bell talk 08:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's only about 3.8/3.9 miles at closest point - but as I pointed out above, that's similar distance or closer than Cardiff from the M4, Sheffield & Nottingham from the M1, Bristol from M4 & M5, Stoke from the M6 etc. ad nauseam - all are primary destinations - and all are mentioned in the infobox for the relevant motorway in the wikipedia article - the only difference for Maidstone & the M2 is that there is another motorway between them - so to say that the M2 doesn't go past Maidstone - is like saying that the M4 doesn't go past Bristol or Cardiff, that the M1 doesn't go past Sheffield or Nottingham, or that the M6 doesn't go past Stoke-on-Trent - and loads of other examples. It also needs to be looked at as to what is meant by "Primary destinations". The link on the infobox takes you to "Primary Status" which has a section on "Primary destinations" - by this measure, the M2 article lists only non-primary destinations in the "Primary destinations" box! Richard B 11:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And then why are the medway towns listed there then FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently talks about the coast ports and London as primary destinations, so thats OK in the context of claiming its a road that DOESN'T "go to / past" its primary destinations. However the primary destinations listed in the info box completely differs and would back up the opposite (ie that it does). IMHO this comes from people not considering the M2 as part of the bigger picture (ie the A2). I also believe that London and the Coast are the right "primary destinations" as all discussions referring to the road tend to use the phrases "coast bound" or "London bound". So what are you all arguing about ???
Pickle 15:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a primary destination!?[edit]

The people of Medway wont be happy with that! lol--Screen42 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only motorway with no connecting motorways?[edit]

"It is the only "M" motorway (as opposed to an "A-road(M)" motorway such as the A1(M)) that does not meet any other motorway at a junction" - The M27 does not meet any other motorways either, although it does meet/split off into the A27 and the A3(M) I always assumed that was an A road masquerading as a motorway... What does everyone think? (Pete) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.143.88.237 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The M27 connects to the M3, M275 motorway and M271 motorway. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  17:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the M67 doesn't meet any other motorway at a junction, despite a near-miss with the M60 (a few yards of the A57 intervening). 86.14.9.87 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs[edit]

Anyone got some photographs of the M2 pre-widening?

Route of M2[edit]

Can someone expand the route of the M2? I know some of it but rivers, roads & valleys crossed is beyond me! Regan123 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry how do you want me to enlighten you? Pickle 07:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (a local)[reply]
I think what is meant is the names of the areas that the M2 passes through. The name of rivers, valleys etc that it goes through. Eg Over the river Medway, through the Nashenden Valley etc.--Screen42 16:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
J1, aka Three Crutches - this is at the end of the valley the A289 (Wainscott Northern bypass) is in (don't know the name).
In then goes downhill to the Medway (not Strood hill as thats the A2's decent into central Strood)
Crosses the Medway on the Medway Viaduct
Climbs the North Downs again, up Nashenden Valley to Blue Bell Hill / Bridgewood (they've actually named J3 the Taddington interchange after the wood it situated in). In then goes to J4 over the flat plateau at the top of the hill (Crossington fields, Westfield Sole, Lidsing, and Breadhurst)
Its still relatively level as its skirts Parkwood from J4 to farthing corner (sorry Medway Services).
Area beyond thats out of my patch really..... Pickle 06:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Has anyone else got any other info as I would like to write up a complete description? Regan123 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Route map[edit]

I have reduced the size back down again as it is covering up the picture on the right on my 12" iBook - quite a popular machine and articles should as useable on as many different machines as possible. If people want to see it in more detail they can also click on it - see East London Line#Northern extension for an example that works in both sizes. I have put a screen grab for the issue.

Also, there is a large amount of road shown that is not referred to in this article - removing the A2 would mean the M2 could be bigger and far more readable anyway. As has been mentioned before (Talk:M27_motorway) there is no such thing as Motorway X in the UK (see Great Britain road numbering scheme). The roads are known as MX, so the caption is incorrect. Finally the map ideally should carry a scale in miles as recommended Manual of Style. Miles are the UK standard measurement for roads.

Finally User:Richard B asked at User_talk:Captain_scarlet#M27_motorway if these maps are based on OS data. This really needs be ascertained because if they are then a licence is required (see OS Copyright IP).

Thanks, Regan123 00:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overlapping of images and or boxes isn't an issue with image size, but issues with your browser. The size of the image was chosen to be large enough to be lisible but not too large as to be unreasonable. You are missing plug-ins and or use an unappropriate scrensize which means your browser is layering pages content when it doesn't need to, the issue comes form the wiki software that your browser cannot interpret properly. Your comments makes it hard to anyone not working with you to contribute and makes your behaviour acountable to the referal board. The data from these maps was not copied from any OS product as it would be a violation of their copyright. Properties of roads are available from shared sources outside of the Os, such as section lengths and exit numbers. Also data yourself broadcast from edition of the article, therefore under the GFDL, is relevant documentation to accomplish these maps. The maps in return also bare the GFDL-like tags in respect of license rules imposed by Wikimedia. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally the choise of adding road #2 on motorway #2's map was chosen, as it was for motorway #180, due to the fact that the motorway is assimilated to the entire routes, but due to highway code legislation the choice was made to authorise non-motorway traffic onto these sections. It is therefore important to include these non-motorway sections as they are part of the traffic trunk #2 as is the roads #180. The choice not to include the A or M in the motorway names was made due to the repetition of the meaning motorway such as it exists when one says PIN number, that is called a pleonasm. Calling the files MX or AX was thought to be inapropriate as many other objects have these names other than British roads, Motorway x was the logical course of action. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The screen size on the iBook 12" is 1024 x 768 and I checked the page in Safari, Firefox & Camino. The overlay problem was the same. I also checked on a PC with IE and found the same issue. If there is a problem with the Wiki software on certain browsers is it such a problem to make it as compatible with as many viewers as possible? As for removing the A2 I made those comments as a suggestion of a way forward to get a bigger map - it was not a major issue and at no time did I demand it.
I am disappointed that you have suggested I would be accountable to the referal board (I can't find a specific reference to this in the [{WP:HELP]] or elsewehre so I assume you mean the administrators). I fail to see how my comments have breached [{WP:CIVIL}} and I have never assumed bad faith. Frankly I have had my stuff edited "mercilessly" as it says at the bottom. That is part of Wikipedia. And with the greatest respect you did state here that you would not discuss the matter any further on the M27. How are other editors to react to that?
As to the Mx issue. The naming of the file when it is uploaded is not an issue. The captioning was the problem for me (and for another contributor). The road is named in legislation and on the ground as the M2. Where does that leave other motorways (lets say the M54) which goes nowhere near another A road. Shoudl these become . That is the issue for myself and another editor on Wikipedia. If you don't want to change it, that's up to you. I would still apprecaite your thoughts regarding the miles scale on the map though (see above).
Thanks also for answering the point on the copyright issue.
Finally I would point out that I have previously stated that I thought the maps added something to articles. I think there are issues with them as have other editors - my position hasn't changed on that for the reasons I have given here and elsewhereRegan123 13:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Looking at this, the size of the map as it currently is is just right for the resizing issue. At no point in resizing does the map block the photograph, just a slight overlay of the caption. Anyway a simple solution to the issue would be to simply have the map before the text rather than afterwards, that way there is nothing for it to overlay. As for the units, the map should really show the scale in miles as that is the unit of measurement on a UK road. By all means have kilometres as an alternative, but miles should definitely be there. Ben W Bell talk 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i know the UK is now metricised thanks to the EU. Only road signs, beer measurements and milk measurements are legally allowed to be measured imperialy but in no way obligatory. Even if we disagree with the kilometre (not kilometer as the US uses it) it is there only to stay, and will only gain in presence. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With the Road x, Motorway x. These never appear anywhere as far as I can see. Whilst there are many other things that have, say the name A10. If they appear on an article about the English road running from London to King's Lynn - the A10, there is no confusion. The A or M (or B) is an integral part of the route designation in the UK. I.e. it isn't Motorway number 180, but a motorway with the route named the M180. In official legislation it'll be the "M180 motorway". Ax roads aren't road number x, but the route called the Ax. Finally, if a road is classified as Ax(M), e.g. the A1(M), then these usually appear in official legislation as the "A1 motorway", where it clearly means that the road still forms part of the A1 route, but has motorway status. Finally, the point about metrication. The UK is not completely metricised. The UK has agreed to go completely metric, but the EU has imposed no deadline for the transition. British roads are completely signed in miles and yards. Indeed, metric signs are not allowed to be used on British roads without express permission of the Secretary of State for Transport. He hasn't given permission for any metric signs to be used on public roads yet. Richard B 14:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, i don't want to talk about the issue, though if one is talking about my uploaded work I must (relunctantly) participate. Each and every contribution I make is tested, I use Konqueror, Firefox and IE on 1280*1024 and 1024*768, i also regularly contribute from 3PCs and two laptops at home as well from work on similar systems. since I usually work on an article, i go back to previously edited articles and I can see changes and if they show alright.
I am adament that i continue to receives comments such as yours i will have to request for comment, thus showing that fair play isn't respected; see blanking and non-acceptance of other contirbutors edits, reverts.
I am aware you did ask for more maps, which is exactly why I've done more, where possible (length of road). The maps wil neverplease everyone and at some point have to adhere to an editors wishes. I'm not asking you to accomodate me, but to work by the rules. you didn't in the case of the M27 motorway. You and maybe RichardB owuld like to get rid of pedantism, you can't just say the official legislation it'll be the "M180 motorway" as it means you won't accept anything else than what you've yourself contributed to, see my above point. This is why i won't join your project and will ocntinue to work as I do now as I see you group as being air-tightly sealed.
Metric signs are regularly used on British roads: [1]. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that's not a road distance sign. And some metric signs are used, the M25 has the side distance markers marked out in kilometres from the Dartford Crossing rather than miles, but you need to look carefully to see them. However all distances on UK route signs are in miles and yards, not metric. The UK officially uses miles for all distances. Those height signs on bridges are solely for the usage of foreign truck drivers, and are quite sensibly there. Oh and the M is a vital part of the road designation, just like A and B and is used officially, the roads are never refered to as the Motorway 25, or Motorway 2, but M25 Motorway and M2 Motorway or simply M25 and M2. Ben W Bell talk 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is not an Os map nor a map to use for travelling, it is a geographical representation of the course of motorway. Plus British language uses use rather than the American usage, I pointed out that metric signs are used all over the British highway network. The example given above is a height distance sign. If strict rules are going to be highlighted they need to be correct, especially when serenading me. The maps didn't used to bare scales, these were added to get an idea of their size. The distance measurement on British highway being in imperial has no relevance on the measurement on the illustrative maps in question. Sufficely to say, I won't change the map as I've said before, the reasons for creating them that way was chosen after considering such as yours, your questioning getting extremely tiresome and lack of potent argument not strong enough to change my intentions. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if my making two comments is "extremely tiresome", I've only made two comments. Miles should be added to the map scale as this is a UK based article and in the UK miles are the primary and official unit of distance for road travel. I may see about adding them to the map later (if I do so I'll also edit the title to use the correct usage of M2 motorway. Ben W Bell talk 18:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your menaces have made me understand the map needed to be redone:

