Talk:Tinsley Viaduct

Moved /coordinates.

Centre lane on lower deck

I was driving along this road today and noticed that the lower deck seems to have an unused but well constructed and barriered central lane. Also, at the south end there were traffic signals that seem designed to allow traffic to leave this lane which have been bagged up out of use (and replaced with a give way sign). Are these old signals out of service or new ones not yet in service? Did the centre lane get used in the past - it lookes like it could have been a good tidal flow system? SheffGruff (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

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 ^talk 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^{wot|I did} 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^{wot|I did} 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^{wot|I did} 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^{wot|I did} 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)

(indent-out)Dims in info box are wrong as how do 2 x 10 m clearance = a height for the viaduct of 20 m (66) foot , (if somebody has discovered a material that will span the distances given with a zero thickness they will make a fortune, and the HA have just wasted millions upgrading). The box girders must be at least 1.5 to 2 m deep minimum, and clearance should be from road deck to u/ s of lowest point of box girder for the top deck, with lower under figure from service road to u/s lower deck or from rail track to u/s of lower deck. Either Clearances or Total height is wrong. 10+10=20+(zero thickness decks) when 10+a+10+b= H o/a realistic figure !!! -

Coordinates revisited, again

Once again the format of the coordinates are being changed without any explanation as to why. Could I ask before further changes are made that this is discussed. What advantage does Captain scarlet feel {{coor title dms}} offers over {{coord}} to merit these changes? I note this same change has been made to a number of articles. Adambro 09:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Adambro... I haven't changed the formats of coordinates without explaination, I reverted them to their non Pigsonthewing format... Maybe you'd like to speak to you firriend and stop microformatting everything. The cordinates are only shown in the title, so the title coordinates' being used, that's what the template's for. Coordinates in title => title coords template, get it? You also fail to notice I am not arbitrarily replacing templates but correcting them (the bot is hopeless). Don't throw OWN at my face (that's patronising don't you know) but an actual knowledge of the subject of an article is good... There is also such a thing as editors' courtoisie, Jeremy likes the coord template (which he added on Millhouses); he's goot good knowledge of that area, superior to mine in fact and I'm happy to leave his hard work as it is. I'm off for the day so feel free to revert everything I do as you usually do misters. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to discuss this in a civil manner than I would question whether it is appropriate for you to be making these changes. Do not label my comments as "patronising talk" in your edit summary and then copy my comments for your use elsewhere to make a point.

Regarding your reply, I shall comment on some of the points you have raised:

1. Pigsonthewing is not my "firriend", rather he is another editor with whom I have agreed on some issues but also disagreed on others.
2. {{coord}} allows coordinates to be displayed in the title with the advantage of microformats.
3. I haven't mentioned WP:OWN.

Perhaps I misunderstood but maybe you could clarify for me that you are happy with Jeremy using {{coord}} but will remove it if added by Pigsonthewing? The presentation of coordinates has nothing to do with knowledge of an area so I don't understand your point. Adambro 10:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What civility issues? You must have misreadme, again. I have made good faith edits and would warn you not to discourage me from editing (I would question whether it is appropriate for you to be making these changes.), very unwiki. Your comments are patronising, just as yours above are, and yours before that, and on the Commons, and everywhere you speak to me...

• Microformats have no advantages whatsoever and offer nothing beyond the present template.
• You've mentioned it now...
• You understand my point exactly so don't insult my intelligence. It's explained up there with all the spelling mistakes trimings I can make, read it again if you don't understand, I'm not a dictaphone. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Microformats have no advantages whatsoever..." - While that belief may explain some of your irrational edits, it has no foundation in reality. Andy Mabbett 09:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The words of someone (Pigsonthewing) who believes without a doubt he is right and who does not wish to compromise... Revert war? Microformats are rubbish... Sorry microformats is all you do and you areclearly annoyed, but they're pure rubbish, arein't they Pigsonthewing? Wikipedia encourages discussion and compromise between editors... You've been told to talk and to argument your PoV, do it. Until then BYE BYE MICROFORMATS. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"they're pure rubbish, arein't (sic) they" . No. Why do you think that they are? (Please note that failure to adequately address this point may lead other editors to assume that you're simply trolling). My name remains, Andy Mabbett 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

