Talk:High Speed 2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rational section

High_Speed_2#Rationale This section seems to be out of place - and somewhat fragmented :

• Second paragraph - not entirely clear on relavence to section
• Third paragraph - not really giving a rationale - more a statement of the conclusions

Basically the section (tagged "copy edit") seems to stray from the rational after the 1st paragraph, also I think it should be near the beginning of the article, possibly merged into another section.Sf5xeplus (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Table format

It would appear that the bottom half of the wiki article is contained entirely within the table... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.54.2 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing issues and description of the Taxpayers alliance

Re: your recent edits:

• A primary source for what a green party spokesman has said is not required [1] - and there is no reason I can see not to take the source given as reliable. - Whether or not such content (ie the views of every pressure group) is relavent is another question
• Describing the Taxpayers Alliance as a right right pressure group, is on the wrong side of neutral. If you think it is, I would recommend adding that info the the article on the group first, not here..

I think my revert may have undone some unrelated work - but I have tried to reinsert the references and links.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

On the first issue the source the IP editor added was to some website I had never heard of and which I don't believe meets the reliable source criteria. It was perfectly sensible to wait until the Green Party themselves published a statement, or something appears in a more reliable source - which didn't exactly need a particularly long wait.

With regards to the taxpayers alliance, they are described as a pressure group on their own article, calling them a right-wing (or conservative) group is just calling a spade a spade. Adding words like this when describing people or organisation is something the Economist does regularly, and its a technique that is helpful to help the reader understand the position of the organisation concerned. Given that the Economist refers to McDonalds as "McDonalds', a burger company" I think its use in this case is reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Apology I got mixed up who was adding and removing what

Anyway is this version [2] roughly acceptable - I've included the early green party support (in principle) for high speed rail, and added the current opposition to the current plans. Here's a diff with the version of JMFriedman [3]

I also moved the section on rational to the "support and opposition" (Perspectives) section, and relabled it "goverment rationale" which seems to be entirely neutral and accurate... (I previously had an issue with the positioning of this section see above section)

I'm still not comfortable in describing in this article the TaxPayersAlliance as a right wing pressure group - even if true .. ie verifyabilty not truth. Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about verifiability however they call themselves a right wing pressure group on their own website. Other than that I think its fine, I've actually removed one of the sentences from the Green Party as I think we're including too much from them, maybe some more content could be added from the Taxpayers Alliance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Some explanation of who they are would be meaningful - but I find "right wing" too broad a brush to be helpful. Could it just state the obvious and say "anti-tax interest group" or similar.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti tax is definitely even better. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re - who should be mentioned

Actually if no-one but the tax-payers alliance has refered to their opposition to the plan then that part may not be necessarily suitable for inclusion - a similar argument applies to other groups - ie - use a barrier for inclusion which is that an independent source considers their opposition notable - eg The North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce stated that HS2 had to have a station in the county - should this really be in the article.. ? Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the Taxpayers Alliance have a point and one that is worth including. But I think the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce is getting a bit too small and local. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs a bit of a tidy

I don't consider the Taxpayers alliance notable of itself (or any other pressure group) (ie I wouldn't report what they say unless someone else repeats it) - in this case the report has be picked up by some news sources - there may be others - but the major UK sources don't appear to have covered it. skynews railnews.co.uk birmingham mail Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the views of the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce would certainly be relevant for the million or so people living in Staffordshire, but in more general terms the viewpoint of local bodies (if more than one has a verifiable opinion published) could be grouped under whether they mainly supported or opposed the HS2 proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.206.196 (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a third party reference for the tax payers alliance (called them an "anti-taxation pressure group"), and lumped their objection with that of the greens - as the basis of their objections are very similar. Also removed north stafforshire county council.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Lates News

Will be adding a sentence regarding todays news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954 Smeowrend (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Having now added this edit, the introduction to this article now seems a little bitty and I think the latest news maybe negates some fo the old news written about in the introduction? --Smeowrend (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of phase 1 map

The phase 1 map appears to be based on the proposals in 2009 or earlier, and the linked KML file on umapper is at least two years out of date. Can the map and link be changed to use the current proposed route? If not, the article should at least mention that they refer to an earlier proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.12.131 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It was indeed based on the 2009 proposal. I have added a note to that effect to the caption. PeterEastern (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now updated the map to show the latest proposed, taken from OpenStreetMap, which was in turn taken from the official route as published on data.gov.uk.[4]. The Wikipedia version in this article may not update for a short time, but the source image is already up-to-date. PeterEastern (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of main map

Technically, the Republic of Ireland should really be shaded light-grey, or at the very least, there should be a border between N Ireland and ROI, as there is between England and Scotland/Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.133.106 (talk • contribs)

Political separations (United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland) don't really make sense in the case of trains. There is Irish railway network (1,600 mm) and there is a separate railway network in Britain (1,435/1,432 mm) connected to the continental system via the Channel Tunnel. —Sladen (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair point though - Ireland is now shown in a lighter shade of grey to emphasise that the article is about the rail network on the island of Great Britain (a geographical and rail operational distinction rather than a political one) Cnbrb (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could the Isle of Man (which is not part of the UK) be light grey too? David (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, done. Careful observers may have also spotted Jersey and Guernsey were suspiciously dark too, so I did them.Cnbrb (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If your making changes, another small one you could make is to extend phase 1 a little beyond Birmingham to just beyond where the split is, this is the HS2-WCML connection. WatcherZero (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Prespectives section seems non-neutral

There is rather too much opposition commentary for balance compared to the supporting comments. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Balance is not about equalising content in terms of the number of words written, its about reflecting verifiable content relevant to the subject and that this also continues to reflect the breadth of the subject. This balance of this content has remained relatively stable over the last six months on what has been a very actively edited section of the article which suggests editors have been satisfied with the content as it stands. As this is a live subject which once again is likely to develop quickly over the next few months then editor's contributions to the content relating to the pros and cons perspectives will be able to reflect any shift in thisTmol42 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with including the names of notable personalities who have voiced an opinion on HS2 (I mentioned Geoffrey Palmer, an outspoken critic, which was rapidly deleted for some reason). Terry Pratchett has voiced opposition, while Pete Waterman has given his support. I think if the article is even-handed in mentioning names of notable commentators, it adds interest to the topic and reflects the importance of the debate.Cnbrb (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Notable commentators", yes. Celebrities who know nothing about the subject but who happen to live in the Chilterns, no. That is why I deleted the specific reference to Geoffrey Palmer, though I left in the link to the anti-HS2 Mail article that mentions him (but not only him). What the article needs is a better representation of the arguments being put forward on both sides by *real* expert commentators on the rail industry, for example Christian Wolmar (extraordinary that he is not mentioned at all yet) and Chris Stokes (former bigwig the Strategic Rail Authority) vs. Gordon Pettit (ex-BR boss) and Nigel Harris (editor of Rail magazine). These and other extremely well-informed people have been battling it out in detail in the pages of the railway press for many months. It trivialises what is a serious debate to reduce it to the level of "I don't want this scheme because it goes past my house", which is all Palmer and his ilk are saying. -- Alarics (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed re. Wolmar et al, the article definitely needs much more reference to the views of expert commentators. I would be happy for editors to source this material and include it. However I disagree that a brief mention of actors, writers etc "trivialises" the debate. They are public figures who reflect some real and current perspectives on the subject. An opinion about the value of a landscape or local history is just as valid a contribution to a debate. They should be mentioned by name as they have involved themselves publicly - I don't mean to the extent of relying on their opinion for the substance of the article, but it seems illogical to delete public figures from the text just because they haven't been quoted in a railway magazine.Cnbrb (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of people (such as the chamber of commerce) who are in favour of high speed 2 and aren't listed, and yet every county council against seems to be listed, that hardly seems neutral.

I also think the "other" section is largely against the proposal.

