Template talk:Motorways in the United Kingdom

This template was considered for deletion on 17 May 2021. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

A1(M)

Regarding the A1(M) redirect... I decided to leave it as A1(M) motorway deliberately a page for the motorway(s) themselves may yet be made... the A3(M) motorway and A38(M) motorway were similar occurences. Erath 17:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

M96 "motorway"?

The M96 motorway should not be on this list; it's not a real motorway, it's not even open to the public - this isn't what this box is aiming to provide. Let's leave "motorways" like that to Pathetic Motorways and keep the real ones here?

Not going to blindly revert, what does everyone else think? Erath 17:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - bin it. It's not even in the right zone :) Owain 17:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've being playing with the template partly because a fruitless attempt to find the A8(M) in Scotland indicated a need for an NI indication, and partly to get the M-way and A(M) bits with the same fmt. Would a left alignment be better than centred? jimfbleak 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, just need to restore the bottom GB roads link to the darker shade I think. Erath 17:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding

The bolding of the various articles in the list is not related to the degree of importance (no-one in their right mind would consider the M9 a more important motorway than the M62) but rather to delineate the various motorway "zones" by which the list is arranged. Erath 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By region?

Is it worthwhile/possible to group the motorways by region? Otherwise the template seems a bit abstract... maybe that's the point? Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...or is that already what's happening zone-wise in the subgroups? (Sorry for any ignorance.) Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No A635(M)?

Although unsigned, the A635(M)actually exists as a motorway under the Statutory Instrument. Is it okay to include it in this list? --Marianian (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in link format

At the moment the link "A57(M) (Mancunian Way)" sticks out like a sore thumb as the only link that has a name as well as a number. When I changed the link to "A57(M)" for consistency, another editor reverted with the reason "This particular motorway's article has a name rather than a designation. If there's a consistency problem, it's the article that needs to change." I don't see that as a valid argument -- what is appropriate for a template link and what is appropriate for an article name are two separate questions. A precedent in this template is already set, in that links to the "Leeds Inner Ring Road" article appear as "A58(M)" and "A64(M)". Thoughts? -- Dr Greg talk 15:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree consistency is preferable. Why on earth was that article moved to "Mancunian Way" though? Very dubious that is the "common name" (apart perhaps in Manchester itself, although even that is questionable) and it's certainly not the proper name. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring

it would be great if we could stick with the default colouring as provided by MediaWiki:common.css (per wp:deviations). this will help achieve uniform appearance across articles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to reading the rationale for the latest revert. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]