File:MI2.png

Wikimedia rules make it impossible for you to modify the files or duplicate them, having been a member for two years you should know that. You should also know that ultimatums are not well seen. On the other hand you can ask me politely for reasonable changes which is what I've asked from the beginning in a politely structured British English sentence, Wikilove has taken a hit in a day for sure. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It happens quite often with self-produced maps that several members have collaborated on making the maps suitable for general Wiki use. What ultimatums? All people have asked for is the maps to have the correct name references and the units of measurement in the units of the country of the article, which is common practice on Wikipedia. People have asked politely for reasonable changes, your comments have been the aggressive comebacks. If I have overstepped some bounds of wikipropriety then please point them out so I can correct myself or apologise, but I made a couple of comments and received some very aggressive replies correcting my English usage and calling my comments "extremely tiresome", despite the fact I'd only just made a couple of comments some even providing supporting evidence on some matters. For my opinion on this the map if it has a scale should have one in miles, in addition to the kilometres scale, as this is pertaining to a UK article and that is the standard and official distance measurement unit for roads. I believe it should also say M2 motorway as this is how it is referred to in almost all publications and is the official name for the roads. Just as a road called A28 isn't road 28, but the A28 road, it is their actual name. Ben W Bell talk 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimatum: I may see about adding them to the map later (if I do so I'll also edit the title to use the correct usage of M2 motorway. Once again I'd like to point that you are not the onjly contributor and my comments were not solely directed at you. Replies received were rather rivet counting-like and tenuous would be fitting for the repetitive and air tight behaviour in this talk page. Also to be reminded these are not maps, but unaccredited and approximative plans, therefore not to be used as a like-for-like likeness (can't find a better description you'll forgive me). It is why the measurement system used is of no relevance to what should be used on the plans, and it is a bonus to even have scales for such things, most were added post production to give an idea of. The plans also have symbolic placing of exits as the nature of the plans to not permit them to be precise, they aren't government funded and made OS maps but an accurate and approximate representation of the real Mc Coy. There is no standard for plans, but there are for maps. If I'd begun a creation of redistribuabble maps, the file and image sizes would be much bigger and details in greater number (bridges, tunnels, type of junctions, grades even?), but they aren't.
Road name, open to debate, their number isn't their name. The letter part of the numbering isn't part of the route's name but a classification and a remark on their grade, the road/motorway still being the Nth road of that classification; the M50 would be a road of motorway standard with the number 50: motorway 50. Once again PIN number? A pleonasm, no need for repeatitions, you can cite an entire books content that wouldn't make it right. I'm not comfortable in putting both motorway and M, same for roads. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, It's not motorway 50, as I and others have pointed out. It's also not the 50th motorway (there's no M7, M12-M17, M19, M21,M22 etc.) The M is not "motorway" shortened. It is part of the offical route designation. It is therefore not a pleonasm. I would appreciate a citation that the M is not part of the route number. I refer you to the official documentation in the national archives for the deveopment of the motorway numbering system for my citation.
I'm also confused as to why you say the maps may not be modified. You released this map under with permission to "copy, distribute and/or modify" the document, provided that any derivative work is also released under the same license. Richard B 00:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M is not part of a motorway's number, it's a letter, it is part of the motorway's designation. Don't preach if you don't cite accurately, as you haven't done in this discussion thanks to contrary quotes. If M is not the acronym of motorway it sure is a fluke to have a road designation for a motorway bare the letter M. The rules I quote are on wikimedia's website where i refer you to the same way you're referring me to the national archives. If you are so adament my plans are inaccurate, false, i suggest you delink each and everyone of them from the article you and your gorup maintain the solve your problem. I consider the case closed and will if neede ddelete the plans to avoid any pure rudeness on your parts and your lack of Wikietiquette. May I fin this behaviour agian you will be immediately referred for a request for comment, this is a warning and an advice to change your behaviour. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously larger and more important M2 motorways, e.g., M2 motorway (Russia). I believe M2 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well run a proper WP:move suggestion / poll thingy... It sounds eminently sensible Pickle 01:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 moved to M2 motorway (Great Britain). I'm assuming this is settled (for the time being!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 12:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M2 motorway → M2 motorway (United Kingdom) — Another procedural nom similar to the one at Talk:M1 motorway. A user moved this page controversially with no consensus. Now to start the discussion. Jeni (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would not even bother with this RM, if she seriously wants it moved then she will start one herself. Now its been undone and is known its unlikely she will bother trying to make the change again. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to start it, even though I don't agree with it, than let this user disrupt her way into getting her own way. At least this way a clear consensus can be established. I'm no expert, but I'm guessing the M3 is next ;-) Jeni (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should notify all the regional countries that have an M2 road, something you failed to do in the last request move for the M1 roads page. Otherwise it will just be a repeat episode in British pov-pushing, and we all know that. Tfz 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not just British people that saw M1 was clearly the primary topic, the page stats proved it overwhelmingly on that page. Looking at this pages stats it is less obvious, but there was certainly a need for a RM considering how long this has been at this location, instead of Sarah jumping in as usual with out trying to get consensus, especially after what was happening over at M1 . BritishWatcher (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No "clear primary topic" here, so the dab page should go at main title. In time, we should review that to gauge how many of the views here were intended for this article. The original move was not correct - the target was wrong, and it was done for the wrong reasons. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as it's not gonna do any harm. PS: This 'move request' looks familiar. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, roads are geographical, I wonder if perhaps the proper proposed move should be M2 motorway (Great Britain)? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to M2 motorway (England). All the other M2 motorways are named with their country, not geographical area, and since the motorway is only in England then England seems the best one to use. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please, not England. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it needs to be England as we already have Northern Ireland. It cannot be Great Britain as the rest of the M2 articles are country based, not geographic based. There is already a Northern Ireland and a Republic of Ireland one, so England is the obvious choice. The others are Russia, Hungary and Pakistan, all countries none geographical. Canterbury Tail talk 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as there is M2 in Northern Ireland, it can not under any circumstances be moved to M2 (United Kingdom). Great Britain or England is fine with me, aslong as its in line with others. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)BritishWatcher (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looking at the page views for these ones there is no primary article unlike in the case of M1 where it was obviously the England motorway, there for the M2 motorway should be a dab page. I have no feelings on what term should be used (Great Britain or England) what ever is the norm in these circumstances. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (cont'd from above) These road articles should be at either (Great Britain)/(Ireland) - thus geographic or (United Kingdom)/(Republic of Ireland) - thus political. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As UK is unacceptable in this case, id support M2 motorway (Great Britain), thats in line with another motorway ive just seen. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to something with a disambiguator, and I don't care whether that's M2 motorway (Great Britain) or M2 motorway (United Kingdom) or M2 motorway (England) or M2 motorway (Kent). It's not the primary topic, so the undisambiguated page title should be used for a dab page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone stop User:Tfz he is moving M3 motorway and M4 motorway with no debate. Someone please stop him! BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Jeni. --John (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Null and void, this process should be deemed null and void as there is a clear case of WP:Canvass by the proposer Jeni. Tfz 19:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about. Jeni proposed this hoping it would not get moved, like what happened at M1 motorway. But M2 clearly does justify being a disam page because Pakistans page gets ALOT of hits. We must do this on a case by case basis, you cant go around moving things yourself. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the canvass[8]. She did the same thing on the M1 issue. Tfz 19:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not canvasing, that's informing the relevant Wikiproject, a relatively standard procedure. Canterbury Tail talk 21:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, Jeni should have informed all of the 'Wiki country projects' that have such a highway, and not just the UK one. Tfz 15:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects are often informed about such changes. However look at the vote, there is clear justification for this to be a dab page, the majority of votes are supporting the move.. You cry null and void way too quick. If you void this vote then it remains about this location! BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation is required for all these M# motorway disputes. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I am inclined to agree.--John (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shudder to ask this, but exactly how many 'M motorways' are there? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the other projects are informed then it's AOK, but this process must be scrapped first and a new one begun. Remember 'due process', transparency and all that.. Tfz 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will this include the M1 motorway aswell? GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, I'm not pushy really. I would like to see a NPOV Wikipedia, let others decide. Tfz 19:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all Projects which need to be informed, are informed, then I've no problems with doing this & the M1 consensus-votes over again. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot of work searching for those projects, maybe leave it a bit as we might get some night hawks in. Tfz 20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the vote here will be to move so no point in stopping the vote. The pakistan page has more views than this one, clearly meaning this should be a disam page. But M4 for example that you moved before, M4 is the primary article. But we aint revoting on M1, the clear consensus there was to keep and rightly so looking at page stats. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much input since. Goodday, if can do that notice on the regional pages. If you can't get around to it then I'll take a look at it later Sunday. Tfz 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Other then the Ireland & United Kingdom Projects, which other Projects should be notified? GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's a lot to do, and I wouldn't suggest it to anyone unless they found it an easy thing to do. As for me, good at maths and all that, but sure get bogged down when looking for cat pages and the likes. Looks like it's going nowhere anyway, maybe not worth taking up time, do you think so? Tfz 15:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I figured the UK & the Ireland Projects were enough. In agreement, it would probably be a waste of effort. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Ipswich Motorway and Logan Motorways in Brisbane, Australia
This would be the list of interested places above. Only UK project was informed. Tfz 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That list is somewhat misleading. The first four aren't "M2 Motorway"s. The Irish one is a redirect to the real name - N2 road (Ireland) and the final one is a redirect to M2 highway (Russia). Thus there are actually only "M2 motorway"s in England, Northern Ireland, Hungary, and Pakistan. Clearly, from the data above the England one is the one sought most often by readers of WP. --AlisonW (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AlisonW, in this case the England motorway does not get the most hits despite being at the primary spot. The motorway for Pakistan gets more. There is clear justification in this case (unlike in many other motorway articles like M1) for this to be a dab page. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised list

Thanks for noticing the Michigan and the Ireland entry, so I have deleted those two. The list is updated. Tfz 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put back the motorway in Michigan, USA, and in Dublin, Ireland. My mistake, and AlisonW misdirection. Tfz 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per last comment and update. Tfz 22:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved[edit]

And I see it's been moved to (Great Britain) despite there being no consensus to do so. Especially since (Great Britain) seems to be the worst version as the rest of them are named under countries/states, not by island or geographical entity. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this users continued disruption on this topic, I have been forced to start another ANI thread regarding her actions.[9] Jeni (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least please move this to M2 motorway (England) to be consistent with the other articles, and more accurate as it doesn't cover all of Great Britain, only in England. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Page has been moved *temporarily* to (England) as disambig whilst discussion is ongoing regarding primary target. --AlisonW (talk) 13
34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any strong preference for what disambiguator is used, so last there is one, and M2 motorway remains a disambiguation page (as it should have been all along).

However, I think it's probably best to use Great Britain as the disambiguator, because the numbering system in use covers Great Britain. This allows a consistency of disambiguator, so that for any mway No. x in England or Wales Mx motorway (Great Britain) will always be either the page itself or a redirect to Mx motorway. If England is to be used as the dab, please ensure than Great Britain remains as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my own recent move to 'England' as, although my research shows other travel-related articles do sometimes use '(England)' a larger number use GB or UK. UK could not be applicable here because of NI, thus I revert myself and leave it to further discussion by all editors here whether to make any further move(s). --AlisonW (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alison, considering how enthusiastically you laid accusations of vandalism at other editors who moved pages without prior consensus, that reversion is long overdue. As above, I happen to prefer the destination you have reverted to, but mine was a lone voice and I'm astonished that you yourself seem to be quite happy to engage in non-consenus moves whilst using your admin tools to prevent others doing the same. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

