| Revision as of 20:50, 19 April 2007 editLewisskinner (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,471 editsm →Infobox← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:03, 19 April 2007 edit undoCaptain scarlet (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,979 edits →Infobox: 2 pence worthNext edit → | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
| :::I tend to like infoboxes in general so see it as a welcome addition. I like how they allow the reader to get a quick overview of a topic. ] 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | :::I tend to like infoboxes in general so see it as a welcome addition. I like how they allow the reader to get a quick overview of a topic. ] 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I certainly disagreed with Pigsonthewing concerning coordinates but I do however agree with his comments concerning the infobox. It does afterall look a bit builky and a lot of the information it contains is already located in prose (completion and opening date may not need to feature in the infobox twice but rather in their own sentence explaining both events). Furthermore, I've noticed errors in the information it contains: | |||
| ::::#Supertram is not carried by the structure | |||
| ::::#The railway line below the viaduct is the ] | |||
| ::::Coordinates have been once more added, in the infobox, duplicating the ones situated top right. Locale features Tinsley, Wincobank and Sheffield, which poses a redundancy, again this can be explained further in prose, with sheffield remaining alone in the infobox. Vertical and below clearances seem identical, maybe merge and explain? I'm sure you guys can work to reduce the infobox' height by half to make it less imposing as it currently is higher than the article, references and external links. '''<FONT COLOR="#000000">]</FONT>''' ''<FONT COLOR="#FF0000">]</FONT>'' 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:03, 19 April 2007
 | Sheffield Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Coordinates
Moved to Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates.
Infobox
I don't want to get involved in the discussion above, but would the article benefit from the use of Template:Infobox Bridge which may enable the display of some relevant numerical data?— Rod 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy for the coordinates to be in an infobox, so long as the hCard mark-up is preserved, thereby labelling them for people using parsers. Andy Mabbett 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- The infobox may be useful. The coordinates will not, as per the poll. L.J.Skinner 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could point out where anyone in the poll has suggested that the coordinates would not be useful? Andy Mabbett 13:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently not. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Added infobox. What do people think?
- Oh, and some good info here. L.J.Skinner 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The new info box occupies 214,336 (272x788) pixels. The disputed 'features' box, which it was claimed, was "disruptive to the article", occupied far fewer: 121,923 (589x207). Still, at least the infobox has restored one of the hCard microformats. I note also that Jeremy's compromise suggestion of including the coordinates for the end points seems to have been ignored. Andy Mabbett 12:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think it is detrimental to the article? It can be removed if so - I was just asking for opinions on it. L.J.Skinner 12:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Any other comments on the infobox? I assume that for now, consensus is for it to remain. L.J.Skinner 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to like infoboxes in general so see it as a welcome addition. I like how they allow the reader to get a quick overview of a topic. Adambro 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly disagreed with Pigsonthewing concerning coordinates but I do however agree with his comments concerning the infobox. It does afterall look a bit builky and a lot of the information it contains is already located in prose (completion and opening date may not need to feature in the infobox twice but rather in their own sentence explaining both events). Furthermore, I've noticed errors in the information it contains:
- Supertram is not carried by the structure
- The railway line below the viaduct is the Midland Main Line
- Coordinates have been once more added, in the infobox, duplicating the ones situated top right. Locale features Tinsley, Wincobank and Sheffield, which poses a redundancy, again this can be explained further in prose, with sheffield remaining alone in the infobox. Vertical and below clearances seem identical, maybe merge and explain? I'm sure you guys can work to reduce the infobox' height by half to make it less imposing as it currently is higher than the article, references and external links. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly disagreed with Pigsonthewing concerning coordinates but I do however agree with his comments concerning the infobox. It does afterall look a bit builky and a lot of the information it contains is already located in prose (completion and opening date may not need to feature in the infobox twice but rather in their own sentence explaining both events). Furthermore, I've noticed errors in the information it contains: