text:
Template talk:Chembox/Archive 1

Various includes/excludes to the tables
The Thermochemistry values and symbols need to be explained somewhere. AxelBoldt 18:53 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

 * I've added links to standard enthalpy change of formation and created and linked to a new page standard molar entropy. Good enough? --- Tim Starling 04:12 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

It would be nice if a space for association or dissociation constants (in water) could be made. I may not give a darn about the enthalpy of formation of an organic acid, but if it had 2 carboxylate groups I might want to know the Kd of both. Dwmyers 15:30 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought from the start that organic compounds would require a different set of properties to inorganic ones – hence the title of this page. If you want to make tables for the organic compounds, I can give you the excel spreadsheet I used to generate the current tables. It's pretty handy: it has a macro which processes a wiki text file and replaces certain tags with values from the spreadsheet, then dumps the text to the clipboard. I had been meaning to put it up on the web somewhere, but hadn't gotten around to it.

 * For the moment, though, you might want to consider adding a table to the dissociation constant article – like what I did with band gap. I don't really know much about organic chem – the last time I studied it was in high school -- Tim Starling 00:44 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Short form of page for less common inorganics
I have put up a short version of an inorganic compound page, called inorganic_stylesheet1 since I note that the current template is rather intimidating. I am concerned that most people writing new pages are not going to want to spend the time to look up all of the data asked for, and I personally don't like putting up a page where most of the entries have a "?". This could get even worse if we include all of the details that a "full" page should include (see my comments in the next talk section on suggestions for the template). I have put up a sample page at samarium(III) chloride so you can see what a typical page might look like. I have put some more extended comments up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals

Please give me your comments on inorganic_stylesheet1, either here or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals- thanks!

If people like this, I will produce one for organics too. Walkerma 19:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

After several minor changes to inorganic_stylesheet1, this seems to be a good format for inorganics. It is not quite as short as simple organic template, so I have used the word "short" instead of simple. I have now uploaded the template, but the main page for Chemical infobox is getting rather cluttered- feel free to reorganise this. I will upload a list of pages using the new short form (about 20 so far) when I get time. By the way Cacycle, I love the new simple organic template, we really needed this. Thanks! Walkerma 17:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See discussion on Walkerma's page .Walkerma 16:50, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chemical Infobox
I just discovered another "sister" project, compiling DATA on chemical compounds over at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox. We should keep an eye on things happening over there. Walkerma

From the various talk pages
I have reorganized the current template, you can see the new version below. I will use this new template on hydrochloric acid for a real-life example. The only row I have removed (as far as I remember) was the "pH of 10% solution". If you have suggestions please post them here. 19:24, 14 Mar 2005 Cacycle

 * Being familiar with the result on the hydrochloric acid, I would like the standar chembox to have a link back to the template:chembox page, where we can provide the disclaimer and other legalese. Additionally, this will provide us a means of automatic counting the use of this template.
 * ps. If the table below is the same as on the template page, I think it can be deleted here on this discussion page. Wim van Dorst 16:16, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC).

I removed the (double) template here, and --unanswered-- will take initiative for the chembox. Be Bold they say. Wim van Dorst 21:59, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC).

Hazardous Chemical Database
The problem I see with using this is that the pages doesn't seem to stay for very long at the same spot. Right now I wanted to look at sulfuric acid and went to http://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/erd/chemicals/8/7116.html, given in the article, but the link was broken. That has happened a lot recently. What made it worse is that the search function there gave neither sulfuric acid nor sulphuric acid. So, is there anyone who knows any more reliable sources than HCD? Mikez 21:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Correction - this time the search yielded http://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/erd/chemicals1/8/7109.html for sulfuric acid /Mikez

 * Unfortunately the HCD people have rebuilt their database since I initially gathered the links, and most of the internal IDs have changed. Thus, the large majority of safety information links are currently broken. The data is still in there, someone just needs to find it again using their awful search engine, and fix all the links. -- Tim Starling 16:59, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Why are "Standard Enthalpy of Combustion" and "Standard molar Gibbs free energy change of formation" not on the table? --OldakQuill 17:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Because most inorganic compounds don't combust, and the Gibbs free energy can be calculated from the entropy and enthalpy, which are already given, using the formula:

 * ΔG = ΔH - TΔS

 * If you need to know the energy of combustion or oxidation of an inorganic compound, form a balanced equation of reactants (the compound with oxygen) and products, then find the total formation enthalpy of the products and reactants. The heat of combustion is the difference of the two. -- Tim Starling 00:31, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

Table frmt
Could the following be wrapped / implemented?

I think the important part is style="margin-left:1em" ... so as the text doesn't "rub up" against the tables? It does in mozilla ... thnks, reddi
 * This has been dealt with a long time ago. Wim van Dorst 21:08, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC).

Infoboxes (discussion moved from Chemistry Wikiproject)
There are a few pages I've made/heavily edited that link to organic table information that use tables inspired by the inorganic table information template. In making these, however, I came to realized that the appropriate information for any given compound varies rather heavily from compound to compound, and so the "definitive" organic table never came to pass. This is better shown by looking at a few of the pages and their tables, such as furfural, citric acid, and butadiene. Shimmin

 * I had created organic table information before I found this comment, but no regrets - it ought to exist if it's linked. I have raised it to a superset of the sold, liquid, gas, acid/base and hazardous type info. --Keith Edkins 21:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I've made a template for the infobox. You can use    to add it to articles.  I merged the inorganic compound and organic compound tables into it; I think it covers everything one might be interested in.  A few fields (such as the IUPAC name) might not be needed for inorganic compounds, but everything else should probably remain the same between the two.  --Eequor 20:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a new template for a chembox that is in use for medium-sized organic compounds. For a list of the about 80 articles that already use this box see Chemical infobox. Cacycle 16:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Shall we move these discussion texts to the talk page of the Chemical infobox?. Wim van Dorst 07:54, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC).
 * I did. They're here. Wim van Dorst 21:42, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC).

Question about which box to use
There are two types of info boxes which I'll call "orange" and "new" (since I think it's newer--the info box currently shown on the project page.) I actually prefer the orange box style, and plan on making articles with that. Is there a problem with this? Can we even adopt that as the official standard? For one thing, the new box shows up poorly on some browsers (with black backgrounds in some cells), and I think color makes these articles look better. Cool Hand Luke 23:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I've notice several different schemes on various articles, so I don't know exactly what new box you're talking about. I prefer and use the two-tone color scheme of the present infobox. - Centrx 20:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm now at home on a mozilla browser and I can now tell the new one is still orange (now two-tone). On certain versions of IE, the current style looks awful: the backgrounds appear black. I'll try to tweak the template the make this problem go away. Otherwise, I do like the new style better. Cool Hand Luke  20:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it possible this is because of some articles using colors like #FAD or #FED instead of #FFAADD or #FFEEDD ? - Centrx 20:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * More than possible. I fixed the template. If I happened to edit articles using just three bytes, I'll fix them too, but I'm not going out of my way to do it. Cool Hand Luke  00:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer and References links
Hi, guys, I added a Disclaimer and References link to all three infoboxes, linking back to the Chemicals infobox page. This was in old version of the infobox, and I liked it. Wim van Dorst 22:38, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC).

How To Use Infoboxes
Hello WikiChemists! Very basic question: How does one use these info boxes? I paste the text into the article, but am unable to edit the entries. So, I figure I'm doing something wrong. (See Lithium aluminium hydride as an example of my attempt to add an infobox.) ~K 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We should consider this a FAQ and display this usage-tip somewhere. Í'll try to find a proper place somewhere. Wim van Dorst 12:27, 2005 May 2 (UTC). I put it up on the Chemical infobox page itself. Wim van Dorst 08:57, 2005 May 5 (UTC).
 * Edit the chemistry article to add the infobox to
 * Type the text   on the top line
 * Save the page. Now that typed text is substituted by the actual infobox code
 * Edit the article again, and now the infobox is available for editing

Limonene template problem
User:Malcolm Farmer notes problems with using the infobox, if you look under the history of the new (and much-needed) Limonene page. If you look at the older versions of the page, you will see. Maybe we need to explain how to use these templates, because I confess I haven't worked it out properly myself, and I even wrote one! Myself, I just keep versions of each template in MS Word, and I edit them as I need to. How do others do this?

 * Hi Martin, the trick is to open the page where you want the table for editing, type, and then save the page. Upon saving the actual template table is inserted into the page. So opening the page again for editing: Presto, the full table is there! PS. Good progress you, Henry and the others are making. Wim van Dorst 20:57, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC).
 * I just inserted the chembox, added some details, and edited the text a bit. It does need quite some work, though. Wim van Dorst 22:22, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC).

FYI, I added a new Category:Terpenes and terpenoids, I didn't like them all going into organic compounds, and User:V8rik has been very busy creating Ionone, Citral, etc. Walkerma 16:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation. With writing most of my material offline, I'd missed this, I feel so stupid! But probably a lot of newbies have the same problem, only they're afraid to ask. Walkerma 15:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for the template
I have a few thoughts on editing the template, but I don't want to upset people by editing first and asking questions later. Also see my comments in the previous section on a short form.

1. A lot of thermodynamic properties are included, yet many other things are not. Is this by choice, or is it just an accident of evolution? I would definitely like to include coordination geometry for metal compounds, and possibly include a section on hydrates too. I think there should also be a link to related compounds, as they do with chemical elements- thus the page on NaCl would link to NaF, NaBr, NaI, LiCl and KCl. There are quite a few other pieces of data omitted from the template, such as dielectric constant, molar conductivity, dipole moment, viscosity, vapour pressure at STP or SATP, refractive index, lambda-max and extinction coefficient, major IR bands, 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR chemical shifts (for organics), mass spectrum information, magnetic susceptibility, magnetic moment (where appropriate), symmetry point group, basic chemical properties (besides the acidity currently included)- and these are just a few things that spring to mind! The NMR, IR and possibly MS could be links to scans of the spectra. Many of these are properties I would consider to be more important than those currently in the template- but if we put EVERYTHING in, it may be quite overwhelming- so do we need to limit what is included? If so, what goes in and what stays out?

2. Isn't specific gravity rather redundant when density is included?

3. Don't the Safety and Precautions sections really belong in an MSDS rather than here? We include a link to an MSDS in the template box, so anyone wanting serious safety information will look there (or at an external link if provided). It seems silly to clutter up much of this box with a repetition of the MSDS information. The purpose of a page on a chemical compound is to provide a summary of properties, uses, etc. of that compound, it should not try to be a watered-down MSDS. I would suggest a simple summary term like "Hazards"- and then put in simple words such as Irritant, Carcinogen, Toxic, along the lines of the Aldrich catalogue. If someone wants the full MSDS sheet they click on the link.

4. Should things like density and phase be given for STP, or should we use SATP? I think of benzene as a liquid, not a solid! I think many density values are given at temperatures other than 0 °C. Also, shouldn't the default for temperature be °C rather than K? Other than NIST, I don't know of any chemists who routinely use anything other than °C to report the majority of their information on chemical compounds- but then I am an organic chemist rather than a physical chemist!

Walkerma 20:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I raised some of these questions some time ago, when I was quite new to Wikipedia. I still think most of the above comments apply. Now we have more chemists active on Wikipedia, it may be time to revamp the main template- which I suspect had a lot of input from non-chemists, so it comes across to me as unusually skewed towards certain data. Can I solicit comments here? Once we have resolved the List of compounds split I would like to start wholesale editing of this main compound template. Walkerma 22:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Short form" standard for less common inorganics
Looking at the template that we are currently developing/using- Chemical_infobox

I am concerned that it may be far too detailed for less common materials. For example, it may be perfect for methanol or sodium chloride, but the types of thing I have been submitting (such as cerium(III) chloride) frequently do not have detailed thermodynamic properties available- and even if such data are available, I may want to get a page up in a reasonable amount of time which is not filled with question marks. Bearing in mind that even some quite simple compounds such as calcium chloride do not currently have basic information, I think it would be better to get a large number of compounds entered in with reasonable pages, rather than having only a couple of dozen compounds covered in excruciating detail.

Another point on this- there are still many details omitted from the Chemical_infobox template, such as dielectric constant, molar conductivity, dipole moment, viscosity, vapour pressure at STP or NTP, refractive index, lambda-max and extinction coefficient, major IR bands, 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR chemical shifts (for organics), magnetic susceptibility, magnetic moment (where appropriate), symmetry point group, basic chemical properties (besides the acidity currently included)- and these are just a few things that spring to mind! Many of these are properties I would consider to be more important than those currently in the template- but if we put EVERYTHING in, it may be quite overwhelming!

I have also added a couple of extra comments on this at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox.

I would also like to suggest that we have some suggested section headings, such as "Chemical properties," "Uses," etc.

To that end, I have taken the liberty of putting up a short form of the template written as a regular page, called inorganic_stylesheet1. If this should be called something else, please feel free to rename it and the related image file. It was created by taking the Chemical_infobox template, chopping it down and editing it mercilessly. It will allow us to upload a lot of pages without having to spend hours tracking down molar entropy for gaseous samarium chloride. The table includes what I would consider only the bare essentials, nothing more. The idea is that in the future someone could (if they wish) upgrade this more basic page to the more detailed version. However, in most cases, most people would be delighted to find even the short form information in Wikipedia- for the majority of compounds I think it would be entirely sufficient. I have also put up a typical example, samarium(III) chloride so you can see how a typical compound might look.

Please give feedback! If people like this format, I would like to get a basic set of compounds done in this format.

Walkerma 19:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have put up some pages in this format, please take a look, give comments. See lithium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium chloride and a new page, aluminium chloride. I plan to do a few more chlorides in coming weeks as time allows.

Feb 2005- See discussion on Walkerma's page.

 * Hi, Martin, as the infobox is now up at this project page itself (after much moving around of both the box and the discussion about it), I took the liberty to strike out the misdirecting information from your text here.

 * Importantly, I'd like to fully agree with your remark that the short version of the inorganic table is by far not short enough. I'd rather like the shortiness of the organic table. Could you reduce the inorg one as much as the org one? Wim van Dorst 22:19, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC).

Thanks for the reorganisation, Wim- I know things had kind of evolved, and needed some tidying up. I like the way you've set up the talk pages (even though it looks from the above like I'm repeating myself- yes, I admit I did cut & paste some things!). I had the impression when I started that some people worked in one corner and others in another corner, with the left hand not knowing what the right was doing. I hope that the changes help to reduce this problem. I like the disclaimer text too- unobtrusive, but we're nicely covered.

As for the inorganics table, I've been very happy with it, and it only takes me about 20 minutes to fill it out, but that's because I have all of the books laid out in my home office. I can certainly come up with a very basic one, and I'll call it "simple" so it can be seen to be comparable to the organic one. I'll try to do that soon. I'd also like to make some changes to the so-called "main" template- which I don't think has been used by anyone here in over a year as far as I can tell- though the Germans seem to be using a simpler version of it. See my comments above on this page. I took a very close look at the history of the current version, and it seemed that lots of people added things to it, but no one took things away. I would like to remove much of the safety information, and replace that with a link. My impression is that I have never actually seen the current version of the "standard table" used in full by anyone (though ammonia is close)- having created a time-consuming "monster" table, this table was then abandoned by its creators! Earlier versions of the table were much more reasonable, and these are the versions you see actually in use more. I may even add one or two things- I really like the "related compounds" idea- but rest assured it should be a lot sharper overall. So unless anyone objects strongly to my suggestions here, I will start to edit the "standard" table in 2-4 weeks time, as time allows. Walkerma 03:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Martin, don't wait another fortnight for improvements. You have good ideas: go for it! I recommend to reduce the short inorg template by moving that related-compounds part to the big chembox template. That'll be a good step. And then I would like to propose to further reduce by moving the structure details too: that are rather difficult data to find (for people without big books on their desks. And what about moving the product name to the header field, Wim van Dorst 20:26, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC).

Odor
In my opinion the parameter "odor" should be removed, as the previous "psychological" classification of smell sensations has been shown to be obsolete and inaccurate. Also the number of primary odors is not at all clear. It can vary from at least 100 to perhaps more than 1,000. Discrete odor blindnesses have been proved to exist for many of these. For more info, see Guyton:Textbook of medical physiology, ISBN 072168677X. --Eleassar777 11:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair point. I will be doing a major revamp of this template soon, I will take out that section.  There's also the safety issue- we discourage people from sniffing things too much unless we know they're safe.  I think the odour issue is best handled in the introductory paragraph in cases (like limonene) where it's appropriate, but for many things it's irrelevant anyway. Walkerma 14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Good point. Odor is out of the template. Wim van Dorst 20:00, 2005 May 4 (UTC).

