This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Athaenara (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 14 April 2007 (→Coordinates: No Misplaced Pages:Consensus has yet occurred here - disingenuous post moved from user talk to article talk.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:42, 14 April 2007 by Athaenara (talk | contribs) (→Coordinates: No Misplaced Pages:Consensus has yet occurred here - disingenuous post moved from user talk to article talk.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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)
Categories: