Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 2

Table format, column names, and contents (besides descriptions)
Per item 14 in actionable suggestions, perhaps there are different views on what table should include? To kick off some discussion, I'll note that Agljones indicated by that he thought this format: would be good. I don't like "Sector" and "Timing sector" as columns because they don't serve readers, IMO, not sure whether Agljones wants those still. On other hand, Agljones' recent editing of article to this stripped-down version, (since reverted), suggests the following format: might be what he wants. Current format is:


 * (all above was collapsed by Agljones, shows 2 format examples, was uncollapsed by Doncram)

So we agree on having "Corner", "Photo", "Location" columns, but disagree about what should appear in Location field. Agljones wants just coordinates; I want more description of location approximately as in current version, but expecting that better wording/info can be found for each one.

Agljones suggests he will spend 6-8 weeks developing out a table; I think it would be far better to agree on a format before a lot of work is done. Agljones, would you please share any new intended format here, or otherwise comment? -- do ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no question asked here and there is no reply to be posted. Editor has been repeatedly asked not to break sections-up and post replies in different sections.  The revised list will take 6 weeks to complete and editor should not use WP:OWN in limiting changes to list.  agljones(talk)12:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Happily Agljones produced, more quickly, a table with alternative format (as at Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Alternative version), and it's progress, great, we are closer.Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Alternative version. It included the great contribution of a mileage measure for each row, giving mileage from start.  I took that info and included it differently in the article that is current now (permalink to article version).  It allowed me to edit down text describing locations inefficiently, that I had drawn from articles.  Small changes like centering the mileage values in the first column would help.  But with that mileage info, the current version has a good format, i think. -- do  ncr  am  19:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried to separate specific points of disagreement into separate discussion sections on this page. There's disagreement about a lot, including how to discuss anything, but let's still try to discuss this one point here in this section, okay?  Section  is example of not agreeing to discuss this section's point here....  And 3PO's potential usefulness to address single points of disagreement has been suggested by me at "two points" section of Agljones' Talk page, and honestly IMO we both seem amenable, despite some misunderstanding.  Agljones was informed that a 3PO request was made.  Then this response of Agljones at Agljones' talk page collapsed that, which can be taken as acknowledgement of reading.  The content of that response also is troubling to me, but besides the point here.


 * Anyhow, a disagreement on the specific point of row contents continues. That is shown by Agljones' recent edit reducing the table and referring to "VANDALISM" on my part;  and my reversion in this diff with edit summary reminding that it's a compromise for article to show Agljones' preferred version of intro text, and my preferred version of table rows.  This section here remains a statement of that disagreement, and is subject of 3PO request.  Hopefully all this is not too daunting for a 3PO editor to step into, but again honestly we both seem amenable, and it's the mildest first step of dispute resolution and could work knock on wood. -- do  ncr  am  13:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm here just to clarify a few things so that future 3O will be able to find answering this easier. This is the edit which the dispute is concerned about, right? and this section only highlights the entire dispute right? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks . This section is meant by me to cover the issue of what general types of contents should be included in each row, and only that issue.  This includes whether location coordinates which can be viewed in a Bing map should be included or not, but not whether every location coordinate restored in that diff is perfect.  There is general dispute whether summaries that restate information appearing in other articles are allowed, or whether duplication amounts to plagiarism and is never allowed or is otherwise never allowed by general Wikipedia rules.  And whether the existence of descriptive information in rows here would encourage deletion/redirection of separate corner articles in a partially realized network of articles about Isle of Man topics, so should be not allowed as a matter of tactics for best achieving Isle of Man coverage in Wikipedia.  So this section is to address whether a "Notes" column that provides selected facts or a summary description about each corner is allowed or not, as a general issue.  But this section is not meant to achieve agreement on the precise wording of every note restored in that diff, if notes are to be allowed.


 * There are already separate Talk page sections set up to handle disputes that affect single rows (see which includes subsections on  (partly about whether its photo is good enough to include or not),  (about whether the note can mention a fatal accident that is "not defining" about the corner),  (whether certain wording improvements including using British not American English are implemented well enough yet or not), and so on.  And separate Talk page sections for disputes affecting notes in several rows (e.g. ).  And  about whether only "corners" and not other landmarks can be included.  I have tried to divide all the disputes into separate items that may be decided one by one.  We have to start somewhere in applying dispute resolution processes to resolve them, and the topic of this section seems to be a fundamental one, a good one with which to start.


