Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course/Archive 3

Actionable suggestions
Editor has been repeatedly asked not to break sections-up and post replies in different sections. There are no specific questions asked and no reply will be given. Not acceptable to ask an editor to give "status" reply of yes/no answers WP:NOW policy. Points 6.1 to 6.4, 6.7, should not be included in article 6.10 to 6.14 are not relevant. Articles are developed through editing and not action lists. agljones(talk)21:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Actionable suggestions that I (doncram) can interpret from the above sections, from , and from , and from further long comments and elsewhere are as follows. Please anyone add other specific suggestions or clarify. --doncram

a i 1 Mention of fatal accidents

 * 1) Maybe there is too much mention of fatal accidents at table entries for specific corners, so mentions of fatal accidents should be reduced. Specifically maybe only accidents at Birkin’s Bend and Guthrie’s Memorial should be described.  Further (3/14) maybe mentioning accidents could somehow be controversial or biased, so perhaps address that by dropping all mentions of accidents, or providing balance by giving multiple POVs about them (but what POV is there?  what's stated is factual, there are no opinions...opinions about what, whether accidents are good or bad??? too many or less than would be expected???)
 * Agljones seemed to suggest he wants no coverage of fatal accidents, in the alternate format of list-table that he proposes.
 * However, from new comments in "Conclusion" below, I now understand that Agljones wants this list-article to include mention of controversy about fatal accidents. I thought before you were asserting this article had a POV about something controversial that should be removed.  Okay, now I understand Agljones wants it to cover whatever controversial issue there is about fatal accidents.
 * However later he wants all mentions to be deleted.
 * Discussion moved to
 * DONCRAM view of status: There remains disagreement about whether factual mention of accidents is controversial or violates wp:POV, so I want to seek others' opinions to settle, probably via an RFC (1), at discussion section . -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: (okay to resolve that way or not?)

a i 2 Lap times

 * 2) Since lap times are given, perhaps the lap times currently given in the intro should be changed to those, including to use current course record lap time (which was not yet used), so update with such changes.
 * DONCRAM view of status: ✅ I believe this is now done, in edits 27 March. And I am not aware of any disagreement by Agljones. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: (done or not?)

a i 3 Speed factors

 * 3) Add about other factors contributing to increased speeds (technology and rules changes allowing 1000cc now, suspensions, tyres), which are relatively more important than course changes at corners, and perhaps clarify about how limited the course changes have been. However, course changes are discussed in the Snaefell Mountain Course article and maybe should not be discussed here. And technology and course speeds are discussed in the Isle of Man TT article (and were proposed to be discussed in a "History" article) and maybe should not be discussed here.
 * DONCRAM view of status: ✅ I believe this is now done, in edits 27 March. Not by spelling out detail of other factors on speed increases, but rewording to say that course changes have contributed while be smaller than other factors. Course changes at corners are highly relevant in List of the corners;  changes of motorcycle improvements not so much. -- do  ncr  am  04:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agljones has repeatedly removed all mention of the fact that speed increases on the course have been partially a result of course changes that removed turns, removed jumps, widened roadways, etc. It is incredible to me that there is vast detail about course changes included in Wikipedia at Snaefell Mountain Course, Snaefell Mountain Course, Snaefell Mountain Course and within dozens of articles on individual corners, yet it is asserted that these have no effect on the racing.  Then why on earth have all the tedious information about road changes included in all these articles?  Should all of that be removed (or should all of the separate articles be deleted)?


 * AGLJONES view of status: ??

a i 4 Styles of riding

 * 4) Perhaps the style of riding on this course, about how it has changed over time and especially how it may have differed from elsewhere, can be described more, and can be described differently than by quoting from Whipple in the intro (even though I (doncram) must note that the Whipple quote is specifically about the Isle of Man motorcycle racing in 1979, not about anywhere else). But it is suggested that "there is now a general ‘road-racing’ style (it varies with different competitors)  but it is also found in use on other road-racing courses", so maybe there are no differences from elsewhere to describe.  Further (3/14), Agljones notes there is only one article so far quoted from (the "Whipple" article, a quote about style), "so perhaps a second article needs to be quoted to demonstrate an alternate point of view" if an opinion or bias or POV has been expressed
 * DONCRAM view of status: Disagreement remains. No sources have emerged describing changes in style of riding in general in racing, and no sources suggesting racing styles are different here than elsewhere.  Whipple quote however does describe riding here, and conveys some excitement, and is only source available that says anything about racing through corners, so it's relevant for this list-article about corners. I want to use it in the intro.  If it's not controversial that motorcyclists lean into curves (and they do), then I see no issue.  There's no need for it to be "balanced" by an opposing view (whatever that would be).  I guess to resolve whether Whipple quote can be used this requires others' views, to be RFC (2). -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: (Wants to add other racing style info or not?) (wants Whipple quote not to be used)

a i 5 Mobile-friendliness

 * 5) As the current format is apparently not mobile-friendly (and it would be great to have this list-article available to spectators on the course), perhaps some ways to improve its look on mobile phone view should be tried, so investigate about any general ways to improve articles for mobile viewing.
 * DONCRAM view of status: ❌ No specific suggestions how to improve this article for mobile-viewing have emerged. -- do ncr  am  04:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

a i 6 POV vs neutral wording

 * 6) Some current wording in the article may not be neutral, may violate wp:NPOV, hence should be changed (either deleted or revised to give balance to other POVs). What might be violation of NPOV is/are the Whipple quotation(s), as it/they "may not give a neutral point of view about the more controversial aspects of the motor-cycle racing in the Isle of Man."  Per Agljones (3/14), what is possibly non-neutral is that "If you include the fatal accidents .... and as a controversial aspect then you must demonstrate a neutral point of view", so implication is to balance any views that accidents are good or bad?
 * This item 6 amounts to duplication of item 1, the mention of fatal accidents question. There's no issue of  balance needed about mentioning facts objectively.  However omitting all mention of fatal accidents would be white-washing and seems wp:POV.  Discussion moved to . -- do  ncr  am  14:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DONCRAM view of status: There remains disagreement about whether factual mention of accidents violates wp:POV, so I want to seek others' opinions to settle, via RFC (1), at
 * AGLJONES view of status:

a i 7 Technical issues

 * 7) 's item 4 suggests that apparently there's a photo in the article which covers the problem with points 3 or 4'' (about course speeds and racing styles).  Maybe the suggestion is that the photo needs to be dropped?
 * DONCRAM view of status: ❌ There's been no clarification about whatever this was about. No photo has been identified as the problem one. -- do  ncr  am  04:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

a i 8 Photo licenses

 * 8) Maybe there is a photo in the list which is a copyvio ("images from Street View from Google Maps have copyright issues")? There is or was a problem about a photo used in the Bray Hill article?  Yes, that was [an] issue: agljones questions copyright of 4 photos there (not an issue here).  Further, Agljones marked about 4 or 5 photos used here in this list (and also in separate articles) as being possible copyright violations.
 * DONCRAM view of status: ✅ Agljones was mistaken about copyright status of photos, about photos he identified as also appearing in Flickr. But in fact photos appearing in Flickr with compatible CC license can be uploaded to Commons.  Commons processes would deal with violations.  If photos are in Commons, they can be used here.  See also User talk:Agljones. -- do  ncr  am  14:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

