Jump to content

Talk:M50 motorway

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

Edit warring

[edit]

Stop edit warring and discuss your changes on this talk page. I have protected this page for 24 hours. If the edit warring continues when the protection has expired then I will not be protecting it again but will instead block the offenders. Chillum 22:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If said user would actually discuss her changes, we wouldn't have this problem! :) Jeni (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If above editor discussed the changes on M1 we might not have this problem either. Rest assured Jeni, you are not the person on Chillum's watch-list. There is some history here. He looks after me. Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of a controversial change which you failed to discuss you'll find. I had to start the discussion on your behalf. Jeni (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to clarify, as my message has already been misunderstood, that I am not accusing anyone of edit warring here other than Sarah. Sarah, when multiple users revert your changes it is time to stop and go to the talk page to seek consensus. Regarding the history you mentioned, you will have to refresh my memory. I deal with many users on Wikipedia and I cannot remember them all. Chillum 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have taken a look it seems you are indeed on my watchlist. So is Jeni and this page. I really don't remember why or how, nor do I think it is relevant to the current situation. Chillum 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation or redirect?

[edit]

Please discuss the matter here and respect any consensus that forms through that discussion. Chillum 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguation - While the RoI M50 is more important than the UK M50, I don't think there is enough in it for a clear primary topic. Though I'm open to have my mind changed. Jeni (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The M50 around Dublin is the equivalent of the M25 around London. A quick google of "M50 motorway" shows 9 of the top 10 results refer to the Dublin road. There are hardly any clearer cases of "primacy"; not excluding the British M1. I wouldn't dispute that when people refer to "the M25" they generally mean only one thing; ditto the M50. Sarah777 (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't know if it is location-dependent, but when I just did a plain-old Google for "M50 Motorway" I got the following;
  • (1) Wikipedia re. UK (2) Wikpedia re. Ireland (3) CBRD 'motorway database' re. UK (4) 12go.co.uk re. UK (5) m50.ie re. Ireland (6) traffic-update.co.uk re. UK (7) AllExperts re. Ireland (8) absoluteastronomy re. Ireland (9) Wapedia re. Ireland
  • The second page shows; (10) Commons category M50 Motorway (which contains 6 images re. UK, 1 re. Ireland), (11) offmotorway.com re. UK, (12) ndp.ie re. Ireland, (13) workgateways.com re. Ireland, (14) motorwayservicesonline.co.uk re. UK, (15) m50.ie re. Ireland, (16) dlrcoco.ie re. Ireland
  • A statistics tool shows the following;
  • The pages have similar numbers of incoming links; GB shows 200, Ireland has 223.
I don't agree that, when people refer to "the M50", they generally mean the Irish one. I feel pretty confident that many thousands of people use the term daily to refer to the UK one.
In conclusion, although I certainly agree that the M50 Ireland is more notable in some respects, I don't feel that it is a clear primary topic, so I !vote to disambiguate.  Chzz  ►  21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. That precise reasoning was rejected when applied to the British M1. We cannot have double standards based on nationalism. Sarah777 (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Irish M50, which is arguably the most important motorway in Ireland (Dublin ring road). More to the point, the British M50 is remarkably unimportant, it's not as if it connects two major cities or relieves a major city. It seems to be largely redundant to the existence of the two Severn motorway bridges (M4 and M48). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The British M50 was apparently important enough that its constuction was rushed through before the connecting part of the M5 was built. With a mere 4:1 view count and level par on incoming links, the Irish M50 doesn't make for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC IMO. Compare the M1 situation, where the incoming links are 2:1 over all other uses. Arguably the Irish M50 is more important, but the numbers aren't strong enough to justify a change. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 4:1 view count isn't that mere if you consider the fact that there will be far more British users than Irish users of this site. My basic premise stands, the Irish M50 is arguably the most important motorway in Ireland, whereas the English M50 is a little known and used road that is now redundant to other routes.

Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Where our users come from is irrelevant. The important question is where a visitor from somewhere unrelated will want to go. The idea that the English M50 is somehow redundant is grossly mistaken, as anyone in the road haulage industry will tell you. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well it appears that four times as many are going to the Irish M50. Having the primary page as disam is of no benefit or cost for anyone looking for the English M50 - they would still have to click once to reach that page. Moving the page however to the Irish M50 would be of benefit to the majority of users looking for that page since they wouldn't have to click at all. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation. The Irish motorway is clearly more important than the English one in terms of its significance to its country's transport infrastructure transport, and it gets more hits. However, I don't hold with using hits or internal links as ranking tools, because they are measuring aspects of wikipedia rather than of any external reality, and we don't do self-references.
    Disambiguation is such a powerful tool for ensuring that links point where they are supposed to, and I see no advantage to readers in setting it aside in this case. But it's rather depressing to see British editors who scream "vandalism" when a British motorway is moved from being primary topic now coming to this article and applying a wholly different set of criteria. Some consistency, please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check BHG: you won't get consistency from folk who, in many cases, have no clue that they are being inconsistent! (Conditioning it's called). In other cases they will simply impose their preference for British primacy knowing that any "vote" will be heavily in favour of British pov. So when we have a fairly clear case (perhaps the only "M" example) of Irish primacy we should embrace it. Your vote here is not helpful as reciprocation is simply not going to happen. Sarah777 (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, my support for disambiguation is because I believe that's the best option. It's not part of any tactical game, and nor am I interested in "Irish primacy". I'm neither for nor against it; I just want ambiguous article titles disambiguated, and I really don't care for the politics around this technical issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a technical issue; unless you are blind it is obvious this is a political issue - we cannot have double standards when applying WP:COMMONAME - one for UK roads; another for everywhere else. To look at one road in isolation is complete nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, it seems to me that there is both a technical and a political issue here. The technical issue is whether to disambiguate, and I have taken a consistent view for years that the notion of a primary topic should be applied only when one topic is massively more important than all other topics with which there is ambiguity.
Others take a different view on the merits of a primary topic, which is fair enough in theory ... but where this becomes political is that there is a group of British editors who apply their criteria for a primary topic inconsistently, and shamelessly abuse admin powers to block those who disagree with them, threaten others with blocks, and protect pages at their preferred versions.
So I quite agree that the British editors are applying a double-standard as you describe, but I am not going to play the same game. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as far as I can see, the only person who thinks this is at all political is yourself. We need to look at each road on it's merits - these show that the British M1, M3 and M4 are clear examples of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that the British M2 and M50 are clearly not primary topics. Aditionally it is clear that no M2 is a primary topic. Whether the Irish M50 is the primary topic or whether there is no primary topic for that title is less clear - based on a pure headcount I make it 6-3 in favour of there being no primary topic, which I would not personally declare as a consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reality check: all a headcount proves is that there are more British than Irish editors here. We already know that! The Google count gives the M50 a 10 - 1 lead over the M50 in some remote part of England. The primacy of the Irish M50 is at least as obvious as the primacy of the British M1. More so, going by Google. Sarah777 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you are using google.ie for that count, as google.com doesn't produce quite the same stats. Talk about bias ;-) Jeni (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Would either of you care to look at what people are actually saying? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, obviously. What is your point, exactly? Sarah777 (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you and BrownHairedGirl are trying to make out that there is some sort of national bias here. A basic analysis of the comments shows that to be complete nonsense. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly on this page. Tfz 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I'm not a fan of the 'primacy' option for these Irish & British roads. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content of the dab page

[edit]

Some British editors have been trying to impose the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" in the disambiguation page.

The legal name of the Irish state is simply "Ireland", and the use of "Republic of Ireland" as a disambiguating term has long been contentious, which is why there is a huge arbcom-sanctioned collaboration exercise underway at WP:IECOLL to resolve it.