I do agree that including more experts who actually know what they are talking about seems sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, is that long list of county councils really necessary? It does seem a bit much. It would be better to give a cross-section of supporters/opposers, be they councils, organisations or individuals rather than a huge long list of absolutely everybody, as it tends to get competitive. Maybe someone should write a short article on the 51m group instead of listing everything here, so it can focus on the issues.Cnbrb (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree its a pointless long list, if you totted up the Councils that support it (as members of PTEG, the former Northern Way and others) the list would be three times the length of the 51M group membership. WatcherZero (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The key issues here are that the local authorities along the Phase I section of HS2 have, with one exception that I have so far identfied, all lined up against the proposals. Meanwhile, at this stage the city councils both along the Phase 2 as well as in Scotland and Wales have committed their support. A major part of this currently live news story on HS2 is the various stances of the opposing factions and the collaborations of the groups that have formed. So it is important to include the main protagonists in this rather than pick and choose. Reflecting on the comments above I now agree that the "support" section was underwieght so I have now added the major local authotities I could find who have declared their support, together with the largest of the Chambers of Commerse who have responded up to / since the January 10 announcement plus added citations where these where hitherto missing plus one tag where I could not find a sourse.Tmol42 (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken all the district councils out of the 51m list. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So six months later, and still nothing from Christian Wolmar & co? Where are all the notable commentators we were hoping to hear from? I would really like to see perspectives from these people supporting the project added to the article but nothing seems to have been added.Cnbrb (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have higher standards than the Daily Mail

In the Compensation section, there currently is an image of a beautiful listed building included with the description:

Some historic buildings such as this 16th-century farm near Great Missenden may be threatened with demolition to make way for the HS2 line

This is classic Daily Mail. Nobody said that this building was going to be knocked down. The Daily Mail just picked this building for its looks and wrote "buildings such as the Tudor mansion at Chapel Farm in Great Missenden may have to be knocked down" (emphasis added). In other words, they pulled that out of their arse. I think that by including another original picture of this beautiful building and parroting speculation without contextualising it as such, Wikipedia lowers itself to the same rock bottom standards that are so eagerly embraced by the Daily Mail. 31.16.20.174 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, the farm building in question was also covered on BBC Newsnight (10 Jan 2012 - at 4:35). According to the interview the map is not clear, but they now believe that the line will pass 50 yards (46 m) away from the house so the gardens will be dug up but the house will remain. Much as I detest the Mail, their report was not as wide of the mark as you would like to imagine, so it would seem the article was due some correction rather than deletion. It's amazing what a little bit of research can do, if you try. Cnbrb (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this needs looking into. Why is the article plastered with photos of pretty countryside scenes? Either they should be removed or we balance them with photos of people benefiting from travelling at high speed! (A couple of HS1 photos perhaps..) David (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant photographs of comparable rolling stock were also added, which could be taken as an illustration of benefits. Do these not add balance? Cnbrb (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have deleted the Great Missenden picture until somebody produces a reliable source to say that it will actually be demolished. More generally, the article is rather unbalanced and needs to detail the arguments for and against the scheme in a neutral way. -- Alarics (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the photos of field and trees that are "near" the route. They don't add to the article at all - they could be almost anywhere in England. Photos showing a scene, building or landscape that will be affected by the actual route of the line would be more helpful. Perhaps one of the Curzon Street area in Birmingham? David (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

For your information, the photos were carefully researched by geographical coordinates and checked against maps issued by the DFT and Chilterns AONB - this shot, for example (and I admit it is not the best example) is verifiably within 500m of the route. Rather than being "anywhere in England" this was a valid illustration backed up by a reference which added to the article by illustrating an area of land under dispute by opponents. I would be happy for it to be replaced by a more accurate example, but please don't take such a dismissive attitude to good faith, factual additions to the article. Go and add something useful instead of this delete, delete, delete. Make a positive contribution!Cnbrb (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cnbrb, I broadly agree with your point but seriously, a picture of a cornfield devoid of context really could be just anywhere in England. Or Ukraine, for that matter. Pictures should be there to inform, not to decorate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine, as I admitted it's not the greatest example - I did try really hard to source something geographically close, even if the result doesn't feature any identifiable landmarks. The aim was to illustrate a general issue, not to decorate or violate NPOV.11:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Perspectives - neutrality banner

I have done some work on the Perspectives section, in particular I have organised the supporters and opposers into bullet lists and have adjusted the order into somthing like 'significance to the issue'. I have also added an entry for StopHS2, not sure why they were missing from the article, but they seem to be notable and relevant. Do we need to do anything else before we can remove the neutrality banner, or have the issues already been addressed? The section seems pretty good to me. PeterEastern (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems neutral enough as far as listing the various groups and bodies on both sides of the argument is concerned. But the article so far fails almost entirely to set out the main arguments for and against the scheme -- the plausibility of the traffic forecasts, the meaningfulness of the "business case", whether the speed profile proposed is unnecessarily demanding for the aims of the project to be achieved, the cost-benefit estimates versus those for rival schemes that would cost less, the feasibility of various other ways of increasing network capacity that have been suggested, the prospects for modal shift from car/air to rail, etc. All this is separate from, and arguably a good deal more important than, the row about alleged visual and noise intrusion in the Chilterns, and is currently the subject of intense disagreement within the industry and between various expert commentators, and should be reflected here. Sources for this article should be more from the serious railway press and less from the likes of the Daily Mail, in my view. -- Alarics (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I am not hearing any voices objecting to the removal of the neutrality banner which I will now do. Feel free to try synthenising a summary of arguments for and against, however it may be wise to retain an brief summary of each groups position as well. Personally I would like it if someone would track how the other official objectives of the scheme (ie reducing North/South divide, reducing Carbon emissions + more?) have now been jettisoned leaving only capacity. PeterEastern (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Fresh sources

The following report has been referenced in a few places, but probably has additional useful material in it:

—Sladen (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Journey times

This section is confusing188.223.112.102 (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've revised it. Any better? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Splitting into Phase One & Phase Two

I propose splitting the page on grounds of size and also content. This article is now 118k - exceeding the 100k, the recommended size for splitting articles. There is a good argument that Phase One and Phase Two are different as they will open six years apart. The route information for Phase One & Two could be siphoned into new articles thus reducing the size of the High Speed 2 page. A succinct route overview would only be required on the main High Speed 2 article page. The content 4. Planned Sections can be inserted into the two new pages. Furthermore the 3. Connections to other lines can be placed in the appropriate pages - i.e. Crossrail into Phase One article. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes that may work. I would keep a "core" HS2 article and then have 2 subsidiary articles for each phase focussing on routes, stations and construction only. There's a lot of material that should stay in the main article which is common to the whole project (rolling stock, government planning etc). But yes, it is getting a bit unwieldy. Cnbrb (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes it needs splitting. A section on the prelim HS2 plan is needed, as a major city, Liverpool is omitted, who are appealing.188.223.224.144 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Map

Just a note, the infobox map is inaccurate. HS2, if extended to Newcastle, won't bulldoze through Leeds, it'll most likely go up parallel ECML. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right but this was derived from this source. Proposals for northern extensions have been published by governmental bodies but precise details are not clear - can you point to any more sources to improve this information? (Bulldozing through Leeds might be fun though) Cnbrb (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ouseley J

Who or what is "Ouseley J"?

As in "On 15 March 2013, judgement was handed down for all of the judicial review claims against Secretary of State for Transport. Ouseley J rejected all but one of the claims."

He is the judge (Mr Justice Ouseley) who delivered the judgment in R v Secretary of State, as you can see if you look at the source cited in the footnote. -- Alarics (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Speed

This article omits any mention of the rated speed for the HS2 track. Eg is it above or below 310km/h.FreeFlow99 (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

See High Speed 2#Infrastructure —Sladen (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC) Core alignment designed for up to 400 kilometres per hour (250 mph), intended operation at up to 360 kilometres per hour (220 mph).

HS2maps.com

Just to note that my company, ITO World, has developed a detailed HS2maps.com website in cooperation with CPRE showing the route, construction and noise information for phase 1, and for phase 2 in due course. Due to the obvious conflict of interest I will leave it to others to decide if it is notable to link to the map site from this article. The tiles are full copyright (to avoid blatant plagiarism which we have experienced in the past) and can't be used as they stand in Wikipedia , however we are happy to release screengrabs of relevant sections on a CC-BY-SA license on request. If someone wishes to include part of the mapping please email support@itoworld.com with the appropriate area and we will produce an appropriate export and provide a copyright release notice. PeterEastern (talk) 13:45, 17 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)

Making "Journey times" a top-level heading

I made the "Journey times" section of "Connection to other lines" primarily because it is relevant information that almost any reader would be interested in, and the previous placement of the section under Connection made it difficult to find quickly if on mobile. These two reasons are why I chose to make it a free-standing section, and I believe the readability of the article is significantly improved as a result.TROPtastic (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2014 (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)

Archon, you said "Changing the format of an article to be more MOSNUM-compliant does not require prior discussion". Well MOSNUM gives a different message. It is quite explicit: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable". You should not has mass-changed the article from one style to another.

Even if you were allowed to change the style just for the sake of changing the style as you seem to be admiting you have done, as this is not a UK engineering article, then you should have ensured that imperial was generally the main unit system. Engineering means design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures - this article covers much more than just the engineering aspects of the project, including the politics, the planning consultations, the environmental issues, the community impact, legislation and history.

As you seem to be in the habit of converting articles from the imperial to metric systems willy-nilly, it looks to me as though you are actually doing this as part of a metrication POV-push mission, rather than as an attempt to make this article comply with MOSNUM. Passy2 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

>"You should not has [sic] mass-changed the article from one style to another."

This does not seem to have affected your decision to mass-change the units on the Forth bridge article, which is also a choice between optional styles. But this is allowed by the existing MOSNUM rule so I have not disputed it. You're being quite inconsistent here. In addition, I must say that there is little point in having a style guide if there is no attempt to implement it consistently.

>"as this is not a UK engineering article"

This is the very point that we are arguing here, so I don't know why you think that dogmatically asserting your belief that it's not engineering-related (which two other editors have now contradicted) will persuade anyone. The Forth bridge article has a large amount of cultural, historical and other non-engineering information - but only a pedant or someone with an ulterior motive would claim that this means the article as a whole does not relate to civil engineering. Archon 2488 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What I may, or may not, have done to another article cannot be a defence for what you have tried to do to this article. And in any case, I explain below exactly why I think what I did was right in that article and why I think what you did was wrong in this one.

My actions are consistent with attempting to comply with MOSNUM, whereas your actions are consistent with a dogma-driven mission to metricate Wikipedia by stealth. Passy2 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

>"What I may, or may not, have done to another article cannot be a defence for what you have tried to do to this article."

It's an argument by analogy, which is not perfect, but it illustrates similarities and differences. We are discussing what is an "engineering project" for MOSNUM purposes, so it seems relevant to me.

>"your actions are consistent with a dogma-driven mission to metricate Wikipedia by stealth"

It strikes me as equally dogmatic to claim, in effect, that wholly-metric engineering projects cannot be described primarily in those units, on the basis of the spurious and inane argument that "British people don't use metric units". This is what I referred to as the absurdity of the "6.2 mile race". If I were being genuinely dogmatic then I'd obviously have fought your revisions to the Forth Bridge article, and I'd try to talk about "112 km/h speed limits", etcetera. I get "dogmatic" about metric units only where they are very common in the real world, and would not be anachronistic, but are arbitrarily disallowed by dogmatic editors on Wikipedia. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:01, 8 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.

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.

ZICO (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ZICO, thanks for analysing the article as you did. However I disagree with your conclusion. This article is much broader than just an engineering related article (as I describe above). As such, the engineering excuse is not a valid argument for a mass change to metric as Archon has attempted. If you look at Archon's contribution history, you will see that he appears to be working on a metrication POV-push agenda. This article is clearly a non-science and non-engineering UK-related article, and anyway, MOSNUM frowns on the idea of converting units to another allowable style just for the sake of it. For those reasons, I believe the units should remain as at present, as they are perfectly MOSNUM compliant. The choice of style for this article cannot be dictated by the choice that editors of another article have made.

The decision for this article should be made here, by the editors of this article - taking into account that it is not merely an engineering article, but is most definitely a non-science UK-related article. Passy2 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

All the (real) source units for citations in this article are in metric so metric by default makes complete sense. If people insist on flipping, please use/remove |disp=flip rather than doing DIY conversions and ending up with approximations of approximations. —Sladen (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In MOSNUM, article units are specified according to article type/subject matter and not by those used in the sources. This article is a non-science and non-engineering UK-related article, so the main units per MOSNUM would be imperial units. I agree with you that the automatic conversion facility should be used. Passy2 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I am aware that "source-based units" as a convention was rejected decisively in the MOSNUM discussion some months ago, and I recognised it as a bad argument, so I have not used it since. I dispute very strongly that HS2 is not an engineering project, or that the article on it is not "engineering-related" (which is the criterion) and I suspect that Passy2 is acting in bad faith since 1) He has edited the article on the Forth_rail_bridge to use the imperial-first convention, which indicates that he understands what an "engineering project" is for the purposes of MOSNUM, and 2) his entire contribution list, dating from a few months ago (suspiciously close to the time period of the MOSNUM argument, I must say) consists almost solely of undoing edits that I have made, following me around and engaging in petty disputes (such as insisting that a 1:50 000 scale OS map must be referred to as "1.25 inches to the mile", which is not even correct). It's not inconceivable that it might be a sock account used by someone from the previous discussion (such things have happened before, and have led to users such as deFacto being blocked permanently).

Relating to chaging between optional styles, it's also noteworthy that the HS2 article had previously used the metric-first convention, and had been changed at some point (after the MOSNUM debate, I believe, which makes me a little suspicious). See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=579660484 Archon 2488 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Archon, your your response to my comments is misleading, I need to correct several errors in it:

1/ You say you "dispute very strongly that HS2 is not an engineering project". I never said HS2 wasn't an engineering project, it very clearly is - what I am saying is that this article is not an engineering related article as far as MOSNUM is concerned. This is a broader article in which the engineering project may be discussed, but in which the engineering isn't the only, or even the main, subject.

2/ On the other hand, the Forth Bridge article is an engineering related article, and is about a bridge or tunnel, so there is no other optional style available for it under MOSNUM (unlike with this article).

3/ You should not provide an incomplete, modified or false title for an ISBN publication because you disagree with the publisher using imperial units in it, as you tried for the OS map cited in the Ecclefechan article - the inches per mile scale is printed as part of the title on the cover, so should be included in the cite.

And yes, I have reversed edits which you made, if I spotted them, and if the changes went against the MOSNUM advice. Passy2 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1) This is the only article on what you now admit to be an engineering project, which one would assume to make it an engineering-related article. If there were another article called "environmental and social impacts of HS2" then perhaps you could claim that such an article would be unrelated to engineering (although in fact such considerations are very much a part of major engineering projects). "Artistic responses to HS2"?

2) The listing of bridges and tunnels is not indicated to be exclusive of other parts of infrastructure. To claim that rail track is exempt, for example, is arbitrary.

3) This is rank hypocrisy. The original version of the scale given on the article was "1.25 inches to the mile", which is incomplete, modified, false and misleading to boot. I significantly improved the accuracy of the description and you immediately reverted it back to the inaccurate (and, owing to lack of metric, MOSNUM-inconsistent) version. When I agreed to include the imperial information, I specifically explained to you that the imperial scale is only an approximate equivalent (because 1:50 000 is not an imperial scale), and I even calculated the imperial scale to illustrate this fact. I had intended the word "approx." to emphasise this, and in fact to make Wikipedia more correct - it would not be in any way unethical for Wikipedia to be more accurate than the OS in this respect - but perhaps a servant cannot be greater than his master, so to speak. Facts, it would seem, rarely dissuade people who insist on imperial units.

I note that you have not denied being a participant or a lurker in the previous MOSNUM debate now operating under a different handle. Regardless of what people think of my "dogma", I have been consistently open about my principles. It strikes me as very odd that someone who is "From Passy, Paris" would have such an infatuation with old-school British weights and measures that he would take to stalking one editor in particular and starting these silly disputes; maybe the "stealth" in this case is coming from a different place? Archon 2488 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

1/ The construction is an engineering project, of course - but the article is not just about the construction, hence falls outside the definition in MOSNUM, that is abundantly clear.

2/ Articles about the engineering of bridges and tunnels are clearly within the definition in MOSNUM, yes.

