Talk:M25 motorway/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Footers in Junction lists

A dispute has broken out between an IP-user and me as to how readers should be notified that the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers. The rationale behind this is that UK drivers expect everything to be in miles and could be taken by surprise to find that the distances shown on driver location signs (which are highly visible - see image on right of a driver location sign on the M27) are in kilometres. The use of kilometres rather than miles violates the principle of least astonishment. In my view, it is better that readers be exposed to this when they are sitting at their computers rather than sitting at the steering wheel. For this reason I have been including the text "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway." The IP-user has been removing that text. We have both had an edit-warring warning. What do other editors feel. Martinvl (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

It is astonishing, in my view, that s/he would want to remove a straight-forward, informative piece-of-advice from the articles.
I fully endorse their inclusion on our motorway articles ... no, more than that ... I insist that they are replaced and maintained –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 08:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

~~I feel that the IP editor's behaviour is catastrophic.~~ I do not in any way deny their right to want to change things and to improve the encyclopaedia. What I detest, though, is the single-issue-crusader approach in which an editor decides that Something Is Wrong And Must Be Fixed and goes off and makes the same edit across 963 articles without any discussion. If they are an experienced editor then they should know better; if they are not, then they need it explaining to them that this is not the way to behave. I know that most of us here are probably somewhere on some spectrum or another but, blimey, when someone edits that dysfunctionally I wonder it they should be editing at all. How can they be SO insensitive as to not see what they are doing, and that their one-issue thing is just splashing all over the careful work of many others? It cheeses me off. I feel that people should never, but never, start on a crusade like this without consensus; and that that consensus should be reached if possible at the appropriate project page or similar. ~~The~~ >Any editor wanting mass changes has to be honest and say "I want to change/remove/whatever every appearance of (whatever), what do you think?" ~~To just launch in like this is I feel disruptive, dishonest, disingenuous: not good, in summary. I've seen it so many times and it's very depressing.~~ ~~Every change of this type by this editor should be reverted without further discussion and they should be forced back to an appropriate forum to discuss what they want to do.~~ If they achieve consensus for it - great! Really, seriously, that's great. Then they can just put it in the edit summary ("removing X per discussion at Y") - it gives so much more strength and support to what they want to do. But without it, it's just a mess. It may or may not be a good change (I personally don't like it but so what?) but to make it over a range of articles needs consensus. ~~Revert revert.~~ No offence meant, best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Struck some intemperate comments.DBaK (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! DBaK. — Totally agree with all that.
I have put my slant on this issue above.
Of course, the old wrangle over our still using miles/gallons rather than kilometres/litres related to our driving in the UK will continue to raise tempers –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl: the articles in question already make it very clear to readers that "the kilometre reading in the road junction lists are the actual readings that are visible to readers", with this note at the bottom of each junction list: "Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts".

Gareth: Wikipedia has a policy of presenting the neutral point of view and presenting information in miles in UK-related road articles. The junction lists have a column of miles and a column for km. A note at the top, and another at the bottom of each junction table already point out that the km values are from the roadside marker posts.

BBaK: I share your distaste of the single-issue-crusader approach, which is why I reverted the crusading pov-push edits that Martinvl, an editor who has been in trouble before, and involved in many acrimonious discussions before, for doing similar things in other articles, including those related to allegations of his gaming the system to push metrication into articles related to the Falkland Islands. Recently he has started to visit each motorway article in turn, and, without any discussion at all, adding blatantly anti-mile messages to them. It is that that I removed.

The pov-push edits that I was responding to were these in which transparently anti-mile content was added to the already adequate information: M25, M2, M54, M48, M45, M27, M3, M26, M42, M23, M18.

Let's recap. The motorway junction lists already have a note at the top, and some two notes; with one at the bottom too, explaining that the km numbers are from the roadside posts. If they are also to now have an extra note conveying thinly-veiled anti-mile usage POV, a discussion on the wording for that needs to be held first. 212.183.128.207 (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is that of verifiability. In the case of road distance markers, it is axiomatic that to satisfy verifiability, the kilometre values must be mentioned - those are the values that are posted around the English motorways (See picture above). Miles are an optional extra, but because every other distance sign on British roads in miles, we must follow the principal of principle of least astonishment. Maybe a review of how we convey this information to readers is appropriate, but whatever we write, it must be crystal clear that if the readers wishes to correlate what we write with what is on the motorway, then he must discard the British habit of ignoring the kilometre values, otherwise he will not be able to make the correlation when he is driving. My own view is that we should discard all the other reminders about kilometres, write the miles column in italics so that it is drawn to the attention of the reader and explain in the footnote that the values in italics are not displayed on the motorway. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The source of the numbers is already adequately spelt out, without the redundant note. How many times in one table do we need to say the same thing?

