| Revision as of 06:15, 22 July 2015 editSpeccy4Eyes (talk | contribs)505 edits →Your latest edit on the Cotswolds: it is straightforward← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 17:10, 24 November 2015 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section |
| (38 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) |
| Line 66: |
Line 66: |
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
|
|}<!--Template:WelcomeMenu--> |
|
== Nomination of ] for deletion == |
|
|
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,<br> |
|
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 20:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692268845 --> |
|
== Your latest edit on the Cotswolds == |
|
|
|
|
|
Speccy, why did you revert my latest edit on the ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
Your edit description said: "Restored the height as was prior to this edit sequence, the source supports it too, so no need (or consensus) for change)" However, the displayed height was ''exactly the same'' in both our edits, so there was nothing to restore. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think you edited on the mistaken impression that I had reversed the ''display'' of the figures. This is not the case. The display was unchanged. All that changed was the coding, which is truer to the source, because it put the height in metres first (as per the UK maps it was based on) and then flipped the display. |
|
|
|
|
|
Just as your edit improved on my edit by making both the feet and the metres the same as the source, my edit improved on your edit by adjusting the convert template to ensure that the cite was true to the source while preserving the prevailing order of units in the article. As a result, the article was improved by both our edits. |
|
|
|
|
|
I would appreciate it if you could re-examine your edit. If what I say is right, I would appreciate it if you reverted your latest edit. However, if there is any other concern, please let us discuss it. Remember, '''my edit did not alter the display of units in the article.''' ] (]) 00:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The original value in feet didn't need to be changed as the source you added, and any number of others, all make it readily verifiable. ] (]) 08:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::MOSNUM says: "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the ... template's |order=flip flag can be used; this causes the original unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the converted unit to be shown as primary." This is what I did in my edit, and which I clearly stated above. It is not best practice to misrepresent the source, as your edit does. ] (]) 23:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If you have a problem with MOSNUM, by all means raise it on the MOSNUM talk page. ] (]) 23:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Yes, you make my point for me! The article's primary units ''did not'' differ from the units given in the source, and the source was ''not'' misrepresented - the source gives the hill height in feet too. My edit summary made that clear, yet you persist in arguing an invalid point. Why can't you see, or accept, that? ] (]) 06:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"The article's primary units ''did not'' differ from the units given in the source," False |
|
|
::::*"...the source was ''not'' misrepresented" False |
|
|
::::*" the source gives the hill height in feet too." True. It gives the hill height in feet ''second' You have just made my point for me. |
|
|
::::*"My edit summary made that clear..." False. Your edit summary obfuscates this point. |
|
|
::::I can't see or accept your point because it is demonstrably false. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Instead of making statements that are demonstrably false, please answer these questions: |
|
|
|
|
|
::::* The source puts this as the height of the hill: Height:330m / 1083ft. Do the metres come first or don't they? Here is the link. |
|
|
::::* Every other measure noted on this source is metric only. Is this statement right or is it wrong? |
|
|
::::* The article concerned puts this information about its source of information: "OS map sheet(s): (1:50k) 163 (1:25k) 179" Are these the official Government maps or are they not? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Please answer these three specific questions about this source. Then perhaps we can have a rational discussion about the units of measure used in the source. ] (]) 12:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::The source, as you yourself state, gives the height as "Height:330m / 1083ft". The article reads as "The highest point of the region is Cleeve Hill at 1,083 ft (330 m)", with ft as primary. That 1,083 ft in the article is clearly verifiable directly from that source - it (the 1083 ft) is there in black and white, as clear as the nose on your face; there is ''no'' ambiguity at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Therefore my statement "The article's primary units ''did not'' differ from the units given in the source, and the source was ''not'' misrepresented - the source gives the hill height in feet too." is all true - both parts. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::My edit summary was "the primary unit in the article is feet so leave it as it is, it is verifiable from the current source and from any number of others", which I gave when I restored the status quo, is as clear as could be fitted into the limited space available. It explicitly and without the obfuscation you claim, explains the precise reason for my restoration - that the source supports the feet figure. Your refusal to accept that is nothing more than bad-faith. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Finally, as I have shown that all my statements that you challenged are clearly and demonstrably true, I will treat your three irrational and loaded questions with the contempt that they deserve. ] (]) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for dodging, weaving ducking, and treating with contempt two of my questions. Please note these points: |
|
|
* You have conceded that the source gives the height of the hill in both metres and feet, with the height in metres coming first. |
|
|
* You know full well that every other measures noted in this source was metric only, but did not have what it takes to admit it. |
|
|
* You know full well that the source of the information came from the official maps, which gave the height of the features in metres but again you weren't prepared to admit it. |
|
|
|
|
|
This does not reflect well on you. |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note the following: |
|
|
|
|
|
* Both your edit and my edit '''read exactly the same in the article.''' I pointed this out to you that the only difference was in the coding. Despite this, you are persisting in going on as if my edit changed the order of units in the article. This simply is not the case. {{convert|330|m|ft|0|order=flip}} and {{convert|1083|ft|m}} read exactly the same. I am at a loss to understand why you are going on as if they appear differently. ] (]) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the problem. Please read my reply at ]. The problem isn't whether "1083 feet" can be verified - from the current source, or from some other - because it clearly can, or about what the reader sees - because they see the same either way. It is whether the wiki-code should use imperial units in the convert template, and thus better preserve the continuity and spirit of the imperial-first status of the article, or whether imperial units should be expunged from the wiki-code with no apparent good reason or justification for doing that. ] (]) 20:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Speccy, I think it is you who are misunderstanding the issue. MOSNUM makes it clear that when a source puts a primary unit first and this clashes with the usage in the article, the disp=flip function can be used. This is to reflect the source while keeping the usage of the article intact. As it seems that we cannot agree on this point I think it would be helpful to continue any further discussion on the article's talk page. ] (]) 03:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No, MOSNUM doesn't say that at all. MOSNUM says: |
|
|
::"Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source, the {{tlx|convert}} template's <code>|order=flip</code> flag can be used; this causes the ''original'' unit to be shown as secondary in the article, and the ''converted'' unit to be shown as primary." |
|
|
:The pertinent phrase being "Where the article's primary units differ from the units given in the source". The article's primary units DO NOT differ from the units given in the source. The article's primary unit for the fact in question here is "'''feet'''" and one of the units given in the source for that fact is '''"feet"'''. There is no requirement to use the other unit from the source and then invoke the clause about "flip". That would be ridiculous. What do you disagree with there, it could hardly be more straightforward? ] (]) 06:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|