3/ The cite was for a map with the imperial scale in its title. If you came across a cite to this book, would you change the title to "Every 25.4 mm of the Way: My Bike Ride Around the World"?

4/ Let take this opportunity to state clearly and unambiguously that I deny being a participant or a lurker in the previous MOSNUM debate now operating under a different handle.

5/ Your dogma and principles are not relevant here, reliably sourced NPOV content is though.

6/ Whether I'm from Passy, Paris or Timbuktu, is irrelevant, and to describe my attempts to keep the article as MOSUM decrees as having "an infatuation with old-school British weights and measures" is nothing short if uncivil.

7/ What you describe as "stalking", was clearly a wise precaution on my part, as I managed to halt your clear and undisputed mission to metricate Wikipedia by stealth.

As this discussion is going no-where constructive, I suggest we abandon it now, and leave the article in the current policy compliant form, and do not change the units again without first obtaining a consensus at MOSNUM. Passy2 (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again you reassert your belief that this is not an engineering-related article, something with which nobody else has agreed. I'm afraid you're now going "against consensus" here. How you can continue to say that the truth of your opinion is "abundantly clear" when it's been flatly contradicted by two impartial editors (whose valid NPOV opinions you have dismissed with no small condescension), I have no idea.

I am unsure whether the scale on a map counts as part of the title, but this is an academic point. Unlike titles such as "Every Inch of the Way", the scale of a map uses units - it does not merely mention their names. This is a silly and irrelevant argument which serves only as a distraction from the question of which units are appropriate in a given context. Giving the wrong scale for a map is providing inaccurate information, which an encyclopedia generally should not do. This is an NPOV aim and is not in any way "dogmatic". Your Orwellian position, in effect, is that one cannot say that 50 688 and 50 000 are not the same number, if that information should happen to be politically inconvenient (I am reminded of those who tried to argue that American public schools could not teach evolution because it contradicted Biblical creationism, hence violating the Establishment Clause).

I apologise for throwing around accusations, but it's all too common to find people who insist absolutely on the primacy of imperial units, even if there is no objective reason for it (as in this case, where the metric units are the main units used in the real world, not merely in certain sources which might be cited). Some of them surfaced in the previous argument, and some of them have been known to use sock accounts in the past.

Regarding NPOV content - this is an easy one. The metric units are the main units used on comparable projects such as HS1, and of course on HS2 also, so this is an entirely NPOV reason for preferring metric units. I note that you have not actually engaged with this argument in any way, and when it was made by Sladen you simply dismissed it out of hand. The point here is not agreement with sources, which can be cherry-picked to favour either system, but to ensure that Wikipedia is not less metric than real life. This is a completely NPOV objective.

I am uncomfortable with the phrasing "as MOSNUM decrees", since MOSNUM is not a series of "decrees" but a style guide. You cannot say that the Forth Bridge article has no other optional style, whereas this article does, because this is simply lawyering in favour of the imperial system. MOSNUM contains a clear statement that there might be reasons for preferring one system over another in a given article, which should be discussed on the article talk page in case of controversy (which we are now doing). I am unconvinced that there is any need to rehash MOSNUM again. In addition, you appear to have a very tendentious reading of what MOSNUM actually says - you say "you should have ensured that imperial was generally the main unit system", but this is actually the opposite of what MOSNUM says! The phrasing that MOSNUM uses is that metric is generally the main unit system, with a (somewhat complicated, I grant) list of exceptions. Your attempts to argue that this article is one of those exceptions have so far persuaded nobody else, because all the NPOV evidence is against you. This is why I accused you of having an "infatuation" with old-school measures; you are insisting on their use even where they are not actually the primary units in real life. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It has been about three weeks since I checked in last and I'm glad to see that there has been some attempt at constructive discussion on the units appropriate for this article. While both Archon 2488 and Passy2 have engaged in unhelpful guessing games at each other's motivations, there is at least some agreement on the nature of this article.

In my previous comment of 4 January 2014, given the general agreement on the requirements of the Manual of Style as applied to UK engineering-related articles, I offered an analysis of this article in the context of the style guide and concluded, essentially, that it should be considered as an engineering-related article. Summarised briskly, the style guide and associated precidents consider articles on UK bridges, tunnels, roads and trams to be "UK engineering-related" (this does not appear to be a point of contention). Given the style guide examples, given the Edinburgh trams article as a precedent and given the definition of engineering, I concluded that it was natural to consider the article for the High Speed 2 to be UK engineering-related. As such, it is not merely an article concerning an engineering project, but also the broader context of the project.

I proceeded to invite further discussion.

Subsequent discussion has concerned Passy2's description of the article as being "much broader than just an engineering related article". There were also many sniping comments concerning hidden agendas and motivations. My comment now shall not concern such conspiracy theories - on this topic I refer other commenters to the basic Wikipedia principle "assume good faith". Passy2 mentions that the article "is clearly a non-science and non-engineering UK-related article". Unhappily, there is no other real justification given for this view. The fact that this discussion exists means that it is not clear. "Related" means being connected or associated in some way. The fact that other topics such as the environmental impact and development costs of the engineering project are included is precisely why the article is termed "engineering-related", as opposed to "engineering". Engineering-related articles provide not only details on an engineering project, but also greater context for the project.

So, what is the state of consensus on the units for this article? I hope that I have made a fair and effective attempt at addressing the concerns of Passy2. All other editors that have weighed in on this discussion, Archon 2488, Sladen and ZICO and all the editors that weighed in in the request for comments on this issue, Sceptre and mattbuck, agree that this article is naturally UK engineering-related. Given the non-contentious guidelines for UK engineering-related articles, I conclude that it is appropriate to instate the metric unit precidence in this article.

It would be nice to see this discussion concluded, so I propose making the unit change in a day's time if there are no further major objections.

ZICO (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion has been superseded by the "RfC on Units" discussion below. And BTW, I disagree with your assertion that '"Related" means being connected or associated in some way.' - particularly your loose catch-all "in some way". If that were the case, that would give licence to include almost every article as engineering related. In the context of MOSNUM I believe the word related has the specific meaning "belonging to the same family, group, or type" - or "is a". That means that for that clause in MOSNUM to apply, this statement must be true: "<article name> is an engineering article". Clearly this article falls outside of that narrowed definition. Passy2 (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I refer to a standard dictionary for a definition of "related":

connected with something/somebody in some way

This is the spirit in which my phrasing was intended. You mention that it is a 'catch all' phrasing that can give licence to extend the connection or association beyond that which is reasonable. Language can be used in all sorts of misleading ways. It is not exhaustive and must be modulated by intelligence and an understanding of context. I hope that it goes without saying that the phrase "in some way" should be taken to mean "in some reasonable way" for just about all human concepts. Note that in my previous comment I attempt to make the context very clear. I refer to precedents and to the style guide's representative examples of UK bridges, tunnels, roads and trams. This, I hope, gives reasonable context to the cited definition of "related".

You mention

for that clause in MOSNUM to apply, this statement must be true: "<article name> is an engineering article". Clearly this article falls outside of that narrowed definition.

I think you have reframed the argument in an unjustified way. Again, you have replaced the phrase "engineering-related" with "engineering". On a slightly side note, I suggest it would be beneficial to avoid using phrases such as "clearly", as you have done a few times. It may seem clear to you, but this discussion should indicate that it is not clear. It is a weasel word.

I think it would be beneficial to consider some other articles. For example, consider the article on the Docklands Light Railway. It offers a description of this rail engineering project while giving the larger context of the project: it covers its history, its ticket control, accidents and incidents and even its management. It is considered an engineering-related project and has metric unit precedence. Consider the article on the Intercity Express Programme. It offers a transaction history, related politics, contracts and manufacturing details. It too is considered an engineering-related project and has metric unit precedence. Consider the article on the London Underground. Again, it offers a description of this rail engineering project while giving a detailed social history, describing related infrastructure such as escalators, describing communications reception for mobile telephones and Wi-Fi, ticketing, human accessibility, overcrowding, safety and even arts, typography, literature and social culture! It too is considered an engineering-related project and, as for all the other cases, has metric unit precedence. All of these examples (and I can give you more if you request) illustrate UK engineering rail projects and their broader context. The article on the High Speed 2 falls right in with these articles very naturally. To use your own phrasing, it is belonging to the same family of articles. These articles are UK engineering-related.

