Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates

Why on Earth were the coordinates (which I amended to also include hCard and Geo microformats) removed? Andy Mabbett 22:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt that having six seaparate sets of coordinates (each end, both junctions, the river and the canal) on a structure not even 2/3 mile seemed absolutely daft! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely an exageration for a short structure in length. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're replying to a question I asked after you removed a single set of coordinates, before I added the others. In again reverting to remove the table of coordinates, you've also removed the geo-coding of the article as a whole; the names and article links for the crossing railway, river and canal, and the connecting roads, and data which can be used by users with GPS devices or for map plotting. And the only reasons you can give are dismissive and without substance. Andy Mabbett 09:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a travelguide, no need to help GPS users or add timetables and departure times. The full list of coordinates is too much to describe the one bridge. The Coor DMS is sufficient Pigsonthewing. I accept that by removing a single set of additional coordinates Lewis might have shown bad faith. Sufficely to say he was lucky in this instance as you did carry on adding more. the reasons Lewis put to you are perfectly valid, you simply disagree, this article is about the one bridge and one set of cooridnates are sufficient, especially when they're properly added (unlike yours) and aren't zoomed at 10 miles in altitude. The Former coordinates were perfectly suited to this article Pigsonthewing. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your claim of consensus is bogus. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you see it that way Pigsonthewing, the testimonials above tend to show the opposite Pigsonthewing. a consensus is reached when more than one contributor agree against another party of inferior numbers. I'm sorry you aren't part of this consensus, but one has been reached. As a show of good faith, I've taken time to repair your coordinates Lewis had previously removed. It's a small consensus, but a consensus nonetheless. Be reasonable and accept it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. QED. Andy Mabbett 12:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

a consensus is reached when more than one contributor agree against another party of inferior numbers

No. Consensus is not the same thing as majority rule. — Omegatron 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

" I join my learned colleague in the thanks for looking over Tinsley Viaduct. I reverted your diplomatic edit as a small but none the less frank consensus was reach [sic] without the need for further discussion. I am sorry to hear Pigsonthewing isn't of the party but he was allowed to voice his concerns as we were. Calling the consensus bogus must be a rash decision by Pigsonthewing and am happy to accept his apologies. Cheers, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC) "

The disingenuous message quoted above was posted to my user talk page. I have moved it here where discussion of the issue is properly located.

Wikipedia:Consensus is Wikipedia policy. None has yet been reached here. — Athænara ✉ 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested on this article. I'm not sure if Athænara's comment counts as a third interested party, so I'll give my opinion anyway. As Athænara says, consensus has not been reached - with only two editors in the discussion, and both still pulling in opposite directions, it's anything but consensus. Nonetheless, the idea of a third opinion is to provide a measure of insta-consensus, and I personally don't think the bridge is notable (or large) enough to warrant the large number of co-ordinates. Leave it with one, and if people really want to find out where the start and end are, they can use that as a starting point to look for them themselves in Google Maps or similar. As Captain Scarlet says, Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. --Scott Wilson 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but a list of roads connecting with, and railways and waterways crossed by, a notable viaduct is not "an indiscriminate collection of information", and meet none of the criteria at the pages you cite. Andy Mabbett 22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

While it may not be specifically mentioned, I feel that it falls within the spirit of the rules I cite. Ask yourself: does having these extra co-ordinates add significantly to the article? Does it give readers something they couldn't easily figure out for themsleves? Also note that few bridges - even exceptionally notable ones - have more than one co-ordinate: c.f Glenfinnan Viaduct, Forth Bridge (railway), Forth Road Bridge, Severn Bridge Golden Gate Bridge, Kingston Bridge, Glasgow and Skye Bridge - the latter doesn't even give co-ordinates for the island its centre pillar is situated on--Scott Wilson 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Ask yourself: does having these extra co-ordinates add significantly to the article?" - yes.

"Does it give readers something they couldn't easily figure out for themselves?" - perhaps not, but then nor do many other articles which could be replaced with a link to an external website.