May I ask why it is still present in the infobox of e.g. the article hydrochloric acid? Does it have to be removed manually from all the articles the part of which it is? --Eleassar777 20:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * yes: all the infoboxes in all wikipages are fixed into the text. The template is only useful for starting a new infobox. If you want to replace an outdated one, you'll have to do the whole laborious work of substituting the (empty) new infobox into that wikipage, copy/re-keying/moving all numbers into the new table and finally deleting the old table. Wim van Dorst 21:35, 2005 May 4 (UTC).

New Wikipedia colour scheme: ClockWorkSoul
Hi, all. I have applied the new colour scheme ClockWorkSoul, which is generally chosen for the page-wide banner templates, to all four of the chemical infoboxes. Actually, I'm a sucker for standards, but this time I see that the dividing horizontal lines on my Unix-box come out very poorly. What do you think? Wim van Dorst 22:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC). I used the lithium aluminium hydride and dimethylsulfone as examples. Wim van Dorst 22:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

 * I think that scheme is fine for the inorganic pages, the colour change is fairly small. (Is it usual to take out the dividing line between the two columns? If that's the norm, I'm OK with it.)  However I think it's good to distinguish organics from inorganics, so I really like Cacycle's grey-blue version, which has become a "standard" for most organics.  I'll go with the group's overall opinion, though. Walkerma 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, it is not good to completely loose the dividing lines. They are not in the colour scheme per se, but a result of using styles (as per the scheme). I have added to the styles to see several important dividing lines again. Example is up at hydrochloric acid. Comments? Wim van Dorst 22:03, 2005 May 3 (UTC).

I'm pleased that you like my ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll color scheme. Let me know if there's anything I can do to adjust or improve upon it for you. – ClockworkSoul 17:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Could we reduce the number of infoboxes to three?
There is a good chembox template now, that really always should be considered for a Chemicals WikiPage. Then there are two nice and handy simple chemboxes for organic compounds and for inorganic compounds, which are for less known chemicals or for Chemicals wikipages still in a stub phase. Can we declate that enough? I'd rather remove the short inorganic for the Chemical infobox wikipage (Sorry Martin), and start using the other three for real. We can elaborate this recommendation in the text and in the WikiProject Chemicals activities much better too. Wim van Dorst 05:31, 2005 May 4 (UTC).

By the way, can someone remove odor? See discussion above. --Eleassar777 13:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC). Done. WvD.

 * I have been very busy with exams looming, but I will endeavour to rewrite the main template by Friday May 6th. I disagree that the template is good at present, there are important things missing and some silly things (like odor!) included (see ).  I don't know of any new pages that have used in the last year.  If the consensus is against the rewritten version, we can always revert it.   I like the way User:Cacycle rewrote my original "short form" so as to be flexible- you omit things that are irrelevent.  For a "standard" template this is essential, but it's not set up that way at present- I will try to make it adaptable for covalent inorganics, covalent organics, ionic inorganics, etc.  If we have something like that then I have less attachment to the short form inorganic template.  However we may decide that having an intermediate between a 5 minute table and a one hour table is a good idea- what do others think? Walkerma 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Martin, to have one really good chembox template, covering everything that is necessary but in a flexible way is IMHO the target. That is then the way to go for the FA-quality chemicals wikipages. No discounting on that: if it takes an hour to do it well, so be it. It's a joint effort of thousands, so all together we can spend some time on it. And only for all the other chemicals wikipages we offer two minimal infoboxes, sort of step up to the big thing. I guess, that is what we would call a minimum below which we're talking stub-quality. No half-baked infobox suggesting that a good job is done when it isn't, really. Wim van Dorst 20:26, 2005 May 4 (UTC).

 * I did a little bit of housekeeping (archiving old discussions about things that have been already done) in this page, leaving open all discussions about the content of the undefined template. On the projectpage itself I did similar housekeeping, e.g., included the FAQ about How to use templates. To not push you too hard, I refrained from putting your May 6 target for the Chembox update on that page too, but of course you're free to add it as a personal reminder. ;-). I'm looking forward to the update, which I hope will spur things on quite a bit. Wim van Dorst 13:01, 2005 May 5 (UTC).

 * I have put up my draft version on my user page, please take a look. Walkerma 21:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Chembox/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Play UK

Extra Information Needed
More Information - sorry new to this so don't know if I'm doing it properly or not. I have a tiny bit of more information about comedy programmes on Play UK. The programme entitled Mark and Lard's Pop Upstairs Downstairs was actually called Mark and Lard's Having a Pop. Writers included Mark Coley, Pat Gallagher and Dave Roarke. I think Pat Gallagher also directed but not sure. Katcocat (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have marked this article (Play UK) as a stub as I feel more information is needed. Mainly in these areas:

 * More music programming - I think there was more music programming. But those are the only ones that I can remember.
 * More comedy programming - There are more comedy programs that were broadcasted on UK Play/Play UK but I cannot remember them right now and there were certainly more originally produced programming then the two I have mentioned. :| (Added two more, but I think there were a few more --Kiri* 12:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * Actual launch date of Play UK (as Play UK).
 * The date when UK Play rebranded as Play UK.

A few things that need to be nitpicked:

 * The sentence in the article "The channel is aimed at playing (for most of the time) music in the morning and afternoon while broadcasting comedy in the evening.": Would you feel it needs to be slightly (or completely) reworded (I was never brilliant at English ;)?
 * The heading called Play UK Closure: Should it really have a heading of it's own or would it be better to be appeneded to the first paragraph in the article?
 * Have I spelt everything correctly? I hope I have! ;)
 * Should UK Play have a redirect to this article? (Redirect added. --Kiri* 12:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC))

That's all I can think of what else is needed in this article at the moment. --Kiri* 20:49, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deletion/redirection
There are identical pages for both uk play and play uk, one needs to be redirected to the other.88.108.25.21 20:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fshnm.gif
Image:Fshnm.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ukplay.jpg
Image:Ukplay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Play UK


text:
Concordia University Nebraska

Concordia University, Nebraska is a private Lutheran university in Seward, Nebraska. It was established in 1894 and is affiliated with the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod as one of seven schools in the Concordia University System. The university is organized into three schools: the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Education, and the College of Graduate Studies.

Founding and early years
Efforts by four Seward businessmen, including the gift of 20 acre of land and $8,000, led the district to settle on Seward as the site for the college. The school, then named the Evangelisches Lutherisches Schullehrer-Seminar (Evangelical Lutheran Teachers' Seminary), was officially dedicated on November 18, 1894. Two days later, classes began with its 13 students boarded, fed, and taught in the same building (now Founders Hall) by J. George Weller and his wife. Students were originally taught for three years before transferring to Addison Teachers Seminary to continue their instruction.

The academic programs were expanded in 1905 with the addition of two years of college studies. By 1908, a fourth year of high school was added to the program. Throughout the early years, the local community provided support to "The German College", as it was unofficially termed, including foodstuffs, housing, and funding. While most classes were conducted in German, English was also taught and used.

With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the school faced significant anti-German sentiment by the local populace despite Director Jesse's support as a Four Minute Man. In a demonstration of their American pride, the school changed the language of all its classes to English and constructed a 100 ft flagpole, said to be the tallest in the county. After the war, the school was accredited as a junior college and became co-ed in 1919 although women boarded with families off-campus. In December 1918, the Lutheran Seminary, as the university was then named, suffered infection during the 1918 flu pandemic with at least 15% of the student body being infected and one student dying. The school suffered another less-severe outbreak in 1920.

Concordia Teacher's College
The first bachelor's degrees were awarded in 1940. The school became an accredited four-year institution in the late 1940s. In 1959, Concordia became the first of the LCMS schools to be accredited by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. The school was named Concordia Teacher's College, reflecting the largest program until the addition of liberal arts majors in the 1970s. The school was again renamed to Concordia College from 1974 to 1998.

The university grew and expanded its programs, including science labs, a large library, and multiple residence halls. Business, art, science, and health-related programs were added to the teaching and pre-seminary courses. Graduate programs were added in 1968. With the increase in enrollment came new programs and professors, many who were housed along Faculty Lane.

Growth into university
The college became part of the newly established Concordia University System in 1995. and became a university in 1998 and was renamed Concordia University Nebraska. Concordia opened a 8550 sqft location in Lincoln's Fallbrook development to house graduate classes.