ZICO (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be very odd for Wikipedia to "put its engineering hat on" and speak in metric, then take that hat off and speak in imperial. But this is what the present MOSNUM muddle could easily be read to encourage, if we don't have a reasonably broad understanding of what "engineering" means. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2014 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How about this. Liverpool was clearly on HS2. http://stophs2.org/news/4561-liverpool-hsr-plans-dropped 94.194.20.215 (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to find a reliable source setting out an earlier plan that had a significantly faster service for Liverpool than what is now proposed. stophs2.org is plainly POV and not a reliable for anything except what Stop HS2 thinks. Nobody disputes that under present plans Liverpool is less favoured than Manchester, in terms of journey time to London. The question is whether this is a policy change from some earlier scheme that was published. -- Alarics (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Boo. Liverpool is in the historic county of Lancashire, don't you feel the historic counties of England should be used for geographical areas over adminstrative ones (Merseyside)? Just a thought. 135.196.157.83 (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) FW

No, the historic counties are purely ceremonial and are not relevant to this discussion. What we are talking about here is Liverpool and its hinterland, which in railway terms includes (at least part of) Wirral, which is in Merseyside but part of historic Cheshire. -- Alarics (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Journey times

This is an interesting and useful section. However, I feel it would be more complete if the table were also to include data which illustrated forecasts for journeys via HS2 and HS1, e.g. how long will it take to travel from Birmingham to Paris? I suggest this because the whole HS project is part of a wider European concept. At present the domestic journey times present a rather limited and skewed illustration of HS rail which tend to be seized upon by the "No" lobby. Having said that, I don't know where this information would be sourced from, and don't wish to stray into original research. Does anyone know more about this and can anyone help to widen the scope of this information? If reliable sources don't exist, then fair enough, but I'd like to open this suggestion.

One other thing - I really feel that the UK Ultraspeed table of journey times is not warranted here. It's a bit off-topic and refers to a proposal that is neither approved nor funded. I'm happy for a comparison to be mentioned in passing with a link to the UK Ultraspeed article, but it's not core subject matter here. I would remove it myself but I know that editing this article can cause all sorts of trouble.Cnbrb (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Units

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been disagreement between editors on which convention to use for the units in this article. For UK engineering-related articles, the MOSNUM convention is to use the system of units in which the relevant infrastructure was designed as the primary units (so one would expect imperial (metric) for older engineering and metric (imperial) for newer engineering). Four editors have offered opinions on the subject, of whom three agree that metric units should be given first in the article. One editor has argued that the article is not really engineering-related and thus the MOSNUM rule about engineering units does not apply here. The discussion does not seem to have come to a natural conclusion, so external help would be useful. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My first thought is to measure in miles and chains as with every other railway line in the UK. However, given it's only ordering, I really don't think it makes a blind bit of difference. Just go with whatever the reference says as primary, and use conversion to give the other. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The complication is that MOSNUM doesn't allow for source-based units; the order of units is supposed to be determined by the article type. In addition, the older convention of miles and chains isn't used for the newest infrastructure such as HS1; IRL the information is given in metric units. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR. To paraphrase, don't be hidebound, do what makes sense in the situation. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• I would personally use metric units for accuracy reasons; IMO, you should always use the original units given unless there's a very important reason not to. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that this is the sensible position, and it is the most rational style for the article to have, even in the absence of central guidance from the MOS (or if we chose to invoke WP:IAR). The problem is that certain editors will use the MOS to lawyer the issue and demand that imperial units be given priority even when there is no warrant in terms of real life. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

However, as you point out above, a recent discussion at MOSNUM specifically rejected the use of the excuse of "but they're the units used in the source". That would inevitably lead to source wars. Passy2 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The choice of units hinges on whether this article falls into the MOSNUM interpretation of "engineering related". As that is open to interpretation/misinterpretation, the best place to get a judgement on that would be at MOSUM itself. Until we get a definitive judgement there, we should leave the units as they are, per the MOSNUM warning that "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style". Passy2 (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you feel about the appeal of proponents of Intelligent Design for scientific debate on the veracity of evolution? Do you think scientific journals should accept papers from the Discovery Institute that claim to prove evolution false?

The problem with many of the claims of creationists is that they are based often on the attempt to frame evolutionary science as being in a state of conflict, as being in a state of great debate and disagreement. I mention creationists not to insult you or suggest that you are acting in bad faith, but to illustrate an analogy. Of all of the editors that have weighed in on this discussion, you raise the sole objection. Viewed as percentages, the overwhelming majority of 83.3% see no conflict or debate on the guidelines as necessary. Do you feel that you are more qualified in some way?

ZICO (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• If Passy2 means that we should expand MOSNUM into a list of what kinds of articles constitute "engineering-related", then I don't see why that would be necessary. Common sense should suffice, but pedantry is always a pitfall. As it now stands, MOSNUM is fine with the choice of units being discussed on the article talk page, and increasing the complexity of rules might simply give more leeway for Wikilawyering.

I should not have been casting aspersions, but I must emphasise that this issue has attracted heaps of bad faith from other editors in the past.

I think we need to stand back and see that we're arguing about angels on pinheads. If we are in danger of getting stuck in an infinite loop arguing whether an article on a railway is "engineering-related" then we could just invoke WP:IAR and refuse to be drawn into a straitjacket. That this is an "article about an engineering project" is something that has been controversial to only one editor; I'll assume good faith and believe that he genuinely doesn't think it's an engineering-related article. At this stage I'd invoke the guidance on consensus that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity". Passy2 is welcome to offer his interpretation of MOSNUM as it relates to this article, but he should also recognise when he is going against an emerging consensus.

I would also support what the others above have been saying about sources: in the case of engineering projects, there are indeed primary sources in real life (unlike e.g. for mountains) because these things are designed using certain specific units of measure. It makes sense to use these same units as primary in the article, which is what the MOSNUM rule means. There is no danger of source-shopping (which is the reason why source-based units are not allowed) because the true primary sources (the design reports and documents) will use one system consistently. You shouldn't be able to find a separate set of engineering documents for HS2 that gave rolling stock weights in long tons and hundredweights, or car lengths in feet, or indeed track lengths in miles and chains, because those aren't the units used in real life. This is not an "excuse" for anything; it's a perfectly rational argument. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

First, let's consider some points. Is the article about an "engineering-related" thing? Yes. So is the article on the atomic bomb. But, Wikipedia is not an engineering encyclopedia, it's an encyclopedia for the masses. Still, we're at a splitting point, as it's an article that is UK engineering related, but where, if we stuck with MOSNUM we'd be mixing units of measurement depending on what era is in the section. That would bring confusion to the article. I'd remind editors of the caveat in the UK engineering entry in WP:MOSNUM, *where appropriate* and remember that mixing notational systems within the article can only generate confusion. That invokes WP:IAR by default.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I don't think the MOSNUM rule would require mixing different conventions; there's a general rule that a given article should stick to the specific style which is most appropriate for it. In the case of modern engineering and construction this would generally be the metric system. It makes sense for an encyclopedia to be true to life and not anachronistic, so it should try to reflect the conventions used in real life (by which I mean something like "original units", not "source-based units"). So it would make sense to say, by contrast, "Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth at X stadia (Y kilometres)" because that is faithful to the time-period under consideration. The rule itself isn't so difficult, but some editors have lawyered the issue to argue that it doesn't apply here. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I object to the sham conclusion above. The question was not what units other editors would prefer (if it was, I would have said metric myself), the question was which units MOSNUM prefers. The answer to that question hinges on whether this is purely an engineering related article, or, as I believe, it is an article with a much wider scope. Passy2 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Passy2. I urge you strongly to be very confident about evidence supporting your position before accusing five (or more?) editors of deception. Throughout the discussion, I see no serious comment on the personal unit preferences of editors, as you suggest. Further, throughout the discussion, you have misframed the question that was of importance. The question was not whether this article is a pure engineering article; it was whether this article is an engineering-related article.