"Also note that few bridges - even exceptionally notable ones - have more than one co-ordinate" - Indeed. This is one of the first articles to which I've added them, since having the necessary templates set up. Deficiencies on one article are not reasons to exclude content from another. Nor is the lack of innovation in other articles a reason not to innovate.

I think we're veering from discussion of what's good for this article, to a meta debate about how WP works; perhaps it should be discussed elsewhere?

Besides, what are the negative effects of included coordinates - in a closing section, at that?

Finally, this is not just abut coordinates, but the wholesale and repeated removal of content.

Andy Mabbett 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Scott Wilson (talk · contribs). I believe that the consensus referred to included myself. This is not "only two editors in the discussion, and both still pulling in opposite directions" - clearly, I am also "pulling against" Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), as can be seen by my initial removal of the content. Yes, it is a very important viaduct, allowing the M1, A631 and railway line to share the same space, but I also feel that it is superfluous to have six coordinates for a bridge that doesn't even reach 2/3 mile - the initial one coordinate showed the full bridge, and any user who cares that much can see both ends, the railway, the canal etc. Why not go the full Monty? Add in coordinates for the slips roads, Meadowhall, Meadowhall Interchange, the former Meadowhall and Wincobank and Meadow Hall station, each of the cooling towers, the proposed site of the MGM casino, the nearby Don Valley Stadium, Hallam FM Arena, Valley Centertainment. No, one coordinate in enough, and readers can scroll around to see the canal, towers etc. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus. References to coordinates for structures away from the viaduct, such as Meadowhall and the cooling towers, constitute a slippery slope argument, and are irrelevant. You appear not to have a concrete or robust argument against including the information, merely a quantitative personal preference. Nor are you explaining your repeated removal of content other than coordinates. You have yet to explain why you removed the coordinates when only one set was present. Neither have your or your fellow reverter explained the removal of the microformat markup used in the table. Andy Mabbett 10:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I shall answer each of your arguements in turn:

1. There is no consensus.

Good point, well made and well backed up! Thank you!

2. References to coordinates for structures away from the viaduct, such as Meadowhall and the cooling towers, constitute a slippery slope argument, and are irrelevant.

Explain why my arguements are irrelevant. Your arguements appear to be "It helps people with GPS" (wiki is not a travelguide/indiscriminate collection of information) and "a list of roads connecting with, and railways and waterways crossed by, a notable viaduct is not "an indiscriminate collection of information"" (well, that's merely your opinion).

3. You appear not to have a concrete or robust argument against including the information, merely a quantitative personal preference.

Again, all your 'reasons' for adding the content would appear to centre around your personal preference.

4. Nor are you explaining your repeated removal of content other than coordinates.

What other content?

5. You have yet to explain why you removed the coordinates when only one set was present.

That was an error

6. Neither have your or your fellow reverter explained the removal of the microformat markup used in the table.

I have no idea what you are talking about

L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have numbered your points for ease of reference. I trust that that's acceptable.

1. I'm glad we agree, at last.

2. Please read slippery slope.

3. No. I've given - and you've quoted - some of the good reasons to include the table. Andy Mabbett 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

4. The content you referred to as "superfluous content" in your edit summary.

5. Your edit summary was "No need for coords", and you used two, not one, edit to remove them . That looks more like a deliberate action than a "mistake".

6. If you don't know what you're removing, then please do not remove it.

Andy Mabbett 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that (1) was sarcasm, and as for (2) you still haven't explained why my arguement is irrelevant and yours is any more relevant. I can only assume you have no reason to back up this point, so it must be dicounted. re:(3), I did not quote any of you "good reasons" to inlude the table - only your opinions, which I disagree with, and you should respect that. just as I respect your right to your opinion, but since no other editor agrees with you, there is no consensus to having the table. on (4) and (5), the table was superfluous. If I removed any other content, it was an error. Not a deliberate action, so please, assume better faith. Finally, on (6), I said I have no idea what you're talking about. This means just that. I removed the coding which made the changes I did not like. I am just a wiki editor - not a programmer and certainly not into all the syntax and coding. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No offence Pigsonthewing but you hardly have an argument to have those cooridnates left in. I removed the microformat because there was better available. The consensus was reach when three editors; Captain scarlet, Lewisskinner and Pigsonthewing argued about the presence of the coordinates and two agreed on a route chosen by the third. Small consensus it may be, there is one, you're just left out of the loop Pigsonthewing. Be careful in your arguments, very slippery slope here. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"I removed the microformat because there was better available" - please explain how you feel your version was "better" than a version with microformats. There is no consensus. Andy Mabbett 11:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing: please explain how you feel your version was "better" than a version without microformats. There is no consensus Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Features