a i 9 Incompleteness

 * 9) '''Incompleteness of Many of the list-rows are incomplete, lacking a photo or needing a better photo, not having anything written in the notes column yet, or having inaccurate or poorly written notes. Further (3/14), Agljones notes "Leaving an list article incomplete and the article may be deleted respectively", so implicit suggestion is to complete this out more.  [Also, the article can be tagged as being incomplete.] (summarized by doncram)
 * DONCRAM view of status: ✅ Article has been marked at top as an incomplete list. Agljones has been advised to use cn citation needed template, or dubious template, or to otherwise tag (or simply to fix) anything really questioned in article.  Photos are included for all corners where photos are available.  Article has been developed out more, and development can/will continue.  Which is fine, there's no crisis. There's no disagreement that the information in the list can/should continue to be developed.  There's nothing that needs to be discussed, unless Agljones thinks incompleteness of a row means it should be deleted or something. -- do  ncr  am  14:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

a i 10 Remove all descriptions

 * 10) Remove all descriptions: Agljones: "Including a long description [about corners within the table] will cause the pre-existing articles to be subject to AFD nominations and be deleted. It will also completely stop the development of the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles and the lead Isle of Man TT articles to be found on Wikipedia Netherlands will lack of standards, problems of accuracy and plagiarism."  So Agljones suggests descriptions need to be short eliminated. (summarized by doncram, 14 March & 16 March)
 * DONCRAM view of status: There remains disagreement. Agljones' reasons for wanting to remove all descriptions are similar to potentional reasons to call for deletion of list.  No consensus for removal of descriptions is going to emerge btwn Agljones and me;  IMO it would more or less amount to deletion of list-article.  So I want to seek others' opinions to settle, via an RFC (3), at .  -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status:

a i 11 Photo placements

 * 11) Photo placements: Agljones: "Wikipedia also has rules about the placing of photographs." So somehow change the placing of photographs? To comply with what rules? Agljones notes elsewhere that "The WP:Manual of Style says that images should face 'inwards' towards text, avoid stacking of images and also avoid photographs with ambiguous graphic design elements." (summarized by doncram, 14 March & 16 March)
 * DONCRAM view of status: ❌ Nothing has emerged here, no links to supposed Manual of Style guidance. Any guidance about "stacking" of photos is almost certainly not about tables having one photo per row;  it might apply if there were multiple photos stacked within one row.  There are many list-articles with photos, just like this. -- do  ncr  am  14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status:

a i 12 Coordinates

 * 12) Coordinate corrections/additions needed:
 * Ballacraine's coordinates (from its article) point to a nearby field
 * Windy Corner, Isle of Man's correct coordinates as in its last version before redirect are 54°13′50.4624″N 4°28′12.302″

(or 54.230684 -4.470084 ) but appeared differently in list somehow (probably doncram error from copying another row but not updating the coordinates). (just corrected -- do ncr  am  15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Verandah, Isle of Man lacks coordinates. (One central coordinate needed for here, while 4 separate coordinates for each of its 4 bends could be used in its separate article.)
 * Otherwise, all corners in list as of 28 March have coordinates, and all are confirmed correct?
 * DONCRAM view of status: ✅ The two incorrect ones were fixed. It's okay that one row is missing coordinates for now.  That could/should be remedied in development, but there's no issue requiring settlement, as far as I can tell. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

a i 13 List-items included

 * 13) List-item notability requirements. Agljones indicates by that he wishes to add rows for many, many more locations along the course.  This would include locations that are not named corners such as "Mike Casey Memorial Shelter" and every other shelter and every mile marker.  Agljones planning to spend 6-8 weeks developing such a list, off-line.  Doncram believes such a long listing would not be acceptable (for reasons including wp:OR concern), and that list-items should only be named corners that are identified as that in sources.  Per guidelines about lists (wp:LISTN? ), for a topic to be considered notable enough to include in a list, it doesn't have to meet higher standard of notability for topic to be a separate article.  But editors can set a list-item standard, and we need some standard, and this should be more resolved before Agljones invests 6-8 weeks developing a new table including such items, only to encounter disagreement afterwards.  Discuss at.


 * DONCRAM view of status: I think there's disagreement which likely can't be settled except by an RFC (4)
 * AGLJONES view of status:

a i 14 Table format, columns

 * 14) Table format, column names, and contents (besides descriptions): Agljones indicates by  and by recent editing of article to this stripped-down version, that he prefers different columns and amounts of content.  And Agljones suggests he will spend 6-8 weeks developing out a table.  I think we agree on having "Corner", "Photo", "Location" columns, but disagree about what should appear in Location field.  For location, Agljones wants just coordinates;  I want more description of location approximately as in current version, but expecting that better copyediting/wording/info can be done. -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * DONCRAM view of status: I suspect Agljones may have different plans, and there's likely to be disagreement, but I don't know what Agljones intends.  I believe it would be far better to come to some agreement before a lot of time is invested Agljones separately, and by me in the current version.  I want to discuss any format changes from current format, at . -- do  ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * AGLJONES view of status: ?

These can all be addressed by changes in the article and/or discussed further below in this section, or in separate new topic-specific sections. -- do ncr  am  18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC) -- do  ncr  am

Discussion by Doncram about actionable items listed above

--doncram (15 March and 16 March)
 * About 1, I see no bias or POV expressed about accidents. It seems to me relevant/appropriate to mention, for one corner, what fatal accidents happened there.  Mention really must be given if the corner is named for a rider killed there, or if it is the only corner where spectators were killed, or the accident(s) there were otherwise really important;  there's absolutely no way that accidents can only be mentioned for just Birkin’s Bend and Guthrie’s Memorial.  I now understand Agljones wants this article to cover both sides of whatever controversy there is about fatal accidents.  I personally would prefer for the list-article to be neutral and just give factual information about fatal accidents when relevant to describe the individual corners.
 * About 2, yes, i'll make some changes. -- do  ncr  am  18:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * About 6, what text in the article is not neutral, if any? About 6, the Whipple quotation in the intro suggests that riders and their motorcycles have to lean into curves...what is controversial or non-neutral?  The Whipple quotation in the Windy Corner row suggests that it is windy there, affecting the riders and the spectators...what is controversial or non-neutral about that?  Or is the problem that we are not mentioning some controversy that should be discussed? --doncram
 * Okay, now I understand the perceived slant is that the article mentions accidents, a topic which could be controversial if a one-sided point of view was taken (but there's no i think it's just factual about there having been accidents). And there's concern that there's only one quote in the intro so far (from Whipple, about style), so if there was a POV expressed, it could be viewed as unbalanced (but I see no controversy, no one saying there is any opinion or bias or POV about anything, that needs to be corrected or balanced).  Sure, it would be fine/good to add more about style, especially more recently (and covered in a suggested change already). --doncram


