SheffGruff (talk | contribs) Peer Review |
m minor typographical fix |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:The simple criterion here is "if it's an article about an engineering project, use the units that were used to design it as the primary units". This is quite a commonsense rule, even if it can tend to produce inconsistencies, but from discussion on Passy's talk page, he seems to be trying to [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|lawyer]] the subject by arguing that the HS2 article is not "really" about a civil engineering project. I don't understand his argument; it sounds a bit too "no true Scotsman" to my ears, so perhaps he could make it more explicitly here. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |
:The simple criterion here is "if it's an article about an engineering project, use the units that were used to design it as the primary units". This is quite a commonsense rule, even if it can tend to produce inconsistencies, but from discussion on Passy's talk page, he seems to be trying to [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|lawyer]] the subject by arguing that the HS2 article is not "really" about a civil engineering project. I don't understand his argument; it sounds a bit too "no true Scotsman" to my ears, so perhaps he could make it more explicitly here. [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] ([[User talk:Archon 2488|talk]]) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
::[[User:Passy2|@Passy2]], in your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=588715617 revision 588715617 of the page High Speed 2], you suggested that a third opinion could be beneficial in considering the appropriate units for the article. I'll tentatively offer an opinion. |
|||
::Recounting roughly, [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] changed the units of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 the article for the new high-speed railway project "High Speed 2"] such that metric units would appear first and imperial units would appear second. The motivation expressed by [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=588607626 revision 588607626] was to change the article to follow the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#UK_engineering-related_articles guidelines of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for dates and numbers as they apply to UK engineering-related articles]. A series of reversions of this change was instigated by [[User:Passy2|Passy2]] and ultimately halted by [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] who proceeded to attempt to engage in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Passy2#MOSNUM_for_British_Engineering further discussion on the talk page of Passy2]. [[User:Passy2|Passy2]] then brought the discussion to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_Speed_2#Units the talk page for the article for the High Speed 2] and here we are. The motivation [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Passy2#MOSNUM_for_British_Engineering expressed] by [[User:Passy2|Passy2]] is that the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not apply here because the article on the High Speed 2 railway project should not be considered as an "engineering-related" article. |
|||
::So, it seems to me that the disagreement is over not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#UK_engineering-related_articles the requirements of the Manual of Style] but whether the page for the High Speed 2 railway project can be considered a "UK engineering-related article" (the term used by the MOS). What do the guidelines say? |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
::UK engineering-related articles |
|||
::*In UK engineering-related articles, including all bridges and tunnels: generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in, whether metric or imperial. Provide conversions [[MOS:CONVERSIONS|where appropriate]]. |
|||
::*Road distances and speeds are an exception to this: use imperial units with a metric conversion. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
::The criterion concerning speeds and distances associated with UK roads are obviously not applicable here. Examples of engineering-related articles given are all articles concerning UK bridges and tunnels. From the the roads criterion, we can say that roads should be considered UK engineering-related articles also, but are listed explicitly because they are an exception to the general approach of using metric units. So, we can say that articles concerning UK bridges, tunnels and roads should be considered engineering-related articles and that exceptions to the guidelines for engineering-related articles are to be listed explicitly in the guidelines. |
|||
::What does "engineering" mean? In this context, [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/engineering the Oxford Dictionaries record] "engineering" as being defined as |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
::the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
::In [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Passy2#MOSNUM_for_British_Engineering discussion], [[User:Archon 2488|Archon 2488]] mentions the article on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Trams Edinburgh trams] as being a "test case" in which the metric units should be listed first (and they are), given that the article is considered to be related to engineering. |
|||