The scoping of this move as "Great Britain" is appropriate, because the road is numbered under the Great Britain road numbering scheme, which applies on the mainland in England, Scotland and Wales, on the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, Orkney, Shetland, and the Western Isles. "United Kingdom" would not be appropriate, because road numbering in Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK) is not carried out under this scheme, but managed separately. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have come late to this discussion, but I would say that the best decision has been made. "United Kingdom" would have been a terrible choice due to NI, and "England" is too narrow - would we have "A1 (England)"? No, because it's also in Scotland. Therefore for consistency with other articles, "Great Britain" is the best. (And if other road articles refer to "England" or "Scotland" or "Wales" then they should also be moved.) Bazonka (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The M8 and M9 motorways are currently at M8 motorway (Scotland) and M9 motorway (Scotland). In a few days when the currently running requested moves are settled, I am planning to request them to be moved - the M9 is a clear primary topic and so per the M1 shouldn't take any parenthetical disambiguation. I've not done the research regarding the M8 yet, but if that isn't a primary topic I'll be proposing the disambiguator is changed to (Great Britain). Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles have recently been moved by the disruptive Irish editors recently, so common sense suggests moving back pending a RM discussion. Jeni (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wont object to that, but following my snafu with the M18 I'm not going to bethe one to do it! Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they were not to be moved back to its primary spot, those really need to be changed to (Great Britain), there is no reason to have England, or Scotland in some of the titles as pointed out above its the Great Britain road numbering scheme. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though those two roads are wholly within Scotland and are under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Government? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its still the Great Britain road numbering scheme, as BW pointed out. Jeni (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 wish we could've had this Move poll again, as I now feel that 'M2 motorway (England), would've been better. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kilometres, miles, and RJL[edit]

FWIW, I note that the approach being taken by DeFacto to add miles in column 1 seems way more sensible than requiring discrete columns for miles and kilometres, given that the DeFact approach involves wrapping a convert template around an extant value, as compared with the RJL method which requires (correct me if I'm wrong) each km to be manually converted into miles, or else requires the production of some new template magic to do a convert and produce the two columns. I'd prefer we adopt what I see as a sensible approach which provides well formatted copy, than allow RJL (not for the first time) to seek to deny us new content. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that although the {{convert}} template does have the facility to output a string which would put each of the 2 values into separate table columns, it won't accomodate the awkward, non-RJL compliant, formatting deployed here of putting 2 rows into 1 cell using the "<br>" html tag. -- de Facto (talk). 15:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having miles and kilometres mixed up in a column is awful - convert does have a facility to suppress the units so, as DeFacto says, the miles values can be added, but the actual number has to be repeated - see List of tunnels in the United Kingdom for an example. Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M2 motorway (Great Britain). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M2 motorway (Great Britain). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M2 motorway (Great Britain). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M2 motorway (Great Britain). 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 1a?[edit]

Where does this come from in the table? As far as I can see on the ground there are only junctions 1 and 2 etc. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medway Towns Bypass?[edit]

Hello, I’m currently planning on polishing the M2 article up, and I wanted to ask if there’s any sources beyond the various road enthusiast websites based in the UK that the M2 is really named the Medway Towns Bypass? Unlike other roads, such as the AP-7 in Spain, which is signed as the Autopista del Mediterráneo, the M2 (and few other motorways in the UK) don’t have a signed name. If a source cannot be found to verify the name, then I’ll remove it. I’ve seen the name referenced in legal documentation provided on some of these websites, namely Pathetic Motorways IIRC, but I’m not sure if this name is still used today. Any contribution to this discussion is greatly appreciated on my part! Yasslaywikia (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few resources
Any of those useful? 10mmsocket (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Useful indeed, thank you! This, however, confirms my suspicions that the M2 isn’t the Medway Towns Bypass - rather the Medway Motorway as per the first source you provided. Even still, outside of road enthusiast groups, not many people refer to the M2 as such - at least the people I know don’t really refer to it as such. Maybe reference to its name would be more fitting in the history section, alongside the A2(M) trivia. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot - here's the Medway Motorway brochure 10mmsocket (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or more specificially the "Medway Towns Motor Road" just to add something new into the mix!! 10mmsocket (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s gotta be one or the other! Because the naming is so inconsistent and patchy, given the multiple names it’s been referred to, wouldn’t it be better to omit it in the info box but refer to the names it’s been assigned in the history section? It’s quite ambiguous as to what the real name for the M2 is, and all the sources seem to point at different names. Yasslaywikia (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After some consideration, I’ve decided that a full omission of the motorway’s supposed name from the infobox would the best, with it being discussed in the history section. I’ll go forward with this edit tomorrow. Yasslaywikia (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M2_motorway_(Great_Britain)&oldid=1207911842"