 * About 7, I don't understand [which photos' copyright status] is questioned, and why, and if the suggestion is that it should be dropped or kept. Clarification needed.  Can you put a copy of the photo to the right here, replacing the one I am just putting here, if it is the wrong one, please...[which was not done, but Agljones added copypaste templates marking 4 or 5 photos in this list as being possible copyvios...I removed those tags as I think there's misunderstanding about Creative Commons license and public domain status of photos, and this is being discussed at User talk:Agljones. --doncram
 * About 8, there's no issue for this list-article. I do believe that images from Streetview of Google maps are copyrighted and cannot be uploaded to Commons and used, but I believe there is no photo in the list which is from Streetview.  And there are very well-run processes at Commons and in Wikipedia in getting rid of any copyright violations.  I see no problem with any photos here or at the Bray Hill article.  But if any photo is believed to be a copyright violation it should be noted and reported, following instructions available if you search for them or ask. --doncram   Further, Agljones suggests there are copyright issues with 4 Bray Hill photos used in its article.  NOT an issue about this list-article.  Please stop bringing up copyright issues about photos not used and not proposed for use in this list-article, here on this Talkpage, okay?...will discuss at User talk:Agljones instead.  Agljones indicated they think there are problems with photos used in this list, too...being discussed at User:Agljones. --Doncram (updated 15 March and 16 March)
 * About 9, this is an early version. Anyone may directly edit the article to add or correct notes (but please let's follow the wp:BRD process if there's any disagreement).  Or please make specific text suggestions here on the Talk page, and/or quote text believed to be inaccurate and explain why.  Either for discussion or for someone else to implement.  About photos, the list-article properly shows blanks where we don't have photos, implicitly calling for photos.  Over time, photos will be contributed and added, hopefully.  I'm used to building lists about historic sites and about churches and other things that are incomplete with respect to photos, and will be incomplete for many years to come (for one example, List of Methodist churches (which by the way was contested in an AFD but kept) plus linked List of Methodist churches in the United States which was split out).  This list of named corners is an incomplete list-article, which is fine in my opinion. -- do  ncr  am  03:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, about "Leaving an list article incomplete and the article may be deleted re[tro]spectively...", that is [basically] NOT TRUE. I have lots of experience with hundreds of list-articles in Wikipedia....it is FINE for them to be incomplete for a while or even for a very long time, and there's no risk here of it being deleted [now], is my [informed] judgment. --doncram (14 March, with [revisions to my comment] 15 March)
 * Further I do want to concede that in the past some other Isle-of-Man-related articles must have been redirected without a formal AFD deletion process, which is allowed and even recommended by guidelines in Wikipedia if it seems a redirection is obviously appropriate and would not be disputed (and I'm not referring to any specific incident, but such may have been done by someone other than me in way that was a bit rude, without proper communication, and despite the likelihood of dispute being quite high. But if/when some related article was/is redirected, you/others were/are free to dispute that (and to seek help from me or others if you felt/feel abused by the process).  And even if an article has been redirected (which presumably would only have happened because at least one person believed that the article did not have sufficient sourced info to justify being separate), it can always be restored and developed if/when substantially more sourced info becomes available.  I suggest restoration is probably best done by creating a new version of the article in Draft-space, first, then seeking approval for it to be moved to mainspace (like how this list-article was started by me and approved/moved to mainspace by an Articles-For-Creation administrator). -- do  ncr  am  16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [Anyhow], if and when there's any attempt to delete this article, I or someone will respond. Nothing required now on this item, IMHO. --doncram (15 March, and revised later on 15 March)


 * About 10, I don't think that longish descriptions have great bearing on whether other corner articles will get deleted or not. If other articles have almost no content, they probably could and should be eliminated [by redirection, perhaps to a row within the table here], IMO, unless/until there is more content to expand them further. --doncram
 * About 11, Wikipedia allows photos to be included just as here, in hundreds of list-articles of historic sites and churches and so on (see List of Methodist churches in the United States, for one example. This is NOT A PROBLEM!!!!, in my opinion. -- do  ncr  am  19:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Further about "The WP:Manual of Style says that images should face 'inwards' towards text, avoid stacking of images ...", i am pretty sure that would be about placement of individual photos amidst text in articles, not about photos within tables. But Manual of Style page contains one usage of word "inward", about something else, so I can't check what you're reading.  Anyhow there are many featured lists with a photo column, so it is definitely okay. -- do  ncr  am  22:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I collapsed my comments as I think they've served already in clarifying detail/views of actionable items. -- do ncr  am  21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eleven weeks later, I uncollapse the list of actionable items as it seems there was no agreement about anything, ever. -- do ncr  am  15:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion by Agljones about actionable items listed above
 * 1 & 6). The fatal accidents are listed in a list article.  This is an article about the named corners. The fatal accidents to competitors is a highly controversial aspect.  Wikipedia has rules about a neutral point of view and only one article has been quoted and a second article needs to quoted to demonstrate an alternative point of view. In May 2014, I removed part of a section of the executive summary of the main Isle of Man TT article that had been inserted by an editor that referred to the fatal accidents. The small section was based on three biased newspaper articles that only presented one point of view to support the small addition to the executive summary.  To present a neutral point of view an alternative point of view should have been provided to comply with Wikipedia rules.  Also, research based on statistical evidence in regard to the fatal accidents proved that it was a biased and incorrect and the small addition was deleted. Again, the fatal accidents is a highly highly controversial aspect and perhaps you may not been aware that reference to these accidents was deleted from an article by an unknown editor.  Due to this deletion, the article was then subject to an AFD nomination.  A second related article due to the highly controversial aspect of the fatal accidents has again redirected to another article in the series of Snaefell Mountain Course articles. --Agljones (14 March)
 * I'm sure that someone somewhere could say something controversial about accidents, and maybe the Isle of Man TT article was not neutral about some issue once. But there's no suggestion by Agljones or anyone else that there is anything controversial, opinionated, biased, or otherwise showing any discernible "point of view" in this list-article.  Yes, there's a list-article about fatal accidents, but that does not mean that a separate article about a corner or a row in this list-table about a corner should not mention fatal accidents that occurred at the corner.  Maybe the point was to share information again, rather than to influence anything about this list-article (in which case the comment was off-topic)?  Anyhow, sorry, I see no implication for this list-article. --doncram (15 March)


 * 9, 10 & 11). I have mentioned previously in the Windy Corner Talk pages that between four and six of the Snaefell Mountain Course articles have been deleted retrospectively without being subject to the AFD nomination process. These articles were started by another editor not completed and then abandoned.  Perhaps you need to be aware that any incomplete article list may be deleted retrospectively without being subject to the AFD nomination process. Again, as I mentioned previously the inclusion of length description in the list article may result in further AFD nominations and deletions, resulting in the stalling of the improvements to the Isle of Man network of motor-cycle articles.  Wikipedia is an interactive, proactive medium and there is no need to have many redirections for smaller articles as this does not give the opportunity for editors to develop these articles.  Also, Wikipedia has guidelines about the placement of photographs in articles. I think you have also completely [under]estimated the process of adding photographs for all the corners. (Photographs used in the list for Brandywell, Gooseneck, Ramsey Hairpin and Signpost Corner all have copyright issues). --Agljones (14 March)
 * Sorry, but I see no implication(s) from the above comment, for this list-article. As I have now also stated above, I do concede that in the past some other Isle-of-Man-related articles must have been redirected without a formal AFD deletion process (which is allowed and even recommended by guidelines in Wikipedia if it seems a redirection is obviously appropriate and would not be disputed). And I'm not referring to any specific incident, but such may have been done by someone a bit rudely and without proper communication and despite dispute being likely.  But if/when some related article was/is redirected, you/others were/are free to dispute that (and to seek help from me or others if you feel abused by the process).  And even if an article has been redirected (which presumably would only have happened because at least one person believed that the article did not have sufficient sourced info to justify being separate), it can always be restored and developed if/when substantially more sourced info becomes available.  Restoration is perhaps best done by creating a new version of the article in Draft-space, first, then seeking approval for it to be moved to mainspace (like how this list-article was started by me and approved/moved to mainspace by an Articles-For-Creation administrator). Yes the current table implicitly calls for a lot of photographs by showing blanks where they could be located.  Like wikipedia as a whole, this list-article is "incomplete" and will remain so for the foreseeable future, which is fine. --doncram (15 March)