You requested initially a third opinion. When this third opinion was given, you dismissed it. The discussion was progressed to a request for comment. Outside editors weighed in on the discussion and all editors except you were in agreement on the reasonable interpretation of the style guidelines. Towards the conclusion of the discussion, there was an explicit request for further comment from you. Now, almost two weeks after this request, you appear again and call the request for comment a sham.

I am extremely cautious before questioning the good faith of an editor, however, I feel myself drawn to suspicions raised earlier by the editor Archon 88. You have dismissed all of the editors you have encountered in this discussion and you have dismissed all of the discussion offered by fair Wikipedia procedures thus far. Not only this, but you accuse others of deception. At this point, I offer the tentative suggestion that Wikipedia may not be for you. Perhaps Conservapedia would be more to your liking.

ZICO (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

User:ZICO, you are misrepresenting me, I have not accused five, or more, editors of deception. Please retract that accusation, or show the appropriate quotes that directly support it.

What I am doing is accusing just you, of giving a sham conclusion to the above discussion. The question was about whether the article should use metric as being engineering-related in terms of MOSNUM. Six editors contributed:

• mattbuck assumed the units would be imperial but gave the opinion that he would be happy for the units used in the references to be used - he didn't say which references - I could supply some references giving metric, some giving imperial. He didn't comment on whether he thought the article should be classed as engineering-related in terms of MOSNUM.
• Sceptre said he personally prefers metric for reasons of accuracy - perhaps not realising that imperial has just as much capacity for accuracy as imperial. He didn't comment on whether he thought the article should be classed as engineering-related in terms of MOSNUM.
• Archon, besides various insinuations and thinly veiled insults about wikilawering (whilst wikilawering), pointed out to mattbuck that MOSNUM doesn't allow for source-based units; the order of units is supposed to be determined by the article type. Yet he agreed with Sceptre that, from personal preference and for accuracy reasons, that metric should be used. He twisted the meaning of my case that this is not an engineering-related article in terms of MOSNUM as to imply I thought that this article is not about an engineering project - a different thing entirely. Although he never actually states it, I assume he thinks the article should be classed as engineering-related in terms of MOSNUM.
• Wzrd1 believes it is an article about an "engineering-related" thing - which is very different to ann engineering-related article.
• ZICO, you waffled on about other topics, but didn't address the point of this discussion.
• I (Passy2) expressed the belief that this is not an engineering-related article in terms of MOSNUM. MOSNUM uses the term "related", as in US-related, etcetera, to mean "mainly about", not just covers some aspect of that related subject in one or two paragraphs.

So I hope that explains why I believe your conclusion was not a true reflection of how the outcome of the the discussion related to the original question. We still need to get to the bottom of what MOSNUM means by an engineering-related article, and whether we believe that this is one, (as opposed to being just an article about an engineering-related subject. Passy2 (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is supposed to be closed, so I don't know why Passy2 insists on fanning the flames. He was given ample chance to make his case, which proved unpersuasive. It is clear that he will not be satisfied with any conclusion other than his own.

• "I could supply some references giving metric, some giving imperial." This, as I tried to explain, is irrelevant. Some publications have house style rules that require the use of one system of units (e.g. metric for the Guardian and imperial for the Telegraph), hence source-shopping is always possible. For engineering projects, however, the stalemate can neatly be broken by considering which system of units was used in the design of the engineering project, and using it consistently. This is not "wikilawyering" and it makes sense.

• "Wzrd1 believes it is an article about an "engineering-related" thing - which is very different to ann [sic] engineering-related article." If this is not wikilawyering, nothing is. It's so absurdly pedantic that I can't begin to imagine what it's supposed to mean.

• "perhaps not realising that imperial has just as much capacity for accuracy as imperial [sic, I assume Passy2 means "metric"]" This is also irrelevant. I assume that what Sceptre meant was that the use of metric-first is more accurate because it reflects current engineering practice in the UK, not because he/she believes that a number in metres is intrinsically more precise than a number in feet. If you're going to accuse other editors of misrepresenting you, please don't return the favour by misrepresenting them.

• "ZICO, you waffled on about other topics, but didn't address the point of this discussion." Please try to remain civil and assume good faith. A discussion on Wikipedia is an exchange of views between editors with equal status; it is not directed by any one editor, so if ZICO addressed the topic in a way you disapproved of, that does not mean that his contributions are invalid. Given that ZICO did explicitly give his view of what MOSNUM means, I don't understand how you can justify such a blunt dismissal.

• "MOSNUM uses the term "related", as in US-related, etcetera, to mean "mainly about"" This is an interpretation, not a fact. You have also misrepresented MOSNUM by claiming that it requires the units in a UK article to be "generally imperial[-first]" (if you actually read MOSNUM, you'll see that this style is recommended for US articles only).

• "besides various insinuations and thinly veiled insults" I understand that this wasn't constructive on my part, but as I said, such things have happened before. When you say irrelevant things like "imperial has just as much capacity for accuracy as [metric]" you sound like someone from the BWMA, and it does not help your case.

• "Although he never actually states it, I assume he thinks the article should be classed as engineering-related in terms of MOSNUM." I think it should be obvious from my other posts here that I do believe this, yes.

In summary, Passy2 is prolonging this discussion artificially, long after it has run its course. I stopped editing the article and waited for other editors to weigh in, and eventually the discussion was closed and the metric-first style was adopted. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A misleading summary, based on a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of views presented. I don't recognise my own words in the context in which User:Archon 2488 has cleverly, but dishonestly, placed them.

For instance he presents my "I could supply some references giving metric, some giving imperial." as if I was offering it as a solution, when what I was actually doing was showing that mattbuck's suggestion of choosing units per sources was NOT a viable solution. He attacks me, characterising my concern that an article including content about an engineering-related thing is very different to an engineering-related article as "wikilawering" and "absurdly pedantic". Think of some of the other place that MOSNUM uses a similar construct to dictate units to use: "Science-related", "non-science US-related", "computer-related", they don't mean articles, like this one, with just a paragraph or two about the related topic. And I note that Sceptre has already confirmed below that your interpretation of their comments was wrong, and my statement was correct - so very relevant, and not "irrelevant" as you tried to suggest based on your incorrect assumption. And what is "BWMA", and how do factual statements which show faulty logic "not help your [my] case"? It is now even clearer that this discussion should not yet be closed. I think we need to get advice from the MOSNUM authors on it. Passy2 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment: First off, not all Wikipedia editors are guys. :) Secondly, this is coming from a purely mathematical background: for reasons of precision/trying to prevent rounding errors, it is preferable to not convert units just to reconvert them. If the original spec was in terms of miles and feet, I'd argue for them. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to be inclusive, but I wasn't very consistent in using gendered pronouns in a gender-balanced way. I'm supportive of gender-neutral pronouns in principle, but I'm not quite at the stage where I use them fluently in text. I'm generally supportive of using units that make sense in context (such as using the original unit system to describe an engineering project) but perhaps MOSNUM is somewhat too strict to allow this. In principle we could always invoke IAR but certain editors will lawyer these issues relentlessly, inventing pedantic and unnatural distinctions to justify their points. Archon 2488 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Sceptre, thanks for confirming what I said. This reinforces my point that the discussion was erroneously closed by User:ZICO, based as it was on incorrect interpretations of the views presented. Passy2 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• "I don't recognise my own words" — I used quotations. Repeatedly calling everyone who disagrees with you "dishonest" is no way to conduct a discussion, sorry.

Selectively cut and placed into a different context, as again here, is dishonest, whether you agree with my points or not. Passy2 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• "as if I was offering it as a solution" — I never said that a mixture of metric and imperial sources would be a solution to anything; quite the opposite. Please read more carefully. I grow very tired of repeating myself.

You criticised it from me as if I had offered it as a solution. You need to read what I write more carefully, and not prejudge it. Passy2 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• "He attacks me" — I did no such thing. I explained why what you said was incorrect. You repeatedly invoked a distinction which nobody else seemed to find meaningful, and patronised or dismissed editors who didn't accept it.