Throughout the 2000s, despite the growth of secular studies, the church-work programs continued to flourish with Concordia having graduated nearly 30% of LCMS church workers by 2019.

In 2009, the Walz Health and Human Performance Complex was completed, significantly improving the athletic facilities and performance spaces. The newest building on the campus is the Dunklau Center for Science, Math and Business, completed in 2019. The Dunklau Center added 58000 sqft primarily to the sciences while renovating existing spaces for other programs including the new agricultural program.

In 1996, the college hosted the first annual Plum Creek Children's Literacy Festival. The festival now brings nearly 10,000 school-aged students and teachers to campus to interact with authors and illustrators. It has included famous authors such as Lois Lowry, John R. Erickson, and Richard Peck. In 2021 the University canceled the Plum Creek Children's Literacy Festival two days before the event was scheduled after multiple authors and illustrators withdrew from the event upon learning of the school's opposition to homosexuality for religious reasons.

The current president of Concordia University is Dr. Bernard Bull.

Campus
The main campus is 85 acre in the town of Seward, Nebraska, with over 11 academic and administration buildings and 11 residence halls. Notable buildings include:

 * The Music Center. Offices for the music department are located here as well as a number of practice rooms equipped with pianos and organs. In 2008, a Casavant Freres pipe organ was installed in the recital hall, Heine Hall. A black box theater in the basement of the center serves as a venue for intimate theatrical performances throughout the year.
 * The Heartfelt Memorial features several sculptures and a garden dedicated to the memory of deceased children. It was completed in 2015.

Academics
The university is organized into three schools—the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Education, and the College of Graduate Studies. Concordia University is institutionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission. The teacher education programs are accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP); music programs are accredited by the National Association of Schools of Music (NASM); and the institution's business program is accredited by the International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education (IACBE).

Undergraduate
Concordia awards bachelor's degrees in more than 50 undergraduate programs. In addition, the university awards the Lutheran Teacher Diploma, Christian Teacher Diploma, the Director of Christian Education, and Director of Parish Music certificate. Graduates of these programs serve as rostered church workers in the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Pre-seminary and pre-deaconess programs are also available, including the necessary language courses to attend the seminaries of the LCMS.

Graduate
Concordia University offers several master's degrees. These programs offer a majority of their courses online. Most face-to-face classes meet in Seward, Neb.

Student life
As of August 23, 2022, the student body included 1,124 undergraduate students. 52% of students are male and 48% are female. Students are expected to uphold biblical practices in line with LCMS doctrine including sexual relations between heterosexual, married couples.

Residence halls
There are currently 11 residence halls (dormitories) on the university's Seward campus. These dorms are separated by gender, with the exclusion of Jonathan Hall.

Extracurricular activities
Over 30 clubs and organizations exist on campus, ranging from service-oriented groups to intramural teams to academic support groups to honorary societies. The Sower is the university's bi-weekly newspaper. The Tower is the title of the institution's yearbook. The Curtain Club performs drama. The Student Activity Committee (SAC) organizes concerts, comedy shows, free movies, bowling nights and the popular Spring Weekend. Concordia also has a Speech and Debate team.

Visual arts
Concordia's art students exhibit their artwork at the on-campus Marxhausen Gallery of Art. The Marxhausen Gallery also intermittently hosts visiting artists from around the country who give presentations and display their art. The university's permanent collection of more than 300 works, the Koenig Collection, contains screen prints, etchings, lithographs and other original prints by nationally and internationally recognized artists. The Center for Liturgical Art at Concordia seeks to encourage and assist the Church in its ministry through the visual arts by promoting its use in worship. Students work alongside faculty and visiting artists to create a variety of pieces.

Homosexual lifestyle prohibition
Concordia University's handbook prohibits "active involvement in a homosexual lifestyle" and specifies disciplinary action against students breaking this rule. This is one of several matters related to sexuality that the handbook holds to be sinful. Concordia publishes a journal, Issues in Christian Education, that often contains writing about the sinful nature of homosexuality. In 2021, the Plum Creek Literacy Festival at Concordia was canceled because authors withdrew their participation in the festival in protest of Concordia's LGBT prohibition. The festival had excluded books with LGBT characters by Eliot Schrefer and another author.

Athletics

The Concordia–Nebraska athletic teams are called the Bulldogs. The university is a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), primarily competing in the Great Plains Athletic Conference (GPAC) since the 1969–70 academic year. The school mascot is the Bulldog.

Concordia–Nebraska competes in 23 intercollegiate varsity sports: Men's sports include baseball, basketball, cross country, football, golf, powerlifting, soccer, tennis, track & field and wrestling; while women's sports include basketball, cheerleading, cross country, dance, golf, powerlifting, soccer, softball, tennis, track & field and volleyball; and co-ed sports include eSports and shooting sports.

Accomplishments
The Bulldogs have won three NAIA National Championships: men's outdoor track & field (2015), women's outdoor track & field (2016), and women's basketball (2019). Concordia's softball team appeared in two Women's College World Series in 1970 and 1971. The university also has many intramural sports.

Facilities
Concordia Nebraska's teams use the newly constructed Walz Human Performance Complex, Bulldog Stadium, and Plum Creek Park baseball and softball fields for competitions.

Concordia Invitational Tournament (CIT)
Since 1950, Concordia has competed in an annual men's basketball tournament against other LCMS universities. A women's tournament was added in 1965. Throughout the history of CIT, Concordia Nebraska holds the best aggregate record in both the men's and women's tournaments. Since 2001 the teams are: Concordia University, Nebraska, Concordia University Wisconsin, Concordia University Chicago and Concordia University, Ann Arbor.

Alumni

 * Dan Cloeter - Runner including winner of the 1977 and 1979 Chicago Marathon
 * Jeanne Combs - Nebraska state representative from the 32nd District from 2003 to 2007
 * Toby Down - Professional soccer player
 * Gris Grimly (Steven Soenksen) - Illustrator and author
 * Mary Ann Hanusa - Iowa state representative from 2011 to 2021
 * Alice Hausman - Member of the Minnesota House of Representatives since 1989
 * Amanda Husberg - Composer of hymns
 * Kenlon Johannes - Businessman and CEO of Kansas Soybean Commission and Association
 * Frederick C. Luebke - Historian
 * David Morgan - Professor and scholar
 * Brian Mueller - President of Grand Canyon University
 * Tom Mueller - College football coach
 * Brian Naber - College football coach
 * John Seevers - College football coach
 * Roby Smith - Treasurer of Iowa and former Iowa state senator from the 47th District from 2011 - 2022
 * Annette Sweeney - Iowa state senator from the 25th District since 2018 and member of the Iowa House of Representatives from 2009 to 2013
 * Robert Sylwester - Emeritus professor of education at the University of Oregon and recipient of awards for cognitive neuroscience research
 * Andrea von Kampen - folk singer and songwriter

Faculty

 * Bernard Bull - University president and scholar
 * Ron Harms - College football coach
 * Alan Harre - University president and administrator
 * Reinhold Marxhausen - Artist
 * Ralph Starenko - College football coach

title: Concordia University Nebraska


text:
Mahalevona

Mahavelona (commonly called Foulpointe), is a town in the district of Toamasina II, in the region of Atsinanana, on the northern part of the east coast of Madagascar.

Geography
It is situated at the coast of the Indian Ocean south of the mouth of the Onibe River. The town is located at 60 km north of Toamasina on the RN 5 between Toamasina and Maroantsetra. There is a reef around 150 metres out to sea which prevents waves hitting the beach; the waters by the shoreline are completely calm as a result.

Rivers
The Onibe river has its mouth at Foulpointe.

Economy
Its economy is based on tourism.

Administration
Eleven Fokontany (villages) are part of this municipality : Foulpointe, Saranaina, Antenina, Vohitamboro, Antaratasy, Marofarihy, Bongabe, Ambohimarina, Morarano, Ambohimanarivo and Ambodivoarabe.

International relations
Foulpointe is twinned with:
 * 🇫🇷 Entre-Deux, Réunion (France).

title: Mahalevona


text:
USS Beatty

USS Beatty may refer to the following ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Beatty (DD-640), a Gleaves-class destroyer which served from 1942 until she was torpedoed off Algeria by German planes in 1943.
 * USS Beatty (DD-756), an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer which served from 1945 until 1972.

title: USS Beatty


text:
User:Dumn

I'm Polish, so sorry for mistakes ;-)

Sandbox

title: User:Dumn


text:
User talk:62.3.68.125

March 2022
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Forest School, Walthamstow have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Forest School, Walthamstow was changed by 62.3.68.125 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.898941 on 2022-03-01T21:51:09+00:00

title: User talk:62.3.68.125


text:
Talk:Red Elvises

Editing
I changed a few grammatical errors, clarified some facts I found out at their last concert, added a little more about the current touring lineup. And by a little I mean very little. Kudos to the genius who put linebreaks after the dates on the Discography, I seriously never thought to do that when I first put it up. Rokenrol 20:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Current tour
Currently the Red Elvises are touring with Igor, Oleg and Adam on drums--they will most likely have either Oleg-Schramm or Elena on keyboards and from time to time they have other musicians joining them.Gypsyred 03:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Kayt/GypsyRed, Feb. 2007

Name Change
Just visited their Web site and it looks like the band is now called Igor & Red Elvises. Oleg no longer appears to be in the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.155.250 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Elvises. 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/20111008135403/http://news.redelvises.com/ to http://news.redelvises.com/

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) 08:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red Elvises


text:
USS Blue

USS Blue has been the name of two ships of the United States Navy:

 * USS Blue (DD-387), a Bagley-class destroyer named for Rear Admiral Victor Blue (1865–1928), which served from 1937 until sunk in combat in 1942.
 * USS Blue (DD-744), an Allen M. Sumner-class destroyer named for Lieutenant Commander John S. Blue (1902–1942), which served from 1944 until 1974.

title: USS Blue


text:
Talk:M3 motorway (Great Britain)

Exit labeling
The junction and exit labelling for J13 & 14 is incorrect.

The M3 J14 & M27 J4 is the interchange between the 2 motorways, sometimes refered to by local radio travel as the Southampton Interchange.

The J13 Southbound exit is to the A335 Eastleigh. The southbound entrance onslip at this junction is onto the M27 Westbound spur and you can only access M27 West and the A33 sliproad - not the M27 East. J13 Northbound exits onto A335 Eastleigh - this can be accessed regardless to whether you join from the M27 East, M27 West or the A33. The onslip joins from the A335 and heads North.

The J14 Southbound exit is 1/4miles after J13 and the motorway is signed to into M27 West and M27 East - both are also signed A33 Southampton. The A33 is accessible by both spurs as the A33 slip on the M27 West spur merges into the A33 from the M27 East spur. The A33 slip terminates at the Chilworth roundabout at the junction with the A27. J14 Northbound, the A33 from Southampton merges with the M27 from the East and then the M27 from the west. This is a 4 lane motorway for a brief period before the left lane becomes the J13 A335 slip road. There is no access to the M27 East or West from the A33.

This junction is known to be very busy and often a point of confusion for many unwary travellers.

If no-one has any objections, I will update the page.. --Bodlang 10:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Would Farnham count as a primary destination of the M3? Basingstoke and Winchester are along the motorway, but Farnham isn't.
 * Now removed Farnham as "primary destination". Enchanter 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this text:

 * The southern end of the M3 originally only connected to the A27 / A33 roundabout. Westbound connections to the M27 were added in 1975 and eastbound connections were added in 1984.

M3 to Southampton completion date?
This can't be right; the M3 up to Southampton was completed long after 1975. Enchanter 20:59, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * At that time the M27 did not exist. It's construction meant adding a new junction to the M3 between Junction 13 and the A27/A33 roundabout. The M27 was opened in sections hence different dates for west- and east-bound. -- Nick1nildram 09:15, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Enchanter here. I've just checked this in an Ordnance Survey road atlas dated 1986, and it shows the M27 complete from Portsmouth to its current end just short of the New Forest, but the M3 still terminating at J10 in Winchester. I think the confusion arises because the section of the M3 between just south of the current J11 and the M27 was created in the mid-90s by extensively upgrading the previously existing A33 trunk road along the same alignment, as described in the 'Construction and History' section of the article. Presumably the M27 connections were built on the dates described, but to connect with the A33 not the M3. -- Chris j wood 13:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The original terminus of the M3 was with a temporary junction near junction 8 that fed directly into the A33 at Popham, built in 1971. When the M3 was extended to junction 10 in 1985, this temporary junction was removed.

The alignment of the M3 from near junction 11 to junction 14 was built as the A33 in 1968. The westbound M27 link was completed in 1975 and the eastbound link in 1986. The road was upgraded to motorway in 1991 but only as far as a temporary junction at Compton south of present-day junction 11. This temporary junction was removed when the final section of M3 between this and junction 10 was completed in 1995.

Saving motorists 5 minutes?
I dislike the sentence that suggests the completion of the M3 over Twyford Down saved the motorist five minutes. I assume the intent is to emphasise the negative impact of Twyford Down on the environment; however I do not believe it takes into account the lower speeds created by congestion on the former A33 at Winchester, particularly the traffic lights at Hockley. Whilst I think the way Twyford Down was completed was disasterous for the landscape, from my personal experience the time saved is more realistically actually upwards of an hour.

--Ritchie333 15:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the excellent summary of the timetable of construction; do feel free to dive in and edit the article to add this sort of information.

 * Agreed on the statement of completion saving five minutes; a statement like this ought to be sourced (because is is likely to be controversial), otherwise it should go. Enchanter 21:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dab page
Is there any particular reason why this page sits where it does? Other countries have enormously longer and more important M3 motorways, e.g., M3 is the name of the motorway that connects the capitals of two largest states in Europe, Moscow and Kiev. I believe M3 motorway should be reserved for a disambiguation page. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * sounds reasonably to me, no idea how one makes it happen though. There will probably me many other cases to consider as well. PeterIto (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree if talking about "M3", but not "M3 motorway":
 * The M3 motorway is called the "M3 motorway" (since its planning in the 1960s), in its native language (if you see what I mean :^) ) of English, and this is the English (language) Wikipedia. M3 motorway (Russia) is apparently a translation of "Украина (автомагистраль)" - which to my naive eye looks like Ukraine Auto-something, but Babelfish translates as "Ukraine Highway". M3 motorway (Russia) is a redirect to M3 highway (Russia). Incidentally Google maps shows the road as M-3 not M3 - which one is correct? Similarly M3 motorway (Hungary) is a translation of M3 (autópálya) which could equally be highway etc.
 * The Irish and Pakistan M3s may genuinely be called motorways are much later: The M3 motorway article is older than the M3 motorway (Pakistan) road!
 * Not being hundreds of miles long does not make the English M3 insignificant as implied above. The M3 (with the A34 and M25) connects the major international seaport of Southampton to (amongst minor details like the rest of the UK) the UK's two largest cities, London (comparable in size to Moscow) and Birmingham (ditto Kiev). It is used every day by very large numbers of heavy goods vehicles from all over Europe, probably including Moscow and Kiev. It is certainly not a minor back-road. Pterre (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Construction dates and Twyford Down
Can we have some citations for the construction dates, and can someone check the statements I have made about the section of road completed as 'Twyford Down' (10 to 12). This information was in the original article, but I haven't checked it and it doesn't seem to fit with other information about the 11-14 being built much earlier. PeterIto (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
move to M3 motorway (Great Britain). There are other M3 motorways, there is a lot of discussion, and so, per If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation) ... --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

M3 motorway → M3 motorway (Great Britain) — An editor has moved this article, without using the correct standard of gaining consiousness, to the other location. This has happened on other articles. I will follow procedure and propose a move here. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  20:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How can a page move be performed by anyone who has not gained consiousness? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um please move this back to its previous stable version before TFZ today went nuts moving things around earlier. then a requested move should begin.. Not now. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is in the right place, but the talk page is in the wrong place.. it didnt get moved back BritishWatcher (talk) 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Actually yes, the talk page is still pointing at the "wrong" place (out of contrast with the article) and I cant move it back! I will request speedy of Talk:M3 Motorway per Housekeeping after which I will see if the article itself is "bad" because of the sudden changes. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  20:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

OK here are some of viewing stats for last month from the different things listed in the road section of M3 which contains many different articles not just transport related, theres no separate disam page for M3 motorways currently.

 * M3 motorway 2240   - Currently has the primary spot so some of these hits will be looking for articles listed below
 * M3 motorway (disambiguation) 37 - Redirec currently linked at top of this article
 * M-3_(Michigan_highway) 427
 * M3 (Cape Town) 218
 * M3 motorway (Hungary) 477
 * M3 motorway (Northern Ireland), 322
 * M3 motorway (Pakistan) 402
 * M3 highway (Russia) 23 for the redirect currently on the dab page, 240 for the main article location
 * EastLink (Melbourne) 418 for the dab page it originally linked to, corrected location today
 * proposed motorway that would upgrade the” N3 road (Ireland) 759

This is not as simple as the M1 Motorway was, however when we only take into account articles that are actually at M3 motorway (location) the current article appears to be the primary topic worthy of this prime spot, for that reason... BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Strong Oppose for the above stated reason. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "the entry you're referring to in this case", because in this case (as in the others) I have been comparing the existing primary topic with all the other M3 motorways. If you are referring to the Irish M3, then you're wrong: there is an Irish motorway called the M3, albeit under construction. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per BritishWatcher Jeni  ( talk ) 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Reviewing admin please note that in this comment on the M50 motorway, Jeni opposed the Irish M50 being the primary topic even though it gets 4 times as many hits as the one other article. Yet in this case, when the English M3 gets only the same number of hits as the total of the other entries, Jeni insists that it is the primary topic.  Meanwhile, Britishwatcher tries skewing the count by excluding articles which don't use the word motorway in their title, even though they are sometimes referred to that way (which is why they are listed in the dab page) ... yet even this doctoring of the figures produce a less than 2:1 ratio of hits for claimed primary article to the others.  This sort of inconsistent application of criteria makes a mockery of attempts to reach consensus, particularly when Jeni shouts accompanies it with allegations of vandalism at those who move articles in ways she disapproves of. I'm  beginning to think that this whole business will end up at arbcom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The M50 case is different. This debate would downgrade a head article, the M50 debate would have replaced a head article.  I could defend a head article at 4:1, but I couldn't support replacing one.  For what it's worth, the entry you're referring to in this case isn't even called "M3 motorway".  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The default position is supposed to be disambiguation, so your logic is back-to-front.
 * Support there is no primary topic here, roads have equal prominence, and per Wikipedia disambiguation. Most editors think M3 motorway is the disambiguation page, and the hits are misleading. Tfz     22:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence that most people think M3 motorway is a disam page. Why do the other locations that use "M3 motorway" in their title have less hits combined than this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's axiomatic. Readers look up disambiguation first. Tfz     22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are missing two very obvious points which I've mentioned below - (a) the hitcount for the dab page in the hatnote, and (b) the large number of incoming links to the British road article. Black Kite 22:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is unlikely. The target for most dab searches is most likely M3, which dabs correctly.  M2 motorway didn't have a primary target; this one does, mainly because the others are minor. Black Kite 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The highway in Russia is hundreds of miles in length. USA is about same length. I have to check on the others yet. Tfz     22:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Page hits are key here, though. You'll notice that if people were to arrive at M3 motorway by mistake, there's a hatnote to take them to the dab page.  Yet that dab page has had only 37 hits last month, suggesting that the vast majority of those people are in the right place.  The reason for this is that M3 motorway has a lot of incoming links from other road pages and settlements on the route - over 100.  Also, the Russian road isn't called the M3 motorway - it's the M3 highway - Russians don't call their main roads motorways.  Ditto the American one. No, unlike M2, this has to be a primary target. Black Kite 22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm forgot to mention the Disam page redirect, have added that to the links above too. Also just incase we are moving onto another location after this one, the figures for M4 motorway overwhelmingly show that is the prime article. M4 got 6614, the disam page only got 584, so i hope a RM wont even happen on that page because its a waste of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto M5 and M6. There's no British M7, and M8 to M10 are already dabbed. I haven't looked further than that. Black Kite 22:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not advocate disambiguation, and make Wikipedia more navigable. Readers might like to read the other M articles too. Tfz     23:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you suggesting that all dab pages should have the primary spot, no matter if theres a clear primary article? Would that include country articles ? One example that comes to my mind right away is Starwars, the overwhelming majority of people entering that into the searchbar will be looking for the article on the films, not an American missile shield. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You're missing the point that much of the article's traffic comes from internal links, and therefore dabbing it will actually make it less navigable, because everyone will have to go through the dab whether they want to or not (and the traffic stats suggest that they don't). Unless, of course, you want to change all the 100+ incoming links as well ... Black Kite 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixing internal links is a maintenance job to be undertaken when the move is done, not an argument against a move. When any move is made, the editor is specifically warmed that it's their responsibility to fix the links, as I did after moving the M18 article.  Those of us who regularly disambiguate are quite used to this sort of task.
 * In this case, a high proportion of those 100+ incoming links are generated by Template:UK motorways, which is used in about 85 articles; it takes only one edit to fix all those links. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you completely misunderstand US highway numbering if you think they are ever referred to as motorways! Jeni  ( talk ) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No you are completely wrong to delete the US highway, the page is linked from "M2" disamb page roads section, see here M2.  Tfz     00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The M2 disambiguation page is completely different to the M2 motorway page. Please read up on the differences. There are no motorways in the US! M-3_(Michigan_highway) is certainly not a motorway, it is a US state highway, check the difference. If you wish to change the wikipedia policies on disambiguation pages, there are more appropriate places to do it, namely WT:DAB Jeni  ( talk ) 01:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeni, they don't call them motorways in Russia or Hungary either, are you not splitting hairs on this one? Tfz     01:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its shocking just how many arguments can be sparked over motorway articles! BritishWatcher (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If we didn't have a group of editors dead set on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, we wouldn't have this issue :) Jeni  ( talk ) 01:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem here is that we have a bunch of British editors who are determined that a British article shall be the primary topic if they can possibly make a tenuous case for that view, regardless of that the fact that that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifically warns against that approach. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm not, highways in the US don't even get called motorways by accident. If they aren't called motorways in Russia or Hungary, then those pages should be renamed (unless motorway is an English translation of whatever they are called over there). If you would like me to post a message on the US roads WikiProject, then if you wish I shall. All that aside, your revert was dodgy anyway as it removed other content. If people are looking for roads with the 2 number, there are other articles and disambiguation pages for that, namely M2 and List of highways numbered 2. Nobody on Wikipedia typing "M2 motorway" into the search box will be looking for the US highway. Anyway, if you wish to discuss this further, this isn't the place, this is the talk page for M3 motorway, specifically the requested move section. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose per my comment above. Clear primary target, unlike M2. Black Kite 22:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As Black Kite points out, the hit count for the dab page is very low. In June 2009, the M3 motorway article received 1,807 views, and M3 motorway (disambiguation) got 25 views. That indicates, to me at least, that only 1.4% of the people who arrived at the article expected another road. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hit counts are very dangerous to use if all of the other pages have good links to the related articles. Not everyone gets to a page by entering the name directly.  So the low count for the dab page may not be significant.  Many readers get to a page from a link in a different article.  If those links are correct an editor would not get to the incorrect page.  Likewise readers get to this page from correct links in other articles.  Page hits may be a guide to help in determining a primary topic, but like all data, it needs to be used with care. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments of 15 March 2008. Pterre (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Although I think it's clear that the GB example is the first and probably currently the most important (can anyone provide any traffic stats for Pakistan or Northern Ireland?), I've come to the view that a DAB page is correct, not least in the interests of Anglo-Irish relations (yeah OK that's not a valid reason). In my opinion this should contain M3 motorway (Great Britain), M3 motorway (Northern Ireland), M3 motorway (Pakistan), and (when there is an article), M3 motorway (Ireland). The other roads (except possibly Hungary) should remain at M3 as they are not called 'M3 motorway'. Pterre (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per BritishWatcher. Clearly a primary topic. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support for several reasons, starting with the more trivial:
 * Hit counts for the status quo need to be read as reflecting those editors who didn't follow the hatnote to the dablink. It's small and easily missed, and I see no evidence on what proportion of those who encountered an an article on something else in  such situations actually used the dablink.  Some editors presume that most will, but I see no evidence for that, and plenty of useability studies stress that editors will speed-read and will rapidly go somewhere else if they don't find what they are looking for.
 * there is an indirect reader benefit from using a dab page as the primary topic, because it can be maintained by editors. Since any incoming links to a dab page are misplaced, it's easy to use popups to fix them ... but if another article is in the primary topic, then we have a double-whammy of misplaced links not showing up, and popups being unavailable to fix them.  That creates a permanent impediment to editors ability to help readers by ensuring that internal links point in the right direction.  When a link from an article on Pakistan leads a reader to the English M3, what's the guarantee that they'll search on another few steps for the correct article, rather than just using the back button?
 * There is an important systemic bias issue here. If ambiguities are resolved in favour of major western nations, then readers will find it harder to reach articles on other parts of the world, and some will give up ... which creates a self-reinforcing loop, in which obscuring articles on non-western issues reduces their relative hit-rate, justifying further obscurity.
 * Hits are a bad way of measuring the importance of a topic, because many of those hits will come from elsewhere on wikpedia. So if an article has many internal links (e.g. from articles on all the towns and villages nearby), that will boost the hit-rate ... not because of any intrinsic importance of the subject, but because of the existing systemic bias.  This is is a vicious spiral, in which the more prominence an article gains thriygh cross-linking, the more some editors argue that its prominence should be further enhanced.  The "evidence" they cite is just a feedback loop.
 * Leave aside hit counts for a moment, which are in any case a self-reference, and try assesing this on externally verifiable facts. Pakistan has a population three times of the UK, so it's arguable that the infrastructure of Pakistan is more important than that of the UK.  I'd prefer not make a value-judgement either way, but I see no WP:RS evidence for the claims that the English M3 is  a more significant topic (remember, wikipedia is not a reliable source).