::I can see how confusion arises. In many cases, the guidelines suggest imperial units as preceding and, certainly, such units as miles are in common parlance every bit as much as kilometers, however, given that all articles on UK tunnels, bridges and roads are to be considered engineering-related, given that articles on tram systems likely are to be considered engineering-related and given the definition of engineering as it applies to engineering projects, I must conclude that the article on the High Speed 2 railway project should be considered engineering-related and, thus, should feature the metric units listed first. |
|||
::I welcome discussion on the topic and I propose that the metric precedence be instated for this article in about a week if there is no further discussion. |
|||
::[[User:ZICO|ZICO]] ([[User talk:ZICO|talk]]) 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:53, 4 January 2014
Trains C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Updating of compensation section
I have recently added relevant content to the Compensation section, including the addition (sub-)sub-categories. I was looking for authority to remove the Update template banner within the section. However, if it's deemed necessary to add improvements I'm more than happy to listen to everyones opinion. Døddmeïßter47™ (talk) 12:58, January 2013 (UTC)
"Omission of Liverpool and Merseyside"
I have reverted an edit by an IP which added the phrase "omitting Liverpool and Merseyside" here as it amounts to a non neutral pharse. To avoid an edit war have suggested in the edit summary a discussion here. While it is correct that the proposed route of Phase II does not extend to Liverpool or Merseyside by adding the term 'omitting' infers that the decision on the proposed route was either an oversight or involved some bias. The route does not pass through or end at many places of which Liverpolis just one. I am not ruling out making reference elsewhere in the article to options for the route and destination might be the correct place to make reference to regions or cities which had been earmarked as possible locations if this can be cited. Tmol42 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. HS2 "omits" hundreds of towns in England and all of Wales, but there is no justification for mentioning this unless there has been some notable media coverage of "what might have been". We could end up with a very long list of "what about poor Liverpool/Warwick/Oxford/Chipping Sodbury". Simpler to stick to what is planned rather than what is not planned. The reader can infer what they like, but it's not Wikipedia's job to imply anything. Cnbrb (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Media coverage? Are you right? The two of you are prattling nonsense. The article states " At present there are no plans for a link to Heathrow". It appears Heathrow airport, to the writers of this article is more important than a major metropolitan area. The Liverpool City Region is a major metropolitan area of 1.6 m people and has been left off. LIVERPOOL is NOT a small town. The original concept had Liverpool with HSR and a HSR rail line from Liverpool-Mcr-Leeds. Where are you two from? I am putting the Liverpool piece back in.78.105.235.103 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, there's no need to get defensive, it's not about being anti-Liverpool or a personal insult. You can of course mention that Liverpool got left off, but there's a particular way of doing it on Wikipedia. You need to include a reference to a reliable source like a newspaper or a government document or website (Liverpool Echo? Department of Transport website?). That way, it shows that the statement is not just your opinion but has actual significance in the public discussion of the project - check out WP:Sources to get an idea of what's needed. At the moment, the statement has no reference. You say that the original concept did include Liverpool, so why not research the original document and make reference to it in this article? Then it would make perfect sense to include it. Secondly, be careful about words like "controversially" - it may be controversial to you but it strays away from an impartial tone - see WP:WORDS for an explanation of why this is can be a problem. I'll leave it to you to come up with another way of phrasing it. I suggest including the Liverpool information somewhere in the History section. The problem arises, though, when all the "what about us?" stories from all over the UK all get included in the article, but let's just see how it goes. Cnbrb (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Over time, there has been discussion of whether to route a proposed-HS2 line via Heathrow. AFAICT, this has not been the case for Liverpool. —Sladen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- That is totally and utterly incorrect. All documents up until 2009 had Liverpool with a dedicated HS2 service. One proposal one line snaking up from Brum to Liverpool to Mcr-Leeds-Newcastle and up to Scotland. If you were following HS2 you would know this. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Over time, there has been discussion of whether to route a proposed-HS2 line via Heathrow. AFAICT, this has not been the case for Liverpool. —Sladen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just to help you along with your research, a couple of interesting items popped up after a quick Google search. This article in the Daily Post (2 Feb 2012) makes claims that Liverpool was "dropped" from plans. This DFT document (dated January 2012) clearly shows Liverpool as being connected to HS2 but not on the HS line. So in order to support the Daily Post's claim, you'd need to look for government documents pre-2012. They must be out there somewhere - if you can find it, you could have a better claim to include it in the article (remembering of course WP:SOAPBOX). Cnbrb (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- There's a difference between the route of the high-speed line and the route of the services on the high-speed line. Liverpool, Crewe, stations to Edinburgh/Glasgow might be served by trains using the high-speed line for some of their route, but not the high-speed line itself. —Sladen (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Alarics stated when reverting factual insertions, ""(totally bypassing" -- no, it was never intended to serve Liverpool). All the previous document relating to HS2 clearly had Liverpool being served. In one doc the time from Liverpool to London was actually faster than from Manchester. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Which document(s)? (Link, page number, and quotation). If it is a reliable source, we can cite it and add it as a reference. —Sladen (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I felt that "totally bypassing" was POV editorialising because it implied criticism of the line for not passing through Liverpool, when there was no reason to expect that a line from London towards Glasgow should do so. -- Alarics (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The line does not pass through Manchester either and branches off right into the city. I will dig the doc out and put it on. HS2 was based on the route put forward by a lobby group with an agenda, Greenguage. The HS2 team never bothered to do their own. When the HS2 team assessed trains from Lime St they omitted the Wirral. The Wirral has a popn the same as Leicester. Also, currently many in the Wirral take London trains from Chester at a Merseyrail terminus. With HS2 they would all go to Liverpool for the train upping the figures greatly. A total fixup. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your prejudices are showing. Wirral is part of the Merseyside conurbation and in rail terms largely looks to Liverpool, but Chester is indeed an alternative railhead for part of the area. If the HS2 service patterns make it quicker for people to go into Liverpool, who might currently go to Chester, so what? How is that a fix? How else do you want Wirral to be served? What alternative are you proposing? -- Alarics (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- My factual observations are showing nothing else. If HS2 goes to Liverpool, those who may have taken the train from Chester as it stands would go to Liverpool as from Liverpool it would be faster. The region is served by THREE London stations: Liverpool, Chester and at the fringe Warrington. Ring up rail inquiries and they will tell you to go to Chester if you live on the Wirral giving you the times. Yet all the Wirral, and even Chester, have direct access to Lime St. Grt Mcr is served by mainly one station. They also DID NOT take into account the Wirral for passengers at Lime St. It was all published in the local press. The whole lot was ripped to pieces. A total fix. Liverpool has by far the greater business case than Mcr with massive expansion projects that no other city has. They just decided to ignore Liverpool totally, not even bothering to look. The fact is Liverpool was on HS2 then dropped like a stone. If Liverpool is left off HS2 it will curtail inward investment. Now that is helping the north of England isn't it.78.105.233.20 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dear IP contributor 78.105.233.20 (and 78.105.235.103), please can you take a moment to familiarise yourself with the spirit of Wikipedia - please read this and also read this. I'm sure we'll all work something out if you take this on board. 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am not usimng wiki as battleground or a soap box. There are better places to soap off than wiki. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your ongoing edit war attempting to insert references to Liverpool suggests otherwise. If you want to protest about the omission of Liverpool, go and write a blog about it instead of trying to use Wikipedia to make your point.Cnbrb (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- All I was doing was inserting facts about HS2. NO more. Many cities were be on HS2, Liverpool clearly was, then omitted, All fact. NO opinion. Many do not want certain facts to be this article for some strange reason. The edit war was not initiated by me. 94.194.22.80 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your ongoing edit war attempting to insert references to Liverpool suggests otherwise. If you want to protest about the omission of Liverpool, go and write a blog about it instead of trying to use Wikipedia to make your point.Cnbrb (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I am not usimng wiki as battleground or a soap box. There are better places to soap off than wiki. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Dear IP contributor 78.105.233.20 (and 78.105.235.103), please can you take a moment to familiarise yourself with the spirit of Wikipedia - please read this and also read this. I'm sure we'll all work something out if you take this on board. 20:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- My factual observations are showing nothing else. If HS2 goes to Liverpool, those who may have taken the train from Chester as it stands would go to Liverpool as from Liverpool it would be faster. The region is served by THREE London stations: Liverpool, Chester and at the fringe Warrington. Ring up rail inquiries and they will tell you to go to Chester if you live on the Wirral giving you the times. Yet all the Wirral, and even Chester, have direct access to Lime St. Grt Mcr is served by mainly one station. They also DID NOT take into account the Wirral for passengers at Lime St. It was all published in the local press. The whole lot was ripped to pieces. A total fix. Liverpool has by far the greater business case than Mcr with massive expansion projects that no other city has. They just decided to ignore Liverpool totally, not even bothering to look. The fact is Liverpool was on HS2 then dropped like a stone. If Liverpool is left off HS2 it will curtail inward investment. Now that is helping the north of England isn't it.78.105.233.20 (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Your prejudices are showing. Wirral is part of the Merseyside conurbation and in rail terms largely looks to Liverpool, but Chester is indeed an alternative railhead for part of the area. If the HS2 service patterns make it quicker for people to go into Liverpool, who might currently go to Chester, so what? How is that a fix? How else do you want Wirral to be served? What alternative are you proposing? -- Alarics (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- The line does not pass through Manchester either and branches off right into the city. I will dig the doc out and put it on. HS2 was based on the route put forward by a lobby group with an agenda, Greenguage. The HS2 team never bothered to do their own. When the HS2 team assessed trains from Lime St they omitted the Wirral. The Wirral has a popn the same as Leicester. Also, currently many in the Wirral take London trains from Chester at a Merseyrail terminus. With HS2 they would all go to Liverpool for the train upping the figures greatly. A total fixup. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Alarics stated when reverting factual insertions, ""(totally bypassing" -- no, it was never intended to serve Liverpool). All the previous document relating to HS2 clearly had Liverpool being served. In one doc the time from Liverpool to London was actually faster than from Manchester. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- There's a difference between the route of the high-speed line and the route of the services on the high-speed line. Liverpool, Crewe, stations to Edinburgh/Glasgow might be served by trains using the high-speed line for some of their route, but not the high-speed line itself. —Sladen (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, there's no need to get defensive, it's not about being anti-Liverpool or a personal insult. You can of course mention that Liverpool got left off, but there's a particular way of doing it on Wikipedia. You need to include a reference to a reliable source like a newspaper or a government document or website (Liverpool Echo? Department of Transport website?). That way, it shows that the statement is not just your opinion but has actual significance in the public discussion of the project - check out WP:Sources to get an idea of what's needed. At the moment, the statement has no reference. You say that the original concept did include Liverpool, so why not research the original document and make reference to it in this article? Then it would make perfect sense to include it. Secondly, be careful about words like "controversially" - it may be controversial to you but it strays away from an impartial tone - see WP:WORDS for an explanation of why this is can be a problem. I'll leave it to you to come up with another way of phrasing it. I suggest including the Liverpool information somewhere in the History section. The problem arises, though, when all the "what about us?" stories from all over the UK all get included in the article, but let's just see how it goes. Cnbrb (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Media coverage? Are you right? The two of you are prattling nonsense. The article states " At present there are no plans for a link to Heathrow". It appears Heathrow airport, to the writers of this article is more important than a major metropolitan area. The Liverpool City Region is a major metropolitan area of 1.6 m people and has been left off. LIVERPOOL is NOT a small town. The original concept had Liverpool with HSR and a HSR rail line from Liverpool-Mcr-Leeds. Where are you two from? I am putting the Liverpool piece back in.78.105.235.103 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
The local press can be expected to make a fuss on behalf of Merseyside - that's what local newspapers do -- but the hard fact is that Manchester is and has always been a considerably bigger rail market than Liverpool. There is a reason why Manchester has 3 Pendolinos an hour and Liverpool only one. -- Alarics (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- And most of them empty. HS2 is for 25 years away when matters will be different. HSBC have not even put Manchester as one of the prime 7 cities in the UK in the future. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks Liverpool is, or will ever be, more important than Manchester is seriously deluded. -- Alarics (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Important in what way? The only deluded one is you. As one time Liverpool was even richer than London, so that is rather childish statement. HSBC think differently who even omit Manchester as a future super city. HSBC predict that Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, London, Leeds, Brighton and Liverpool will be the future super-cities. Manchester is not one of them so not worth of inclusion in HS2. Of this group, only Leeds and London are on HS2, while Newcastle and Liverpool are omitted. Glasgow is on HS3. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/jun/02/super-cities-to-lead-manufacturing-renaissance Your bias and prejudice is showing. I go by fact. 94.194.22.80 (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone who thinks Liverpool is, or will ever be, more important than Manchester is seriously deluded. -- Alarics (talk) 08:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, 78.105.233.20 (AKA 94.194.22.80), let's take a look at what you want to put in and try and sort this out.
- Reliability: You say that Liverpool was in the original HS2 plan, then omitted - if you put this statement into the article, then you have to back it up with a reference to a reliable source (maybe you have already done this, so I apologise if I have overlooked something). If you're not sure how to do this, post a message in this talk page and another editor could help you. Without a source, the statement is seen as opinion and is likely to get deleted. Unless you can point to a document, book etc that clearly says Liverpool was going to have a high-speed line, then there is no reason to give Liverpool a special mention.
- Tone: The sentence you keep inserting says "The line runs north from Crewe totally by-passing the city of Liverpool and the Merseyside metropolitan area" - there may be a problem with the tone here, as "totally bypassing" really sounds like opinion, as if you expect the reader to feel aggrieved by Liverpool getting left off. How dare they leave out Liverpool! Now, Liverpool is of course a fantastic and interesting city, and no doubt having HS2 would be a really great thing, but the purpose of Wikipedia is not to consider this but to explain simple fact. Yes, Liverpool was left off, but so were Cardiff, York and Leicester. There is no reason to list all the cities bypassed by HS2 - this is not a slight on Liverpool and it's not a competition to see which city is better or worse.
- HS2 serves REGIONS not cities. Yet FOUR cities. inc London get central HS2 stations. Manchester does not serve the whole of the north west as the city is not central. Liverpool was on the plan then taken off. The article does not state the original concept of serving regions and not major cities, which many say is flawed. 188.223.224.48 (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
So why not go to the library or dig around on Google books? If you do find a good source, then you should be looking at writing something like "according to plans published in [year], it was planned to run HS2 to Liverpool Lime Street". Personally I would find this very interesting and would be happy for this to go in the article with a reliable source. But as it stands, you keep trying to insert information which doesn't fit the bill and that's why your stuff keeps getting deleted. Does this sound reasonable to you? 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why the IP is making such a fuss about Liverpool. It is going to get 2 HS2 trains an hour from London, according to present plans, and this is made clear in the article. They will use existing tracks to get to Liverpool from the new line. -- Alarics (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Liverpool does not have a HS2 direct link. So it cannot have 2 trains per hour. No HS2 infrastructure come within 15 miles of Liverpool.78.105.235.125 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- High-speed rail lines are like motorways, they do not run from front-door-to-front-door. High-speed trains (like cars) drive for some period of time on the high-speed line (the majority of the distance) and then generally turn off the high-speed line to serve final destinations. The train is end-to-end; the line is not. —Sladen (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Liverpool does not have a HS2 direct link. So it cannot have 2 trains per hour. No HS2 infrastructure come within 15 miles of Liverpool.78.105.235.125 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know either. If it's a genuine issue, there will be reliable sources dealing with it, which is what I'm trying to encourage him/her to consider. I had a look around to try and help, but I can't see any evidence that there were any HS plans for Liverpool; nevertheless, I'm trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, because it could be interesting. So far, all we've had is disagreement, which is unfortunate. Cnbrb (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Extra details, plans, maps etc from Environmental Statement
The 50,000 pages of Environmental Statement include effectively every construction detail of Phase 1, including plans, sketches and renders of the stations and some other structures. These would be very useful to replace the low-detail maps but the document is covered by Crown Copyright so it's not possible to simply copy over anything. What would be the best way of adding these resources to the various pages about HS2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkProvanP (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Units
At 02:25, 1 January 2014 Archon 2488 decided, without discussion, to flip the units in this article to be metric-first - contrary to UK practice and convention as described in MOSNUM. My attempts to revert to the original unit presentation have been continually reverted without discussion first. Please discuss now, and do not try to force your personal opinion of what the units should be. Passy2 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the format of an article to be more MOSNUM-compliant does not require prior discussion. Once a MOSNUM rule has been established it can be invoked readily, by anyone, at any time, to change the formatting of an article. In this regard it is no different from correcting spelling, which also does not require prior discussion or authorisation. I had pointed Passy to the relevant part of MOSNUM, then I gave a more detailed explanation on his talk page, but he still does not agree with me.