 * Whipple Article I have re-read and reassessed the Whipple article a number of times. The 1979 Isle of Man TT races were known as the Millennium TT Races after the 1979 Isle of Man Millennium celebrations. There is no mention of this in the article which is unusual as it was the first time for at least ten years that a parade lap on the Snaefell Mountain Course was included. Also, during the 1979 Isle of Man TT Races there was two fatal accidents to competitors which is not mentioned. Despite the journalistic hyperbole, I have considered the style issues that has been mentioned.  I have stated previously, that this part of the article on page 24 is generic for any motor-cycle racing circuit in 1979 and also generic for the general style at the time.  The quote has been included in the Windy Corner article and only mentions the Windy Corner as an official signpost.  The quote has been included in the Isle of Man TT article in the section for TT racing after 1977 which would suggest that it was a feature of motor-cycle racing at that time.  The lean-angle style dates from the late 1950's and is a variation of the pre-war "cantor-over, lean-back, sit-up" style.  The Whipple article on page 34 includes a photograph of Kenny Roberts riding a 500c two-stroke Yamaha motor-cycle.  The lean-angle is typical of the period and also typical of the current  of the Moto Gp style. The only difference is that Kenny Roberts was a number of motor-cycle competitors from the United States that modified the lean-angle style into the current Moto Gp style where a different style of throttle application is used. --agljones(talk)21:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i see no implication for this list-article, different than already recorded in suggestion list above, from this new comment. The above new comment and other postings do show that Agljones knows a lot more facts about Isle of Man racing and locales and previous within-Wikipedia-disputes about them than I do, yes.  I appreciate that and I am happy to acknowledge that.  But I don't discern any suggestion for this list-article. --doncram (15 March)


 * Conclusion
 * The original comments stand that the current list is full of inaccuracies, misleading information and incorrect information copied from other articles to give a confused encyclopaedic account. This information need to be sorted-out and improved. The copied articles are written in British English and do not make changes of style without gaining a consensus.   Lists do not usual include rambling and incorrect information.  It is not a list but a series of stacked mini-articles.  Do not use photographs with copyright issues.  I cannot edit and correct the information as I do not understand in which direction to proceed with the list. Wikipedia gives this example of a list. The list is a list of corners and not an article about road or technical improvements and riding styles.  Perhaps here there is a cultural difference about fatal accidents but also about commemorative plaques rather than road side memorials WP:NOT. There is no need to re-list the accidents or list some accidents and not others which would suggest an issue in regard to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. The fatal accidents to competitors is a highly controversial aspect and perhaps this needs to be further researched and addressed in the main Isle of Man TT article and there is an overall issue of a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. There has been articles deleted without referring to the AFD nominations process.  I am not going to restore redirected as a new draft articles when there is already sufficient sourced information is available or been bound by WP:OWN policies set by other editors which limit the scope of the article which in the first instance cause the article(s) to be either deleted or redirected. agljones(talk)19:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, your comments are received and read by at least me. I'm not sure you read much of what I wrote, though, but no problem.  I think you and i have to agree to disagree about whether this list-article can ever be any good (i think so) or whether it is okay or not yet (i think it is).  Thanks for pointing to the list of basketball players that is a model for you.  A better model   I think is, say, Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) which is a wp:Featured list that has a table with columns for pictures, locations, and descriptions.  Like this list-article, it includes geographical coordinates and the reader can click on "Map of all coordinates from OSM" to go to a great map of all the items.  It starts with a general introduction that discusses the broader context in which to consider the list items, like I hope to do for this list of corners. Anyhow, you don't see how to take this list-article forward, as you say, and that's fine, you don't have to work on it. Thank you for your consideration and comments. -- do  ncr  am  22:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

agljones(talk)
 * In respect to my conclusion to the list of Snaefell Mountain Course. I have read your comments and as Wikipedia suggest that all comments are read and replied too.  However,  it is difficult to read a particular string and see the reply as you cut and paste replies and move to another section and then make a reply.  It is difficult in this regard to read all the replies to all the comments and is unusually way of presenting replies as many comments may have been potentially missed.  In regard to the comment we will have to "agree to disagree” about this issue and again do not make personal comments or apply your own WP:NOW policies to notability, "padding of articles," redirecting articles and neutral point of view issues....etc  The issues stand that the current list is full of inaccuracies, misleading information and incorrect information copied from other articles to give a confused encyclopaedic account, lack of encyclopaedic value  which is not acceptable on Wikipedia.  It is not a case of have to "agree to disagree" the issues needed to be corrected.  It is not acceptable to leave the list largely incomplete, duplicate co-ordinate and location details, photographs and 'cut and paste' information from the pre-existing articles.  This is only duplicating information which again as I have mentioned before cause further AFD nominations.  What might work for a list of Methodist Churches may not work here;- unless, as I mentioned previously create new short summaries of short two or three sentences and/or have a more pro-active (sub-)editing policy which is shown in the examples given by Wikipedia.
 * As I have stated from the beginning the list article has an executive summary. Also, the article is part of the Isle of Man motor-cycle network of article in which the lead article is the Isle of Man TT article. The Isle of Man TT has a number of highly controversial aspects including safety issues in respect to the excessive number of fatal accidents to competitors. Due to these safety factors,  the Isle of Man TT lost its FIM World Championship status in 1976 after the event was boycotted by the leading competitors.   Wikipedia articles about the Isle of Man TT Races have to address at least the highly controversial aspects and fatal accidents and failing to do so raises the issue of lack of a neutral position WP:NPOV.  As the list of Snaefell Mountain Course corners is a sub-article of the Snaefell Mountain Course which is in turn a sub-article of the Isle of Man TT Races, these highly controversial aspects and fatal accidents needed to be addressed in the executive summary or somewhere in the article. The lead section or executive summary of the list these highly controversial aspects and fatal accidents are not mentioned in the executive summary or any sub-paragraph on the lead section.  The fatal accidents are mentioned in the description sections of the list, but not in other sections and not all fatal accidents are listed which suggest your own WP:NOW policy and also a lack of a neutral position WP:NPOV.  There is an emphasised by the American  Whipple article which does not mention the fatal accidents.  The Whipple article is quoted  in the lead section/executive summary which again shows a lack of neutral point of view as you have already stated that you “like” this article which is also far too generic for its date of publication in 1979 to address these issues.  A Google search for the "Isle of Man TT" produces about 4.6 million entries and only the American  Whipple article quoted.
 * In regard to the “Windy Corner” section the weather conditions that you allude too that causes problems to spectators and competitors don not really occur as since the 1935 Senior Isle of Man TT Race any bad weather conditions cause the postponement of racing to the next day. The Isle of Man TT Races are Manx Grand Prix are generally run in better weather conditions than other Isle of Man or UK sporting events.  Weather conditions can affect other parts of the course including Cruonk-y-Voddy straight and also the Mountain Mile.  No citation or sources are given  the increase in lap speeds are due to the road improvement and the most single factor in the increase in race speed is due to motor-cycle technical developments which has been previously explained.


 * I have moved sections around and otherwise edited this Talk page as part of trying to keep discussion organized. I want to build a master list, numbered, of actionable suggestions, and then have discussion below about each one of those items. Then over time I would hope to gradually settle each one and check ✅ next to that suggestion on the list.  None of the suggestion items are marked done yet.  Where I have marked ✅ on a discussion section, I have tried to be clear that I meant just that any suggestion(s) given are reflected in the master list of suggestions.  All of the suggestion items are still open.  Also what's going on here is a slow process of me trying to understand what you mean, when your comments are not clearly giving any specific suggestion.  Hope this helps you understand my view of this discussion process.


 * When you make comments, I assume you are trying to help somehow in improving the article. But maybe you are just replying in order to reply?  Please, if you don't have a specific suggestion that you really feel must be communicated, please don't say anything at all.  The length of discussions with you is too much...it has driven other editors away...I am trying to listen to you and be respectful of your knowledge, but this is taking a lot of time and getting too long for me too.  And you say now "I have read your comments and as Wikipedia suggest that all comments are read and replied too", which I think means you think you need to reply to every comment.  You don't!!!  Please don't reply, if there isn't something NEW that really needs to be said.  As you note, the list-article is quite incomplete.  So, maybe it would be better for you to wait until it is further along.  Appropriate points to share a lot of comments are a) when an article is nominated for Good Article status (wp:GA?, and b) when an article is under a peer review process (wp:PR)?  Neither I nor anyone else really wants to receive a whole lot of general comments now, as the article isn't ready for a peer review yet.


 * About specific factual items, getting corrections would help though. You have repeatedly stated that "the current list is full of inaccuracies, misleading information and incorrect information copied from other articles".  I completely get that you disrespect this list-article as it is now.  And I guess you disrespect many of the corner articles where I got information from.  But your just complaining without being specific is not helping.  Perhaps opening a separate discussion section about each corner where you think location or description is wrong, is needed.  Like there already is a section open on Windy Corner (at ). Go ahead, open a section about any other corner(s), and give specific suggestions, say what is wrong and what it should be corrected to say instead.


 * Please don't repeat your general views to me, as it begins to seem insulting maybe, like you think i did not understand already. In your new comments again you express your view that a list-article like this one (which does duplicate location info, photos, and other info from separate corner articles) is not helpful...you say it is "duplicating information which again as I have mentioned before cause further AFD nominations."  That is a reason for you to want to see this article deleted, that you think this could contribute to other articles being deleted or redirected.  I previously stated that view of yours in the  section.  I simply disagree with your view, as I have stated already, about the effect on other articles being so obvious (if another article has enough sources to meet Wikipedia notability, it does, and having some of that info repeated here does not change that.  If an article has no more info than can be covered easily in a row here, then maybe it should be redirected).  And I think this list-article gives value that separate corner articles can't provide...for one it can provide brief summaries of info from corner articles, and it can provide an overview perspective.  For example it provides for a linked map of all the named corners.  Have you clicked on "Map all coordinates using OSM", near the top of the article? )  But you already have communicated you don't like this kind of list-article, I get that.


 * Also you repeat yourself with "No citation or sources are given the increase in lap speeds are due to the road improvement and the most single factor in the increase in race speed is due to motor-cycle technical developments which has been previously explained."  Yes, you said that already, it is reflected in the suggestions to be addressed.


 * There is one thing new in what you say now though. From these new comments of yours, I now understand that you want this list-article to include mention of controversy about fatal accidents.  I thought before you were asserting this article had a POV about something controversial that should be removed.  Okay, now I understand you want it to cover whatever controversial issue there is about fatal accidents.  But... I thought you opposed mention of fatal accidents, in fact I am sure that you did, in other sections above!  I personally would prefer for the list-article to be neutral and just give factual information about fatal accidents when relevant to describe the individual corners.  Anyhow, the issue of fatal accidents is included as item number 1 in the list of actionable suggestions above, and I just copied these comments to there, and the topic of fatal accidents coverage will remain open.


 * I also copy from your new comments what you say about Windy Corner, to the discussion section already open about Windy Corner, and will reply to them up there. I don't think it leads to any change in the article though.


 * Anyhow, from each of your comments before and now I have assumed good faith and I have tried to figure out what if any suggestions are implied, and then put those suggestions into the list to be addressed. In these new comments of yours, I don't think there is any new specific suggestion implied (after I now modify the suggestion item about fatal accidents to reflect what I now understand you to mean), that is not already reflected in the list.


 * I'm going to plan to just go on developing this list-article slowly. Thanks, -- do  ncr  am  21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a case of “….replying in order to reply.” Building a master list of actionable suggestions is an unusual approach for Wikipedia. From a practical point of view, editors check their own work and make changes either minor or major as the work progress or the work is edited by other contributors. I have read your comments in full and then replied as suggested by Wikipedia. Creating a master list is unusual for Wikipedia and difficult to read a string when your reply is added to the master list. Please do not make any further personal comments or use your own personal WP:OWN  policy to when an editor can reply or what you perceive as repeating comments or issues. Do not use personal comments in respect to “disrespect.” Do not prejudge any potential comments with personal comments and show a neutral point of view to any other potential of view and again do not pre-judge another editor that has made repeated AFD nominations and unauthorised, respective deletions of articles.

It is an unusual practice to open a separate discussion for each perceived problems as Wikipedia allows to challenge, edit or remove information which is a standard practice for editors and not wait for (WP:GA) or (WP:PR). Also, with the large number of potential discussions (over 60) this is not a practical proposition and do not set your own WP:OWN editing policy for issue to have a separate discussion page which is currently wasting too much time. Do not set your own WP:OWN editing policy for issue in respect of the "Windy Corner" article which already exists and has notability. Do not set your own WP:OWN editing policy that an article should be redirected to this list if it can fit into a row. Do not set your own WP:OWN editing policy if limiting the extent that further articles can be developed.

It is not a case that I do not like this type of list and again do not make personal comments what I “like” or dislike or use the term "disrespect." I have already mentioned that I considered this type of list and thought it too difficult to create and maintain(see below). I used the Wikipedia template format which is widely used and understood by Wikipedia editors and readers and also complemented other templates found in these articles. I would not personally start an article without sufficient background knowledge, access to sufficient (non-internet)  primary or secondary sources or  create / potentially start a (large) sized list  that was incomplete. I would not extensively rely on other editors to correct information or build the article….etc

In respect to the paragraph with the American ‘’Whipple’’ quotation and the suggestion that the large increase of lap speed was due to road improvements. Provide an appropriate citation for this claim or the whole paragraph will be challenged and removed.

Provide an appropriate executive summary or the current executive summary will be challenged and removed. The executive summary should show a neutral point of view and cover the controversial issues (loss of World Championship status/high number of fatal accidents) regarding the Snaefell Mountain Course which is used by the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix.

Do not set your own WP:OWN  editing policy in respect to the executive summary or the fatal accidents to competitors as it is a highly controversial aspect  in respect to the high number of fatal accidents which led to a boycott of the Isle of Man TT Races and the highly controversial removal of the FIM World Championship status in 1976. The listing of fatal accidents to competitors is not to be treated with the same causal approach as a filmography or record Discography. Please also remember that a large majority of these fatal accidents to competitors are British and Irish residents and the Isle of Man motor-cycle network of articles are read by United Kingdom residents and there is a distinctive culture difference. (In the Wikipedia list of articles I do not see a list of 9/11 victims).

The fatal accidents to competitors have been mentioned in other articles as appropriate and when relevant. These include Bray Hill (reference to major road surfacing work for safety reason and the dropping of starting competitors in pairs again for safety reason), Quarterbridge Road (fatal accident of a former FIM World Champion which led to major road revisions to many parts of the course and the introduction of the Clypse Course), Glen Helen (first fatal motorised automobile accident  in the Isle of Man), 11th Milestone (reference to informal name) ( Birkin’s Bend (named after a fatal accident to a competitor), Ballaugh Bridge (prominent roadside memorial ) Guthrie’s Memorial (again road side memorial), 26th Milestone (fatal accident in regard to spectators),  Stonebreakers Hut (fatal accident to former winner that led to introduction of system of Traveling Marshals), Verandah (fatal accident to competitor that led to boycott of races and the loss of World Championship status)  Bungalow Bridge (road side memorial) and Windy Corner (an attempt to establish notability). These fatal accidents are mentioned extensively in the equivalent articles on Wikipedia Netherlands. However, these articles have issues of notability, plagiarism, notorious poor standards and a different culture in respect to fatal accidents.