 * ..and the UK has between 5 and 15 times the GDP (depending on the definition) of Pakistan. I've not so far found any traffic stats on it, but I suspect the GB one is rather busier. Sure, the Pakistan M3 is more important to south Asians than the GB one. However this is the English language Wikipedia, and the principal language of Pakistan is Urdu. I'm sure it's fine for their M3 to be primary over on the Urdu WP. Let's keep some perspective here. Pterre (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an important point, and you're not the first person to raise it. I think it's one where we should seek broader guidance, because your claim for primacy of English-speaking areas seems to me to run completely counter to what WP:CSB has been trying to do. This is an encyclopedia in the English-language, but I am surprised to see claims that it should therefore give prominence to the English-speaking world. I think this merits an RFC. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally, the default treatment of ambiguity is to disambiguate all articles. Editors seeking to make one article the primary topic should making a clear case for creating an exception, rather than simply pointing to effects of a previously created exception. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A minor point I know, but this has been the primary topic since 2003. What's changed after all this time? Pterre (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What's changed is that more articles have been written or expanded on other roads. e.g. Northern Ireland M3 article created 2005, Hungarian M3 article created 2005, Cape Town M3 article created 2006, Pakistan M3 article created 2007, Russian M3 article created 2007 ... and now we're getting around to examining the consequences of having all these other M3 roads.  It probably should have been done sooner. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out last year (and bearing in mind the title M3 motorway): M3 motorway (Russia) is a redirect to M3 highway (Russia), where it was moved in early 2008 with the comment "moved M3 motorway (Russia) to M3 highway (Russia): It is not a motorway, it is an ordinary road". Don't know if that is true but it has not been challenged; M3 motorway (Hungary) is a translation of "M3-es autópálya". Not clear how this becomes motorway - surely autoroute or similar is closer?; M3 (Cape Town) begins "The M3 is an expressway in Cape Town.." and does not anywhere use the word motorway. This leaves M3 motorway (Northern Ireland) and M3 motorway (Pakistan) so perhaps we could concentrate on these? The Pakistan road is a bit more than half the length of the English one. The NI one is 0.8 miles (1.3 km) in length. When (if?) eventually the Pakistan M3 becomes part of the proposed M3-M4-M5-M6-M7 from the M2 to Karachi, I'd agree there is a strong case. At present no. Pterre (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the page hitcounts that clearly show the English motorway to be the clear primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Oppose Primary, obv, waste of time, obv... 94.192.157.204 (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is what we're seeing throughout these discussions, a selective approach by some editors which leads to the British article magically coming out as primary topic time and time again, because the criteria applied are those which produce the required outcome of British=primary. Some editors such as are achieving that simply by contradicting themselves, but you are contributing to it by vocally opposing disambiguation here while you remain silent where you think it is needed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) As to Black Kite's position, it's all part of the pattern of inconsistent assessment of these articles by editors which is leading to perverse outcomes. Black kite may be entitled to remain silent, but a closing admin is entitled to draw their own conclusions about the weight to be attached to the !votes of editors who indulge in this sort of selectivity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Now, do you have anything serious to say about primary topics, or are you just here to try to attach the label "political" to anyone who doesn't share the fixation of some editors on the idea that UK mways automatically qualify as a primary topic just because they are British? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Now I'm glad you agree that some of the mways clearly aren't primary topics ... but if you look at M2 and M18 you'll see a huge pile-on of British editors inventing reasons to insist that they are. As a result, a headcount of those discussions would close as "no consensus", and while we both know that headcounts are not how these things should be done, sadly it's often how they are done in practice. As to this mway, it has probably the strongest claim to be be a primary topic of any of the mways under discussion, but if you look at my track record you'll see that I have consistently argued against selecting a primary topic on a whole range of subjects over a long time, for all the reasons I set out above. And Jeni, I know it upsets you to be reminded that there has been admin abuse here, but a partisan admin move-warring and using their tools in support of a partisan position is classic admin abuse. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wait and see For the time being the principle of least suprise suggests we should stick with the status quo but it's something we need to keep under review.©Geni 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support, I don't think the page view statistics are overwhelming in this case; the British M3 is only a moderately important motorway, as the view statistics indicate - it has less views than M1, for example. I think in this case disambiguation may be justified, but eh case is not overwhelming either way. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So if there's 30 Opposes and 1 Support on a requested move, and that one editor badgers all the others into extended conversation, then they can use that as justification for moving the page anyway? You couldn't make it up, really. Black Kite 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your 30-1 example is a reductio-ad-absurdam of a narrow reading of the guideline, as well as an irrelevancy to this discussion. I didn't write the guideline, and wouldn't have written it that clumsily ... but I think that it clearly means that the default position should be to disambiguate, selecting one article as the primary topic should only be done when there's a strong case for it rather than a marginal one. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Which there is here. M2?  No.  M18?  No.  This one? Yes. Black Kite 17:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's not a credible answer. Firstly, the table of incoming links at the top tells a rather different story. And secondly, if you actually support disambiguation of M18, why have you not participated in the discussion there to support disambiguation?
 * S/he has an absolute right to remain silent. If s/he did participate in that discussion it would be 100% irrilevent here let alone if s/he did not. Anyway the hits clearly show that this article is the primary topic. Regards, FM [ talk to me  |  show contributions  ]  10:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the hits show that the majority of readers looking for an M3 were not looking for the English M3, so it's not the primary topic.
 * How could you have possibly come to that conclusion? Jeni  ( talk ) 14:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "the hits show that the majority of readers looking for an M3 were not looking for the English M3" This is true only if you assume that nobody who looked at the "M3 motorway" page wanted the motorway in Britain, and everybody who wanted to view one of the other pages came via the "M3 motorway" page and the dab page. These are not reasonable assumptions to make. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I wrote above didn't say what I meant (and was clearly incorrect), so I have struck it. My intention was to say that more than half of the readers who read an article on an M3 motorway were not reading about the English M3, but about one of the other M3 motorways.  Since the majority of readers were not looking for the English M3, it's not the primary topic. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The figures do support that less than half the people who want to read about a road listed on the M3 motorway dab page choose to read about the road in Great Britain. However the figures also show this road has almost three times the views of any other one and that the disambig page has fewer views than any of them show that only a tiny proportion of the people who want to read about other roads do so by first looking at the M3 motorway page. Indeed if we assume that everybody who viewed the dab page wanted the Irish road then that is still less than one twentieth of the total readership of the Irish road article and less than one sixtieth of the visitors to the British road. This clearly shows that the primary topic for the title "M3 motorway" is the British Road, with less than one eighty-second of people looking reading other roads coming via the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or alternatively, you could have assumed good faith, because since I don't have the M18 article watchlisted, I didn't actually realise that your change had been reverted. I am off there to comment now. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose and censure original proposer. The evidence above puts this at an order of magnitude above each other individual use of "M3 motorway".  The Irish example is not even a motorway other than on paper.  User:BrownHairedGirl's move is clearly politically motivated with the purpose of pissing everyone off to make a point.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anonymous contributors are welcome, but you should check the facts before you start throwing around the insults: I did not move this article. You're also wrong about the Irish M3 motorway: construction started two years, and has been been the cause of a huge national controversy. Finally, your comparisons with other individual roads are irrelevant. Selecting one article as primary topic displaces all the other articles of the same name, not just one of them. That's why a primary topic needs to be more important to our reads than all similarly named articles combined. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ..." Either you're engaged in the politically-motivated campaign of moves, or you have really crap timing.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've been posting the same nonsense elsewhere, so I'm sure you'll continue. But if you think that an argument based on me having moved something which I demonstrably did not move is enough to pass some duck test, people would be well advised not to buy any ducks off you.
 * Well, you assumed bad faith with me, and you've assumed bad faith here (in many cases, editors aren't claiming the motorways are the primary topic because they're British, they're claiming that they're the primary topic because they obviously are the primary topic, and providing rationales as to why they think that is), so why is it surprising that a large amount of editors suspect that your sudden fascination with British motorways springs from the same source? Answer: not surprising. If you'd stuck to the M-ways that clearly weren't primary topics (M2, M18 etc) then that wouldn't have been a problem, but throwing an RM at the M4 even makes me suspect that it's yet another arm of the endless British-Irish antipathy. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * BHG has used up my quota of good faith with her constant outbursts of "admin abuse admin abuse" and claiming there is a British POV everywhere. No wonder so many people are starting to pick up on this! Jeni  ( talk ) 17:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I didn't bring bad faith into this discussion: I was denounced as a vandal and falsely issued with multiple block threats by a pile of British editors as soon as I steped into this area, when it came up on my watchlist. I'm glad to see that my assumptions about you were wrong, and I'm sorry I misjudged you: but sadly you are a rare exception to the rule here.
 * Evidence or GTFO. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have the evidence already. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm British myself, but I don't see why we have an exclusive right to this title - many countries have an 'M3 motorway', and that title could refer to any of them. The only reason the article on the British motorway is most developed and most linked-to is because of our (understandable) systemic bias towards English-language countries: we have more editors from the UK than, say, Hungary. That doesn't mean there's a primary topic here. The same goes for all other road articles. Robofish (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It should be moved to M3 motorway (England). GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please remember the Great Britain road numbering scheme which is broadly followed for the motorways. If the point of this move is consistency we should aim for a consistent system.Pterre (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose any move to "M3 (England)" per Pterre and the more detailed reasons I've given at Talk:M50 motorway, Talk:M18 motorway (disambiguation) and user talk:Sarah777. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Let the plain name be the disambig page. Many of the hits on page M3 motorway may have been people looking for a disambig page to find some other country's M3 motorway. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The viewing figures for the disambiguation page suggest that of the 2240 people who viewed M3 motorway, only 37 wanted a motorway that was not this one (and some of them may have wanted to read about this one as well). 15:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Weak Support: The Hungarian motorway is 2 1/2 times the length of the UK motorway. Furthermore, the article on the UK M2 is entitled M2 motorway (Great Britain).  Howevere, there are obvious points to make here.  First, anyone can move a page without discussion at any time.  Second, the DAB header gives the location of the DAB page.  Jubilee♫ clipman  19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is clearly no majority support for a move... please close this RM process, its been going on for weeks. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Traffic stats
I came across the Dept for Transport website which shows traffic counts in map form and as tables. I've added a stat and ref to the article, though you have to use a search to find the relevant numbers. The figure given is for Count Point 16321 just to the north of the M27. Pterre (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Chris's Road Directory
I invite you to support or oppose removing CBRD. Which ever you prefer, unless it is a firm keep, I intend on relegating them to a footnote, perhaps about the arguably just notability-qualifying feature which is the quite long-spurs M3/A31 junction.Adam37 (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support removal as it's not a WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on M3 motorway (Great Britain). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050218100428/http://www.hants.gov.uk:80/scrmxn/c25650.html to http://www.hants.gov.uk/scrmxn/c25650.html