You attacked my attempt to explain the distinction as "wikilawering" and "absurdly pedantic". Passy2 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• "what is "BWMA"" — it's an advocacy group for imperial units. When you say things like "imperial has just as much capacity for accuracy as [metric]" you are presenting a justification for the imperial system as such, which is not relevant to the discussion here. The subject of the discussion, which you have constantly obscured and tried to move onto other ground, is whether the engineers use metric or imperial units. If you want to reassure people that imperial is just as good as metric, then that's your POV, but it's not an argument that belongs on this page.

A contributor brought up accuracy as a reason for using metric, I merely pointed out that imperial is no less metric, to counter that reason. I, as a (fully metric) UK engineer myself, have never questioned what units UK engineers use, all I'm questioning is that this article falls under the MOSNUM group "UK engineering-related". If it does we use km as primary, if it doesn't we use miles. You keep trying to broaden that, and to discredit my position by suggesting I am trying to suggest something more. Don't try and smear me as some kind of anti-metric nutter, just address the single point of this discussion, please. Passy2 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• "factual statements which show faulty logic" — Your statement was factual, and it did indeed show faulty logic, because it was completely irrelevant. Giving the length of track to an accuracy of one inch would be more accurate than giving it to an accuracy of one kilometre, but inches would be a ridiculous choice of unit. Sceptre said that "If the original spec was in terms of miles and feet, I'd argue for them" meaning that she understands the MOSNUM rule: the original specification should generally determine the main units. This isn't hard to understand. She did not say anything to suggest that she believed imperial units were more or less intrinsically accurate than metric ones (I assume this is what you meant by "imperial has just as much capacity for accuracy as [metric]", which was your original reply to her). This is another editor whose views you have tried to misrepresent. Archon 2488 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a "UK engineering related" article, or not. This is all we need to answer, after that MOSNUM is very clear. Don't try to obfuscate that for your own ends. We know you have done nothing much on Wikipedia recently than gone around metrifying articles, are you a member of UKMA (an advocacy group for metric units)? And as for the views of the other contributor, they clarified their own views on that point, and they matched my interpretation better than yours. Passy2 (talk) 07:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't break up other editors' posts: it reduces legibility.

• "A contributor brought up accuracy as a reason for using metric" — the question was whether "accuracy" in this context means "true to real life" or "accurate" in the measurement sense. You seemed to think she meant the latter, whereas I assumed the former. She confirmed that the former was indeed what she meant by saying "If the original spec was in terms of miles and feet, I'd argue for them.", which is a simple restatement of MOSNUM, and implies that she understands and accepts that what MOSNUM says about UK engineering applies to this article. This is all that ZICO and I have been arguing for. Your origninal misunderstanding was fair enough, because the word "accuracy" is ambiguous, but you have since insisted that she agrees with you, without presenting any real justification.

• "Is this a "UK engineering related" article, or not .... [d]on't try to obfuscate that for your own ends." — for someone who likes to play the victim you're very good at throwing around personal insults yourself... this entire paragraph is an entirely unwarranted and nasty-minded attack on my character. I have not "tried to obfuscate" it, and neither has ZICO. We both presented our opinion that the answer to this question is yes. If you don't like that answer, fair enough, but you don't get to accuse us of obfuscation and dishonesty (or "waffling", as you charmingly described ZICO's comments).

• "We know you have done nothing much on Wikipedia recently than gone around metrifying articles" — I'm sorry, I can't let that level of hypocrisy go by without comment. Many articles need to be reformatted to use better unit presentation, and there is nothing wrong with that. For example, articles about France that give distances in miles (only!!) are obviously unacceptable and ridiculous. Articles about science need to use the metric system consistently, for obvious reasons. Equally, I change punctuation, spelling and grammar mistakes where I find them. This is an important part of maintaining the encyclopedia: it's boring and unsexy work, but it needs to be done. I genuinely had to fight off the urge to say this, because it does cross the line into "personal", but we're long past that point: you have done absolutely nothing on Wikipedia at all except "imperialise" a few articles and follow me around engaging in increasingly silly and pedantic arguments, trying to discredit me and ridiculing or misrepresenting other editors who have been sympathetic to my position.

• "Don't try and smear me as some kind of anti-metric nutter" — it's honestly not clear to me why it's of such importance to you that the MOSNUM rule isn't applied to this article. Having rules is largely pointless if we then invent a whole plethora of increasingly-pedantic exceptions to get out of them. Honestly, I wish MOSNUM would just say, as a broad general rule with room for commonsense exceptions, "use the metric system" and we could avoid this silly nonsense. Although even as it is (badly) worded, there is a general presumption in favour of the metric system, wherever there is not a specific reason not to prefer it. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at MOSNUM to attempt to get the definitive answer to this. Passy2 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi again Passy2. I am here to offer further waffles for your immediate dismissal. In all modern justice systems, there is some variant of the confrontation clause. A reasonable instance of this is the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Broadly speaking, it is an expression of the right of those who are accused to face the witnesses against them. I mention this because you seem to be either unfamiliar with the concept or giving it insufficient emphasis in your consideration of others.

Your latest comments are like statements issued by the Ministry of Truth. You accuse me of deception and then call on me to apologise to you when I urge you to provide evidence.

A conclusion reached in requests for comment is a collaborative effort. You should review my comment that concludes the request for comment and see that I refer to opinions raised by outside editors. I had proposed the conclusion of the discussion some time ago and this was exactly what I did, having given you a reasonable time of about two weeks to respond. You accuse the conclusion of being a sham, something deceptive, and offer no qualification of why you feel this is so.

At this point, you have requested a third opinion (which was given and then dismissed by you), you have received a collaborative request for comment (which was concluded and then dismissed by you) and we have even indulged your further comment, long after the request for comment has concluded, in spite of your unqualified accusations and insults. You now progress to the talk page of the manual of style.

I do not suggest that you cannot engage in any of these activities in isolation, but I do wonder if you are actually capable of analysing accurately or otherwise considering any opinions that are not supportive of your own. You have had your original request of a third opinion; you have had your request for comment and you have had a response to your further derisory comments and you have dismissed everything. Whose opinion would you actually accept?

I think that your repeatedly misframing arguments were addressed in the appropriate forum (the request for comment) and I think that your misrepresentations and misunderstandings have been addressed well by Archon 2488 in this zombie thread. Life is short and I prefer to spend it with constructive people. You do not appear to be one of these people.

Given your perceptions of conspiracies of deception against you, do bear in mind that Conservapedia offers an alternative to Wikipedia, specialised to individuals that tend to perceive certain biases against them.

ZICO (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that this decision is quite clearcut:

• The article is on high-speed rail in the UK, and therefore it is engineering related.
• It is therefore covered by MOSNUM's rules for engineering related UK articles.

End of story, as far as I can see. Michael Glass (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how or where WP:METRIC gives a free pass to flip all units to metric. What's sure is that the article started life in imperial, so WP:RETAIN applies. This is the true end of story. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 10:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Have I missed something? WP:RETAIN is about retaining the existing varieties of English, not units of measure. When it comes to measurement, MOSNUM says "In UK engineering-related articles... generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn-up in, whether metric or imperial. Provide conversions where appropriate." The thing to determine is what system of units that High Speed 2 was drawn-up in, and stick to that. Michael Glass (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius; I am astounded by your edits just made[5]. Could you share further with us your thinking and confidence behind the edit performed. —Sladen (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe the relevant provision of WP:METRIC is:

• "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."

The consensus to insert that change was reached at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 142#Imperial measurements in a long and painful discussion, which I don't think anyone really wants to re-open.

"The system of units that the topic was drawn-up in" was better expressed in the discussion as "the units used by the engineers", the purpose being to allow imperial units for historical projects (such as the Clifton Suspension Bridge designed by Brunel and opened in 1864) while prescribing metric units for post-metrication projects such as railways designed in metric units.

WP:RETAIN applies to varieties of English, possibly extended to date format, and does not apply to units of measurement. If there were any implied extension to units of measurement, it was superseded by the consensus reflected in the current version of WP:METRIC, reached after a very long and painful discussion. The change in documented consensus was clearly intended to apply to civil engineering projects such as railways.

