Talk:M1 motorway

List of sights from the motorway
I have started a list of important and/or interesting landmarks that can be seen from the motorway, or that the motorway passes by. Please add any that are appropriate.

Split and disambig
Was just thinking, might be a good idea to split and disambig this page, any thoughts? --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 17:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. The Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland sections were obviously too long to just have on the same page. I was simply postponing the inevitable work. I've fixed all the links to point to the individual pages. zoney ♣ talk 11:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * WHOA! WAY too short a time for discussion (imho) and NOT a good idea. yes, it made sense to put the NI and ROI versions on separate pages, but M1 will, in common usage, refer to the London-Leeds motorway and WP practice is to put the main usage on the direct page whenever possible. This will need to be reverted I believe. --Vamp:Willow 13:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather than revert this now, I've temporarily made M1 motorway a redirect to the england page, and added links to the other two (which should be on that page anyway and not just lost to the world because of a disambig being created. Now then ... I see no justification for making M1 motorway solely a disambig page; it is illogical and wasteful. Can anyone put up an argument? --Vamp:Willow 13:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Your solution seems quite reasonable. I don't think the English M1 motorway should be at M1 motorway even if that redirects to the English motorway page. It's important that people don't get the routes confused, as they are all designated EXACTLY the same, and there's even two of them in the United Kingdom. It's better that people link unambiguously to M1 motorway (England) where possible (and yes, I guess it makes sense to redirect M1 motorway there for those who blindly assume there is only one).
 * Apologies for acting before discussion, but I didn't see the need for protracted discussion on what I considered a long-overdue page split.
 * zoney ♣ talk 14:15, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, but I'll point you at Disambiguation, specifically Types of disambiguation #3 and the first para of The disambiguation page. The (English) M1 is clearly the primary topic, both historically and by size / number of connections geographically and on WP so should be at the main entry - and where until yesterday it was located! It is wrong in WP terms to have a redirect as a main target so it should move back to the direct name, but rather than jump into this at speed again we should hold off for a few days first to get further comments / observations. One thing we should always aim for on WP is consensus! --Vamp:Willow 15:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I disagree with this. The English M1 might well have the most traffic, but this isn't like city articles - these are simple numerical designations that clash when multiple countries are taken into account. Can't we make it equal topic and have M1 motorway as a disambig? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

Route of M1 on opening, and sections opened
According to the Motorway Archivehttp://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm, the M1 went from Berrygrove (J5) to Crick (J18), and the M10 and M45 spurs were in place. This is confirmed by maps dating from the late 1950s Surely documentary evidence overrules personal recollections? from IP-only editor
 * Indeed, but as it happens I have discussed this very point with the operator of that site and he acknolwedged that - in fact - the Watford side of things was actually a spur from the main route (both were two-lane only at the time) as the main route was intended to be across to the A1 entry to London. You can also refer to the London Transport plans for the Northern Line extension to Bushey Heath as their route - eventually - was dropped after the planning and construction of the M1 as the location of the planned terminus station (and cinema / shopping complex) was later covered over by the M1 extension embankment (leading to Edgware and the new Fiveways terminus). He also agreed with me that the M10 commenced life as M1 but changed to the M10 fairly quickly once it was clear that the A41 link (ie Berrylands) was getting more traffic than the A6 - A1 link. ps. I have maps too ;-P --Vamp:Willow 14:29, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that the M1-bound carriageway of the M10 was signed as "Birmingham M1", and the M1-bound carriageway of M45 was signed as "London M1", but as a driver was inescapabably heading for the M1 in either case, that seems fair enough. It's also true that until further M1 extension, the M10 and M45 were certainly busier than the sections south of J7 and north of J17.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the route carried the main number though.
 * However, I've been back and checked my 1959-60 Road Atlas (which the main section of was printed to late for the M1 to appear in!) has a "Motorway Supplement" in the front, that contains a map of the M1, with M10 and M45 clearly labelled as such. I've also re-checked my contemporary OS one-inch sheets and M10 and M45 are clearly marked there too.  However, I'd love to see a map from a decent source showing M10 and M45 as M1...

First UK Motorway?
Again, according to both the Motorway Archive and contemporary mapping evidence, the M6 Preston Bypass opened in December 1958, with the M1, M10 and M45 opening in November 1959.


 * Totally agree even the M6 motorway article afirms such Dainamo 21:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. iirc from the media reporting, the M1 was the first-planned but because of length (the M6 bit being far shorter) wasn't built / open first! --Vamp:Willow 23:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the M6 was planned first - it was to be a "guinea pig" road, which spawned the M1 later. The M6 at Preston originally opened as dual 2 lane, with soft shoulders, which, apart from an extra lane each way, was exactly how the M1 was constructed. The media aren't a reliable source with roads history. Archive material from planning offices, however, is. For what it's worth - construction of the M62 began first, with the embankments for the Barton Bridge being placed in anticipation for the eventual Stratford-Eccles Bypass.

--Bryn666 23:50, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Can someone please provide verification for the statement, "It was the first full-length motorway to be built in the United Kingdom"? The Preston Bypass was the first motorway to be built in the country, which is not even mentioned in the article to clarify the statement. Also, I am confused by the phrase "full-length motorway". Given that the M1 has seen a "series of extensions", at what point in time was it considered "full-length" and why wasn't the Preston Bypass "full-length"? As the statement was added by an anonymous editor, I suspect there won't be any verification. However, I thought I would be polite and ask for some anyway before I rephrase the sentence. Thanks. Road Wizard 18:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it's probably something to do with the length of the scheme; the Preston bypass is about 8 and a bit miles long, the M1 scheme 67 miles. The Preston bypass was just a bypass of a (then) town, whereas the M1 was an inter-urban scheme. Richard B 20:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That may well be what the editor was trying to indicate with their statement. Unfortunately though, neither length nor purpose of a motorway has much bearing on whether it can be described as "full-length". For example, the M57 motorway is about 10 miles long and only serves the purpose of a bypass around Liverpool but it is the "full-length" it is ever likely to be in the foreseeable future. On the other hand the M6 motorway is the longest motorway in the UK yet it won't be considered "full-length" until it reaches either the Scottish border or all the way up to Glasgow. Other than as a fanciful description, I am not sure what value the phrase "full-length" adds to the article. Even if a verified source can be found for the statement, I think it will have to be qualified in the article by phrasing it as something like "Many people often consider the M1 motorway to be the first full-length motorway in the UK, yet the first motorway was in fact the Preston Bypass, which now forms part of the M6". Road Wizard 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A quick search on google for "first full length motorway" reveals several quite reasonable looking sources for this claim, but I can't find one that states what is meant by "full length". Perhaps "first inter-urban motorway" would be more useful - the description in the Motorway Archive Richard B 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "First inter-urban motorway" does seem to be a more accurate phrase. Does anyone see anything wrong with the statement "Whilst the M1 is considered to be the first inter-urban motorway to be completed in the United Kingdom, the very first motorway to be built in the country was the Preston Bypass, which later became part of the M6. " before I include it in the article? Road Wizard 12:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "very first" is an over-emphasis, but maybe your suggested mid-section could read "the first road to be identified as a 'motorway' in the UK was the Preston Bypass ..."? --Vamp:Willow 12:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I finally got around to adding the statement today. I took your advice and removed "very". Thanks. Road Wizard 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

J25 Info wrong
You can get on and off at J25 in both directions. Will look what the signage is next time I'm passing. --Dunstan 15:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Building of New Lanes
Anyone got further details on the plan to build lanes between J5 and 10 for cars with at least one passenger?. --User:Oliver.Shepherd 18:41, 23 March 2006


 * I have found 2 sources for you, one from the Times Online and the other from the horse's mouth at the Highways Agency website. Road Wizard 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Another 4 sources for you. Official press-notices about the scheme. 10th December 04, 7th March 05, 7th March 06, 13th March 06. Road Wizard 23:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the new run to Luton, 4 lanes plus H/S plus MIDAS = 5 lanes but that the outside lane, lane 5, was to be HOV. The article prob shouldnt speculate what legal form the final road takes. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Underpass between J14 and 15
Should we add an entry for the private turnings on each carriageway between J14 and 15? Looking on Google Earth, it would appear that they are connected by a tunnel under the motorway, presumably for coppers to turn round at the border between Northants and Bucks. -- Dunstan  talk  10:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Do you have a ref for that? --Guinnog 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=hanslope&ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=52.145801,-0.83921&spn=0.004306,0.014827 -- Dunstan  talk  21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That does look like a service road for either the police or maintenance vehicles, but I am unsure as to the relevance in including it in this article. I would classify it along the same lines as saying "there is a broom closet on the second floor of the shopping complex". I suppose you could include it if you want to, but it certainly shouldn't be listed in the "List of junctions" section as it isn't really an exit or junction. It is one of many unmarked service roads along the motorway network which are off-limits to any unauthorised vehicles. If we did mention it in the article, would we also have to mention that unauthorised use is illegal and those caught using it by the police will likely be prosecuted? Road Wizard 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, no change to the article. I'd just wondered for a long time what it was before Google Earth came along to solve the mystery. -- Dunstan  talk  09:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are lots of these along all British motorways; it is a "change-direction" access for emergency vehicles only and it is a moving traffic offence for unauthorised drivers to use them, although some foolhardy types can be seen doing so. Not sure if it would be breaking UK law to add them to junction lists here, but perhaps - "knowingly inciting another to commit an offence". MarkThomas 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

J10A
In the motorway junction list, should it not have Junction 10A, also? It goes from Luton South (Airport) to Junction 10...

Cheesypot 15:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Length
The body of the article says the M1 is 193 miles long, as per the Motorway Archive, the infobox says 190.8, which seems closer to the 191 miles I've just got for a Google Maps route. Which is correct? Dupont Circle (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

End Leeds or Yorkshire?
The consensus for the past two and half years has been Yorkshire, baring in mind that the M1 does a hard right and goes round Leeds never entering the city proper I feel saying it joins Leeds and London is misleading. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably West Yorkshire would be more appropriate to narrow it down a bit. Keith D (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * West Yorkshire makes sense to me, not knowing exact geography, I'm not sure how close it does get to being in 'Leeds proper', eg Does the M3 actually end in Southampton? Bevo74 (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * West Yorkshire works for me, I'd say that the M3 goes to Southampton as it ends on waht is effectively the ring road, the M1 is going away from Leeds at the end. P.S. My initial revert was based on the fact the editor who changed it first had made several 'Leeds centric' edits including calling West Yorkshire 'Greater Leeds' (a term I've never heard after been here for 7 years). --Nate1481(t/c) 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Leeds is a district and a city which is within West Yorkshire and West Yorkshire is within Yorkshire and the M1 once went into Leeds (but the end bit was renamed the M621 motorway) and now the M1 goes to junction 43 of the A1(M) motorway (source A-Z West Yorkshire) Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about Northern Ireland?
Northern Ireland is part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". However it has its own M1 motorway. Would it not be better therefore to rename this article "M1 motorway (GB)"? Martinvl (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the page move, as it is controversial and no discussion to generate consensus has been made. There is a clear primary topic in this instance. If the user in question wishes to start a move discussion, instructions can be found at WP:RM Jeni  ( talk ) 22:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT. Guides recommend having greater than 3% words in links, but be sure not to overlink words just to add more links.[?]
 * You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 650 yds, use 650 yds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 650&amp;nbsp;yds.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 650 yds.
 * When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (for example, change kms to km and lbs to lb).
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of (if such appeared in the article) using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus against move. The majority of support bases have been considered and rejected as misapprehending the purpose of disambiguation and primacy of a topic (which is likely fostered, in part, by some of the opposes also basing their position on the same misconceptions). Specifically, we are not keeping this article here because it is the most important topic, nor because we are biased Brits or Yanks, nor because "we" think of this roadway when we hear the name, nor because of the length of the roadway. We are keeping this here because the purpose of disambiguation is the maximize that when people search particular topics, the largest portion of them reach the target they intend with the least hassle and confusion, and when there is a topic that is far more likely to be searched by a particular name than others by the same name, we use that topic as the primary name based on evidence that the most people searching under the name are looking for that topic. That is also the reason that most of the supports and opposes below attach to nothing actually supporting the position taken until Thryduulf first offered some clarity with actual evidence.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

M1 motorway → M1 motorway (Great Britain) &mdash; This is a procedural request. User:Sarah777 has been attempting to move this page to M1 motorway (Great Britain) with no consensus. In an attempt to stop her move war, I have started this discussion (as I'm sure this is what she really intended) Jeni  ( talk ) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move M1 motorway is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this instance. Jeni  ( talk ) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose: clear primary topic, progenitor, and greater in length. Sceptre (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, easily primary topic  Chzz  ►  22:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, primary topic. --John (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this is clearly the primary topic per the above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, clearly primary topic. Keith D (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - heading for WP:SNOW here I think. --AlisonW (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - as per WP:disambiguation policy. A primary topic in Britain perhaps. Tfz     18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weakly Oppose - From a political correctness point of view, Sarah has a point. However from a practical point of view, if we were to qualify the British M1 with the extension "(Great Britain)", then should we not qualify all the British motorways (and all links pointing to those articles) in the same way?  Would it be worth the effort?  In short, I oppose the move on the grounds of practicallity, but if someone is prepared to modify all the British motorway headings, then I will not stand in their way.  Martinvl (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the English M1 is arguably the most important route in the British motorway system (up there with M4, M5, M6, M25 and M62), which means that it receives a lot of coverage. None of the other M1s have as much importance in their own country, as most or all of them seem to run from a capital to a nearby border (eg1 Irish M1 runs from Dublin to Northern Ireland, eg2 Russian M1 runs from Moscow to Belarus via Smolensk, eg3 Hungarian M1 runs from Budapest to Austria). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support There appear to be around 9 roads called M1 that already have their own entry in English language Wikipedia.  6 of these are in places where the mother tongue is English and at least one more is in a place where English is widely understood and used as a shared second language.   The consensual argument is that it's a matter of simple courtesy not to expect users looking for another M1 highay to have to click away from a page concerning the 'wrong' M1 for their purposes.   The confrontational argument is that if you assert that one M1 is more important than all the others because it's BritishImeanEnglish, you only encourage an equivalent reaction in the USA where a number (ok - a small minority) of contributors operate on the basis that the USA is the centre (ok, center) of the world and / or the only piece of Planet Earth where members of the human race exist.   Which for some purposes it might be.   But where the Brits start to operate on the same basis we will likely come second because there are more of them than of us.   I guess I prefer the courtesy argument.  Anyhow but if wikipedia wishes to gather and spread knowledge across the world - including all those places where English is well and widely understood but still only as a second language -  you maximize your chances of success by applying ab initio the idea that all M1s are of equal value and interest.   And where they're not you try and find something else interesting and properly sourced to improve the deficient entries...   Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The M1 is probably the most important road in England, but other M1 motorways are equally significant in their own countries. By using the primary title for the English motorway, we are effectively asserting that the English M1 is more important than all the other M1s put together (which is implausible and POV) ... and we all also create a ongoing disambiguation problem. By using "M1 motorway" as a disambiguation page, we may it much easier for editors to ensure that articles link to the correct M1, and that's a huge benefit to readers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Actually, having the English motorway at the primary topic title is just saying that it is more frequently referred to without qualification than any other single M1 motorway. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer, then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." It does not say anything about importance (although the primary topic is usually the most important, this is not always the case. One way of determining this is by incoming links, excluding redirect pages (but not the pages that link through them) the M1 motorways have approximately the following number of inbound article-space links (approximately, because if a page links directly and through a redirect it will appear in the list twice).
 * England: 734
 * Republic of Ireland: 155
 * Northern Ireland: 154
 * Russia: 35
 * Hungary: 22
 * Pakistan: 16
 * The total inbound links to the motorways not in England are 382, or just over half as many as for the English Motorway. To my mind this clearly indicates that the English motorway is the primary topic for the title "M1 motorway" on the English Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As the first "real" motorway (preceded only by the experiment at Preston, now in the M6) anywhere on the British Isles, and as arguably the southern half forms part of the single most important cross-country freight route in the country, it has a clear position above both the Irish examples. There seem to be no such claims made about the counterparts in Hungary, Pakistan or Russia.  