I have created a list in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course accidents (see above). I feel that there is no need to re-list all these accidents. The original list required over 15 hours of typing to complete and was completed in full before creating the article. It was also structured for simplicity and also did not include the ( unnecessary  )  descriptions of how the accident occurred and the injuries that could be found in other similar lists. In the creation of the list, as I mentioned previously, I wished to avoid the trivial banality and mawkishness that are found in the equivalent articles on Wikipedia Netherlands or other lists of motor-sport fatalities. The list in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course accidents, despite its simplicity and length it was three years before the list had most of the details completed including multiple minor adjustments and minor edits by other contributors. However, after 7 or 8 years this list in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course accidents requires more further work before it is complete of be subject to a review. (again see above). The fatal accidents do not define a corner, they do not define an article in terms of notability. There is no need re-list the fatal accidents as they are covered in another list, included in the main Snaefell Mountain Course and safety issues discussed in the talk pages of the Isle of Man TT Races article.

In regard to list and first some general issues which include informations such as map co-ordinates and notes can be found and the pre-existing articles. The Snaefell Mountain Course already has template that lists the corners which runs in order clockwise around the Snaefell Mountain Course. If you check the history of the course articles then you will find the articles were previously linked However, the articles lost their links due to repeated changes to the map template, repeated additions, redirects and unexplained deletions. These links can easily be restored once the problems of notability have been settled. The current list does not provided any overview perspective as it does not follow the order of the corners of the course and is confusing. The order will eventually be 2nd Milestone, 11th Milestone, 13th Milestone, 26 Milestone, Appledene, Ballacraine, Ballagarey....etc Also, the description is an edited version of the executive summary.

Corner-by-corner comments:


 * 11th Milestone. No description of location and the map coordinates can be found on the main article. The photo shows the larger Garrow style 13th milestone on the A3 Castletown to Ramsey Road and not the 11th Milestone. Main article written in British English and do not change style without general consensus. Wikipedia states that plain English should be used but also notes that the first person singular should not be used.  Do not use US informal speech patterns with British English and in particular the conjugation of irregular verbs in British-English as there is a difference in style. Therefore it is "named after" and "that" rather than "who" as used in informal speech-pattens.  The main emphasis should be on the road and the description of the S-Bend as the 11th Milestone is used as a local term to describe the area rather than the not widely used term Drinkwaters Bend.
 * 26th Milestone. Description and map coordinates can be found on the main article. It is the 26th Milestone on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the 26th Milestone on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. Highly controversial fatal accident during 2014 Isle of Man TT not mentioned.  It was renamed as Joey's and has a new road course marker board and not "Also, known as Joey's" and again use of incorrect informal speech patterns not found in British English and use of first person singular.
 * Ballacraine. No photograph and the map coordinates can be found on the main article. The map coordinates show a field to the north-west of Ballacraine.  The description should be A1 Douglas to Peel Road and A3 Castletown to Ramsey Road.  The road junction is situated at the east end of St.Johns village and not Ballacraine village.  Description is incorrect as the road junction contains Ballacraine farm and the former Ballacraine Hotel on opposite sides of the road and the non-existing  "Ballacraine Village" does not overlook the two features. The translation of Ballacraine as a Manx Gaelic place-name is not listed.  Again, informal speech pattens rather than British-English and should read "private residence" rather than "private house."
 * Ballacrye. No description and the map coordinates can be found on the main article. The location should read A3 Castletown to Ramsey Road.
 * Ballgarey. No photograph or description and the map-cordinates can be found in the main article.  The location should be described as the A1 Douglas to Peel Road.
 * Birkin's Bend. The location should be described as the A3 Castletown to Ramsey Road. The map co-ordinates show a field to the west of Rhencullen. Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and incorrect English with description starting "Actually...."  and then reads "who was killed in crash here."  Birkin's Bend not a series of four bends it is part of the Rhecullen series of four bends.  There is no mention of Tim Birkin, the corner being named after the crash or the change in practice regulations.
 * Brandywell. The map co-ordinates show a point 1 km south-east of Brandywell Corner on the B10 Brandywell Road.  This should be named Brandywell Corner to distinguish it from the area known generally as Brandywell.  It is between the 31st and 32nd Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. It should be described as a corner on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road as road traffic operates in both directions.  There is no such official description of ""TT course" and provide a citation for this or it will be challenged and be removed. The official description is now Isle of Man Department of Infrastructure. There is a photograph is included for Brandywell.  However, Wikipedia does have rules about photographs including ambiguous elements in photographs.  The most distinguishing feature of the Brandywell Corner is the TT Marshal shelter and the sheep-gate.  These can be seen in the photograph only as ambiguous elements and not acceptable.  A further point is that all Isle of Man TT racing photographs need to be checked for year, race number and competitor.  This photograph shows a competitor that was later very badly injured in a highly controversial race accident and is not appropriateWP:NPOV.
 * Brandish Corner. It is between the 35th and 36th Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and incorrect English with description starting;- "Named for Walter Brandish..." and should read "after" and again the pronoun "who" used as a transitive verb. The use of the indented clause is not necessary. Again another photograph with ambiguous elements and incorrect description.
 * Gooseneck. It is between the 25th and 26th Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. Map-coordinates can be found in the main article. The corner is not a hairpin bend and the Gooseneck is not like Ramsey hairpin which is actually defined as a hairpin. Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and incorrect English and do not change style from British English without a general consensus. The description should read 25th Milestone and 26th Milestone in British-English and not Milestone 25 and Milestone 26. It is not appropriate to  list the fatal accidents as they do not define the corner and these two accidents actually occurred 150 metres below the corner and 250 metres above the Gooseneck corner.  The Gooseneck is also described as a general location outside of the corner in the same context as Brandywell, Windy Corner and the 11th Milestone. Photograph again shows ambiguous elements and as with Brandywell the distinctive shelter cannot be seen.  The Gooseneck Corner can be defined form the road junction of the D28 Hibernia Road northbound following the east-side bank reaching the north point of the stonewall and is approximately one-third of the 900 foot distance quoted in the article.  The translation of the Manx Gaelic place-name is not listed in the description.
 * Ramsey Hairpin. It is between the 24th and 25th Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. The Ramsey hairpin is just outside the Ramsey town boundary. The translation of the Manx Gaelic place-name is not listed in the description and is now called Elfin Glen.
 * School House Corner. Location and the map coordinates can be found on the main article. It is not appropriate to list the fatal accident as they do not define the corner.  Other fatal accidents have not been listed.  Originally called Crossacks Lane(?)
 * Signpost Corner. Location and the map coordinates can be found on the main article.  As with the entry for Brandywell corner, all Isle of Man TT racing photographs need to be checked for year, race number and competitor.  This photograph shows a competitor that was later killed in a highly controversial race accident on road-racing circuit in Northern Ireland and is not appropriateWP:NPOV.
 * The Nook. As with previous entries, location and map coordinates can be found on the main article. Location description far too long for the row and should perhaps read either A2 Douglas to Ramsey Road, A2 Governors Road or A2 Quaterbridge Road. Description fails to mention substantial road improvements.  No photograph included.
 * Tower Bends. As with previous entries, location and map coordinates can be found on the main article. Reads "....25th Milestone road-side marker of the race" and is an incomplete sentence. Description has no relation to the S-Bend and should be removed completely. No photograph included. The translation of the Ballastowell farm next to the S-Bend from the Manx Gaelic place-name is not listed in the description.
 * Verandah. Location and map coordinates can be found on the main article. Location description far too long for the row. No photograph included. It is between the 30th and 31st Road Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and with Birkin's Bend incorrect English with description starting "Actually...." as used in informal speech pattens. The corner can only be described as four bends for the motor-cycle racing line.  For general road use the "four bends" are actually one irregular, eccentric, single reverse curve.  The fatal accidents do not define the corner and need to be removed.  The significance of the fatal accidents is described in the article and not the description. The description is "killed in the fog here" showing again incorrect English as found in informal speech patterns and the incorrect use of the first person. This is incorrect English is repeated with "also had a fatal accident here" and starting a sentence with "And" as used again in informal speech patterns. The description also reads "....serving as a world championship event..." which suggests that perhaps an internet language translate has been used. It should read something like "losing its FIM World Championship status."
 * Water Works Corner. Location and map coordinates can be found on the main article. Location description far too long for the row. No photograph included. It is between the 24th and 25th Road Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course and not the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and with Birkin's Bend and the Verandah incorrect English with description starting "Actually,...." as used in informal speech pattens. The Water Works Corner is not a series of corners, but one single corner.
 * Windy Corner. Location and map coordinates can be found on the main article.  Location description far too long for the row and the first set of milestone markers are a confusing element in the location description. The coordinates in the list give a location near to the 26th Milestone.  It is between the 32nd Milestone and 33rd Milestone Road Racing Milestones on the Snaefell Mountain Course. Over long, ridiculous, nonsensical description which does not explain as with Brandywell Corner and the Gooseneck the area is known for its general location. The spectator vantage point is repeated twice and not really a vantage point due to its restricted off-road parking and restricted access during racing events. The reason for the name is in the second sentence with no citation for the "micro-climate."  The weather conditions which cause the south-westerly winds also cause low-cloud, hill and heavy rain.  Since the 1935 Isle of Man TT Races, any event with bad weather causes the race to be delayed or postponed to the next day and the area at the Windy Corner is susceptible to low cloud and hill mist.  The weather conditions that are supposed to create the "whistling" for spectators or the cross-winds for motor-cycle racers are much reduced or do not occur. (This can verified from Isle of Man Meteorological Records that wind speeds are lower in the summer months and the rainfall caused by rainfall systems.  Also, there is a colloquial expression for "Isle of Man TT weather"(a citation can be found for this term) which refers to the rain and low cloud and the Isle of Man TT races being delayed or postponed).  The redirected article gives a full encyclopaedic description with notability.   Main article written in British-English and again the use of informal speech pattens and incorrect use of English grammar including unnecessary indented clause. The description reads cross-winds "push high-speed motorcycle racers to one side or to the other."  The cross-wind is from one side only and the description is nonsensical and a recent publication in 2014 gives a motor-cycle corner speed for the Windy Corner of only 95mph.


 * I collapsed corner-by-corner comments as all has been copied to

agljones(talk)
 * Conclusion. Overall, a very poor performance and not acceptable for Wikipedia and a number of areas have to be addressed.  I must admit that there may be problems with the location coordinates which transfer to GeoHack.  However, overall a badly conceived idea very badly executed.   The use of US informal speech overlapping British-English styles is a particular bad problem to the extent that it may suggest an internet translator has been used.  The poor use of written English in the formal context of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is just not acceptable.  Many of the Wikipedia technical issues have not been addressed such as the paragraphs in the executive summary, issues of notability, issues of bias, issues of original research and issues in regard to neutral point of view. It is not acceptable to rely on other editors to have to work on such a badly written, badly executed  article which duplicates information in a form of stacked articles which will eventually cause further AFD nominations. The issues with photographs is a particular bad problem and not understanding the new style marker boards and milestones posts.  The issue of copyright of photographs has been misunderstood as perceived copyright expiry does not diminish ownership of photographs or commercial copyright issues including fee payment. Overall a waste of time and the list has not reached some of the more technically difficult areas.


 * Okay, I'll try to get around to addressing or responding to new points made which relate to improving the current list-article, if/when I can sort them out from restatements of complaints already made, and comments not about improving this article. To respond to just a few comments/complaints:


 * Indeed I agree that "Building a master list of actionable suggestions is an unusual approach for Wikipedia". It is not usually done.  I am doing that for you and because of you.  Because it is very hard to decipher from your long comments, what on earth is relevant to improving the list-article, and to track what has already been said, in order to be able to dismiss the 2nd or 3rd or 4th time repetitions as not adding anything new (except when they contradict the previous requests/suggestions).  I am trying to respect your views and knowledge.  I could just ignore everything you say and not make the effort.


 * About me summarizing your perspective as you are disrespecting the list-article in its current condition, it is absurd for you to suggest that is wrong. You object to me stating anything about what you "'like' or dislike" or saying you "disrespect" anything.  But you do disrespect it!  You find nothing positive to say about it and you dismiss practically everything about it ... you yourself summarize it as a "very poor performance and not acceptable for Wikipedia".  [redacted]  Am I supposed to understand that as an expression of approval or respect???


 * I appreciate your commenting about sensitiveness of naming persons killed, and potential problem of perhaps too-casual namings by an American editor potentially perceived as insensitive to British/Irish sensibilities. About Wikipedia naming of victims of 9/11 attacks, Wikipedia does list/name a lot of them...Emergency workers killed in the September 11 attacks lists perhaps all of those by name (covering maybe all 414 emergency workers killed, out of 2,977 total persons killed on that day).  The overall article Casualties of the September 11 attacks provides lists of numbers of persons killed by country and numbers of employees killed by company, without naming each individual.  But complete lists of all individuals have been published, and the overall article links to Victims of the World Trade Center attack, listed by age, for one example.  I have no intention of being disrespectful in any way.  However, it seems if a corner's main name is after a person killed there (as for Birkin's Bend), or if it is also known by another name after a person killed there (as in Drinkwater's Bend), or if deaths at the corner are very unusual or important in some way, then the fatalities usually would have to be stated, else the description would be avoiding the most important information.