QED. Andy Mabbett 10:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

After some research and useful exchanges with Andy Mabbett I have advanced from zero knowledge of microformats to negligible knowledge in the last few hours and begin dimly to perceive advantages. The display in the 2 latest versions (see this diff) of the page becomes identical (give or take a few secs) after following the instructions at Template:Coord#Display to change your browser display to DMS (degrees, mins, secs) (if you prefer this, that is). This template seems to do all that the title one did, and more besides. -- roundhouse 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You'l have speak to my in another tone Pigsonthewing. Just as roundhouse has stated above there ar elittle advantages to go to the new system, which you are advertising so you are hardly impartial. The coor title dms template was put up for deletion but kept, it is only your arbitrary decision to add don't use it anymore that is present on the talk page. The previous cor title dms tempalte was in use before yours and as such should be retained since no other features are needed. What is needed is a set of coordinates, accurate (which, since you constantly revert me like a three year old, are no longer accurate) and situated in the top right title. Coor title dms was created to that effect. If no other features are required there is little need to change the template since none of the pointless features of your precious microformat are used. Or maybe you prefer to revert me and accuse me of trolling and turn around the point and say nothing as usual Pigsonthewing. That's what we do here, simple things; a set of coordinates on the top right of articles, you are ruining it for everyone, first your communiqués are rude and impertinent, you make little point and you impose your PoV with no explainations. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for being unclear. It is my opinion that there are advantages to microformats. I think the new {{coord}} template would give exactly the same appearance to the reader as the old one (Coor title dms), given a little rejigging. I would be quite happy to investigate a solution which would satisfy those who would like to introduce microformats and those who wish to retain the present appearance of a given page. -- roundhouse 09:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

roundhouse: What is the rejigging which is required? I was under the impression that Template:coord was supposed to replace the old templates (Template:coor d, Template:coor dm and Template:coor dms in a transparent way? --VinceBowdren 10:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are minor differences in display, eg coord gives me a choice (on the present Tinsley page) between Coordinates: 53°25′04″N 1°24′22″W / 53.41763, -1.406205 (neither of which is exactly as before, where we had something like 53.41763°N, 1.406205°W). Also the first option seems to be lacking a comma. -- roundhouse 10:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

CaptainScarlet, is this difference in presentation one of your concerns? If I understand you right, you have several complaints about the coord template:

1) Printing the co-ordinates both inline and at the head of the article. This is optional in the new coord template, and so this issue can be easily resolved through discussion.

2) The precision of the printed co-ordinates. Is this a complaint about the template, or about the precision of the co-ordinates as entered by Andy? As I understand it, both the old and new templates support co-ordinates being specified to any degree of precision, and there are agreed guidelines for what level of precision is appropriate for different geographical features, so again this should be easily resolved through discussion.

3) The existence of microformats in the new template. As I understand it, the microformats do not make article editing more difficult nor interfere with the printing of the co-ordinates in a normal web browser, but do allow other user agents to extract the co-ordinate information usefully. As such, I believe the microformats to be beneficial and am therefore broadly in favour of the new template.

4) The presentation format of the printed co-ordinates. I do not understand the implications of the different presentation formats, but again I believe the new coord template is intended to have the same functionality as the old templates, subject to the problems observed by roundhouse?

In sum, I am broadly in favour of the new template but would appreciate clarification from CaptainScarlet if I have mis-represented his complaints, or from Andy if I have misunderstood the functionality of the old vs new coordinates templates. --VinceBowdren 11:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks about right to me - thank you. In response to your first point, many infoboxes, including this one, are intended to include coordinates and there is no reason why they should not be repeated in the title bar, as happens all over Wikipedia. Including them in the infoboxes has the added advantage of including then in the hCard microformat. As to your third point, 'CaptainScarlet' appears to believe that microformats are fundamentally a bad thing (and has made the bizarre assertion that they "have no advantages whatsoever"), but has been unwilling or unable to say why. Andy Mabbett 12:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to focus this bit of discussion on the pros and cons of {{coord}} without mentioning infoboxes - one step at a time. (This particular page as of now has the geo hCard microformat supplied directly via the coord template rather than the infobox, I believe.)
I share VinceBowdren's understanding of the matter. To clarify Point 4. A logged-in user can choose whether to see (a) Coordinates: 53°25′04″N 1°24′22″W, (b) Coordinates: 53.41763, -1.406205 or (c) Coordinates: 53°25′04″N 1°24′22″W / 53.41763, -1.406205 by following the instructions at Template:Coord#Display. An anon ip viewer will see (a) or (b) depending on how the entry has been made.
Moreover any user of firefox can download a plug-in called Operator which installs an extra toolbar which spots any hcard/vcard info in any webpage and can extract it very easily, eg it can import an address (ie postal, phone numbers, email address, website URL etc) into the Outlook addressbook in one click. I am supposing similar plug-ins exist for IE. (I have no expertise whatever re templates.) -- roundhouse 12:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I was hoping to focus this bit of discussion ... without mentioning infoboxes" - in this case, they're entwined.

The Geo microformat can exist as stand-alone (as now) or as part of hCard (as when delivered via the infobox). In the latter case, parsing agents see the name property ("Tinsley Viaduct") when rendering the coordinates, rather then the bare decimal numeric values. That is clearly more user-friendly.

I know of no Internet Explorer plug-ins as yet, though there are "bookmarklets" that work in IE and other browsers, and third- party websites which will do the necessary, if the URL of a page with microformats is given to them.

For more on microformats, see WP:UF.

Andy Mabbett 13:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, another subtlety, this connection with the infobox. If the coord template is used inside the infobox, does it have to be displayed inline, or can it be declare inside the infobox (so as to get the hCard bit) but still only be displayed in the page header? --VinceBowdren 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be displayed inline, tile, or both; but will only add coordinates to the hCard if inline or both. Your latter suggestion will not work; but in any case the infobox is designed to include coordinates, whether or not there is a microformat, or a title display. Andy Mabbett 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken an earlier version of Tinsley Viaduct and put it here. I have added the coord template + some html tags to the same page and put it here here. This now gives me 1 contact (ie Tinsley viaduct) + 1 location named Tinsley Viaduct (using the Operator toolbar). To what extent is anyone happy/unhappy? (I have left the original sentence about location unchanged but it is redundant.) -- roundhouse 18:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Not happy on the least. There's no infobox (It's possible that parsers such as the one which builds our Google Earth layer may only pick up coordinates form infoboxes); the hCard has fewer properties; the HTML is vulnerable to innocent but damaging edits; and the coordinates are now entered twice, using two different templates. Andy Mabbett 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left the (redundant) original coords in so others could see that the display is much the same. I am beginning to think that I should just wish you good luck with this venture as I have always hated infoboxes. -- roundhouse 22:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand your apparent change of position; in your post time-stamped 09:04, 16 May 2007, above, you wrote: "I would be quite happy to investigate a solution which would satisfy those who would like to introduce microformats and those who wish to retain the present appearance of a given page." (my emboldening). If you wish to campaign for the removal of infoboxes, this (nor indeed any other individual article) isn't the place to do so. Andy Mabbett 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - let me ask a specific question. Can you introduce microformats to Conisbrough Castle to your satisfaction whilst retaining the appearance of the page? -- roundhouse 01:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Red herring alert: It's possible that parsers such as the one which builds our Google Earth layer may only pick up coordinates form infoboxes. Google relies on finding a coor tag, whether within or without an infobox. Google has no dependency on infoboxes per se, and should not be used as an argument for infoboxes. See [1] --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well-spotted - the link specifically states Q "How do I get my Wikipedia article to show up in the Google Earth Geographic Web layer?" A "You must geotag the article. The simplest way to do this is to use one of the {{coor title d[ms]}} or {{coor at d[ms]}} templates. These templates can be used anywhere within the article text." -- roundhouse 08:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Further ... I have now installed Google Earth and after a bit of fiddling around I can see that it links nicely to the article on Tinsley Station (and most of the other Sheffield stations but not Tinsley Viaduct - no doubt there is a timelag involved). Tinsley Station has no infobox and uses {{coor title d[ms]}}. I can see that this is a very nice feature and Google Earth is fascinating. (Google Earth does not find Conisbrough Castle, which uses {{coor d[ms]}}.) -- roundhouse 09:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Can you introduce microformats to Conisbrough Castle..."" - you could do so using the method on your test page; but the issues I mention above still apply, and it's not as robust as doing so using an infobox. I don't see how that's pertinent to this article, which already has an infobox, though. Andy Mabbett 10:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And a very nice infobox it is. What are we discussing? Surely not the deletion of such a good infobox? If not, then what? --Tagishsimon (talk)

The recent reverting (last 6 or so edits) on this Tinsley page has been between
{{coor title dms|53|25|03|N|1|24|21|W|region:GB_type:landmark}} and {{coord|53.41763|-1.406205|display=title|region:GB_type:landmark}}, and this is what I was trying to discuss (without mentioning infoboxes), as the difference is very slight. This still does not accomplish what Andy would like as the geo-ref is not named - can a name be incorporated (robustly) in coord eg something like {{coord|53.41763|-1.406205|display=title|region:GB_type:landmark|name="Tinsley Viaduct"}}? (I can see that this can be done via an infobox or a table, but what if one wishes to give and name 6 or 7 geo-refs in a text-based article where a table is not appropriate?) -- roundhouse 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"can a name be incorporated in coord" - No. A template to meet your latter case is on (but not near the top of!) my to-do list. coord with display=title is better than coor title dms for reasons already discussed, but using display=inline,title in the info box is better still. Andy Mabbett 14:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with coord at all. I look forward eagerly to your template. I would also welcome the option of using either display=inline,title in an info box or display=title in an info box so that the coords row is omitted altogether (eg if one has a short article with a long infobox) - at present display=title leaves the row intact but with blank coords entry. -- roundhouse 15:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If coord is being used with display=title, there's no point in putting it in the infobox; put it in the article footer. Andy Mabbett 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be my preferred option. Coordinates are fine, but I don't like to see over-duplication of information. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that might supply the name. Alternatively if we use the latitude, longitude properties in the infobox (which does supply the name), then this uses coord indirectly and places the coords both in the title and inline. I would like an option to omit the coords row and display in the title only; maybe there is such an option which I haven't sussed out. -- roundhouse 15:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a few sandbox pages at User:VinceBowdren/TV03 through User:VinceBowdren/TV07, and it has become apparent that the coord template successfully generates the geo microformat wherever you define the co-ordinates and however they are to be displayed. The difference the infobox makes is to enable the hCard microformat, which is "for publishing the contact details of people, organizations and venues". Surely a viaduct is not the kind of thing which has contact details, so the hCard is irrelevant? --VinceBowdren 16:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a summary of hCard's usefulness, not an exhaustive list. Andy Mabbett 17:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I have an example (on the web somewhere, not nec wiki) of hCard's usefulness other than geo or contact details?

I would favour User:VinceBowdren/TV05 if the coords row in the info box could be omitted.

User:VinceBowdren/TV05 - uses |coordinates={{coord|53.41763|-1.406205|display=title|region:GB_type:landmark}} in the infobox - shows up in title bar, + row with blank coords in infobox, gives me a choice of formats, gives me 1 named location in the Firefox/Operator tool-bar. (TV06 is the same with coords filled-in in the box.) The others either give me format choice + 1 unnamed location (03, 04), or no choice, no locations (TV07). -- roundhouse 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Could I have an example of hCard's usefulness other than geo or contact details?" - I don't have the URL to hand, but there is a website which will, given a URL, export hCards which include coordinates in a KML document for use in Google Earth. It is planned to have similar facilities for exporting as GPX, which in turn can be imported into GPS/ sat-nav devices. many more implementations are listed on the microformats wiki, (link via WP:UF). Andy Mabbett 10:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I have implemented the present template to show what I would like (as an option) via what Andy might well consider a 'bodge' at User:Pc1dmn/sandbox. One simply puts the coord template in any row of the info box which is to be displayed and the coords appear only once (in the title), the coords row in the info box doesn't display, and the geolink takes its name from the box.

2. Given that coor etc are now deprecated should they not be taken to tfd and their fates decided consensually in the usual fashion? -- roundhouse 10:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that coor etc are not yet deprecated, 2 of them are definitely recognised by Google whereas {{coord}} has not yet been confirmed as recognised, and the change to the MOS was made unilaterally by one Andy Mabbett - see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Coordinates_section. -- roundhouse 09:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It was not changed unilaterally, it was changed as a result of the consensus which also resulted in the creation of {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett 09:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion at the above page would prove otherwise Pigsonthewing, as Patleahy said here. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 09:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that {{coord}} is a pet of Pigsonthewing and that the other coordinate tmeplates are not depreciated. A TfD campain was led against them but was rejected and they are available for use. It is unappropriate to change the (good) coord templates by the (bad) MicroFormat ones arbitrarily since there is no convention in place advising to systematically replace them. Where there were Coor title dms there should still be one. If ther eisn't anymor,e it wil be changed back to its former quality. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

2A TfD campain (sic) was led against them but was rejected" - first I've heard of it; citation, please. I note that you've yet to answer questions asking you to justify your opposition to {{{coord}}. Andy Mabbett 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the TfD campaign Captain Scarlet is referring to was this one. It was actually a debate about whether co-ordinates should be included in the header of an article or inline, and is unrelated to the introduction of the coord template or any microformat issues. Looks like a red herring. --VinceBowdren 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're totally off VinceBowdren, the link you've linked to clearly is a TfD, just like I said. It is entirely related to Pigsonthewing's crusade. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tinsley Towers

Sadly the Tinsley towers are no more. They were demolished in the early hours of 24th August 2008. I am happy to write this up if no one objects.

Deevincentday (talk) 00:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is much to say beyond what is already in the article. But if you do, go ahead and add it. —Jeremy (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be more detail about the Tinsley Towers over on the Blackburn Meadows Power Station page. I added a little bit before realising it's well written up on this page. Maybe we should slim down the description here, and move some of those details -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Assessment/expansion

Rated as C-class on the basis of current content and potential expansion of article. Main expansion would be going into more detail of construction and design detail + listing more details of contractors, designers, engineers etc. to raise to a B class. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)