Feature	Coords
Northern junction, A61/A6109	53.42207°N 1.41084°W / 53.42207; -1.41084
Sheffield and Rotherham Railway	53.42027°N 1.40876°W / 53.42027; -1.40876
Mid-point between junctions	53.41763°N 1.406205°W / 53.41763; -1.406205
River Don	53.41443°N 1.40313°W / 53.41443; -1.40313
Sheffield Canal	53.41420°N 1.40284°W / 53.41420; -1.40284
Southern junction, A6178	53.41318°N 1.40155°W / 53.41318; -1.40155

I'm not all that bothered either way. It's true that this wouldn't be a unique resource -- most mapping sites will give you the data. But it's not entirely unencyclopaedic, and it's not like this article is too long and crowded for it. At the moment, the table also describes some of the things the viaduct crosses, something that isn't covered elsewhere in the text. How about using this reformated table, with the "float: right" style element, and make it clear that it's primarily a list of features, rather than coordinates? I wanted to cut the coordinates down so the link simply read "maps", but as far as I can tell, we don't have a coordinates template that can do that. Joe D (t) 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The new style of table is fine by me (though "Coordinates" should not be abbreviated). I wouldn't want to see coordinates hidden, though. Andy Mabbett 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case pigsonthewing, how does this edit look to you? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I offcourse disagree with Pigsonthewing. Remove the microformat and use prose to state notable features the viaduct crosses. You're using slippery slope arguments Pigsonthewing. Furthermore, the Stainforth and Keadby Canal his not a feature the viaduct crosses, use sources to contribute Pigsonthewing! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"You're using slippery slope arguments Pigsonthewing." Please explain how you think my case is a "slippery slope" argument. You have yet to say why you think that your preferred format is better than one with microformats. If it's not the S&K Canal, perhaps you'd like to tell us which it is. And my name is still Andy; kindly use it. Andy Mabbett 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I'll kindly use your username Pigsonthewing, I odn' tlike you so am not going to call you by your first name. There's no slippery slope and there never was, you use it as if it were a means to say hello. I could tell you what canal crosses the Tinsley but you're the canal buff, I'm sure you have reputable sources you can look into for info. Concerning your microformats (I'm actually taking time for this so you'd better be happy with the answer):

1. Formatting looks terrible or you don't know enough about the template to make them look good
2. Zoom is appaulling
3. You don't need 5 coords for a viaduct less than a mile long as agreed by Lesskinner
4. You implement such things and claim there is no consensus to remove them when there was no consensus to put them in (50/50 chance someone will argue about anything that's implemented, bad luck on this one)
5. I'm not Adambro here, so work hard to convince me, and you're not at the moment as as you accuse me of doing myself, your arguments are empty.
6. The discussion is now longer than the article, it's stupid.
7. You know what they say about It not being the cure for global warning? It's the same with Microformats, they won't make Wikipedia better.

There you go. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I note your lack of civility with regard to my name, your refusal to share information about the name of the canal; and your failure to address my points about your slippery slope and microformats claims (the vague and unsubstantiated assertion on your point 7 notwithstanding). Andy Mabbett 13:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

There's been no further lack of civility from me than there has been from you, I just don't throw WP pages at your face. I haven't insulted you, I call you by your username. Circumvent any possibility of an accord by looking for a third opinion if you wish, it seems you are unwilling to take anyone's opinion that doesn't agree with yours, like Dore station or Sheffield Midland for example. If you don't know about the subject, don't contribute. Hint: a canal, in Sheffield... What could it be Pigsonthewing? Unlikely ever to be any agreement between us two considering your behaviour, ever. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed table

