Talk:Meersbrook

Sheffield Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Meersbrook is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I liked the original version of this article by User:82.47.218.100, so I have preserved it here:

"Area south of Sheffield centred on Meersbrook park, full of cats and one monster."

JeremyA 22:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice summary.

Bishops' House[edit]

I have copied Bishops' House back into the Meersbrook article since the house is geographically in Meersbrook but have not removed it from the Norton Lees article since the boundaries are somewhat blurry. I would like to see Lees House and Cliffefield House both kept in the Meersbrook article for the same reasons. It may have a small amount of data duplicated but at least it is accurate. Captain Scarlet 22:50 25 March 2006 (GMT)

Coord[edit]

I would prefer to follow the advice given by Andy Mabbett on Template talk:Coor title dms - namely "Please see {{Coord}}, which is intended, after testing, to replace the coor family of templates. These will then be substituted, throughout Wikipedia, by bot. All functionality is retained." Let the testing continue, let there be the usual process, let the bot do its work.

Let us use Coor title dms until that happy day. Does anyone agree? (I count on Andy's support here, naturally.) -- roundhouse 14:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the coor title d family would seem like a good idea to me. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I count on Andy's support here, naturally." When I need to speak for me, I'll ask someone capable of doing so. I prefer to use {{coord}}, for its additional benefits. No further testing is required, over 20,000 articles are already using coord, I'm told, with no extant bug reports. Andy Mabbett 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the replacement by bot of the inferior coor family by coord in due course and after due process. -- roundhouse 19:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; so do I. In the meantime, coord is already available for use, as here. Andy Mabbett 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inferior coord has been replaced as per this conversation. Comments on this talk page tend to agree on the continued use of the excellent coor title dms, since there is no convention to use either, it is a satisfactory agreement. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to substantiate your assertion that {{coord}} is "inferior". Your claim of agreement is, clearly, bogus. I note that your behaviour in this regard has been raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Captain scarlet and microformats. Andy Mabbett 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making the claim so it is not bogus. You fail to show why you are right and I so wrong. My behaviour has been raised by Adambro so it can hardly be taken seriously, your behaviour in this matter hasn't bene raised because it is very little to do so. focus your energies on content not bickering and maybe you won't be reverted so often. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, myself, Captain scarlet and Pc1dmn want to use {{coor}}, and only you want {{coord}} Pigsonthewing, so I have restored the former - do not claim concensus in edit summaries[1] where it does not exist. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary you cite says "restore coord template, per talk". Where do you think I have claimed consensus? Where is there consensus to support your revert, and which claim, in your edit summary ("by my count on the talk page, myself, Captain scarlet and Pc1dmn want to use {{coor}}, and only Pigsonthewing wants to use {{coord}}, so Pigsonthewing's claim is bogus)") do you think was bogus? What are your reasons for preferring coor over coord? Andy Mabbett 10:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you restored {{coord}}, and claimed it was "per talk". Show me where. I do not have to explain why I think {{coor}} is better - I have stated that I do, and there are three opinions in favour of {{coor}}, and only you in favour of {{coord}}. So, until the compatability issues with google are ironed out and consensus is agreed by the wikipedia community to replace the coor family with coord, I think coor can and should remain. Pc1dmn is actually trying to help you Pigsonthewing. When and if consensus is agreed to use {{coord}}, a bot will do all the work for you! So in the meantime, why not add content to article rather than engaging in petty revert wars over something which you will probably get your way on in a matter of time anyway.

Incidentally, I note that WP:3RR states: Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Given that you have a one revert-per week parole, I do not think that simply waiting 1 week, 4 hours and 33 minutes before making the same revert[2] can be construed as constructive. Be very careful - the ice is thin. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not have to explain why I think {{coor}} is better" - noted; as is your failure to answer my other questions. "Compatability issues" (sic) with Google have been ironed out - they have stated that they are content for us to use {{coord}}. Andy Mabbett 11:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well noted! Please show me where it states "an editor must state why they think their template/fact/etc is better". Also, please show where you have explained why {{coord}} is better, and explain why a 3:1 consensus is not good enough for you. Remember, we need to discuss decisions, not engage in revert warring. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well that I have explained the benefits of {{[[Template:coord{|coord{]]}} to you previously. 3:1 is not a consensus. I note that you still fail to answer my earlier questions. Andy Mabbett 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any advantages. I know it contains a microformat, which I fail to see as helpful, but you are willing to try to convince me otherwise rather than reverting and insulting. To answer your question; You effectively claimed consensus (without using so many words) by quoting the talk page as back-up to your revert when there was nobody on the talk page supporting the revert - hence bogus. Now, will you come back to me on the page which say I must justify my decision, and why you feel that gaming your parole is acceptable. If you cannot, this will be the last you hear from me on the matter until sometime after 20:10 on 18th June when you will doubtless re-revert with a WP:POINTed edit. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You effectively claimed consensus" - please stop making things up. Andy Mabbett 14:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see only one person making things up and it's not Lewisskinner, it's your Pigsonthewing. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you appear to be sharing his delusion. Andy Mabbett 09:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coord is now actually being parsed by Google earth - trust it is OK to use it. -- roundhouse0 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]