Much stability has been achieved by accepting that "Republic of Ireland" should be used in article text only where there is ambiguity, and that Ireland is acceptable in other cases. There is often some dispute about whether the ambiguity exists, but in this case there is none, because there is only one Dublin in the whole of Ireland, and only one M50 motorway.

So please don't use "Republic of Ireland" in this dab page. It's entirely un-needed, and its contentiousness simply guarantees that it will be reverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend, if we're going to use 'United Kingdom' in the descriptive for the British road? we should use 'Republic of Ireland|Ireland' for the Irish road. In truth, I'd rather go with no descriptives so as to avoid the geo-political stuff. Wouldn't ya'll agree? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is supposed to be discussed at the moment on the IRCOLL. Tfz 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could use 'Ireland (state)' he he. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, this is a disambiguation page, where we need to unambiguously describe where each road is (see examples at WP:MOSDAB), so each link is accompanied by a few explanatory words). There is nothing ambiguous about "Dublin, Ireland", so no need to use RoI.

I have no view on whether the M50 in the West of England is described as being in the "United Kingdom", "Great Britain" or "England". All are accurate and all are unambiguous, but I don't know which is preferred by the style guides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still recommend that we use Republic of Ireland|Ireland, thus making the country article appear as 'Ireland'. Right now, there's an inconsistancy using 'Great Britain' & 'Ireland' in the discriptives. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need, not ambiguous, and you have read imos and ircoll, haven't you? Tfz 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just concerned about the recent edit war. Sheepishly, I forgot about the IMOS & IRCOLL. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day; Great Britain does not include any part of Ireland; there is only one M50 in Ireland (the whole island) - so no dab required. And United Kingdom includes NI; there is only one M50 in the UK - so - no dab required. Yet we have British Admins edit warring in support of the dab. Go figure. Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's break'er down: There's no M50 within Northern Ireland, correct? GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The basic georgaphical facts are that there are three road numbering schemes for motorways with the British Isles, two of which contain a road named "M50". Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Geographical facts about road numbering the British Isles
  • In the British Isles there are two sovereign states, from largest to smallest by area they are:
    • The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
      • Great Britain consists of England, Scotland and Wales on the island of Britain and associated minor islands belonging to each of the three constituent countries.
      • Northern Ireland consists of six counties in the north-west of the island of Ireland, and some associated minor islands.
    • Ireland. Frequently called The Republic of Ireland when it is necessary to distinguish between it and Northern Ireland.
      • This consists of approximately five sixths of the island of Island and some associated minor islands.
  • There also exists the Isle of Man, a self-governing crown dependency of the United Kingdom, but it is not part of the United Kingdom and is not one of the minor islands mentioned above.
    • There are no other states or countries involved, and only the island of Ireland and the island of Britain are divided (other than at the lowest tier of local government). The Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles.
  • There are four road numbering schemes in operation in the British Isles. From largest to smallest by geographical area they are:
    • Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales, and islands that are part of one of these countries)
    • (Republic of) Ireland
    • Northern Ireland
    • Isle of Man.
  • All use the same style of road numbering, i.e. a letter denoting the class of road (e.g. A) followed by a number unique* within the area of that scheme (e.g. 1) to produce a number such as A1. (*at least in Great Britain there are duplicated numbers, but that is not relevant to this discussion)
  • For non-motorway roads, the (Republic of) Ireland scheme uses the prefix letters N, R and L (e.g. N1, R105, L4202) from highest importance to lowest importance. The N prefix (and possibly the others) are also used by other countries outside the British Isles (e.g. France) and may be ambiguous with them.
  • The other three schemes all use A and B prefixes (e.g. A1, B100), and so a single number can be ambiguous between all three (e.g. "A1" refers to a road from London to Edinburgh in Great Britain; In Northern Ireland it refers to a road from Belfast south to the border with (the Republic of) Ireland; and on the Isle of Man it is the Douglas to Peel road). The A and B prefixes are also used by other countries outside the British Isles (e.g. Spain) and may be ambiguous with them.
