Talk:Harringay Green Lanes railway station

Distance conversion

Hi, I changed the distance conversion (how far it is from here to Manor House tube station) thus:

• from 650 metres (2,130 ft) - generated by this: {{convert|650|m|ft}}

• to 650 metres (2,130 ft) - generated by this: {{convert|650|m|ft}}

I am hopeless with templates and all this new-fangled stuff (takes out pipe, slippers and cardie) so if I have messed it up please feel free to enlighten me, but I think the change is worth making because the previous version (a) used a non-UK spelling of "metres" in a UK article, and (b) applied an unlikely level of precision (2133 feet, not 2134 or 2132)) to something which starts "about" and ends in a suspiciously round number of metres! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

except it's really 700m - doh! Updated the article, left comment above alone - life's too short etc/ :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed ...

Hi. I took this out: It has been proposed that a Piccadilly Line station be built at the site to provide an interchange in what is a busy commercial area, while nearby Manor House tube station would be converted to a Victoria Line station to provide a connection to Seven Sisters. - it's been in the article for about a year and the challenge for a citation has been here ~9 months now. I think that's long enough, and that such a major claim should not be in the article without an absolutely bulletproof reference. "It has been proposed" doesn't really do the trick, I fear. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence which repeats 'railway station' sounds slightly clunky - any suggestions for reworking? Jackiespeel (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Now fixed. Dubmill (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Just checking, in case there were 'particular conventions' for stations etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Distance from Harringay Station

User:Redrose64 has twice reverted my change to a sentence in the article describing the distance of the station to Harringay Station. On both occasions User:Redrose64 reverted my change simply by stating the policies and without taking a moment to explain how they feel those policies apply. I believe the application of those policies is misguided and explain why below.

First things first, the original sentence read: It is a short distance from Harringay railway station on the East Coast Main Line

I changed it to read: The station is a 0.36 mile (0.58 km) walk from Harringay railway station on the East Coast Main Line. (I used a ref tag with the following information - Measured using the measure distance function in Google Maps. The distance is measured from the street outside Harringay Green Lanes Station, via Umfreville Road, to the point on the bridge outside the station at Harringay Station.)

The policies cited by User:Redrose64 are: WP:V and WP:NOR.

NOR disallows "facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" Google Maps is included as an acceptable source in WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The entry says: "Google Maps and Google Street View may be useful for some purposes, including finding and verifying geographic coordinates and other basic information". I believe that this includes basic information like distance measurements.

Furthermore NOR also says that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". I believe that the simple and repeatable calculation of distance on a map counts as a routine calculation. So there is no original research involved. Moreover, WP:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles says: "Maps can be used for two purposes in Wikipedia articles, as sources or as illustration".

VER requires that "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". They can readily do this looking at Google Maps.

Redrose64, I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policies and their implemenation. But I think the purpose of this project is to provide a useful and reliable resource for readers. I believe that my change improved the level of information given in the article in a helpful way. I also consider that it meets Wikipedia policies. Before simply reverting my change again, please have the courtesy of explaining your standpoint and we can agree on a solution. If you believe that my change is non-compliant, please explain how you think that to be the case and perhaps together we can find a compliant option. HughJLF (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You did not provide a link. That means that people first have to find Google Maps, and then do their own search, for which you are relying on them inputting the same criteria that you used. All this is against the spirit of WP:V and the letter of WP:NOR - provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources - where is that consensus? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think using the distance tool on Google Maps for very basic measurements is always inappropriate. However, I would keep it to one significant figure, and use as-the-crow-flies distances wherever possible unless a published source is available. In this specific case, saying "The station is 0.5 kilometres (0.3 mi) west of..." would be better, as it keeps to encyclopediac information (relative position, rather than walking information) and is merely a point-to-point distance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, that's a helpful point about connecting to Google Maps. I've now added a link within the reference. Pi.1415926535 I wonder if walking distance is not the most appropriate option since the sentnece is given within the connections section. When I made the first edit a few days back the sentence was within the lead section. Guessing that was Redrose64's issue after his first revert, I moved it a to the Connections one. If we move it back, perhpas the crow-flies option would work best. Happy with either option. HughJLF (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)