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

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was 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? --BrownHairedGirl (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)

• 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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.
        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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. --BrownHairedGirl (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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  6. 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. --BrownHairedGirl (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)

• 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)". --BrownHairedGirl (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. --BrownHairedGirl (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?
            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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
            • 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.
                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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
                • 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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. Black Kite 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. --BrownHairedGirl (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.
        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? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
        • 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. Black Kite 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.
              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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Evidence or GTFO. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
                • You have the evidence already. --BrownHairedGirl (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)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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 one external link on M3 motorway (Great Britain). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/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.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{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.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 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)