  • There are no motorways on the Isle of Man, so that system does not contain a prefix for this class of road, and so that system is not relevant to discussions such as this one.
  • The other three systems (Great Britain, Northern Ireland and (the Republic of) Ireland) all use an M1 prefix to denote motorways, and so numbers can be ambiguous between all three. For example each system has a motorway named "M1". No number is used more than once in each scheme.
  • The schemes used in Great Britain and Northern Ireland both also use the Ax(M) numbering format for some motorways (where x is a number, e.g A1(M)). Despite the potential for there to be so, there are no duplicates and so as of 2009 they are all unique. I don't think that this designation is used anywhere else in the world.
  • The (Republic of) Ireland scheme and the Great Britain scheme both include a motorway called "M50".
    • The road in Ireland consists of a C-shaped road around the north-eastern, northern, western and southern sides of Dublin; it was first proposed in 1971, and was opened in 2005 and 2006.
    • The road in Great Britain is a 21-mile spur of the M5 that runs from just north of Tewkesbury to Ross-on-Wye, wholly in England. Together with the non-Motorway A40 and A449 it forms the major route between South Wales and the Midlands. It was constructed between 1960 and 1962. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. There is only one M50 in the British Isles. There is also one in Ireland, which may be confusing you. Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "fact" that the M50 opened in 2005 and 2006 will be news to those of us who travelled on it a decade before then.
I enjoyed too the way that this list of "facts" described the English M50 as a "major route", whereas the Dublin one is just described as "C-shaped".
And to complete the comedy act, Jeni has reinstated this mishmash with another of the comic "warnings" she likes giving to anyone who disagrees that a British Article Is Always A Primary Topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing legitimate article talk page comments is wrong, come on, you are an admin, you of all people should know that! But then again, I wouldn't expect you to disagree with someone else from Ireland, hell will freeze over before that happens. Jeni (talk) 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeni, you obviously haven't been paying much attention if you haven't noticed my disagreements with other Irish editors.
And y'know Jeni, I know a lot of things as an admin. I know that the consensus process breaks down when people like you mass together to apply criteria inconsistently to suit your purposes, and that sooner or later this sort of thing ends up at arbcom.
But I also that hell will freeze over before you can grasp that your Britain=No.1 equation is actually not NPOV, so while I don;t apprive of some of sarah's actions, I can well understand why she sometimes get provoked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the opening dates of the Irish road, I was going by what the article says in its lead section "The M50 was first proposed in the Dublin Transportation Study of 1971. The completed M50 motorway was formally opened on 30 June 2005, although the Dublin Port Tunnel, which had been opened on 20 December 2006, also forms part of the route.". If that is wrong or misleading, then it needs correcting/changing so that others do not make the same mistake as me. I've just had another read of the article, and other than the proposal in 1971 the only date earlier than 2005 in the article is an external link to "Roads Act 1993 (Classification of National Roads) Order 2006 – Department of Transport", and as this is not tied to any particular part of the text it is unclear what its relationship to the road is. Regarding the "British Isles", I was using the definition from the first sentence of the British Isles article - "The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." which is cited and there is consensus on the talk of that article for that precise wording. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before in these discussions, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and editors should not rely on wikipedia as evidence of anything. The M50 article illustrates that limitation rather well.
As to the "British Isles", the problem is that the supposed "consensus" Talk:British Isles reflects the British view of acceptable terminology, because British editors refuse to acknowledge that Irish people don't accept being part of the "British" isles. If you bother to read History of Ireland (or better still read a real history book!), you might discover that we had to fight a war to escape British rule, after British democracy didn't extend as far as accepting the democratic will of the Irish people as expressed in the 1918 election. Ninety years later, it still seems to be hard for some British people to understand that calling Ireland a "British" island is just more the same imperial mentality, and that it's highly offensive.
Would you find this a little easier to understand if we had an influx of German editors who renamed Great Britain as "Little Germany" in honour of your German monarch? Or if they applied the popular German name for Britain, which is Afe Insel ("Ape Island")? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the total crap on this page has now moved on to bashing the British Isles as well. How wonderful. Oh and by the way if you are calling Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II German then you are basically saying only white people can be British, is that a position you hold Brownhairdgirl? As for Ape Island, it some times amazes me the people they give admin tools to on this site. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britishwatcher, it's time to upgrade your irony sensors. I wasn't advocating either of those things; I was citing those two hypothetical impositions as examples of the same flawed logic that leads to Ireland being called a "British" island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Irish Sea Irish? Is the Sea of Japan Japanese?. Things can still be offensive even if they are justified as "irony". I have lost my sense of humour on these motorway articles some time ago, its all become so pathetic and repetitive. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress, BritishWatcher; you're getting there. Offensiveness of imposed terminology was my central point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol , British Isles states its offensive to some, this matter is not hidden but we cant stop using something because it offends a few people.BritishWatcher (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting logic. If you apply it consistently, then you obviously think it'd be fair enuf to address you as ApeIslandWatcher? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable neutral sources using the British Isles, can the same be said for a slur like Ape island? There are words that refer to people that are very offensive and should not be used today, i somehow dont think a geographical term used for centuries is on the same level though. If the BBC, the masters of political correctness can still use British Isles, then its clearly not as offensive as made out here on wikipedia by the anti British Isles brigade. Folens and Irish publisher only stopped using British Isles a few years ago for Ireland, it continues to use it in the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to go back all that far to find plenty of "reliable neutral sources" which spoke of "the Negro", but thankfully that's not the word used on wikipedia to describe Offaly's most famous son, Barry O'Bama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ape Island! You actually made me chuckle there BHG. Jack forbes (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a TV show channel 4 would air. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just chancing upon this discussion, I'm at a loss to understand why one of the roads is not called on this page [[M50 motorway (Great Britain)|M50 motorway (England)]], "a road in England"? - assuming that article name needs to be retained as it is for reasons of consistency. I'm sure I'm missing an obvious flaw, but I'm not sure what. None of it is in Wales (and it's not "remote" or "obscure" to me - I'll be driving on it tomorrow). Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all named following the Great Britain road numbering scheme there for all motorways in Great Britain that do not have the primary spot should be at that location. Ive seen a couple of Motorway (Scotland) articles. Once the road wars has died out i intend to move those so its consistent. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but why does the GB numbering scheme need to be applied to this disamb page, where the object is simply to differentiate between the motorway in England and the one in Ireland? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i wouldnt object to it saying M50 motorway (Great Britain) "a road in England". But piping isnt meant to be used on dab pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things aren't "meant" to happen. WP:UCS - "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule." That may be the case here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are very good practical reasons for not using pipes in dab pages: they bugger up attempts to disambiguate. Please don't do it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why it should not remain GB. The RM taking place at M18 motorway shows opposition to use of England for its title, i dont see why we need pipes, although i agree with changing UK to a road in England. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BW, I love the way you put things. Your comment "Ive seen a couple of Motorway (Scotland) articles. Once the road wars has died out i intend to move those so its consistent" makes me wonder why anyone would bother to discuss things with you, as you appear to decide these things for yourself. Jack forbes (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lol, the verdict on the other motorway articles showing strong opposition to moving on to (England) and only support for moving it to (Great Britain) shows that is the right method to use across GB motorway articles. There for i will move them to correct places, i will probably do an RM so do not worry :) BritishWatcher (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I will argue against it, so I'll see you there. Jack forbes (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well since we are pre-empting that discussion, I'll make it clear now that I'll support it. Jeni (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are your reasons for not wanting them to be moved to (Great Britain) so they are in line with the majority of GB Motorways which are not at the primary spot and use GB rather than England and Scotland? BritishWatcher (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making that clear. As we are on the M50 motorway talk page can I put forward a suggestion on that. As`we are an encyclopedia and we do want to inform our readers, may I suggest moving the page to M50 motorway (England, Great Britain). Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem at all with (England, Great Britain) or (Scotland, Great Britain). If others would support that then its fine with me, but GB is more appropriate than England or Scotland alone. It might be worth mentioning this over at M18 where theres alot of eyes on that RM process to try and get feedback on how others would feel. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With appologies for getting further off the topic of the M50 I will strongly oppose any move to anything other than primary topic or (Great Britain) for British motorways (obviously which roads get primary topic will depend on the relative importances of all the roads that share that particular number). Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why you would strongly oppose it? Jack forbes (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, your suggestion of "England, Great Britain" serves no purpose. As a disambiguator is required to make a unique name, and should be the shortest that will achieve that uniqueness. Since there's no England outside GB, the "Great Britain" in "England, Great Britain" is superfluous. Use one or the other, but not both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the discussions above. Note the instances of editors mentioning the M50 as an English road, yourself amongst them. This reflects the real world in that most people will not think M50 (or any other English motorway), Great Britain, but M50, England. My suggestion was an attempt to compromise with those who believe Great Britain should be used. If (England, Great Britain) is not considered a reasonable alternative then M50 (England) is, I believe, the only alternative. Jack forbes (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there's a good case to be made for M50 (England), but while the desire to compromise is great, the result isn't. "England, Great Britain" is unnecessarily verbose, and I can't see it satisfying anyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The objections raised on this page to "M50 motorway (Great Britain)" are not because of the choice of "Great Britain" for a disambiguator but an objection to it not being the primary topic and thus taking no disambiguation. While it is true that the British M50 is entirely in England and is thus an English motorway, it is also a British motorway, and all motorway numbers are unique within the Great Britain numbering scheme so there is never a need to dismabiguatate between motorways in different parts of Great Britain. Also, if either the M4 or M48 need disambiguating they would need to take (England and Wales, Great Britain) or (Wales and England, Great Britain) as the disambiguator in your scheme (there is more M4 in England than Wales, but more M48 in Wales than England). A truly pedantic interpretation would also require (A74(M) England and Scotland, Great Britain) or (A74(M) Scotland and England, Great Britain) as [1] shows the southern end of the A74(M) a few hundred yards south of the English-Scottish border. A (Great Britain) disambiguator solves all these problems, and is also the disambiguator used by non-motorway roads (e.g. A7 road (Great Britain)). Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Mx motorway (England and Wales) is clumsy, and Mx motorway (England and Wales, Great Britain) is even worse -- the "Great Britain" is the latter is superfluous and breaches the basic naming convention of keeping disambiguated names as short as possible whilst remaining unambiguous. However, most motorways in Great Britain are entirely within one or other of the UK's constituent countries, with only about 3 exceptions, so in most cases it's a choice between Mx motorway (England)/Mx motorway (Scotland) and Mx motorway (Great Britain).
Making that choice depends largely on whether editors want to standardise the disambiguator across all motorways in GB; if they do, which Mx motorway (Great Britain) will be unique in all cases. However, the Scots are unlikely to agree to M8 motorway (Scotland) being renamed as M8 motorway (Great Britain), so I see no reason to disparage Mx motorway (England) for mways solely in England, if that's what English editors want.
I have already created redirects from Mx (Great Britain) for every mway in GB (because that was the only way to get {{Ukmotorwaysmall}} to stop producing redlinks), so for the convenience of editors working on motorways in Great Britain, a link to Mx motorway (Great Britain) will always work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Actually, being pedantic, the A74(M) doesn't enter England, its the M6 that now enters Scotland by a few hundred yards (since December last year). Jeni (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M50_motorway&oldid=1203813116"