Talk:Tinsley Viaduct/coordinates

message: Location                                         	Coordinates
Northern junction, A61/A6109                     	
Sheffield and Rotherham Railway passes underneath	
Mid-point between junctions                      	
River Don crossing                               	
Sheffield Canal crossing                         	
Southern junction, A6178                         	
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. </font>  ✉  23:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Be careful of the slippery slope Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Disputed table

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hold your horses; I said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 15:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you did.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Poppycock. Are your arguments so weak that you must resort to inventing things? Andy Mabbett 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another opinion 

message: 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. . 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. . 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)
replies: text: If desired, that's certainly do-able. Andy Mabbett 13:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale setting 

message: Do we need the coordinates both inline and in the infobox?  A user is repeatedly putting them back into both.  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.Skinnerwot|I did 22:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Poppycock. Andy Mabbett 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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.Skinnerwot|I did 15:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Coordinates revisited