In Hungary, the name seems to come from the number of the old road it replaces - the English M1 originally followed the rough direction of the A5. In my book, that all adds up to a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, the usual British bias that drives people away from wikipedia - no point in being fair or constructive here as its all bollocks! --Vintagekits (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - as it seems I made this proposal! Actually I didn't - I know exactly how these things pan out; simple. British majority supports British pov. In Ireland if anyone mentions the M1 it is taken to mean, without hesitation, the road from Dublin to Dundalk. I'm sure it's the same in Russia and the other places that have an M1. There are TWO M1s in the UK btw! Pointy or not - this illustrates exactly the problem we have when it comes to, for example, the naming on Wiki for the sovereign state of Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Must say I got an especial chuckle from the rationale: "progenitor, and greater in length". Clearly this is the primary usage in Great Britain, and only in GB. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you care to explain then why the number of inbound links are so much higher to the GB motorway than any of the others? And why about 60% of the ghits on Google.ie for "M1 motorway" -Wikipedia are about the British Road (about 90% on Google.com are about the British Road, about 2% are about the Pakistani road and the rest about evenly between the Northern Irish and Irish Republic roads)? Every objective measure I can think of points to the road in Great Britain being the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * About 90% of "Ireland" Google hits are for the state named Ireland, yet British Wikipedians insist that it does not get that title. Wikipedia is fast becoming a farce.  Tfz     02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you kindly explain why that is in any way relevant or helpful here? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My response as to Thryduulf's argument. Tfz     21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what relevance which article is at the title "Ireland" (I've never taken part in any discussion on this topic) has to do with either the topic at hand (whether the article about the M1 motorway in England should be at M1 motorway or M1 motorway (Great Britain)) or any other aspect of my comment? My comment is simply reporting the fact that even on the version of Google with an Irish-bias that the English motorway still gets more results than either of the M1 motorways on the island of Ireland. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually not as obviously POV as you claiming there is only one M1 in Ireland. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In Ireland if anyone mentions the M1 it is taken to mean, without hesitation, the road from Dublin to Dundalk. Presumably you mean people in your part of Ireland, I would have thought most people in the North would think you were talking about the road from Belfast to Dungannon. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I was going to do much of the standard research that is usually done in these cases, but Thryduulf has already done it. As there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this move would be inappropriate. A le_Jrb talk  12:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - M1 motorway (United Kingdom) is also acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the two M1 motorways in the UK should be at that title? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whichever is preferred. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose move. This is the English (language) wikipedia, which means that the majority of its users will have English (although not necessarily the British version) as their first language. It seems logical then that M1 motorways in countries where English is used most should take precedence for article naming over the M1 motorways in countries where another language is spoken. This isn't due to some English language pre-eminence or POV but because it is those motorways that are most likely to be the intended target of a user typing "M1 motorway" into the search box. Next we should consider which, if any, of the motorways in English speaking countries should get to live at "M1 motorway". Again, without denigrating the others, the more significant M1 motorway seems to be the one in England. Page view statistics indicate the interest levels: M1 motorway got 10,558 hits in August, M1 motorway (disambiguation) got 101, M1 motorway (Northern Ireland) got 1,133 and M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland) got 1,481. Even if we consider the possibility that all of the hits for the disambiguation page and for the two Irish motorways came from users who had visited the English motorway first and deduct those from the 10,558 hits for the English one, we are still left with 7,843 for the English motorway, 3 times the combined total of the two Irish motorways. The English motorway, therefore,clearly seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--DavidCane (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose for some very good reasons stated above by other people. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most hits.  Surely the 'most hits' argument is a function not of what people want to read, but of the present M1 (English version) article's name.  Whichever M1 interests you, by entering M1 you will get to the English M1, and your having landed at that page will be logged even though it may have been the last M1 on a list of 9 that interested you.   You will then have to redirect IF this is not the M1 that interests you in the event that you care enough to read the little bit about the disambiguation page and then to click through to  disambiguation page and beyond.   What the statistic does not tell you - which might be slightly interesting and would be more relevant to this discussion - is which entry people were looking for each time they found themselves landing on the English version of M1.   Or am I missing something obvious here?  Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you aread DavidCane's calculations above, you will see that even if you make the very sweeping assumption that everyone who is looking for either of the Irish M1s has gone there via the English M1, the English M1 still has far more page views. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

