Template talk:Motorways in the United Kingdom
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This template was considered fordeletion on17 May 2021. The result ofthe discussion was "no consensus". |
Regarding the A1(M) redirect... I decided to leave it asA1(M) motorway deliberately a page for the motorway(s) themselves may yet be made... theA3(M) motorway andA38(M) motorway were similar occurences.Erath 17:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
TheM96 motorway shouldnot 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 toPathetic Motorways and keep the real ones here?
Not going to blindly revert, what does everyone else think?Erath17:10, 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?jimfbleak15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thebolding 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.Erath21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
it would be great if we could stick with the default colouring as provided byMediaWiki:common.css (perwp:deviations). this will help achieve uniform appearance across articles. thank you.Frietjes (talk)18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