- In this case, there was an extensive discussion some time ago at the MOSNUM page relating to the primary units to be used in British civil engineering projects, revolving primarily around the Edinburgh_Trams article. To summarise the discussion: we agreed that, if an engineering project uses metric units in the real world (and pretty much any modern British engineering does), it should be described primarily in terms of those units, as to refuse to do so would be anachronistic and potentially silly. In particular, nominal and defined values should always be given in the original units first, regardless of other considerations. This is a strong general MOSNUM rule. Thus a 10 km race is never to be referred to as a "6.2 mile race", and a 300 km/h speed limit is not a "186 mph" speed limit. Once again, these are commonsense provisions that should be uncontroversial.
- The simple criterion here is "if it's an article about an engineering project, use the units that were used to design it as the primary units". This is quite a commonsense rule, even if it can tend to produce inconsistencies, but from discussion on Passy's talk page, he seems to be trying to lawyer the subject by arguing that the HS2 article is not "really" about a civil engineering project. I don't understand his argument; it sounds a bit too "no true Scotsman" to my ears, so perhaps he could make it more explicitly here. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Passy2, in your revision 588715617 of the page High Speed 2, you suggested that a third opinion could be beneficial in considering the appropriate units for the article. I'll tentatively offer an opinion.
- Recounting roughly, Archon 2488 changed the units of the article for the new high-speed railway project "High Speed 2" such that metric units would appear first and imperial units would appear second. The motivation expressed by Archon 2488 in revision 588607626 was to change the article to follow the guidelines of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for dates and numbers as they apply to UK engineering-related articles. A series of reversions of this change was instigated by Passy2 and ultimately halted by Archon 2488 who proceeded to attempt to engage in further discussion on the talk page of Passy2. Passy2 then brought the discussion to the talk page for the article for the High Speed 2 and here we are. The motivation expressed by Passy2 is that the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not apply here because the article on the High Speed 2 railway project should not be considered as an "engineering-related" article.
- So, it seems to me that the disagreement is over not the requirements of the Manual of Style but whether the page for the High Speed 2 railway project can be considered a "UK engineering-related article" (the term used by the MOS). What do the guidelines say?
- UK engineering-related articles
- In UK engineering-related articles, including all bridges and tunnels: generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in, whether metric or imperial. Provide conversions where appropriate.
- Road distances and speeds are an exception to this: use imperial units with a metric conversion.
- The criterion concerning speeds and distances associated with UK roads are obviously not applicable here. Examples of engineering-related articles given are all articles concerning UK bridges and tunnels. From the the roads criterion, we can say that roads should be considered UK engineering-related articles also, but are listed explicitly because they are an exception to the general approach of using metric units. So, we can say that articles concerning UK bridges, tunnels and roads should be considered engineering-related articles and that exceptions to the guidelines for engineering-related articles are to be listed explicitly in the guidelines.
- What does "engineering" mean? In this context, the Oxford Dictionaries record "engineering" as being defined as
- the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
- In discussion, Archon 2488 mentions the article on Edinburgh trams as being a "test case" in which the metric units should be listed first (and they are), given that the article is considered to be related to engineering.
- I can see how confusion arises. In many cases, the guidelines suggest imperial units as preceding and, certainly, such units as miles are in common parlance every bit as much as kilometers, however, given that all articles on UK tunnels, bridges and roads are to be considered engineering-related, given that articles on tram systems likely are to be considered engineering-related and given the definition of engineering as it applies to engineering projects, I must conclude that the article on the High Speed 2 railway project should be considered engineering-related and, thus, should feature the metric units listed first.