{
 * Oppose the M1 in England is clearly the primary usage, and there is already a dab tag at the top of the article. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although I see where the other argument is coming from, The English M1 is defnitly the primary topic in this case. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  21:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.

Bizarre move. This is a perfect example of the simple tyranny of the majority. British parochial usage = Wiki "primary usage". All the time. So much for the b*** about "going through proper procedure"! Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The vote was fair and balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a vote. It was a simple assertion of British pov. QED. Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought people made some very good points as to why the article should not be moved. It won me over :) BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * @Sarah: I'm American, have never heard of the roadway before today, and I hope you'll actually attempt to understand the purpose of disambiguation and what the policy on primacy topics actually stands for.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A primary topic in Britain, yes. POV won the day. Tfz     23:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the page view stats, its clear this is the article the majority of people who enter M1 motorway are looking for. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what you are saying is there are more people in England than in Ireland? That's news is it? Sarah777 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nationality does not matter. the vast majority of people looking up M1 motorway appear to be looking for this article because the disam page has fewer views, as do the alternative M1s. This is the one people want to read. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And 95% of people looking up Ireland are looking for the state. You arguments are hypercritical and do not wash. Tfz     23:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 95%? Where did you pull that piece of fantasy out of? MickMacNee (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantasy is not the word that came to my mind :) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I support the Republic Of Ireland being the primary topic in that case, It is hardly relevent here. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  08:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the user has now resorted to moving other pages without consensus, such as M2 motorway. I shall now start an ANI thread as a result of these disruptive edits. Jeni  ( talk ) 23:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not going to mention this here, but she is also making changes to disam pages at M1 and M1 motorway (disambiguation) changing M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland) to M1 motorway (Ireland), despite the fact Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says not to pipe on disam pages. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never been on any of those M1 roads. When in Ireland does one drive on the left-side (like the UK) or the right? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * UK and Ireland drive on the same side of the road, the border between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland would probably be pretty messy if they didnt. I would think ROI would only switch if the UK did, but we are too lazy here to try and learn to drive on the other side of the road, too many crashes as it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

TFZ is messing around with M3 motorway and M4 motorway will someone please stop his pathetic vandalism to wikipedia. He is moving things without debate or agreement, and making such a damn mess.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I reckon 'mediation' will be required for these M# motorway articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is unlikely to happen. We have WP:RM for a reason. If there is agreement that such M# articles should be moved, then fine. But if people persistently try to circumvent the community norms for moving pages, then they can always be sanctioned for disruption. If there is a genuine wide-ranging dispute about these articles, then an RFC may be useful, but I do not see that there is such an issue at the moment. Black Kite 19:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask a question. If a highway were built running through the United States named M1 what do you think would be !voted the primary topic? If the US why do you think that would be the case, weight of numbers maybe? We can't get away from the fact that if you have good arguments for both cases then weight of numbers will almost always win out. Even if you have a poorer argument from those of the larger nation it will more often than not be given the primary spot. Jack forbes (talk) 19:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If an M1 motorway existed in the US and it was the most searched for M1 motorway, then, yes, it would take precedence - just as Washington (the state) takes precedence over Washington, Tyne and Wear, despite the fact that the former is named after someone whose ancestor came from the latter. In fact you can see a similar arguement about precedence at Talk:Washington. --DavidCane (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For me its all about page views, that is why i strongly opposed the move for this article. It is clear this is the primary topic with the majority of views, even taking into account those who go onto the dab page and other articles. However M2 motorway was very different. M2 motorway (Pakistan) had slightly more views than the England motorway despite Englands having the prime spot. There for i supported the dab page creation at M2 motorway and others have too.
 * This must be handled on a case by case basis, but one thing we cant have is people going to different motorways and moving it themselves without any debate as has been happening these past few days. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Should the amount of hits always be the deciding factor? Let's say there were two Alexander Flemings. The one I've just linked to and another whose fame rose out of one of those silly reality programs. I'm thinking of something along the lines of American Idol. If the American Idol contestant received by far the most hits should he then be given the primary topic? Please don't say yes! Jack forbes (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not necessarily, especially in the case of people. Long-term and short-term notability need to be taken into consideration.  In the case of roads, however, that is less of an issue. Black Kite 20:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If we had it to do over again, I would've supported M1 motorway (England). GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Printable junction list
I have long felt that it would be useful to be able to print off just the junction list as an aid to navigation when driving - if I can print off a picturem, why not a junction list?

When I upgraded the M1 junction list to match the WP:RJL, I decided to be WP:BOLD and to try an experiment to see whether or nto there was a real demand for such a facility. I did this as follows:
 * I created a template:M1 motorway junction list that contained only the junction list.
 * I created a new article M1 motorway junction list which linked to the template, but which ad little else. (I plan to add categories later)
 * I linked to this template from the article M1 motorway and added a link to the new article informing readers that they could get a printable version of the list. Looking further into the future, I see scope for a "book" of junction lists.

I request editor's indulgence while we see if there is any takeup on this feature. If ther appears to be some takeup, I plan to add this feature to the M6, M5, M4, M62, M25, M60 in that order (long-distnace motorways and then the two major ring roads). Martinvl (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Junction distances in miles as well?
Since all distances on the M1 itself are shown in miles (standard UK practice on all road signs) I was curious as to why the table showing junctions and the distances between them is shown in kilometres? IMHO this makes that table rather more difficult to use as a navigational aid if you have to convert between miles on the road signs and km in the article. Barty 11 (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Barty_11


 * Feel free to add in the miles as per WP:RJL. However if you are actually driving on the M1 rather than armchair navigating, I suggest that you use the kilometre-based Driver location signs that are actually on the motorway (maybe you never noticed them) which is why the Wikipedia article catalogues them. Martinvl (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Those signs are a waste of space. Hardly anyone knows what they are. In fact, you're the first person I've come across who does. I suggest the motorway distances are given as miles in the table with km in brackets. In the UK we just don't think in kilometres, so even if everyone knew what those signs were about they would still think distances in miles. 86.9.233.162 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Junction 17
The article should point out that there is no warning as one approaches junction 18 from the north that the subsequent junction (17), which on most maps appears to offer access to the M25, cannot actually be used. It's already extraordinary that this important motorway (M25) cannot be accessed from the north, only from the south (presumably northerners are supposed to enter it via the north and then the south poles), but the fact that a naive traveller is not even told once that exit 17 is essentially non-existent (though he is repeatedly told to keep 2 chevrons behind the vehicle in front) add insult to injury. Perhaps this problem also exists at other junctions. Paulhummerman (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have misread the signage or map, as J17 serves the much smaller M45 motorway (google map of it). When travelling south J6a is the one for the M25 (or J6 when travelling north). Baldy Bill  ( sharpen the razor &#124; see my reflection ) 21:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