And talking about verifiability, how can readers verify that the numbers on the posts are actually kilometres, because, as we see in the photo above, the units are not declared on the posts or signs. Surely we need to remove "km" from the table and replace it with something like "DLS label" or "MP label", or similar without introducing OR such as "km". 212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear - if I have stumbled in and had a go at the wrong person, or half of the right people, or some variant thereof, then I apologise. I'd stick by my opposition to editing sprees without consensus, obviously, and I'd love to know where's the best place to reach this consensus - UK Roads or something? - or does it already exist perhaps? we need an agreed practice for all these articles, clearly, and I'm not clear whether this talk page, or somewhere further up the food chain, is more appropriate. Sorry if I was rude to anyone. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No probs. See my proposal below, to understand exactly, and all, that I am trying to do. 212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

My current proposal is to both:

Retain the note at the top of the table as it is today:
"Data from driver location signs provide carriageway identifier information. The numbers on the signs are kilometres from..."
To replace this note at the bottom of the table:
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."
with this one:
"Distances in kilometres and carriageway identifiers are obtained from driver location signs/location marker posts. Where a junction spans several hundred metres and the data is available, both the start and finish values for the junction are shown."

And thus removing the one, POV sensitive and redundant sentence, this one: "Miles are provided for information only, but are not displayed on the motorway"212.183.140.3 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

24 hours on, and no objections, or any comments at all. Let's do it then. 212.183.140.38 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Random comment: most junction lists in the United States have been displaying both miles and kilometers for almost an entire year. --Rs chen 7754 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Project importance

Perhaps a naive question, but why is this article of "high" importance to the East Anglia project and "low" to the Kent and Hertfordshire project? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Another inconsistency. Well done that man for pointing it out!
The influence is, if not equal which is my view, then of greater importance to the counties than to the East Anglia region. Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Foul play?

I would like to object to the actions of two editors on this article. They are ganging up against me, and threatening me with being blocked from editing because I have objected to their insistence that incomprehensible jargon that was only added about 7 hours ago must be left in place, and that if I don't like it, the onus is on me to raise a discussion about it, but I must not remove it. Obviously I don't want to break any rules, but I'm not sure that what they are doing is legitimate. Can anyone help me here please. Cobhama (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The way forward and to avoid edit warring, is to make your proposal here on the talk page and allow the community to discuss your proposal. Clearly two editors have already objected so discussion here is really the only solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The M25 executes what is known by certain road enthusiast geeks as a "TOTSO" (Turn Off To Stay On) (See List of road-related terminology). User:Cobhama’s originally objected to the use of the word “slip-road”, but in his wording he went to the opposite extreme and removed any indication that one had to actually branch off the main carriageway to continue following the M25. All that I did was to reinstate the concept of the TOTSO, but by using wording from the DfT glossary and in particular to replace the word "slip road" with the word "connector road". Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we just give Cobhama a chance to explain what he wants it to say and why? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first arrived at the article it contained a confusing and misleading description of junction 5, suggesting that M25 drivers had to use slip-roads to continue their journey. At first I deleted that paragraph as nonsense, which it was. But then, after realising that the purpose of the paragraph was to describe how the traffic route through that junction differed subtly from all other junctions on the motorway, I reworded it. I avoided the misleading connotations of the term slip-road, and after a couple of cycles involving two other editors (one of whom seemed reluctant to drop the slip-road term) the paragraph settled into something which was quite clear.

Then, some time later, the editor who had previously repeatedly restored the slip-road term, rewrote the paragraph in its entirety, not only using specialist jargon which would be difficult for others to understand, but also changing it so that it was no longer describing how the junction flow differed from that at others, but more as if it was an exercise to attempt to fit as many highway engineering terms, from a newly discovered glossary of such terms, into a single sentence as possible.