Location	Coordinates
Northern junction, A61/A6109	53.42207°N 1.41084°W / 53.42207; -1.41084
Sheffield and Rotherham Railway passes underneath	53.42027°N 1.40876°W / 53.42027; -1.40876
Mid-point between junctions	53.41763°N 1.406205°W / 53.41763; -1.406205
River Don crossing	53.41443°N 1.40313°W / 53.41443; -1.40313
Sheffield Canal crossing	53.41420°N 1.40284°W / 53.41420; -1.40284
Southern junction, A6178	53.41318°N 1.40155°W / 53.41318; -1.40155

As there may be technical civil engineering factors which support the inclusion of the data in the disputed table, I reproduced it here to aid the consensus-building process. — Æ. ✉ 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what you man by "civil engineering factors", in this context, but there are many other reasons for including that table; and no positive reason given for not doing so. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Be careful of the slippery slope Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by that; perhaps you'd like to explain. My name is Andy, BTW. Andy Mabbett 12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Pigsonthewing. I'll double check your username next time while I'm gliding down the slippery slope. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion

I don't want to get involved in the petty back and forth sniping of the preceding discussion, so I'll just be blunt. The full set coordinates is completely excessive for such a small structure. If you want to list the road junctions that's fine but there's no need to give coordinates for each in such a small space (and especially so when the zoom on the coordinates is so ridiculously out of proportion to the size of the object). I agree with the current version that a single set of coordinates using {coor title dms|53|25|03|N|1|24|21|W|region:GB_type:landmark}} or something equivalent is quite appropriate for the article. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have no issue with any editor changing the zoom on the coordinates in the table using, say "|region:GB_type:landmark". Andy Mabbett 14:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that you are the only one who sees value in keeping table of coordinates, it seems rather incredibly lazy to suggest that someone else clean up after you. older ≠ wiser 15:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses; I said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you did. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Poppycock. Are your arguments so weak that you must resort to inventing things? Andy Mabbett 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A poll

In attempting to calm down this discussion which is one-sided insults, a poll: Do we need to keep the table of coordinates in as is. Please also give a valid reason. For your opinion, and only write once in the voting section, so we can keep track of numbers, and sign your posts with (~~~~).

Case for inclusion

• All of the points given are notable intersections or crossings with other notable features
• The table presents those points in an ordered, linear manner
• The use of microformats in the table makes those points parsable by computers (for use in Google Earth, mapping services, GPS devices, and so on)
• The table is discreet and does not overpower the article
• The table has information (apart from the coordinates) which is still not given in the main article
• Other articles include similar lists of coordinate, with no dissent
• There is no hard limit as to the number of relevant points for a structure of a given length; nor should there be
• No negative impacts of including the table have been identified by its opponents
• The information in the table is encyclopaedic

Case for removal

• We do not need six points for a 2/3 mile bridge
• Steinsky pointed out that the table covered thing the viaduct crosses, which wasn't in the main text. Pigsonthewing agreed that this was a good reason to keep it. These facts are now in the lead.

support the table

1. As "case for inclusion". Andy Mabbett 20:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

oppose the table

1. I feel it is daft to have six coordinates for a bridge less than 2/3 mile. One (the centre) will be fine. It was also suggested that this table was seful in showing landmarks which th bridge crosses. This is now in the lead. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
2. As per lewisskinner. Furthermore, the idea that more than one coordinate is too many is influenced by the overpowering nature of a table for such an article. the reasons for the inclusion of this information is unencyclopaedic and relates more to travel. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - WP is not an indiscriminate collection of data, nor is it a directory, nor is it a repository of links. It you want to create a geo-database then try OpenStreetMap. We also need to be very sure that this is not original research. Frelke 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as per Frelke, this is not the website for this sort of data collection. (Caniago 15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC))
5. Oppose - too much data for a short viaduct. Regan123 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Andy, your zeal for coordinates is impressive, but you have caused a lot of people a lot of unnecessary work by arguing for coordinates to be added to inappropriate articles[1], getting tags to be added to articles by a not-100%-accurate bot, when they were only agreed for talk pages[2], and now inserting a big table of numbers which no-one else feels to be necessary to this article. I believe these are good-faith contributions, but could you restrict yourself to adding one set of coordinates to articles about locations or structures? No-one has to objected to that. Please review the feedback you have had on these issues and curb your enthusiasm. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose What Squiddy said. older ≠ wiser 00:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. There is absolutely no need for 6 visible co-ordinates. Such a table is disruptive to the article. The microformatting aims are all interesting and possibly good ideas, but it is not clear that even they are part of what Wikipedia is (or should be) trying to do, but that issue probably deserves more general discussion elsewhere. JPD (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I'm all in favor of microformats and other niceties, but I agree that these coordinates don't belong in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of cartography data. One set of coordinates for the geographic location of the article's topic is sufficient. — Omegatron 16:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

comment

April 2007 (UTC)

• Although I am against the inclusion of more than one co-ordinate, bear in mind that polling is not a substitute for discussion and Wikipedia is not a democracy. As such, I think this poll, although made in good faith, can only be divisive, and it would be more constructive to discuss all the options, including compromises (such as the inclusion of the features the bridge passes over in the lead) which are easy to overlook in the black and white nature of a poll. --Scott Wilson 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Scott, the details to which you refer are already in the lead. My feeling was that if we have the poll, the table will either be outright rejected or outight accepted, which ought to pacify the main protagonists here, and then we can move forward with any changes such as those you discussed. For example, were the table kept, the inclusion of a "feature list" in the lead would be unnecessary. This ought to at least remove the edit warring currently ongoing. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm in full agreement to have all features overpassed by the viaduct in prose. The poll is divisive, but the opposing party seems unwilling to perform any kind of compromise and has itself commenced the poll. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "outright rejected or outight (sic) accepted" suggests a distinct lack of willingness to compromise; there are plenty of other possible outcomes. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

      Very much so. Polls like this are quite evil. It does show a clear majority opinion, though.  :-/ — Omegatron 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

      If you're going to create a poll, provide some options, but let editors describe their rationales in their own words, vote for as many outcomes as they would be happy with, and add more detailed/compromised outcomes as discussion progresses. Someone will take everyone's opinions into consideration and suggest an outcome that lots of people are happy with, which will then become the winner. Like discussion, but more orderly. — Omegatron 00:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• A table of six co-ordinates does seem excessive for a bridge of this length. Perhaps a compromise would be to keep the 'coor title dms' as the centre of the bridge (although I see no reason to not convert this template to the coord template as it has no visual effect on the article), and add the the two ends in the prose—something like: "It carries the M1 and the A631 some 1033 metres over the Don Valley, from Tinsley (at 53°24′47″ N 1°24′6″ W) to Wincobank (at 53°25′20″ N 1°24′39″ W), crossing the Sheffield Canal, Sheffield and Rotherham Railway (now know as the Dearne Valley Line and Sheffield-Hull Line) and the Supertram on-route." Including the co-ordinates of the river, canal, and rail crossings is, in my opinion, too much. As an aside, can the viaduct really be said to cross the supertram route? —Jeremy (talk) 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not. Maybe "the supertram route also passes underneath the A631"? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the general sentiment that it is not that long a viaduct that more than one co-ordinate is really needed. Six certainly seems excessive. The co-ordinate template links to various map sources where the precise route of the viaduct can be investigated, should a reader so desire. Warofdreams talk 03:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I reckon only one set of co-ordinates is needed. Regards Mick Knapton 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC) in the lovely city of Sheffield.
• I agree that to the human reader six sets of co-ordinates for such a small area is over-the-top. But, I'm not sure we've really discussed the issue of how the use of microformats makes these six co-ordinates useful to automated readers, and how much importance we should give to that (relative to human-readership). Is there a policy about this kind of stuff? --VinceBowdren 11:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think concensus has been reached here - please see also my comments user talk:pigsonthewing#Tinsley Viaduct. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

