Template talk:UK motorway routebox
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Primary Destinations box:
I'm just wondering. Is the idea to put all of the primary route destinations (i.e. the ones with names that are highlighted in green on a lot of large-scale maps) that lie close-ish to the motorway, or to put the control destinations (i.e. the ones that appear on the actual motorway signs as the "forward" destination at junctions) for the motorway in that box?
In my opinion, the latter would be more relevant to put in the motorway box, even though many of the current motorway pages on wikipedia use the former (which are really more suited to A-road destinations). Richard B 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting point. Where I've populated the lists, I've done so with primary destinations, simply because they're far easier to attain - looking at maps, as opposed to actually having to travel the motorway. I think it can be more relevant when discussing the M25 motorway and M60 motorway as London and Manchester (respectively) can be considered a primary destination for the road - even if they're not where the road is "going". That's also why I'm restoring the "Via" field in the routebox to "Primary destinations". Erath 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Euroroutes
I have added a box to include the euroroute numbers instead of them going into (and disrupting) the main article. Use is euroroute=
I have put a sample one up on the M20 motorway page. Would love to hear people's thoughts. Regan123 23:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think they should belong at the bottom and not the top - there's no point in giving them that kind of prominence. Erath 23:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Have moved to bottom. Regan123 00:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