The resultant paragraph was what I objected to. It had been unilaterally and discourteously dropped into the article in place of the paragraph evolved by the three of us collaborating, and without any discussion and with no sympathy or synergy with what was there before. And then, when I attempted to restore the collaborative paragraph, both he and another editor acted as a tag-team to frustrate my efforts and then to both accuse me of making the undiscussed changes (changes to the undiscussed and incomprehensible addition)!

I see that that other editor has now made another (undiscussed) change to that paragraph - using more words from those he has copied and pasted into a glossary from his newly found highway engineering manual.

If standard English can be used and jargon avoided then why not? Cobhama (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Which items of jargon do you not understand? I think that "main carriageway" and "connector roads" are self-explanatory. If you use other words you risk compromising the interity of the article as happened whren you used the word "split". I think that User talk:Cobhama is confusing "jargon" and "concise language". To put this into perspective, the term "SLR Camera" is jargon, but the term "Single-lens reflex camera" is concise language. Concise language is usually standard Englosh. Martinvl (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ironic typo. I don't agree that SLR camera is "jargon", it's an abbreviation. You wouldn't consider BBC News to be jargon, would you? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree.
... but back to the matter in hand, I like this version by Martinvl very much. Just right, in my opinion.
Cheers –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This paragraph, or should that be mega-sentence (64 words in total with no full-stop ) is still confusing and imprecise, and inaccurate. Where is the evidence that the M25 was ever known as the "A25 relief road"; the quotation marks suggest that to be a direct quote from somewhere, from where? Cobhama (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reworded the paragraph and have clarified the citation. Are you happy now? Martinvl (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The first mega-sentence (47 words) of that additional, still undiscussed, change belongs in the history section along with the other descriptions of the planning evolution. And where does the "A25 relief road" quote come from? And why does that quote link to an article which does not mention an A25 relief road at all? The second sentence, although still unclear, could be tweaked to describe (this is the description section don't forget) what it is about junction 5 that makes it different from any of the other 30, or so, junctions. Cobhama (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I've moved (and reworded slightly for the sake of accuracy and clarity) the history to the history section and re-described j5. How does that look? Cobhama (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In dumbing the language down, you have removed clarity. I have restored it and ensured that ~~every bit of techincal language is wikilinked - this is what Wikipedia is all about~~ what little technical language is language that appears on UK roadsigns - in particular the phrase "main carraigeway" appears on signs 7231, 7232 and 7261 in Schedule 12 of the TSRGD (Also see TSRGD). ~~Martinvl (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)~~ Martinvl (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You completely removed the point of that paragraph though, which was to describe that j5 is different from all the other junctions. Or were you going to explain the alignment and characteristics of each of the other 30 junctions too for consistency? Cobhama (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Your petulant, stubborn attitude will serve you only ill-feeling from established editors. Your editing history demonstrates a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Editor Martinvl's version is an accurate and encyclopaedic one and has the support of the other involved editors. It is best to walk away –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 06:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Now, thanks to my perseverance, we at least have a comprehensible paragraph, but I can't believe how vehemently resistant you are to adding context to it. It needs context to integrate it into the section as a whole. It currently stands out in like a sore thumb. Readers will wonder why, in the middle of the description section, there is such a detailed description of the layout of just junction 5, and of no other of the 30 junctions. It needs context to make it clear that it is subtly different from the rest, as it did have originally. Read the section as if you were a new reader to see my point, and stop being so obstructive, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort to create informative and enjoyable content, not a battle to exclude content because you don't like the attitude of its contributor. ~~Grow up~~. Cobhama (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest you spend more time commenting on the content, and not asking other editors to "grow up".... I think Gareth will agree that he's plenty "grown up"....! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you only read the last two words of my last post, missing my lengthy comments on the content? Cobhama (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but please don't use Wikipedia to directly insult other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Did you tell Gareth off for making his his insulting remarks, the ones I was reacting too? Cobhama (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not my job to do that. Now get on with discussing the content, not the contributor, this is becoming terribly dull. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it your job to tell me off because you thought I was insulting other editors? Cobhama (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me put another slant on things. Some years ago there was an article on Wikipedia TOTSO. This article was removed in 2009 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TOTSO. I tried to restore it, but failed. My text is here. As a result of this discussion, I tried to avoid using the word “TOTSO”. For the record, the word “TOTSO” is catalogued in List of road-related terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

J10 Destination list

I have realigned the destination list for junction to reflect those shown on the main carriageway. The M25 Anti-clockwise shows London(SW), Guildford and Kingston while the M25 Clockwise shows London (SW & C), Portsmouth & Guildford. Martinvl (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Why only show those destinations shown on the main carriageway? And why not show the same for both directions as both slip-roads arrive at the same roundabout and thus all destinations are available from both directions? Cobhama (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Until we can decide whether to add destinations not shown on the main carriageway, or indeed whether to show all of those shown on the main carriageway, I'll restore those which ARE shown on the Google views of the main carriageways. On the main carriageway of the M25 clockwise we can clearly see Wisley RHS Gardens, Sandown Park and Hampton Court Palace, whilst on the M25 anticlockwise we can also see Chessington World of Adventures. Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Misleading stats

Just to clarify: the 2007 source I have cited confirms that the western stretch is the busiest stretch of motorway in the country and on an annual average (which of course includes the weekends) the per day figure is considerably lower than the heaviest traffic day cited from 2003. Some of the other distances and terms given were vague which did not therefore conform with the Manual of Style. The plaintive style overall was clear from adjectives used, and conflicted with WP:NPOV before my latest edit. Adam37 (talk) 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Junction 5 in the description section

Why is there a detailed description of the layout of junction 5, but of no other of the 30 junctions in the description section?

I thought the reason was because it is subtly different to all the others, in that unlike the others, the M25 route does not follow the mainline through that junction. And that characteristic is only apparent to motorists because they have to take the left-hand branch at the junction diverge, whereas they take the right-hand branch at the diverges of all other junctions to stay on the M25 route.

If this is the reason that it alone is described, then I think we should add that as context to the description. If that isn't the reason, then we need to explain the reason. On the other hand, if there is no reason, then we probably need to describe the layouts of all of the other junctions too for consistency. Cobhama (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The layout of Junction 5 has its quirks, but no more than any other junction - what is different is that to stay on the M25 you have to leave the main carriageway. In the United Kingdom, one always leaves the main carriageway of a motorway on the left so emphasising it at this point is no more than teaching grandmother to suck eggs. Martinvl (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The quirk of j5 which singles it out from the other junctions on the M25 is its layout. To describe in detail the layout, but not to mention that it is unique or why it is explained in such detail is ridiculous. Your assertion that it is unnecessary to mention that is absurd because it relies on the risky assumption that all readers are familiar with the layout of junctions on British motorways. Not forgetting that although it is unique on the M25 in this respect, there are other junctions on other UK motorways with similar requirements. Cobhama (talk) 21:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

More than 24 hours now, and no challenge to my rationale for explaining how it differs from the others. Can I therefore assume that everyone interested now accepts what I'm saying, and that I can now add it to the article without being accused of edit warring again? Cobhama (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No. What needs to be added to ... At Junction 5, the clockwise carriageway of the M25 is routed off the main north-south dual carriageway onto the main east-west dual carriageway with the main north-south carriageway becoming the A21. In the opposite direction, to the east of the point where the M25 diverges from the main east-west carriageway, that carriageway become the M26 motorway ... that would be other than words just for the sake of it?
As Martin puts it succinctly above, "... what is different is that to stay on the M25 you have to leave the main carriageway. In the United Kingdom, one always leaves the main carriageway of a motorway on the left ..." That's enough. It does not require more. Cheers! –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Gareth. I'm sure you can support that 'no' with a reasoned explanation, and you're not just saying it to be obstreperous. Please try to convince me why we should describe the layout of j5 without giving context for _why_ we are describing it but not all the other junctions too. Cobhama (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think readers, especially those unfamiliar with UK motorway norms and terminology, or even unfamiliar with the term motorway, will think - huh, so what; and why did they only tell me that about j5 and nothing about how j1, j2, j3,... j30 work? Cobhama (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the person reading the article was not familiar with UK motorway terms, they could very quickly work them out from the context in which they are used or they could follow the Wikilink to a description of the term. Also, if a person does not know what the term term "mnotorway" means when they see

