Talk:Preston Bypass

	Preston Bypass has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 1, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2017. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Britain's first motorway, the Preston By-pass, had to close within weeks of opening due to frost damage?
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 5, 2017, December 5, 2018, December 5, 2017, and December 5, 2023.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

UK geography Low‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Highways: United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Highways, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of highways on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HighwaysWikipedia:WikiProject HighwaysTemplate:WikiProject HighwaysHighways articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the United Kingdom Roads Task Force. Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Talk:Preston By-pass/GA1

Some events to add to the history:

• the extension of the M6 southwards from Bamber Bridge (2 July 1963)
• the extension of the M6 northwards from Broughton, including the construction of the UK's first three-level interchange, Broughton Interchange (1 January 1965), replacing a "temporary bend"
• the construction of the M55 westwards from Broughton Roundabout (1975) becoming M55 J1 instead of M6 J32a
• new limited-access junction 30 (Blacow Bridge) with the new M61 (1968)
• redesign of Junction 31 with A59 (Samlesbury Interchange) incorporating 3 bridges across the river instead of one (1990s?)
• the conversion of Junction 29 to accomodate the new M65 extension as well as the existing A6 (1997)
• new limited-access junction 31A (Haighton Interchange) for Fulwood (c.1997)

I don't have reliable sources for all these, so I can't add them. (Unreliable sources: http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk http://www.route6.co.uk http://www.cbrd.co.uk ) -- Dr Greg  talk  22:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Chris Marshall personally, but I have personally seen the research papers he has taken from the The National Archives, the London Metropolitan Archives and who knows what else, plus he is personally acknowledged inside Joe Moran's book, and I think in Mike Parker's "Mapping The Roads", plus he's contributed research papers to various radio pieces, so calling him an "unreliable source" is like saying Ben Weinreb is an unreliable source about London. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I shouldn't have said those websites were unreliable sources, but rather that I had no idea whether Wikipedia would accept any of them as a reliable source or not. I'm happy to be corrected. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider whether some or all of the suggestions above are entirely relevant to be specifically and/or uniquely included as literature on an article specific to the by-pass. I am conscious that the by-pass described in this article is largely historic, in that it has mostly changed beyond recognition, with many contemporary upgrades and changes being synonymous with the motorway for which it forms part of (the M6). I think it's important to make mention to some of the key core upgrades in recent times (such as the expanding to 4-lanes, as that was affecting of the route in its entirety), but many of the suggestions noted above relate to specific new junctions that are regarded solely as being part of the M6, rather than the by-pass (despite this section of route still being, in effect, the by-pass).

The question maybe is what this article should aim to represent (either the historic bypass that has largely been rebuilt, or the route as a whole that can still be regarded as the by-pass, including only mentioning M6 upgrades in this article that relate specifically to the route described in this article). I had taken the view of the former, that it should focus primarily on historic events and operations, but some may have a differing view. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the focus of the article should be the period when the bypass was an isolated section of motorway (and the planning and construction before that). The suggestions I made above would be only a brief section saying what has happened since then, and shouldn't go into much detail. But I don't feel too strongly either way, and wouldn't be offended if the consensus of other editors was to omit some of the more recent history. On the other hand, the current version of article does include a table of junctions that refers to the modern-day motorway. -- Dr Greg  talk  12:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "prime minister" should be capitalised. Prime Minister of the United Kingdom shows it as lower case. John (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned article is inconsistent in its usage of capitalisation, so perhaps not a good basis for argument justification. I am inclined to favour "Prime Minister" being capitalised. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but I don't think MOS:JOBTITLES agrees with you. John (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting MOS:JOBTITLES - "They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title" - is that not what is the case on the edits(s) in question? Maybe the comma before Harold Macmillan is erroneous or simply adding confusion to the matter of appropriate capitalisation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the term isn't used like that. We don't say (or shouldn't) "Prime Minister Theresa May" as we do with "President Donald Trump". Do you see? John (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of MOS:JOBTITLES is that you should use lower-case "prime minister" when you refer to the abstract concept of the job, but capitalised "Prime Minister" when you refer to a concrete example, i.e. when you are referring to a specific individual (Harold Macmillan in this case). The relevant text from MOS:JOBTITLES is "When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g., the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II, When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g., King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)" -- Dr Greg  talk  20:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Preston Bypass given the road number M6 from the outset? All the OS maps I have looked at, from about 1961, show it as M6, but this designation is not mentioned in the booklet commemorating the opening. PhilUK (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilUK: It looks like it may have been numbered M6 prior to opening, if this ref is correct, although i'd be looking at wanting to use a better ref if it's to be included in the article. In saying that, it suggests that the info is a direct quote from a Government department from the era, so should be verifiable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems that 'M6' was being used as the de facto numbering right from the start, but the committee only approved it later. I've found a thread on the SABRE site [1] which gives links to original signs showing 'M6', and claims (without proof) that all the construction contracts called it the M6. PhilUK (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]