| Revision as of 22:48, 14 April 2007 editScott Wilson (talk | contribs)1,485 edits →Third (fourth?) Opinion: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:03, 14 April 2007 edit undoAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits Reproduced table itself to aid the Misplaced Pages:Consensus building process on this article talk page.Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template:WikiProject Sheffield}} | {{Template:WikiProject Sheffield}} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| ==Coordinates== | ==Coordinates== | ||
| Line 26: | Line 30: | ||
| ] is Misplaced Pages policy. None has yet been reached here. ] ] 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | ] is Misplaced Pages policy. None has yet been reached here. ] ] 21:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ===Third |
===Third Opinion=== | ||
| A ] has been requested on this article. I'm not sure if ]'s comment counts as a third interested party, so I'll give my opinion anyway. As Athænara says, ] 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 ] says, ] a ] or ]. --] 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | A ] has been requested on this article. I'm not sure if ]'s comment counts as a third interested party, so I'll give my opinion anyway. As Athænara says, ] 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 ] says, ] a ] or ]. --] 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Line 32: | Line 36: | ||
| ::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 ], ], ], ] ], ] and ] - the latter doesn't even give co-ordinates for the island its centre pillar is situated on--] 22:48, 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 ], ], ], ] ], ] and ] - the latter doesn't even give co-ordinates for the island its centre pillar is situated on--] 22:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ===Disputed table=== | |||
| <center> | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| !Location | |||
| !Coordinates | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|Northern junction, ]/A6109 | |||
| |{{coord|53.42207|-1.41084}} | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|] passes underneath | |||
| |{{coord|53.42027|-1.40876}} | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|Mid-point between junctions | |||
| |{{coord|53.41763|-1.406205|display=inline,title}} | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|] crossing | |||
| |{{coord|53.41443|-1.40313}} | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|] crossing | |||
| |{{coord|53.41420|-1.40284}} | |||
| |- class="vcard" | |||
| |class="fn org"|Southern junction, A6178 | |||
| |{{coord|53.41318|-1.40155}} | |||
| |} | |||
| </center> | |||
| As there may be technical ] factors which support the inclusion of the data in the disputed table, I reproduced it here to aid the ]-building process. ] ] 23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:03, 14 April 2007
 | Sheffield Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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 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)
- Misplaced Pages 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)
" 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 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.
Misplaced Pages:Consensus is Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)
Disputed table
| Location | Coordinates |
|---|---|
| Northern junction, A61/A6109 | 53°25′19″N 1°24′39″W / 53.42207°N 1.41084°W / 53.42207; -1.41084 |
| Sheffield and Rotherham Railway passes underneath | 53°25′13″N 1°24′32″W / 53.42027°N 1.40876°W / 53.42027; -1.40876 |
| Mid-point between junctions | 53°25′03″N 1°24′22″W / 53.41763°N 1.406205°W / 53.41763; -1.406205 |
| River Don crossing | 53°24′52″N 1°24′11″W / 53.41443°N 1.40313°W / 53.41443; -1.40313 |
| Stainforth and Keadby Canal crossing | 53°24′51″N 1°24′10″W / 53.41420°N 1.40284°W / 53.41420; -1.40284 |
| Southern junction, A6178 | 53°24′47″N 1°24′06″W / 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)
Categories: