Talk:M12 motorway (Great Britain)

UK geography Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Highways: United Kingdom Low‑importance

	Roads portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force.

Untitled[edit]

You guys might want to take a look at cbrd - specifically the front page. I support his belief that whoever created this page stole it directly from his research without asking, and would propose that this page gets deleted or the infringing content cleared. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page in August 2006, but I didn't use information from cbrd. The original referenced source was pathetic motorways, although I knew some of the basic information anyway. Cbrd was only added as an external link on 31 July this year. If you use the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine you can see what the cbrd page covering the M12 looked like in September 2006 (see here), at the bottom you will see that there is a link to the Pathetic Motorways M12 page in the same way as this article links to them both. The article here does not steal from either site, but uses them, quite legitimately, as sources and provides links to both for interested readers. You will see that there is additional detail to the information in the pathetic motorways page that is not in the Wikipedia article. In fact, there is more info there than the cbrd site had at the time.

I have previously discussed with Chris the use of his excellent site as one of a number of sources when I wrote the London Ringways article and its sub-articles on the individual ringways (see Talk:London Ringways for the discussion). I think Chris's grievance stated on his web site, is that some Wikipedia reviewers are querying the authority of his site as a source. I don't know where this has happened, but I suspect it will have been in a Peer Review, Good Article Review or Featured Article Review, where reviewing sources is part of the process. Clearly his site is very well researched and some of the information that he has put on display must have taken a huge amount of effort to unearth. It should certainly be accepted as authoritative.

There is a fine line between using references (whether it is books or on-line content) to develop and expand articles and wholesale cribbing of content. Wikipedia editors need to be aware of when that line is crossed and be concious of the concerns of the authors of their sources in this respect. Certainly, a wholesale verbatim lifting of information is unacceptable plagiarism and needs to be removed where it is detected but that is not the case here. Information on public display on an open website, as the cbrd site is, remains the property of that web site's author (unlease it is released into the public domain), but it is still fair to use it as a source provided it is referenced. In fact, for a Wikipedia article to achieve Good Article or Featured Article status, it is required to provide secondary source references in support of its content.

It's a little disappointing that the cbrd link to wikipedia describes the content here as "The usual derivative slurry, digested and regurgitated by Wikipedia." because I think that it's better than that in most cases and the link here to chris's site probably provides many readers with a route to his site that they might not otherwise have. Not that I'm saying he should be grateful that cbrd is linked to from here, just that it's a two-way street and I certainly think that his site deserves to get as many visitors from Wikipedia as possible so they can see how much he has done. --DavidCane (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The Great Britain version of the M12 has never really existed, and was just a plan which never saw the light of day. The Northern Ireland version, however, is a real motorway (albeit a very short one) so I think it should be the primary topic, with a hatnote to the Great Britain one. — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "M"-something-"motorway"s are inherently ambiguous. They exist variously in many places in the world, and the -something- is not reliably known. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

A better route[edit]

I think a better route would be from Brentwood to Ipswich going through Chemlsford, Witham and Colchester. Starting at M25 Junction 28 and ending at the A12 - A14 (M14) junction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.64.45 (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]