in the article's infobox probably does not have a driving licence. Moreover that type of symbol appears at the entrance to every motorway in Europe and also on any other motorway that adhere to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals (Also see Comparison of European road signs). Martinvl (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You couldn't make it up - could you! What has whether they have a driving licence, or whether they know the significance of a motorway sign, in a country driving on the left, got to do with anything? Why not simply briefly say how the junction is unique? It's be better to leave it out altogether than to leave it in with no context or reason. Cobhama (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How are the readers supposed to know that if we don't put it in the article - that's what I'm saying! That's almost exactly what I added and what was then removed, and you are now arguing not to add. Please make your mind up - do you want that explained, or not, and if not, why not!

And, why don't you put your responses, the ones in reply to mine, after mine - so that it makes sense for anyone else to read later, rather than all together further up the page and out of context with the discussion? Cobhama (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please remember, as I'm sure you're aware, there is no deadline here. We can wait a couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rambling. Why wait if there is no objection? Presumably, if someone turns up in the future and doesn't see why we should explain the context, they can edit it out, again. And why do I have to wait to add my content, where Martinvl was to allowed to ~~destroy~~ rewrite the whole paragraph without any discussion or explanation at all? Cobhama (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice now, well after having chosen to edit this article for deficiencies having identified a few in the M11 article, not least poor wording and a misleading diagram encouraging widening of all of that motorway, that J5 prompted three sections of arguing without real drive toward CONSENSUS, say by having a vote. Please will users say whether they believe my attempt to use plain English, including in the section that narrates the debated junction should stay? Keep this? I obviously support this. Adam37 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The version arrived at, after much discussion here, should not have been removed without the consensus of interested editors (not "users") –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the description of j5 needs improving. The current version was imposed _without_ consensus. I tried to discuss its problems and improvements, as you can see, but my criticisms have not been adequately answered, and my attempts at improvement have bee spurned. Let's try and sort this mess out now. Cobhama (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Junction 5

On the Junctions list it says that you can access M26 Eastbound fron junction 5 on the M25 Anticlockwise and not clockwise. This is the exact opposite, and also to access A21 (S) from M25 Clockwise. See Link. This image is on the M26 Eastbound beginning just after the M25 uses a slip road.Kentm (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi User:Cobhama, Please don't invent your own language - the DfT vocabulary is taken from a British Standard. You use of the word "divides" hides the fact that the M25 through route uses connector roads to get from one main carriageway to the other - known to road geeks as a "TOTSO" - "Turn Off To Stay On". There used to be a Wikipedia artcile TOTSO, but it was deleted, but not before theDutch article and German article were written. Martinvl (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Invent my own language! From someone who appears to believe that obscure DfT jargon, even if taken from a British Standard, takes precedence over plain English, and then uses phrases such as 'grade separated junction' and TOTSO? Unbelievable. Why use special words or expressions that might be difficult for others to understand when there are plenty of alternative ways of saying the same thing using plain English? Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If you intend editing road and motorway articles here, I would suggest you familiarise yourself first with expressions such as grade separation which you do not appear to have heard before. –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you suppose that me doing that will help other readers from across the English speaking world understand the DfT jargon, even if it is taken from a British Standard? Cobhama (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Now you are being absurd –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 11:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to weigh in on this recent debate a sense of duty to explain is required in articles on major national topics such as the West Coast Main Line and it is acceptable to use common jargon for railways there, just as it is for roads here. Please go to the trouble to explain meanings in footnotes (not references) where users have complained or indeed in brackets into plain English if the jargon is often explained in government or quasi-government publications. As to the wording of why Junction 5 deserves special mention you will see from my re-write it is far clearer how this junction operates and why it meets notability. I would merely ask you to compare American freeways for all kinds of plain English to describe roads, and to avoid using pure Anglo-norman administrativese when describing how lanes work. Adam37 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that Adam37's wording was clearer. Also, what "Anglo-norman administrativese" does he find objectionable. For the record, the wording "Main carriageway" is the wording shown on British road signs. Martinvl (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The terse and legalese language used on road signs can hardly be described as plain, or even common, English. We can, indeed must, do better than that, Also, we need to explain why j5 is given a whole paragraph, yet the other 30 junctions are not even mentioned, in the description section. Cobhama (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of counties, and linkage

Hi. I undid three edits from 81.159.88.77 (and then restored one removing an unwanted capital) but I'd like to discuss them.

Number of counties

Changed from six to seven and back. What are we counting here? Should be easy...

Linkage in the junctions table

I restored a link to the A3 on the right hand side of the table. Looking at it again, I now wonder if that was right. Is there a set of rules regarding how this table is linked? If so, I am not quite getting it. Please enlighten me.

Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090719090854/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/capacityrequirements/dartfordrivercrossing/chap1execsummary.pdf to http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/capacityrequirements/dartfordrivercrossing/chap1execsummary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Opening date

I reverted the opening date to 1975 - that's when the first section of M25. Though I thought about adding a category to the template box for "date of completion to current length" - thoughts/ideas? Erath 09:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It is incredibly misleading to say opening date 1975. The idea of the infobox is to get the basic facts without reading the whole article. I think it is failing the reader if it implies the whole road was complete in 1975, when it was how much at that point? One or two junctions worth? MRSC 10:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I do take your point on board - but then consistency becomes a problem with other motorways. We can't go out and say the M1 was completed in 1999, when it was a significant motorway when it first opened in 1959. That's why I suggested adding a "Date opened" and "Date completed" section. Erath 10:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. MRSC 11:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Erath 11:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M25 motorway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111003091431/https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/highways-agency-calls-for-m25-widening-bids-to-be-resubmitted-16-01-2008/ to https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/archive/highways-agency-calls-for-m25-widening-bids-to-be-resubmitted-16-01-2008/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC) hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.1.78 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on M25 motorway. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M25 motorway. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 17:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M25 motorway. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Longest slip road

@Op47: You wrote "The M18 to M1 north is clearly longer". Where is your source of information? The Guardian citation clearly states "The clockwise sliproad leaving the M25 for Reigate is the longest in the world outside the US". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My source of information is the OS 1:50000 map. In the circumstances, I would like to know the Guardian's source of information. Op47 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe any Ordnance Survey map says anything about any junction being the longest outside the US, so that cannot be used to verify or challenge any facts there. As for Patrick Barkham's sources of information, you'll have to ask him. In any case, this is reasonably unimportant trivia, so I have replaced it with something else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If your source is the OS maps, then what are the grid refs? As Google is a more accessible, do you have those as links? I'm certainly not seeing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

If people must resort to WP:OR for sanity checks; please consider OpenStreetMap as a first port of call; eg. M3→M27 [1] appears to be 4.5 km!^{(Though Motorway→Motorway interchange rather than an entry/exit slip road).} It is still perfectly reasonable for the Guardian statement to have been used, and to cite and refer to it here on the article. —Sladen (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Metonym usage in lead

The mentioning of metonymic usage in the lead is common practice on Wikipedia (see links on List of metonyms page), hence I have included this in the intro. Why this article should be an exception, when the metonymic usage of 'M25=London conurbation' is so ingrained in British popular culture I don't know. WisDom-UK (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't recommend using the word "metonym", because readers won't understand it. The BBC News source given says "Became a verbal reference when referring to London and the rest of the country." It does not say it is often used, so this is a verification failure. The mention of the M25 being used as a de-facto reference to London is already given in the fifth paragraph of the "Route" section, and references the Communications Act 2003. So a mention in the lead could be a sentence saying, "In some cases, such as the Communications Act 2003, it used as a de-facto reference to Greater London". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the page is now locked, with yet another user using their admin rights to unilaterally enforce a rule for one page that is contradicted on numerous others. The fact that readers may be too lazy to look up a word in Dictionary is hardly a valid criticism, and again the word 'metonym' is used in many of the articles on the list linked to above, which raises consistency issues. Have you ever tried reading half the science articles on here as a layman? Either leave the reference in, or go through every single entry on the List of metonyms and likewise delete the metonym section. Meanwhile I'll go find some other pages to edit that aren't aggressively patrolled by self-appointed watchdogs.WisDom-UK (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The page has been protected to stop multiple editors warring with each other. I think the sentence I proposed above is a reasonable compromise. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I could accept your proposal (with the missing verb → ... it is used as a ...) were it to be added to the Lead. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I have added it today. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)