Jump to content

Talk:M5 motorway

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

Junction 24

[edit]

While J24 is signed for Minehead, it is actually 25 miles away from the motorway! Also, driving north it's faster to leave the M25 at J25, while now that the Bridgwater "northern distributor road" (=30mph bypass) has been built it must be quicker going south to leave at J23... 80.46.142.136 12:15, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

you'r right, but the J23 exit is not properly signed yet for Minehead.

Pyrotec 19:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move?

[edit]

Surely moving this page for disambiguation was a bad idea - M5 (Sydney) is much better known as Metroad 5 anyway. Majority of M5 motorway Google search is English M5... Erath 21:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Redoubling my claim now that the Sydney motorway has been moved back to Metroad 5. Erath 12:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

This will provide continuity with other UK motorways. It was originally disambiguated for "M5 motorway (Sydney)", which was, always should have been, and has now been reverted to, Metroad 5.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Moved 19 Sep 2005. I still haven't altered all the links to the old location as I ran out of time this afternoon. I also felt it necessary to alter the disambiguating statement at the top of the page to the {{otheruses}} tag because there is also the M5 motorway (Northern Ireland). -- Francs2000 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, May 2006

[edit]

Survey

[edit]
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support M5 had between 250 and 500 links to it, it was then changed to M5 motorway without consultation and changed again without consultation to M5 motorway (England) leaving broken links, most of which point to M5 motorway. Those who rename articles must take responsibility for the links they brake. Currently someone needs to move the links to its present name, or rename the article back to M5 motorway. It appears to be easier to rename. Pyrotec 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 8

[edit]

I have restored information that was reverted recently. I have also added a reference to confirm the information.Regan123 22:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted the last changes was that, firstly, it was an anonymous edit with no history; and secondly it was incorrect or inaccurate and it was easier to revert it than to correct it. Looking at your reference, the last editor appeared to have used the reference material in too narrow a sense. Their reverted change took out all the widening of the southern section of the M5 and only refered to conversion between junctions 3 and 8. I also considered that 'conversion' was the wrong word. New carriageways were added and bridges were rebuilt and, around Gloucestershire, relocated. Sometime the motorway was moved sideways. None of that came out in the reverted edit.
I drove, or was a passenger, from South of Bristol up the M5 and onto the M6 for much of the 10 years or so the widening took place. The reverted changes appeared to be the work of someone with no firsthand knowledge of what took place. Your revision is better. Pyrotec 23:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry if I seemed that I was being unpleasant - I wasn't. I think the article needs cleaning up and further references added. I will add i to me "to do" list, which seems to get ever longer :-) Regan123 23:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006 Roadworks

[edit]

Anyone know when the roadworks on the link between M6 south and M5 will be finished? I'm convinced that this is the cause of the M^ congestion back to J11 most evenings. My 6 minutes (in normal times) of M6 is usually taking 30+ minutes at the moment. I can't find anything on the Highways Agency website. TIA MikesPlant 12:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinates for key features

[edit]

I have just been in to each of the service station articles for the M5 and have added a coordinates template. Having this in an article means that you can click a link (that appears on the top right corner of the page) and be taken to a number of geographic information / mapping links that allow you, for example, to view the actual location of the feature in the article in a tool such as Google Maps.

Encoding the coordinates is really easy. I searched for the service station by name at Streetmap then clicked the map until I was happy that the arrow was in the right place. Then I clicked "Convert/Measure Coordinates" link to get the OSGB grid reference and decimal latitude and longitude for the arrow on the map. Following that it is simply a case of copy/paste to enter the coords into the template.

Here is an example for Frankley Services {{coor title d|52.429095|N|2.017943|W|region:GB_source:enwiki-osgb36(SO988812)}}. So the latitude is 52.429095, the longitude is 2.017943 and the OSGB gridref is SO988812. Note that the longitude here is in the western hemisphere. Streetmap encodes this with a minus sign. Please omit the minus sign when copy/pasting the coords across.

IMHO adding coords to features, already established Wikipedia practice, adds a nice usability touch to the service stations on this motorway. It could (should?) be extended to service stations on other motorways and possibly to other features like interchanges (if not already applied e.g. Almondsbury Interchange). It could even be taken further by providing coords for each junction - but I'm not going to do that! --Cheesy Mike 15:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, but please use {{coord}} instead as it adds a geo microformat. For your example:
{{coord|52.429095|N|2.017943|W|region:GB_source:enwiki-osgb36(SO988812)|display=title}}
though you can use display=inline,title also, which is useful in prose, or infoboxes. Come to think of it, is there an infobox for road junctions? That would also allow the use of the hcard microformat.
Also, your coordinates are overly precise - three decimal places should suffice. You might also like to see how I added coordinates to the first and last junctions in the table on M6 motorway ad to do likewise here (for junctions or service stations, or both). Andy Mabbett 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will use coord instead of coor. As for precision, agreed, but cut/paste is so much easier if no trimming is necessary and the extra digits don't do any harm. Thanks for the feedback. --Cheesy Mike 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed all the coord templates and added coords for the Avonmouth Bridge. That's enough for today!. b.t.w. While on the subject, does using the coord template make an object show up in Google Earth? I have noticed as I browse google earth that certain wikipedia icons and article links appear, but I have no idea how this occurs. --Cheesy Mike 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junction 18/18a

[edit]

The listbox of junctions seems to be wrong. According to it, you drive South on the M5 near Bristol, passing Jn 17 [Bristol (West) A4018 & Severn Beach B4055]. You then (apparently) get to Jn 18 [Avonmouth A4] before Jn 18a [No exit]. This seems to fit with what one actually experiences driving it.

However, going North, this is not representative. You pass the exit for Jn 18 [Avonmouth A4] then shortly after that is the slip road for Jn 18a [SOUTH WALES, Cardiff, Newport M49]. Given there is no southbound exit at Jn 18a, but that the article is currently out of sync with the reality driving North (see [1]) would it not make sense to therefore swap the order of 18 and 18a?

Answers on a postcard please... --Peeky44 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't know the history and have not read wikipedia. The original M4 bridge, the Severn Bridge, across the Severn Estuary was (and is) linked to junction 15 on the M5 and junction 20 on the M4; but when the new crossing, the Second Severn Crossing, was build the old bridge and its approach roads were renumbered as the M48. The new crossing was numbered M49 and two new junctions were made: junction 18a on the M5 and junction 21 on the M4. Going north on the M5 you leave at junction 18a to get onto the M49; going south on the M5 you leave at junction 20 to get onto the M48 and then leave at junction 21 to join the M49. It helps if you look at a road atlas. Pyrotec 21:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Peeky44 is right. As you cross the Avonmouth Bridge going north you turn off at J18 before you turn for J18A, so the order in the table is reversed. (Or at least it was as I just fixed it!) --Cheesy Mike 23:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrotec, you have probably worked this out by now, but if you're going to advise people to look at an atlas, please carefully do so yourself. Firstly, I do (vaguely) know the history of the M4 Severn Bridges. Secondly, some information for you, available from any map of the area:

  • The Second Severn Crossing is not numbered M49, it is a re-routing of the M4. The M49 is just a very long sliproad from M5 J18/18a to the new M4 J22, on the English shore.
  • M5 Junction 20 is in Somerset - I presume you mean the Almondsbury Interchange which is M5 J15 (M4 J20).
  • The road from the Almondsbury Interchange to the old Severn Bridge is the M4 for one junction (M4 J21), only then does it become the M48.

--Peeky44 (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, you have looked at an atlas. OK I was wrong about the M49, its only the southern approach road not the bridge; but I did write junction 15 on the M5 and junction 20 on the M4, above. Junction 20 on the M5 is a Clevedon; presumably you took my advice at looked at an atlas. Pyrotec (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

I was surprised and disappointed to see the coordinates removed from this article with an edit sumamry of "remove travel guide info per WP:NOT", since coordinates are not a "travel guide" and consensus on WP:NOT is that coordinates are acceptable content. I trust that they will now be restored. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias

[edit]

Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously longer and more important M5 motorways, e.g., M5 motorway (Russia). I believe M5 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, the Russian word for motorway is автострада, so I would assume the English word to be the obvious choice for the English page about a British motorway..--Kudpung (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction history

[edit]

I feel the current construction history is not in depth enough, as it stands it implies that most of the extensions South of J8 opened in one go. Jenuk1985 (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says: "it was also extended southwards, in sections, from 1967 to 1977, through Somerset, to Exeter,". Why don't you improve it, then? You will need to add the dates that the various sections opened and provide verification, e.g. in-line citations.Pyrotec (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Location Sign and other updates

[edit]

I have made a number of changes to the Exit list layout. In particular

  • I have added distances and carriageway identifiers as taken from Driver Location SignM information (which I obtained unofficially, but which is likely to be published in the near future - the M25 information has already been published).
  • I have added a sentence ahead of the exit list banner which provides link to both the driver location article and to other references. This makes the references easier to see (compare with changes that I made to M4_motorway).
  • I have moved the co-ordinate information to a separate section, but left links in the table. A few weeks ago I left a note that I wished to do this in the M6_motorway talk page, but had no response. The rationale behind this move is to reduce the width of the junction list so that other columns can be wider. An added advantage is that a better description can be added to each coordinate
  • I have added non-breaking spaces to a number of items such as destinations that consist of two or more words or between destinations and road numbers.
  • I have moved the names of the services from the junction into the destination list. As with coordinates, this will reduce the width of the junction list. It will also allow for caveats to be added such as "No HGV's", "Northbound carriageway only", "Opening March 2010" etc. The junction list will just contain the word "Services".

Unless there is anything patently wrong with the above, may I respectfully request that these changes be discussed before anything is reverted. Once there is consensus, I will retrofit this to all other articles to which I have added driver location sign information. Martinvl (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M5 motorway (England)

[edit]

This article should be moved back. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you are aware of the requested move process by now. Though I suspect any further ones may be seen as disruptive. Jeni (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these M# motorway articles are requested for movement? I'm trying to track all the requests. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only one listed at WP:RM as of the timestamp of this comment is the M3 (talk:M3 motorway). Additionally I have recently requested a move of the M15 to M15 motorway (Great Britain) (see talk:M15 motorway) but whichever bot updates the RM list hasn't spotted that one yet. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

distances

[edit]

Why do we now have two distances to each junction. Surely the best solution is to measure the dustance to underneath the junction if we do have to have distances to a spuriously accurate 100m. Nevertheless, UK road distances are always measured in miles not km. Why do we have the culturally irrelevant km? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know the answer to the first question; second comment seems to be WP:OR, so someone will object; third one seems to be to satisfy the "Metric Police" - bring back miles and chains. Pyrotec (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few answers for User:Peterkingiron. First of all, please read the header information to the junction list, then visit driver location signs. The kilometre values that you see in Wikipedia are those that appear on the signs. I have obtained them from a variety of sources - if you go [here] you will see a map of the M25 that has already been published. The DfT plan to publish a lot more driver location sign information at some time during the current financial year - I have been privilleged to have had sight of some of their internal documentation. By publishing this information in advance, it will be there when the DfT publish their information. It is of course verifiable by visiting the sites concerned and looking at the signs.
Finally, one value of two? Which is more important - the point where you exit and enter a motorway or the point at the middle of the roundabout that you are not using? If you are a user of British motorways and actually see the signs in questions (you would be surprised how nmany people have not noticed or understood them), I would welcome feedback on how to make this information more relevant. I have thought about having small icons at the right-hand edge of the junction lead text showing a driver location sign. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distances should definitely be in both. Despite the fact Driver Location Signs are in metric, the country still uses miles for everyday use. Use the km if you must, but please have miles as well. Lenzar (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was reached not so long about that distances in the UK exit lists should be in both miles and km (miles first), its just that we haven't got round to converting them yet. Any volunteers? Jeni (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually come up in a current WT:RJL discussion. --Rschen7754 06:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no movement on this. Is the plan still to have miles listed in addition to km? Lenzar (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlong list of primary destinations

[edit]

The list of primary destinations in the infobox is ridiculously long - it seems to include every town and city in the midlands and south west. I suggest it should be cut down. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the principle of WP:BOLD I have reverted the additions. Let's have a discussion to reach consensus on what the destinations should be before overloading the infobox. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 09:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coords redux

[edit]

I invite Imzadi1979 to show me what part of WP:RJL is being "violated" by the inclusion of coordinates for junctions in this article, and for Rschen to specify where in RJL additional columns for coords are not allowed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Including the coordinates is not itself a violation, but including an additional column is. Tell me where in MOS:RJL the column, and it's location in the table, is specified. It isn't, ergo it isn't permitted, as you have admitted in the past. Imzadi 1979 → 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RJL, as you well know, says "Generally, the following columns should appear from left to right in the following order" and then lists a number of columns. That falls very very far short of an injunction against columns not listed. If other column are, as you assert, a "violation", then the wording would be more of the order of "the following are the only columns that shall appear".
Later it says "there is no consensus on how to implement geotagging on roads articles. If including geographical coordinates, use {{Coord}} for each set; and one instance of {{GeoGroupTemplate}} per page."
Right now, you are taking the tweedledum position of saying that words mean whatever you want them to mean, rather than what a reasonable reader would infer from them. In short, you know fine well that there is not any support for your position in RJL, and you're merely imposing your personal wishes and pretending that the MoS offers you some cover. That is shameful conduct. You also know fine well that providing a column of coords is the de facto standard for lists of geographic features across wikipedia, except in the bailiwick you so zealously police. I refer you to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent_in_usage --Tagishsimon (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're the minority, which is why you've been undone by four editors when you try to impose the "standard practise". It's not gonna work if you fight with the regulars. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That kinda underlines the paucity of your arguments. There is a manual of style. It does not bar the commonplace practise of adding a column of coordinates. So you'll argue, as Imzadi and Rschen have, that we should be following the MoS until you find that it does not support your position; and then argue that, actually, it's because "the regulars" don't like it, and bugger the MoS. See also WP:OWN ... except, of course, as you in effect admit, you don't do policy; you're more about mob rule. Very sad. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we changed the policy to specifically prohibit the column, then you'd just tell us that mob rule changed the policy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you remember, you tried to do that already, and by your side's own admission, didn't get consensus and so took it to dispute resolution. Where we are right now is that your own policy does not forbid an additional column of coordinates; and the de facto standard on wikipedia is for an additional column of coordinates. But the three of you continue to act as if you own the article and can disregard the policy when it suits you. That, to me, is shameful behaviour. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, MOS:RJL doesn't permit it (a point you conceded at WT:RJL at least once or twice), and de facto practice is only an appropriate defense when there isn't a guideline to guide your editing. Imzadi 1979 → 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:RJL does not, as claimed, forbid a coordinates column. If you dispute this, please provide a quote from that document to that effect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
We never said it explicitly forbids it. It just doesn't permit it. It doesn't say "Go ahead and use a coordinates column", it says "Generally only the following columns should be used". For columns not on the list, its up to you to gain consensus for implementing it at the appropriate articles, per WP:BRD. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who this "we" is, but Rschen7754's edit summary was "coordinates columns arent allowed" and Imzadi1979's was "removing MOS:RJL vio". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (as if prefixing a statement with that word changes anything), Wikipedia is not a democracy, per core policy, so the "minority" issue is an irrelevance. This has already been pointed out to you, recently, elsewhere. Your talk of "the regulars" is contrary to WP:OWN, also a core policy issue. Again you have been informed of this many times recently. Ditto your edit-summary reference to "The patrons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As (per Imzadi1979, above) it's no longer disputed that "including the coordinates is not itself a violation", then doing so in a separate column is better, even necessary, to make the page as accessible and semantically meaningful as possible. Anyone who disputes this is invited to make a cogent case why it is not so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because coord adds latitudes and longitudes and clutters the table to the point where its unreadable without said column? Fancy that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for "cogent argument", not your opinion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bored of USRD bulldozing again

[edit]

The regional destinations are sourced as they are, leave them as is unless you can source them differently with a reliable source. Jeni (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read MOS:CAPS and start a discussion there if you want UK roads to be granted an exception to how location names are rendered in Wikipedia articles. This isn't a USRD vs. UKRD issue, it is a Wikipedia issue. Case in point, the road sign here would say either "North" "NORTH" or "North" for a direction, and a destination location would be either "Cadillac", "CADILLAC" or ""Cadillac", but in all cases, per the Manual of Style, those word have to be rendered as "north" and "Cadillac" because one is a direction and one is a location. Likewise, even though British road signs use all caps, Wikipedia does not and the article needs to reflect Wikipedia style and practice, not how the sign is rendered. Imzadi 1979 → 17:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section header should read "Bored of Wikipedia bulldozing again". --Rschen7754 20:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm "Tired of Wikipedia bullshit again". Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading south-west

[edit]

Traffic presumably also heads north-east. Such expressions need to be tightened to be encyclopaedic. Roads don't move but traffic does. A road extends between places, usually with traffic in both directions. Language needs to be found to reflect that reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/contractors/photo_enforcement/redspeed/press4.html
    Triggered by \broadtraffic-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on M5 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on M5 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M5 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M5 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M5_motorway&oldid=1208647980"