Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adambro (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 26 April 2007 (→Coordinates revisited: Formatting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sheffield Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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:

1. Supertram is not carried by the structure
2. 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 have tweaked it slightly as per the above, but someone with better local knowledge probably needs to do more work on. Regan123 22:05, 19 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 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 Misplaced Pages - 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 I also asked if you thought it was detrimental to the article. You did not respond, but Captain scarlet suggested that it was . 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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)

• Unassessed Sheffield articles
• Unknown-importance Sheffield articles