 * And i ask questions to you about one corner in section below.  Please reply there. That's all for now. -- do  ncr  am  06:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The list of Snaefell Mountain Corners is exactly as the title suggest a list. It is a list of geographical and road features/main roads. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and there is no justifiable reason to repeat and duplicate information or re-present and re-edit information and provide an alternative explanation or meaning which contradict a  Wikipedia article(s) that already exists. In respect to Birkin’s Bend the road feature ceased to exist after 1954 and is part of the Rhencullen complex of bends. The name has no general use as a road feature on a public road and is not currently used in the context of the Snaefell Mountain Course and has no course marker board. There have been other fatal accidents within the Rhencullen complex of bends to motor-cycle competitors and also to road users on public roads. The safety issues in respect to Birkin’s Bend are covered in the main Isle of Man TT article, the Snaefell Mountain Course article and the biographic article in respect to Archie Birkin. In respect to Drinkwater’s Bend it is again that the name has no general use as a road feature on a public road and is not currently used in the context of the Snaefell Mountain Course and has no course marker board. There have been other fatal accidents within the S-Bend complex of bends at the 11th Milestone to motor-cycle competitors and also to road users on public roads. The fatal accident to Ben Drinkwater was a result of a collision with another competitor which occurred a short distance from the most southerly point of the elongated S-Bend at the 11th Milestone. The most recent publication “Isle of Man's Big 3 Race Events : The Spectator Guide. TT (Tourist Trophy), Festival of Motorcycling (incorporating Manx Grand Prix), Southern 100” (ISBN: 9781907945236) published on 2012 in respect to spectator viewing points does not actually list the Windy Corner due to the current restricted spectator area on the southern section of the corner. Essentially, the list contains road and geographically features. There has been fatal accidents to motor-cycle competitors due mechanical failure and collisions with other competitors. There has been fatal accidents due to poor weather conditions, being blinded by the sun, collisions with spectators or animals, breakup of the road surface and also competitors have also been fatal injured after being hit by their own motor-cycle or a machine of another competitor. A major factor in the fatal accidents to motor-cycle competitors has always been the type of fatal injuries that they have received which is an inherent danger to motor-cycle motor-sport. These factors do not describe any of the corners in relation to the list and there is no reason to relist the fatal accidents. Also, as mentioned in other strings the number of fatal road traffic accidents on public roads in the Isle of Man has been substantial, but largely unresearched. Road improvements to the corners in the list have been due in the main in response to fatal/non-fatal road traffic accidents on public roads and this includes the recent improvements to Brandish and the Windy Corner and in this respect no reason to redirect the article. In respect to the fatal accidents to competitors then only list these in the List of fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain Course and in the Executive Summary of each of the Isle of Man TT / Manx Grand Prix reports by year or in the accompanying Practice Report/Race Summary as appropriate. These fatal accidents to competitors should only be listed in the in the main article for Snaefell Mountain Course/ Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix  or other appropriate articles about the history of the Isle of Man TT / Manx Grand Prix or other technical articles (as appropriate) or  pre-existing article about a road section, road straight or corner/bend/curve/hairpin/S-bend/ road corner combination on the Snaefell Mountain Course. Then only list a fatal accidents to a previous Isle of Man TT or Manx Grand Prix winner, a former FIM World Motor-Cycling Champion, accidents in respect to spectators or race officials, where a change of race procedure has occurred for safety and/or change to a particular part of the Snaefell Mountain Course has occurred for safety or other reasons, for any prominently visible road-side memorials to an Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix competitor or when a previous historical name has been used which has fallen to general disuse or become obsolete and then only as an explanatory note only in the executive summary of the article. There is no reason to list other roadside memorials or roadside commemorative plaques as it is difficult to ascertain the reason for the placing of these types of commemorative plaques. There is an issue for Wikipedia of verifiability and if these memorials or commemorative plaques do exist as a particular location  they can be damaged by the weather, removed during road works or disturbed by animals. The Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix are ongoing annual sporting events. Prior to the creation of the main list of the fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain Course some of the information already pre-existed on Wikipedia. There were also pre-existing lists for the fatal accidents during the Indy 500, Daytona 500, Le Mans 24 Hour Race and the Dakar Rally. In regard to the list for the 9/11 attacks and regard to this US terrorist incident then some statistical information in the form of lists was inevitable. However, this list article has survived three AfD nominations and there was a discussion in a string of listing a dog as a casualty. The second list only covers the names Emergency workers and there is no listing of the majority of other causalities. In comparison, there is no list of names for the IFOR casualties in the recent conflict in Afghanistan. There is no list of names or statistical breakdown of the accident at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal, India or commercial aircraft accidents for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 or Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, the Pan Am Flight 103 flight over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988 or Pan American / KLM airlines accident on the Canary Islands in 1977  There is no list of causalities for the 1987 London Kings Cross Station fire, London Moorgate Tube disaster of 1975,  or the Football Stadium disasters at Estadio Nacional Lima in 1964, Ibrox Park Football Stadium disaster in 1971, the fire disaster at Bradford City Football Stadium in 1985 or at the Hillsborough stadium in 1989. There is no list for the Madrid terrorist bombing in 2004. I provided a conclusion or summary to the problems with the list. It has taken time for you to finally admit that you have adopted unusual practices in the way that you expect other editors to reply. The repeated “stonewalling” of this and other editing issues has been very unhelpful and brings into question your decisions about how to interpret the decision to redirect the Windy Corner article. As I mentioned as the beginning of the string, I had considered a list article rather than a template as I had at the time considered difficult to create or maintain. This is a point that you have understood and repeated in the string. As Wikipedia mentions, it is a case of “owning your own edits” and most Wikipedia editors and administrators understand this process as Wikipedia is an interactive, proactive process. Do not rely on other editors to supply information and then censure an editor for not replying or not providing the information as you anticipated and again it is a case of “owning your own edits.”   Also, do not adopt  unusual practices of ‘cut and pasting’ replies to another part of a string and then replying to the revised string as I find it very difficult to follow the historical the sequence of comments. Also, in replying the time taken to list the corrections was over 6 hours including my own personal time at work which was an unnecessary waste of time. Do not make repeated personal comments. Do not use comments such as “disrespect” for as in British-English this is only seen as the literal meaning of the word which would suggest lack of a courteous manners which is not been the case. I have followed the Wikipedia "three-strike rule" and other suggestions about replying to all questions. In respect to the 11th Milestone and perhaps you read the Wikipedia article. If you do not like "page downs" or large blocks of text, then perhaps as an editor find another part of Wikipedia to concentrate on. The word “disrespect” in the manner you suggest is only used in European or Latin-American Spanish,  Brazilian-Portuguese or in US informal speech patterns or slang. Do not make personal comments and hide expletives behind asterisks (*****). In regard to approval/respect/disrespect….etc, I contacted Teahouse and the editor Cullen328 gave the following reply:-"....The solution to problem with use of American English is simple: edit the article to reflect British English usage per WP:ENGVAR. You don't need anyone's permission to do that. Similarly, if information is inaccurate, the solution is simple: edit the article to correct any errors, citing reliable sources. There is no requirement that a list article be complete at any given point in time. If it bothers you that the article is incomplete, simply edit the article to make it more complete, basing your edits on reliable sources.  If previous editors do not understand the technical issues as well as you do, then edit the article to improve its presentation of the technical issues, based on what the best reliable sources say….. Instead, we improve them through the normal process of editing....." agljones(talk)23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly did write what you quoted above, . And if you had taken my advice and set out to edit and improve the actual list article in compliance with policies and guidelines, I am sure that the list would be much better today. Instead, for some reason I cannot fathom, you continue to post these massive too-long-didn't-read walls of text on the talk page, repeating the same points over and over and over again. Why not improve the article instead? Or just move on? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . And I've tried to discern specific actionable suggestions, but a lot written is not even making any point at all. For example mentions of coordinates being included in the corresponding articles, in this context, seem to suggest the list-article is missing those.  But when I check though, those coordinates are already included.  So it seems like crying wolf.  If actionable suggestions are included, they're lost within all the verbiage. -- do  ncr  am  04:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The cordinates for the Windy Corner in list give a position near the Gooseneck. Rather then just verbiage there is a long list outstanding corrections. If they acted not on promptly then I will challenge with sources and remove them. Again do not make any further personal comments and "crying wolf" in British-English is an accusation of sexual deviancy. agljones(talk)13:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Coordinate corrections/additions needed for 3 corners just noted in new Actionable Suggestion #12 (and Windy Corner's were just corrected). Thanks for that. -- do  ncr  am  15:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The original co-ordinates for the articles were located with an internet programme that was bought by Google and became part of Google Maps. There has been some problems with the transfer and I mentioned in my conclusion;-" I must admit that there may be problems with the location coordinates which transfer to GeoHack." In the revised list that I am working on, these co-ordinates will not feature as they are to be found in the original articles. agljones(talk)19:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)