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

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M3 motorway (Great Britain). 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/20060905175247/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m3londsouth.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m3londsouth.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905175247/http://www.iht.org/motorway/m3londsouth.htm to http://www.iht.org/motorway/m3londsouth.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) 11:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M3 motorway (Great Britain). 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/20070930201532/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/6363.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/6363.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201532/http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/6363.aspx to http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/6363.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) 00:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The M3 was built as two lanes plus hard shoulder.
From personal memory part of the London end of the M3 (M25 to J3?) was built as two lanes plus hard shoulder then widened later. I remember the road works well but not the dates. Bob Wikicont (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:M3 motorway (Great Britain)


text:
User:Rokenrol

Rokenrol doesn't advocate violence, but sometimes hits people anyway.

title: User:Rokenrol


text:
Dingwall railway station

Dingwall railway station serves Dingwall, Scotland. It is located just south of the junction of the Far North Line and the Kyle of Lochalsh Line, and is managed and served by ScotRail. The station is 18 mi from Inverness, and is the zero point for the Kyle of Lochalsh Line. It is sited after Conon Bridge heading northbound, with the next station being either Garve or Alness.

History
The station was built by the Inverness and Ross-shire Railway (I&RR) and opened on 11 June 1862 when the company's line was opened from Inverness to Dingwall. The extension to Invergordon came on 23 March 1863. The I&RR was consolidated with the Inverness and Aberdeen Junction Railway on 30 June 1862. The operating name became the Highland Railway (HR) on 29 June 1865. Under Highland Railway ownership the current station buildings were erected in 1886 by architect Murdoch Paterson.

The HR became a constituent of the London Midland and Scottish Railway (LMSR) in 1923.

The main passenger services through the station were to Wick and Thurso and to Kyle of Lochalsh. Between 1885 and 1946 there was a branch line service to Strathpeffer.

The Highland Railway built a small steam locomotive shed near the station and this continued in use by the LMSR and British Railways until closure at the end of steam locomotive operations in the area in the early 1960s. It was a sub-shed of the large Inverness facility.

The station formerly had two signal boxes to supervise the passing loop and junction between the two routes - both were however closed in 1985 when the Radio Electronic Token Block system was introduced by British Rail on the Far North Line. The system was initially worked from a control centre at the station, with the line southwards planned for inclusion in the Inverness area resignalling scheme. However, when the Inverness scheme was completed in 1988, RETB control was transferred to the new signalling centre there and one here was closed. The junction points were altered so that they were (and still are) power operated - drivers of northbound trains use a plunger on the down platform to select the correct route, whilst southbound trains trigger the correct setting by occupying track circuits on the approach to the station.

Historic Scotland designate the current station and platforms as Category B.

Accidents and incidents
In 1897, an evening train from Dingwall heading towards Garve stopped short of a summit, and the rear coaches of the train ran back down the steep ascent towards Dingwall, as the coupling failed. They stopped just before reaching the junction to the north of the station. The only damage was to some level crossing gates, which were demolished by the coaches.

On 22 January 2010, a Class 158 Express Sprinter unit (158701) working the 17:15 Inverness to Ardgay service derailed at Dingwall; nobody was badly injured, but one female passenger was taken to hospital as a precaution.

Facilities
Both platforms have benches and help points, with most of the main facilities sited on platform 1, being a concourse, a disabled toilet, ticket office, and a bar. There is a small car park (adjacent to which is a payphone) and bike racks next to platform 1. Platform 2 also has a waiting room and a shelter. Both platforms have step-free access. New annunciator LED screens have been installed on both platforms, giving information on the next three trains to arrive, and general security information.

Platform layout
It has a passing loop 32 chain long, with two platforms. Platform 1 on the northbound line can accommodate trains having eight coaches, whereas platform 2 on the southbound line can hold ten.

Passenger volume
The statistics cover twelve month periods that start in April.

Services
As Dingwall is a key station on the Far North Line, all trains stop here regardless of destination.

On weekdays and Saturdays, the station sees 7 trains northbound (4 to Wick via Thurso, 1 to Invergordon, 1 to Ardgay, 1 to Tain), 4 trains westbound to Kyle of Lochalsh, and 14 trains southbound to Inverness. On Sundays, the station sees 5 trains northbound (1 to Wick, 3 to Tain, 1 to Invergordon), 1 train westbound to Kyle of Lochalsh, and 6 trains southbound to Inverness.

title: Dingwall railway station