M1 widening programme - trying for balance
I've made a modest edit to the 'recent developments' section of the article, as it seems to present a very partial view of what happened on the M1 widening to make it seem as if the project was more controversial than it was. I've sought to correct two things. 86.141.147.19 (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The section began by stating that there were "major protests" against the widening of the M1. In a UK context, 'major protests' suggests something on the scale of the Newbury Bypass or Twyford Down. The only evidence for protest I can find (including the footnote) is for a single event where banners were unfurled from some motorway bridges in 2007. Wikipedia's page on road protests since 1997 only mentions the M1 with a throwaway reference to the existence of a 'NoM1Widening' group, and I can find no evidence of their activity beyond a press release suggesting they received a £1000 donation in 2007. This certainly does not seem to qualify as "major"; and I would question whether it even qualifies as "protest" at a level that warrants inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * 2) I've also tried to straighten out the chronology of the revision of the M1 widening programme. The previous edit suggested that this was the result of cost overruns on the M1 project. This is only partially true. There was a widespread problem of cost overruns at the Highways Agency, of which the M1 was only one part. At the same time, hard shoulder running was also being developed, which led to the original plans being substantially revised. I've tried to make the chronology clearer, and get the tone a little more neutral.
 * Thanks for that. Good work. I have done some more cleanup to the article. I do also agree that it was the cost escalation that was the killer for the original scheme, however I have referenced the protests in passing again because they were important, not least because it was the road protesters who uncovered the cost escalation in the first place.. I will add this link to the article actually. PeterEastern (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on M1 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:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yICBu7Js?url=http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4584.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4584.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101030230558/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416188&SubjectId=36 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=416188&SubjectId=36
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603171810/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14485.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14485.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090812124322/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1cricdonc.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1cricdonc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311003156/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1introduction.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1introduction.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311002729/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m18barlwad.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m18barlwad.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207182418/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1extension.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1extension.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on M1 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212114003/http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/338.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/338.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126112253/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1eastamat.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119014428/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420762&SubjectId=2 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=420762&SubjectId=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916021803/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4478.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4478.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605130555/http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/newsroom.aspx?pressreleaseid=156326 to http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/newsroom.aspx?pressreleaseid=156326
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160117183458/http://www.emcbe.com/january-constructive-article6.html to http://www.emcbe.com/january-constructive-article6.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605162145/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14484.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/14484.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717053402/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4347.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4347.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615114604/http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/ltp/section_15.html to http://www.bedfordshire.gov.uk/ltp/section_15.html
 * Added tag to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m1m10m45.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722134904/http://www.therobeytrust.co.uk/Stocklist%20tri-tandem%20roller.htm to http://www.therobeytrust.co.uk/Stocklist%20tri-tandem%20roller.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629032930/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4482.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/4482.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Central reservation
I'm puzzled by the claim that the original M1 had no central reservation (which is also repeated in a BBC article from 2002 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/northamptonshire/asop/northampton/m1.shtml). Photos of the motorway under construction on the roads.org.uk website (https://www.roads.org.uk/index.php/photo/m1-under-construction) clearly show a median strip, and of course all the overbridges have central piers. So I don't where this claim has come from. The early M1 had no hard shoulders - only soft ones - so maybe there has been confusion here. PhilUK (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've changed the text as indicated, and also deleted the reference to a Highways Agency website which no longer exists.PhilUK (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where is a reference to support the change? Keith D (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Leeds to Hook Moor" citation
The link to the Highways Agency "A1(M) Bramham to Wetherby – One Year After Study" document is broken. Could somebody please look into replacing this with an Archive.org link. I would do it myself but I'm not sure if there is a special procedure for references sourced from Archive.org.

DAB (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I have added an archive version of the document. Keith D (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Implementation of MOS-compliant road junction list
The current road junction list does not comply with WP:RJL as indicated by the RJL template. I replaced it with the following list so that it complies with WP:RJL. Admittedly, the list is incomplete, but additional information could be added in later times by anyone. AlphaBeta135 talk 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted the change as the information is incomplete and also because the new layout is confusing as it attempts to combine information on the 2 carriage ways into single column. The north & south destinations are not nessarily the same and the single column does not show which are north destinations & which are south destinations. The original layout with the carriageways to left & right of distance etc is much clearer. Keith D (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Some junctions have destinations that are identical or nearly identical in both directions to the point that they are combined into one row. This includes junctions where only one direction carries an extra city. Some other junctions have destinations that are very much not identical in both directions (e.g. Junction 23A on the M1). While my attempt at creating a MOS-compliant junction list is not clear about whether it is a northbound or southbound destination, perhaps it could be resolved like the one below. AlphaBeta135  talk 22:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It is still not very clear what is happening, 2 columns is much clearer placed either side of the location detail, which seems to take up far too much of the screen width. May be the templates need a redesign. Keith D (talk) 11:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am going by the M5 motorway example from the Manual of Style, which uses just one column, not two. AlphaBeta135  talk 12:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The M621 and the M876 even uses MOS-compliant junction list, albeit much shorter than the M1. AlphaBeta135  talk 12:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably people just trying to use templates without considering the situation. May be those roads need to be changed back or tagging confusing. Keith D (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be okay to implement this below junction list to accommodate two columns? It looks and feels similar to a MOS-compliant junction list, but with two columns. AlphaBeta135  talk 19:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not sure if including °N, °W is necessary considering that there are lots of them, especially with the addition of an interactive map. AlphaBeta135 talk 19:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)