3:1 does not make a consensus. Note also Scott Wilson's comments, above. Andy Mabbett 15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do you et 3:1 from? There's the 3 who voted (myself, Captain Scarlet, Frelke), in addition to the two whom I highlighted on your [user talk:pigsonthewing#Tinsley Viaduct|talk page]] as above (Scott Wilson, Bkonrad) and the unfavourable comments from JeremyA, Warofdreams, Mick Knapton - that's 8:1, with VinceBowden cautioning over whether we should give more weight to human or automatic readers. This seems a big majority, and whilst I know that wikipedia is not a democracy, all those against the table have made fair and valid points, enough for a concensus. I hope we don't have to run to the admins board over this. I just want to edit and improve wikipedia - constantly having to defend my edits and/or actions is getting tiresome. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 16:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Where do you et (sic) 3:1 from?" - your poll. Andy Mabbett 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that there is a big discussion going on over on WP:NOT concerning an amendment that would seem to cover this situation pretty well exactly. Frelke 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of indiscriminate data collection is irrelevant to this case. Andy Mabbett 06:49, 16

What makes you think that? Frelke 07:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See "Case for inclusion". Andy Mabbett 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that makes the discussion irrelevant? Frelke 09:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not sure how else to help you. Andy Mabbett 09:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"there is a big discussion going on over on WP:NOT" - Indeed: "The "indiscriminate" label is too widely and subjectively misused, especially when considering lists"; "The "indiscriminate" label is overused, subjective, and in my opinion increases friction without building consensus."; "The phrase "indiscriminate collection of information" is often used in deletion debates without consistent meaning, and often in a way that isn't even supported by the current policy (i.e. as if the policy said that articles are not supposed to be indiscriminate collections of information, not Wikipedia itself). Specifically, I find the word "indiscriminate" to be very troublesome because it is interpreted in widely different ways by different editors. IMO it is often used as a policy-sounding substitute for "I don't like it" or the empty criticism "unencyclopedic"." Andy Mabbett 11:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, looking up coordinates on a map is no more OR than looking up a fact in a book. Andy Mabbett 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with this point. Provided the coordinates are verifiable (rather than, for example, the ludicrously overspecific co-ordinates sometimes seen in articles), looking them up is not original research. This does not, however, prove that they are notable. Warofdreams talk 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'm not sure we've really discussed the issue of how the use of microformats makes these six co-ordinates useful to automated readers, and how much importance we should give to that (relative to human-readership)" So we haven't, though I have tried to riase the issue. Andy Mabbett 13:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• How many of the people who voted "oppose" in the above poll intended to give User:lewisskinner carte blanche to remove tables of features from other articles, such as Manchester Ship Canal? Andy Mabbett 14:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

me for one Frelke 14:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No carte blanche, but I do support the removal of tables from articles such as Manchester Ship Canal. JPD (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

See discussion at WP:GEOGRAPHY. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Scale setting

I think there has been some talking at cross-purposes about the appropriate scale for the co-ordinates. For the main set of co-ordinates printed at the top of the article, a fairly wide zoom is probably appropriate (to show the viaduct in context against the surrounding few square miles) e.g. 53.41763°N 1.406205°W / 53.41763; -1.406205. For the six co-ordinates in the table, which are picking out much more precise locations, I'd say a larger scale would be appropriate e.g. 53.41420°N 1.40284°W / 53.41420; -1.40284. This implies that none of the co-ordinates in the table would be suitable as the article's title co-ordinates, so that would have to be done separately. --VinceBowdren 13:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If desired, that's certainly do-able. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Coordinates revisited

Do we need the coordinates both inline and in the infobox? A user is repeatedly putting them back into both. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

