Jump to content

Talk:M18 motorway (Great Britain)

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

Map

[edit]

This is probably an issue with most motorway articles (I don't frequently look at these) but it's a bit difficult to get an idea of exactly where this motorway is without a map. I mean like most British people I know roughly where Sheffield is, but Goole is pretty obscure. It would be quite easy to put together a map as a derivative of a creative commons image, but is there a standard style for all of these pages that this would breach? I'd imagine the vast majority of people who search for this simply want to know precisely where the motorway is and it's a little bit frustrating having to further click on the link to the Goole page and try to semi-approximate the location yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.82.199 (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

The M18 motorway (Russia) is 35 times longer than this one. What's the reason that the page M18 motorway is reserved for an obscure rural road in Yorkshire? Systemic bias? --Ghirla-трёп- 17:55, 15 August 2007 (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 move to M18 motorway (Great Britain). This was a tough one. While the primary topic argument is a strong one since, based on google results etc., it is likely that many more English speaking people will mentally translate M18 Motorway to the one in England, the reality is that that 'many more' is unlikely to represent a large number outside the confines of the United Kingdom. One, I suppose, should use primary topic carefully. Throw the Russian road into the mix, and whether or not that road is known as a motorway is inconsequential because we have an article that refers to it as a motorway, and it seems to me that disambiguating is the commonsensical approach. Add the 'contextual necessity' argument presented by Jan1nad, and the renaming threshold is clearly crossed. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 17:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M18 motorway → M18 motorway (England) — Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has twice moved this page to the above title, and I have twice reverted as there has been no discussion about this. To stop this disruption I have protected the page against moves and initiated this discussion. I am expressing no opinion at this point but will likely do so later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god not another one. Could we please set some kind of limit on RMs for motorway articles, so only one runs at a time!!! BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. Thrydulf, you have used your admin powers in relation to this page, which you should only do if you are an uninvolved editor. Yet you have now stated that have an (as yet undisclosed) substantive opinion on the move, so you are clearly not neutral. Furthermore, as noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Vigilantism, the original move I did to M18 motorway (Great Britain) prompted not a single comment on this talk page until you posted here.

Having reverted an apparently uncontroversial move without either procedural justification or substantive explanation, you then move-warred with Sarah777 before abusing your admin powers to protect the page. This is not how things are supposed to be done.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain) to disambiguate from the two other M18s (disambiguator of "Great Britain" per other motorways in GB, rather than England). All three are part of numbered Euroroutes, so all have European significance. the British M18 is 22miles long, which is lonbger than the current length of the M18 motorway (Ireland), but the latter is being extended. Even with the sections under construction it will be longer than the British M18, and upon completion it will be about twice as long. Meanwhile, the M18 highway (Russia) is a massive 1400km long.
    There is therefore no clear primary topic, so disambiguation is the appropriate respoinse. Disambiguation will allow any misplaced links to be M18 motorway to be identified by the bots and corrected by using popups, so disambiguation also helps the reader by making it easier for editors to ensure that links point to the right article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my god, not another moan by BHG about admin abuse, seriously, give it a rest! Jeni (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll be delighted to give it a rest when admins stop abusing their powers to create controversy and then issue block threats, as happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The move was reverted after just over a day. This makes it by definition a controversial move. Sarah777's re-moving was therefore a "contentious move", and was subject summary reversion by any admin. I see nothing wrong with Thryduulf's protection, since an examination of Sarah777's contribs reveals that without move protection it was highly likely she'd have moved it a third time. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That might be a plausible defence of the move-warring admin Thryduulf if he hadn't a) threatened me with a block for the original move (for which he has since apologised), and b) demonstrated his partisanship by participating on one side of this discussion. This is a straightforward use of admin powers to bolster his position. If a rebuke was due to Sarah, it should have been assesed and given by an uninvolved admin, not by the move-warrior Thryduulf. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Repeaing a controversial move is subject to summary reversal by any admin, involved or otherwise. FWIW, if you want to engage in petty wikilawyering, Thryduulf technically became involved after having protected the page. "Uninvolved" doesn't mean you're not allowed an opinion. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thryduulf didn't just stumble upon a dispute and act as a neutral admin; he became involved when he reverted a move which had not been contested. There was no controversy over this move until Thryduulf decided to start a controversy. Even before he moved-warred with Sarah777, he was involved, yet he still persists in falsely labelling others as vandals. If he wanted to stop a move-war which he had initiated, he should have requested move protection rather than using his own admin tools to protect the version he wanted. (see protection policy: "administrators should avoid favouring one name over another"). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain) - and have dab at the prime spot, the Ireland one has several hundred more hits despite his one being at the primary spot, but the article was only created a couple of months ago so theres been alot more activity to construct the page. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to Brown Haired Girl after three edit conflicts) Per the history of the recent moves of M1, M2, M3, M4 and A34 (and maybe others) without attempt to gain consensus first, please treat all moves (however well intentioned) of articles about British roads (however well intentioned) as potentially controversial and discuss them first (preferably with a link on the UK geography project talk page) as well intentioned moves are getting caught up with inappropriate ones. I apologise for my actions in reverting and move-protecting this page, yes I realise now I should not have done this. I will not personally unprotect in advance of any consensus here but will not object to anyone else doing it. I have not stated my opinion because I have not checked the facts yet - I will do so in the morning. I need to step back from Wikipedia so I do not make any more errors of judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't move for now The M18 highway in Russia can be discounted from this as it is not a motorway and wouldn't have a place on the disambiguation page anyway. I can find no hits on google to suggest that the Russian highway is commonly known as "M18 motorway". So that just leaves a choice between the UK M18 and the Ireland M18. Given that the Ireland M18 is a relatively unimportant motorway only 14 miles long, it doesn't get my vote (It is even noted in its article that it is one of the shortest motorways in Ireland. Given that the UK M18 forms part of the main signposted north-south route (M1-M18-A1), currently the UK M18 is the primary topic. In the future when the planned M18 upgrades in Ireland are completed, this may change, and will need to be looked at then. Jeni (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeni, the M18 article does not claim that it is part of the main north-south route, and that's not my experience of the signposting. Can you provide a reference for that claim? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • scroll to M1 junction 32 and scroll to A1(M) junction 35. As per the key to the exit lists, what is given there, is signed on the ground. If you wish to be really really pedantic, I'll go out and get pictures of all the signs ;-) Jeni (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, CBRD is a hobbyist site which doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS. Google maps and my TomTom both recommend that route, so I'm prepared to accept the claim as possibly accurate ... but only 8.8 miles of the M18 is actually part of the north-south route. So all you've established is that 40% of the English M18 is appears according to unreliable sources to serve as one a link road between the two major North-South roads (i.e the M1 and the A1), for those who don't just go on up the M1. But this point has not so far even been mentioned in the article. If it's such a crucial apart of the M18's claim to fame, that's a very surprising omission. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Have you considered that the reason I haven't included it is the fact that it isn't a RS? It doesn't mean I can't include it in a discussion to add weight to an argument that you have now accepted as "possibly accurate"? I have merely used it to show what is given on the signs in the absence of being able to show you the signs physically, which is perfectly reasonable. Traffic not using Google or a Tom Tom are still likely to be using the M18 as the main north-south route, as they will be relying more on what is signed on the ground. Jeni (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page hits in line with dealing with the other motorway articles..

There is no primary topic in this case so it should be a dab page at the primary spot. The Ireland article does have a couple of hundred more hits but last month was that articles first month, so it was getting alot more edits from several editors as it was under construction. (This page only had 2 minor edits the entire month of August). BritishWatcher (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose on the basis of Google hits as the Irish one has just been created and would get more hits while under construction. If it is to be moved should be moved to England as we dab by country it would be Great Britain if it crossed the boarder into Scotland or Wales. Keith D (talk) 08:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain) Best keep politics and national pride and all those silly notions out of Wikipedia. When that rubbish goes, Wikipedia will be a much better place. Tfz 11:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I've looked at the first 8 pages of a google.com.au search for M18 motorway -Wikipedia (79 hits, and additional 1 was for the English M180). I chose Australia as an English speaking country without an M18 motorway. I've also looked at the number of incomming article space links (excluding redirect pages, but not those that link through them), the results were as follows
Road Google.com.au hits inbound article-space links
English M18 motorway 74 126
Irish M18 motorway 3 77
Russian M18 motorway 2 34
This clearly shows that the English M18 is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. This just illustrates the dangers inherent in using those numbers in a simplistic way, and the folly of assuming that the existence of a number indicates a ranking.
First, take the incoming links. That figure tells us little about importance of the subject; it just tells us how diligent editors have been in cross-linking, a factor which will inevitably weight the numbers in favour of articles which have existed for longer. Such figures also distorted by the use of navigation templates, which have the effect of greatly multiplying the number of incoming links, and providing a completely misleading picture of the actual number of references to the road in article text.
Secondly, the google count will also reflect the fact that the English M18 has existed for longer. That means more time for people to take photographs, more time for it to be mentioned in guide books and travelogues, and hence more hits. I'm very wary of recentism, but that doesn't apply here: we're looking at a form of inverse recentism. For someone planning a journey or studying a road network, a motorway is a motorway regardless of whether it opened three weeks ago or the decades ago.
What we actually have here is two short motorways of similar length; the Irish one is currently 40% shorter, but construction is underway to extend to longer than the UK motorway, so not much difference there. The major differences between them are that a) the Irish one is newer (and hence doesn't have so many years of references elsewhere); b) the English one is in a bigger country. The rule being applied her seems to be that anything in a big country takes precedence of anything in a small country :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding incoming links, it isn't as simple as just saying that you can discount all the articles that link via a template. For example the M1 article links to the M18 article in the infobox, prose and via the template, but is only counted once in the incoming links list. It isn't a perfect measure, which is why we use a combination of measures to give an indication. Additionally, we can only say what is the primary topic (or that there isn't one) for how it exists at the moment - it is possible that the realive positions may change in the future, if so we can revisit the situation then; any speculation about the future importance of roads is crystal ballism. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain) anything else seems illogical to me, the numbering system is across Great Britain (not UK nor England), but I only saw this on the special "list of moves" page just now. Pbhj (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask the logic behind this? Plenty of other UK motorways have the primary topic, M1 motorway, M3 motorway, M4 motorway, M5 motorway, M6 motorway, M11 motorway, M20 motorway, M23 motorway... I could go on :) I'm not trying to devalue your comment, but you don't seem to have addressed the issue of if it even needs moving, just asking for clarification :) Jeni (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for being so explicit about your presumption that a UK motorway should be the primary topic. It's been quite obvious to anyone following these discussions that this has been your approach, but it's helpful to have it set out so clearly.
        We're discussing here whether to disambiguate the article on the M18, and the status of other UK motorways is irrelevant to this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I don't read that as any sort of bias. The original comment was that having the M18 at anything other than "M18 motorway (Great Britain)" would "illogical". Jeni's reply was asking why it would be "illogical", given that other British motorways are take no disambiguator (rightly or wrongly, something than be both "logical" and "incorrect" at the same time, e.g. it would be logical for the Dog article to be at Canis familiaris but wrong per WP:COMMONNAME). However, I think the original commenter meant that using a disambiguator other than "(Great Britain)", e.g. "(England)" or "(United Kingdom)" would be illogical. Repeatedly accusing other people of having bias because they disagree with you is not a good way to earn the respect of other editors and makes it less likely that they will assume good faith on your part. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thryduulf, WP:AGF is quite clear that there's no obligation to sustain the assumption of good faith in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Have you actually looked at the overall pattern of Jeni's contributions to these discussions? If you do, you'll see that she has opposed moving of any British motorway for disambiguation purposes, insisting that the British M2, M3, M4 and M18 are all primary topics. But if you look at the discussion on the Irish M50, she opposed making that a primary topic, even though the case for making it a primary topic is at least as strong as that for the English M2. For reasons I have set out, I support disambiguation unless one article is very significantly more important that all the others with which it might be confused, so I support disambiguating both the M2 and the M50 ... but Jeni is trying to have her cake and eat it, and has been noisily denouncing those who disagree as "disruptive", calling for them to be blocked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not seeing "clear evidence to the contrary" here. Jeni has opposed the moves. I see nothing in this which is in and of itself "clear evidence to the contrary". However, Sarah777's initial decision to seemingly mass-move almost all British motorway articles with no regard for anyone else (as evidenced by repeating reverted moves) is clearly disruptive. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain), I don't see any overwhelming reason why a relatively minor British road should be the primary topic. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. Assuming that half of the views to other articles came via dab links, the English motorway retains the majority of incoming links, and is therefore the clear primary topic. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose move to M18 motorway (England) because as pointed out above the numbering system covers Great Britain and motorways can cross borders (e.g. M4 / M48 which are in England and Wales). Neutral on move to M18 motorway (Great Britain). I was originally going to support such a move but the arguements above have swayed me to neutral. Dpmuk (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to M18 motorway (Great Britain), or to M18 motorway (England). I don't see any overwhelming reason why a relatively minor British road should be the primary topic when we won't concede the M50 in Ireland takes primacy over some obscure road in England that gets one tenth the number of hits as the Dublin M50. We need a standard approach; not one based on British nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is a clear majority for a move would some Irish Admin maybe quickly close this and declare the move agreed? - it's what we get constantly from British Admins in these situations. BHG? Sarah777 (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sarah, but no way will I close this discussion! I have taken a substantive view on these namings, so I am not an uninvolved admin, and closing a discussion requires an uninvolved admin (which in this case means one who is neither British nor Irish). Unlike our friend Thryduulf, I am not going to use my admin powers on a topic where I am not neutral. One of the shoddiest things about this RM discussion is that a previously uncontroversial move was reverted by an admin who then move-warred to sustain his position, protected the page, issued several block threats, and then proceeded to confirm his lack of neutrality by taking a substantive view on the resulting discussion. Thryduulf has kindly retracted his block threat to me, but not to you ... and I am not going to lower myself to that level of partisan adminship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't see a majority in favour of a move - I make it 6 support and 6 oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see 7 - 6, if we include you. Otherwise 6 - 6. Did you vote? Sarah777 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway; the argument is clearly in favour of move and as these are !votes in my expierence Admins often rule their favourite solution wins regardless of the numbers. 6 - 6 is enough when we have Wiki policy v. negation of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My opening statement was not a vote, but I did subsequently vote against the move so 7-6 would effectively be counting my opinion twice (and I think we can both agree that would not be fair). As a participant in the discussion it is not my place to second-guess how the neutral closer will interpret the arguments, but as far as I can see none of the people opposing the move believe that it violates NPOV or goes against other policy and not all of those in favour of the move think not-moving would be either. Regardless of this when the numbers are so close, an early close is not going to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you vote against a dab? In my previous encounters you have tended to support dabbing of road names - at least Irish ones anyway? Sarah777 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted against a disambiguation page here (and for the M1), because I believe the evidence shows that the British road is the primary topic. I voted for a dab for the M50 because I believe the evidence shows that there is no primary topic. I will vote for an Irish road to take a non-disambiguated title in any case where I believe the evidence shows the Irish road is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's precisely what's so exasperating about the contributions of some British editors to these discussions: they find evidence that's allegedly strong enough to make a British mway an obvious primary topic, but reject similar evidence as not strong enough to make an Irish mway the primary topic. Personally, I think that the notion of any "primary topic" in an area like this is in most cases very hard to sustain, and I believe that the only NPOV approach is to disambiguate unless there really is overwhelming evidence that one topic is massively more important than all the others combined. The fact that we've got a roughly 50:50 split of views here doesn't point to the existence of a clear primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can everyone please stop the racism unless they've got some damn sound evidence for it? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich, coming from an editor who's been busy denouncing Irish editors as "politically-motivated". If you want the evidence, look at the British editors who oppose making the Irish M50 a primary topic, yet insist that this one must be a primary topic, despite being a weaker case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear majority support for moving this to M18 motorway (Great Britain), can someone end this RM process please and implement it. And in future if there are other British motorways in the prime spot that needs moving do the RM to (Great Britain) not England/Scotland/Wales or the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I still don't see a "clear majority" for moving this article, I do agree there is a clear consensus that any motorways in England, Scotland or Wales that do not warrant prime position should take "(Great Britain)" as the disambiguator, not the name of the consistent country/countries they are in. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A "clear majority" is not required to uphold the default solution of disambiguation. The guideline clearly warns against selecting a controversial primary topic. Considering the enthusiasm with which you were protecting pages and issuing block threats despite your complete lack of neutrality, you should check the guidelines before pronouncing a verdict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having the current article as the primary topic seems sensible given the topic's dominance in the sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The M18 in Ireland didn't exist when most of the books were published (most of the recent publications in the search results were using Wikipedia as a source). Although it has only become more notable recently it isn't recentism bias, as notability of motorways isn't temporary. snigbrook (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to put forward an alternative proposal. As we are an encyclopedia and are in the business of informing our readers, may I suggest moving this page to M18 motorway (England, Great Britain). Jack forbes (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose such a name, its too long winded, the article itself states that it is in England, no need to include it in the title too. Jeni (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree (I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise). I think it is a very concise title. I could point out long winded titles on wikipedia but this wouldn't be one of them. Jack forbes (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If disambiguation is to inform readers, it could be made more specific than that, as the road is in Yorkshire. snigbrook (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The aim of a disambiguator is simply to disambiguate. "England, Great Britain" is tautological, because either "England" or "Great Britain" identifies the mway unambiguously. The GB would be needed only if there another England outside GB which also had an M18 mway. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. The M18 in the UK seems to be the primary topic. Evidence has been presented for this, but little against, and arguments for equal prominence seem centred on the fact that the Irish motorway is more recent so may acquire more prominence, which is a bit crystalbally. We can certainly re-evaluate at a later date if this is though to not be the case. I would support a dab link directly to M18 motorway (Ireland) in this article however, so that readers wanting to view that article don't have to go through a dab page. Quantpole (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are suggesting the hatnote be modified to read something like "This article is about the motorway in Great Britain. For the motorway in Ireland see M18 motorway (Ireland). For other uses see List of M18 roads" then I'd happily support that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yup, that's exactly what I mean. Quantpole (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support from me too, seems sensible! Jeni (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oppose that kludge. We have a provincial mway in Ireland a provincial mway in England, both of similar length, both of similar significance to their respective road networks, and we also have a road in Russia. Disambiguate them properly, since there is no consensus to retain any one of them as a primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have already established above that the M18 in England is much more than a "provincial" motorway, and much more significant to its respective road network than the Irish M18, but your selective hearing is to be expected to be honest. Jeni (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • We have established nothing of the sort. According to the unreliable sources you cite, half of the English M18 is a link between two major north-south routes, a link which may or may not be used by drivers wanting to travel north-south on a mway -- they can equally well use the M1 instead. OTOH, the Irish M18 is the mway section of the road between the 3rd and 4th largest cities in Ireland, and an unavoidable part of the strategic Atlantic Corridor.[1]
                Both roads are in part a component of a European road: part of the Irish M18 is part of the European route E20, and part of the English M18 appears to be on the north-south European route E13.
                So both roads of similar importance to their national networks. The Irish one is arguably more important, but rather than engage in a sterile contest for primacy, we should recognise that the relative significance of the two roads is a too similar to select a clear primary topic. By disambiguating, we let the reader decide for themselves which is more important to them ... and since dismabiguation is the default position, that's what should be done in the absence of any clear agreement on a primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Just to say that I support the move to M18 (Great Britain). Clearly in GB, the term "M18" obviously' means the M1/A1 Yorkshire link and in Ireland it just as clearly means the west coast motorway. In GB, the former is 'primary' and in Ireland the latter is 'primary'. It is POV to regard one as having precedence over the other. Using the pipe trick, it is very easy in articles to display whichever M18 is the relevant one in this context. Requiring both to use the country designation is the most NPOV solution. --Red King (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be POV to regard one as more worthy of the primary topic than the other if it wasn't supported by the evidence that has been presented up thread that shows that the British motorway is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf the move-warrior-admin is still at it, apparently still unaware of any reason to restrain himself after protecting a page to suit his own views and issuing block threats in support of his own move-warring. His idea of "evidence" apparently includes counting incoming links from navigation templates as evidence of an article's significance, and ignoring the fact that since the Irish M18 motorway is a fairly new article which has not yet been linked from the other related geographical articles which should link to it. These internal links are a product of wikipedia, which is not a reliable source.
      To add to the fun, Thryduulf is ignoring the fact that there were more hits to the Irish mway than to the English one.
      But hey, never let the facts get in the way when it's so much easier to just make a sweeping claim about "evidence", because you can always go back to intimidating the people who disagree with you by threatening them with blocks. And for goodness sake, Thryduulf, don't pay any attention to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's warning that "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." That wouldn't help you at all, would it?--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Making personal attacks is never a good way to win an argument. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So far, it seems that the best way to win an argument is use your admin tools to protect the results of your move-warring, and then abandon all pretence of the neutrality which should have underpinned your use of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually all my protection of the page has done is forced the argument to come to a conclusion (which it certainly hasn't yet and so I cannot be said to have won) before any more moves take place. Regardless of what the right place for it is, constant moves back and forwards helps nobody. You and others have always been free to request unprotection from another administrator - I have explained before (although I forget on which page) that I feel my taking any more administrative actions on this page (except reverting blatant vandalism unrelated to the name of the article) would not be appropriate. Some of my actions were inappropriate and some weren't, those in the former category I've already apologised for at least once, and so your repeated screamings of abuse at me are personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If pointing out abuse of admin position were to constitute a personal attack, then admin abuse would be unchallengeable. Since you have used your admin powers in a way which you acknowledge is wrong, the appropriate action is to revert them (in this case by lifting the protection), and leave them to be reinstated by a neutral admin if they feel that's appropriate.
              The fact remains that the article is currently move-protected at a place where it would not be unless you had abused your admin powers in pursuit of your own content preferences. It says unambiguously at WP:PROTECTION#Move_protection that "administrators should avoid favoring one name over another", yet the situation remains that you have favored one name over another. You may point out that WP:PROTECTION#Move_protection also says "an obvious exception to this rule is when pages are protected due to page-move vandalism" ... but I hope that you are not going to accuse those who seek a difft name of vandalism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If pointing out admin abuse automatically constituted a personal attack, then yes it would be unchallengeable. However, you have pointed out the mistakes I made,and I have appologised for what I did wrong (which was not everything I did) and rescinded the block and warnings I made in error. Repeatedly pointing it out after this, especially in discussions where I did not make any mistakes with my admin powers, is making personal attacks. Also regardless of whether the arguemnts constitute personal attacks or not, they are ad hominem arguments rather than arguments to address the subject.
              • People seeking a new name are not guilty of move vandalism merely by seeking a new name. However as the anonymous contributor has pointed out your first move was reverted quickly - by definition making it a controversial move (non controversial ones do not get reverted). Then another user, with a recent history of repeatedly moving pages without discussion and a history of POV editing related to British subjects, moved the page again without discussion. This second move was inappropriate and I was right to revert it and right to protect it as the history shows that had I not done there was a high chance that it would be moved again. Therefore per the protection policy you quote I was protecting it against page move vandalism. Do note that I immediately started this discussion, which should have been done before the first move given the recent history of page moves, but equally should also have been done after the second and before the third move. We would be having this discussion regardless of what title the page was currently at. If you wish to take the discussion further regarding anything other than what title the article about the British motorway should be at, may I suggest that you take it to an RfC where there is a greater chance of neutral eyes seeing it (although a note on this page so that those interested in this thread of discussion can also comment would be appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • My first (and only) move was not "reverted quickly". It was reverted after more than 24 hours, by you. This is the crucial point here: the "controversy" was one which you generated, and the core of the problem here is your failure to accept that the subsequent move-war in which you participated and used your admin tools was one which you started. Yet despite this, you are continuing to describe the page moves by me and by Sarah777 as "vandalism", even though you offered no evidence whatsoever that any of those moves the definition at WP:VANDAL that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".
                  You also still don't grasp the simple point that you used your admin powers to further your position in a content dispute, which is an abuse of admin powers.
                  If you had simply apologised for your errors in abusing your admin tools, and reverted your changes and protection, then there would be no further issue. Instead of that, you haven't reverted yourself, you have apologised to me but not to Sarah777, and you continue to push your preference in a discussion where as an admin who used the tools here you should have remained neutral. Some of those matters may merit an RFC, but it's your continued participation in this discussions that makes your actions a relevant issue to the naming decision, and in particular your repeated and outrageous characterisation of others as vandals is an ongoing effort to mislead other participants. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 29 September 2009
                  • A revert the following day might not be speedy, but it's close enough to be a controversial move. Who moved things back is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you did it in the middle of a campaign of patently politically-motivated moves, and that you knew this was going on at the time (since you had participated in the previous debates at M1, M2 and M50). As I've said before, you either jumped on the bandwagon, or you picked a really stupid time to try such a move. The single most important thing here, was not who made the first move, or who reverted what, but the involvement of User:Sarah777. She repeated your reverted move. A look at the contributions shows that she has move-warred in the cases of the other motorways up for discussion, including some where she had repeated reverted moves more than once. It was therefore reasonable to assume that if she was reverted she would simply move the page again, and hence appropriate to move-protect the page. You were warned, the warning withdrawn, and the offending admin has apologised. Get the hell over it. However, given the slew of moves, that more than one editor was involved, move-protection was entirely appropriate, and given that it's always open season on disruption, it was open to any admin. The person that reverted your move does not automatically become "involved". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If you think that contesting a move leaves an editor uninvolved, we'll have to differ. The fact remains that Thgryduulf used his admin tools to protect a page at his preferred location. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The fact remains that there was ongoing disruption in the form of page moves to similar articles. If you want to cite admin abuse, bring it up at ANI or don't bring it up at all. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I protected it at the stable location. I did not have an opinion regarding which I preferred until I looked at the evidence the following morning. Note this is why I did not express an opinion when setting up the request move discussion. I've explained several times why I did what I did and have apologised for what I got wrong. I have also explained why I have not removed the protection. If you want to take it further please do so at a more appropriate venue such as RfC - I continue to regard your comments of this nature here as personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Russian none at grade junction roads are not called motorways, the term is the English generic term for such roads and the naming by the (British) government is that it is a motorway in the UK. The Russian article doesn't even use the motorway term regardless of style translation so the disambiguation problem does not exist. I am also happy, in view of search engine results, to judge the British M18 as being the most notable item and other similarly named roads to have a disambiguation and leave this article as it is. There always is something more notable than another, something more notable, more researched and generally more referenced; it's a fact. There is no harm and no pride hurt in having M18 motorway and M18 motorway (Ireland). If no other than these two articles have a same name there is little need to disambiguate, especially if one of more present on the Internet than the other. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move continues (convenience break)

[edit]

It is beyond doubt that, in England, the primary use of the term refers to the English M18. It is equally beyond doubt that, in Ireland, the primary use of the term is the Irish M18. The wikipedia policy of giving precedence to the primary use of the term applies where one usage has substantial worldwide recognition (thus, for example, Boston goes to Boston, Mass rather than Boston, England (Lincolnshire). The "we thought of it first!" argument does not apply). Where such clear dominance is not established, the primary article is the disambiguation article. So what we need to demonstrate is whether either motorway has worldwide recognition because, if we can't, we have to give way to wikipedia convention and let the disambig article take priority. --Red King (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the table in the section about of Google Australia results excluding Wikipedia is indication that the British road has the significant worldwide recognition required for a primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting, is it not, that M18 highway takes us to the disambig article? --Red King (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what relevance that has, as neither the British nor Irish roads (the only roads with a realistic claim to be the primary topic for the title "M18 motorway") are commonly called referred to as "M18 highway". Looking at the disambiguation page, it would seem to me that the only contenders for primary topic for the title "M18 highway" are the roads in Russia and the United States, and a quick look at the first three pages of google.co.uk hits for M18 highway -Wikipedia -Manchester (the latter to exclude the M18 postcode area) suggests that neither is the primary topic (this is not conclusive by any means though). None of the results were for the British or Irish roads, so that title really is of no importance to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose, but would support move to M18 motorway (Great Britain). This is surely a case for putting wikilawyering aside and using common sense instead. All road numbers across the world exist within the context of a numbering system. In my view the relevant context should always be used for names of articles about roads, though I realise that thought may just be too radical for some editors to accept. Just because some article names have been created without the context is probably neither here nor there. In this case we are talking about a road in the Great Britain numbering scheme, not the (non-existant) England numbering scheme. M18 motorway (England) is the very last place it should go. Jan1naD - (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jan1nad. --Red King (talk) 14:48, 2 October 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M18 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of Great Yorkshire Way?

[edit]

Hi everyone, I just thought I'd query about this because while I've added some detail to it myself in order to update and expand it, I'm not quite sure whether the sub section for the Great Yorkshire Way is very relevant to the M18 Motorway because the road itself isn't part of the motorway and only links the M18 with Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and so it is slightly off topic. Due to this, I definitely would suggest moving the sub section from this article to the A6182 road article as it would be more relevant there (or even create a separate article for the Great Yorkshire Way) while keeping it as a brief/single sentence mention in this article and keeping the sentence on the M18 being widened between junctions 2 and 3 northbound as that alone is relevant to the motorway. I would be very grateful if anyone can please give their opinion on this matter? Many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response to this query of mine after 5 months, I've moved most of the info for the Great Yorkshire Way to the A6182 road article as it is more relevant there than here, keeping only the bit of the M18 widening in this article as that is the only bit relevant to this article. If anyone disagrees with my changes, please discuss it here, thank you. Broman178 (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M18_motorway_(Great_Britain)&oldid=1208148384"