 * So, please, I would like for a Third Party Opinion to be offered about this section's topic. And I believe that  would appreciate it too, right?  I acknowledge that I see Agljones has just cautioned that the third-party option should not be used "to try to negotiate with an editor" (in second-to-last sentence of this diff), which is about how the a 3rd party opinion is used afterwards and not about getting one, if I am interpreting his comment correctly.  Per wp:3PO a third party opinion is not binding, so I guess either of us could completely reject it.  I hope and request that  will agree to discuss the topic of this section here, and agree not to discuss other topics here. Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  17:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Request removed after six days as no volunteer interested in the case.  agljones(talk)09:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I thought the above suggested a moderator-type person at wp:3PO had chosen to remove the outstanding request there.  Which disappointed me as I had been hopeful that User:Ugog Nizdast or another 3PO participant would yet return to offer a comment in this Talk section.  But no, it was not any 3PO editor, it was Agljones who removed the 3PO request in this edit with summary "Active disagreements: Request removed after six days as no volunteer interested in the case."  Okay...that seems to indicate instead that Agljones does not want an uninvolved editor to consider and comment on the disagreement of this section.  Oh, and now I see that was a precursor to Agljones removing practically all substance in the list article, in this series of 26 edits.  It removed several photos, all the coordinates that provide value by making the linked OSM and Bing maps work, all descriptive notes about corners, and all footnotes from the article.  To Agljones, of course you must anticipate that all that will be reverted and the list-article will be restored.  It's complete nonsense, especially, that in edit summary removing coordinates you say they're useless to have here together in this list-article because a reader could get them from linked named corner articles.  That's kind of hilarious.  How well do you think the linked OSM/Bing mapping will work here then?  How well do you think readers can do in getting a good sense of the course and relationships between corners by their following single coordinates in separate articles to see their locations one at a time in maps?  Perhaps someone with photographic memory and a lot of time could make 25 or 30 separate map lookups and integrate all the info into one coherent view.  That won't work for me or for most Wikipedia readers!  :)


 * I do appreciate that a number of your 26 separate edits' summaries do suggest some potentially useful information.  For example you identify a couple unintended usages of American-speak where Britishisms would be preferred.  I do support use of British English for this article, and I think I could appreciate interesting "Britishisms" if you would put them in.  I have made a small effort to use "named after" rather than "named for" since you mentioned that clearly enough.  Your comments often don't provide quite enough to support making any specific change, however.  For example you assert that the term "practice runs" is an Americanism, but you don't share what is the secret inside British term that should be used instead.  :)


 * It's not convenient for me right now to engage in the kind of process that I am reluctantly determining seems to be needed, for this and related articles to be improved. Namely raising the issues here to a stronger form of dispute resolution than wp:3PO, which has been tried in only a very minor way before being rejected by Agljones.  I need a few days or more to get around to it.  Anyhow, Agljones I hope you are well.  While I can't abide your repeatedly tearing down this list-article, I do respect your knowledge and a lot of what you've done in TT racing and other IoM coverage in Wikipedia.  Sincerely, -- do  ncr  am  09:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede explaining about "named corners" and giving context is not "duplication" to be eliminated
In this edit an editor removes the lede of the article, with edit summary "removing duplicated information". I'm sorry, that's just not helpful, and I restored it in the process of making further revisions to it. I think that any reasonable person would agree that a list-article in Wikipedia needs to have some introductory context given, even if facts stated appear in other articles.

And in the linked individual corner articles, such as the current Sarah's Cottage article (permalink), it is helpful to be able to describe the place as "one of the named corners" of the course, linking to this list-article. Without saying that, many of the corner articles provide inadequate context in their ledes, just saying where they are "situated" but not saying what type of location the article is about. To use that construction, it seems necessary to give some upfront discussion of what a "named corner" is, in the lede here.

I don't object to improvements of wording, but eliminating everything seems unhelpful. , would you explain what you will "allow" in a lede, and/or explain why there should be nothing there? Sincerely, -- do ncr  am  16:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)