They're not "inline and in the infobox"; they're in the title bar and in the infobox. Almost all of the information in the infobox is duplicated elsewhere in the article. Coordinates are duplicated in infoboxes and title bars all over Wikipeiida. Coordinates are in info boxes all over Wikipedia - it's where many people look for them; just as many people look for them in the title bar. Putting them in the infobox means that they're included as an attribute of the hCard microformat generated by the infobox. Now, perhaps you'd like to state some concrete disadvantages of having them in the infobox? Andy Mabbett 14:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having both. Whilst I accept that it could be considered duplication, as Andy says, having them in a consistent place makes it easy for readers. I'd also note that they are very small in the title bar so don't really have any impact on the appearance of the page. Adambro 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I was simply asking a question. I would like to see if people think we need coordinates in both places. As you yourself stated Pigsonthewing, the infobox does take up a lot of space in the article[3] I also asked if you thought it was detrimental to the article[4]. You did not respond, but Captain scarlet suggested that it was [5]. I am happy for the box to be removed and the information added in prose if concensus agrees that this is better for the article. As an aside, the fact that duplication in common on wikipedia, does not make it right or proper. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I note your further incivility in refusing to use my name. If you don't like the duplication of information from articles in infoboxes, I suggest you raise a campaign against the use of the latter, on the relevant WP:VP sub-page; though I think you'd find you're in a tiny minority. People clearly think we need coordinates in both places, as the common use of that presentation, which I offered as evidence, demonstrates. I'll take it that you don't know of any concrete disadvantages of having coordinates in the infobox. For the record, I have no objection to the use of an infobox; I merely noted that it is larger than the coordinate table which you campaigned against so vociferously. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There no policy I'm aware of which states the coordinates should appear in both places, nor any widespread agreement that it is a desirable convention. I refer you to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Templates and Template_talk:Infobox_Mountain. Without such a policy, no one can assert that this or any other page must be presented with both coordinates. If there really was an overwhelming desire for the presentation of coordinates in both places you'd see templates like Infobox City putting the coordinates in both places automatically, which isn't currently the case. Caniago 03:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Caniago and Lewisskinner, there is no need to have the coordinates constantly readded in different locations. It can be obsorved that this has been a repetitive contributions to add microformat coordinates here and there in the article. Pigsonthewing must stop adding these coordinates again and again and sotp using his microformats which make articles harder to maintain! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Poppycock. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy one way or the other; that's why I referred to current practice. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That is of course true as Caniago says so that is why we are discussing this here. As I said previously, I cannot see any real reason why having the coordinates in two places is a problem. Regarding Captain Scarlet comment about Andy's edits making the article more difficult to maintain, whilst that might be a valid point, articles are supposed to be optimised for readers over editors so it shouldn't be a consideration. Adambro 09:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in both the readers and the contributors interests not to complicate articles. What makes edition harder will impact on the readers. Confusion might also be a result of duplicate data and is not considered good writting practise. Caniago Did however quote adequately WP guidelines and expected behavkiour can be extracted from his synthesis. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Captain Scarlet, I think you might have misunderstood the issue. The co-ordinates are defined in the article only once, but the template can be configured so that the article prints them in two places; there is thus no 'duplicate data' as such. --VinceBowdren 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we all know that, but it is a duplication nonetheless. I'd just as sooner have them in the title bar only and not in the infobox, but as they were constantly put back into the infobox, I assumed this was the preferred choice, and so removed them from the title bar, only to have them added here again! So, I came to the talk page to ask if we need them in both places rather than start an edit war. I'll happily leave them there if that is the concensus. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a massive problem having the co-ordinates printed twice on the article, but it is superfluous. On the other hand, the geographical information is useful so we should definitely have the co-ordinates once; my preference would be for the head of the article (consistent with many articles without an infobox). --VinceBowdren 10:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You [Captain scarlet] make a very good point. However, most of the complicated work is going on in the templates which already require a degree of experience to edit so I'd feel the advantages outweigh the possible necessity for template editors to perhaps familiarise themselves with the microformat issue. As has been noted, there doesn't seem to be any guidance from the guidelines on this issue which is why we need to discuss the issue here. I'd maintain that I cannot see any reason why having the coordinates in both places detracts from the article in any way. Adambro 10:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"which is why we need to discuss the issue here" If there's no Wikipeida-wide policy written down, it would be better to discuss the wider issue in a more appropriate location such as the coordinates project, or a WP:VP sub page. Andy Mabbett 10:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)