It was also a consensus compromise that the units would apply to the whole article, based on the topic of the article, though some participants would have preferred to base the unit on the immediate context within the article. The general rule of not changing from one style to another applies only to optional usage where the MoS permits more than one style. This is not the case here, since this is clearly a UK engineering-related topic. --Boson (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also very surprised to see these latest edits. It would appear that Ohconfucius has deliberately edited this article against an explicit consensus that has formed on this talk page over the past month or so. Passy2 is free to say that he rejects our discussion as a sham because it didn't endorse his POV, but at least he did not have the gall to ignore the discussion and change the page back, with only a vague reference to a page about regional varieties of English as a justification. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite the protestations of Michael Glass, Boson has acknowledged that there is consensus in MOS:NUM discussions that WP:RETAIN can and does apply more generally than just codes of English spelling. WP:RETAIN is the basic default, and only WP:TIES trumps it. It is a long-standing measure put in to ensure stability of articles and to avoid arbitrary changing from one to another, and just the sort of imposition of "local consensus" to override the guideline as we seem to be seeing here.

Indeed, we have spent weeks if not months arguing over the matter, and it was agreed that we should use a mix of units as a reflection of its use "on the ground". Brits in the UK (and I'm not one of them, in case someone among you will try and pin the "little Englander" label on me) are stuck to Imperial for most measures – measures that I am accustomed to as metric and would happily accept as such. ;-) It's a far cry from forcing a change to every single measure into metric like was in this article. Accuracy of conversion has been noted as one of the concerns above. This is no joke since 39 of the 54 units were sourced in imperial and "|disp=fliped" into metric.

Yes, I did click on the links for citations in the article, and it would appear that the DOT document cited uses units of measure much in same "mixed" way as the rest of Britain: that is, distances are stated in miles, yet the length of the train is said to be "400 metres". I don't see how it was necessarily "drawn up in metric". Source-based approach gives a chimera, but this was uniformly metric. Thus I feel that the article was not formatting in line with consensus, and I suspect that my bold edit here to break the consistently metric stranglehold against the some of the assembled has ruffled some feathers.

Anyway, thanks for giving me the opportunity to state my case without turning up the temperature. Now that I've said my peace, I'll let you get on and do what you will. I won't be tugging any more. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

(To answer the specific query of "400 metres": European TSI; 2002/735/EC 4.1.3. Maximum train length (BP11) "The maximum length of the trains thus formed shall not exceed 400 m. A tolerance of 1 % is permissible in order to improve aerodynamic penetration of the front and rear of the train."[6] —Sladen (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC))

• Thanks. It wasn't actually a specific query, but a contrasting observation that the distances cited in the DoT document are in all in miles (with conversions) but the length of the train was "400 metres" (i.e. there is mixed usage of metric and imperial in project documents) much like actually used in the UK. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I am wary of describing as "bold" actions which wilfully ignore the expressed opinions of many other people: that's quite the euphemism. There are very good reasons to use the metric system (which has, lest it be forgotten, been the main system of units in use by British scientists and engineers for decades) in this case, and these reasons cannot be dismissed by appeal to what is effectively a toss of a coin — namely, whether the very first version of the article happened to use imperial or metric units. That's not a rational way to address this question, and if we followed that logic we'd be stuck with a crazy hodge-podge of articles randomly using metric or imperial according to the individual preferences of whichever editor submitted the original version of the article. As unsatisfactory as it is, WP:METRIC is trying to establish a sort of consistent standard to be used across the encyclopedia, which such a dogmatic application of WP:RETAIN would make impossible. I have previously been told that having different styles stitched together is appropriate for a ransom note rather than an encyclopedia — this argument surely must apply to what has been suggested here.

> WP:RETAIN can and does apply more generally than just codes of English spelling

If it applies to units, that should be stated explicitly on the page. I am yet to be persuaded that the idiosyncracies of the editor who created the page are worthy of "RETAINing". Now, looking at this it would seem that 1) a style that is adopted for an article should be used consistently in the article (no contest); and 2) the original date (by extension, arguably, units) format should be kept unless there is consensus to the contrary or strong national ties. So I see no warrant for your dismissal of the discussion that took place here, even granting that the rules about retaining the original format are applicable.

More specifically in this case, the reason for preferring metric is that that is very much the direction in which British rail is moving (ERTMS) and new rail projects are generally all-metric from day one. This is a fact about Britain, not a conspiracy by the UKMA or Wikipedia editors who prefer the metric system. The older convention of miles/chains etc. is, in effect, deprecated and being actively phased out, so it's far from clear that it should be imposed on an article about a subject to which the old convention was never, and never will be, applied. To do that is to divorce Wikipedia from the real world for no good reason. You might well argue that Wikipedia should not be too far ahead of the metrication of British transport, and I don't disagree, but nor should it be behind. To argue for a position other than this, it seems to me, is nothing more than a POV push. Subjective reasons for using imperial like "it sounds more like the units that British people use in conversation" are not relevant. As soon as the argument leaves the territory of what units are actually used in the real world, it enters the domain of what certain groups of editors would want to see. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just wanted to mention that I am not opposed to using metric. Or Imperial. If you look into the WT:MOSNUM archives, you will see that in the last such discussion on units, there was very heated discussion from both "Imperialists" and "Metricationists". I was the only one being indifferent to either metric or imperial system so long as it was being used consistently throughout. Suffice it to say I was outvoted and so I shut up. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 17:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can respect that, but I'd be very cautious about entering a discussion that is already well-underway and trying to impose order on it — angels fearing to tread and all that. To do so risks fanning the flames of what is already struggling to remain a civil exchange of views. Saying that you're personally indifferent is irrelevant in the same way that saying you personally prefer the metric or imperial system is irrelevant: the relevant question is, what is the real-life practice? As I see it, as soon as Wikipedia practice starts to stray from the course of metrication in the UK, people will inevitably get frustrated. When we're in a situation where a good two generations of British scientists and engineers have not even been trained to work in the old imperial standards (that's how deprecated they actually are) it's hard to justify having an article about a new project using the old units. If you insist on WP:RETAIN then you could never change this, no matter how good the reasons, which is why I don't buy it. Remember above all that editorial guidance like WP:RETAIN is just guidance: it's not sacred scritpure. If you think it's a relevant point then argue your case, but don't edit the article without consensus: that is obviously against the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a Russian doll of rules within rules that dictate what editors are allowed to decide on. I think that such "boldness" is actually going against the spirit of the fifth pillar here. Archon 2488 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius, would you be will to revert/self-revert today's changes yourself? I'm hoping this possibility might allow some closure in a more comfortable fashion. —Sladen (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your self-restraint, and for patiently and civilly explaining. Who am I to argue with angels. ;-) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that my revert is made in the spirit of goodwill and coooperation. I am happy to await the outcome of the ongoing discussion. Whilst I'm happy that the article seems at least to be "Consistent" in using metric units of measurement, I still do not believe that the arguments applied to force this into the "engineering article" category strictly apply, much as the proponents would love it. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Cross-posting from MOSNUM:

I cannot believe that another hang-up has resulted here. It is quite clear that the High Speed 2 article is an "engineering-related article". It is exactly the type of article the exception was designed to serve. There is no doubt that the railway has been designed in metric, therefore, measurements pertaining to the railway should be in metric. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

<Response to RG cross-posted from MOSNUM>This is not "Engineering" within the meaning of the wording. By merely asserting that HS2 is Engineering, like shouting loudly over the rooftops, doesn't make it so. The project is too macroscopic for it to be usurped as "Engineering" for MOSNUM purposes, to be used as part of of the Wikipedian "Metric vs Imperial" battleground. It's fundamentally an Economics article, based on the perceived need to build high speed links to the extreme parts of the UK. It's served by major investment in a transportation project; I'd argue that the primary drivers are geographical and political factors. Transport is a major component, of which Engineering is only the enabler in this. This is no synchronous motor or cellular network – I see no scientific equations, workings or hypotheses. There are only about 60 "measurements" in the entire article. So it's probably about as Geography-related as Engineering-related. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, but depending on how you look at it, the HS2 article is only the pawn or Trojan Horse in this game being played out. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Responded at MOSNUM. RGloucester — ☎ 03:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

NB Passy2 has been indefinitely banned as a suspected sockpuppet of the banned user, DeFacto See [7] Michael Glass (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I had raised my suspicions about this in the past (even in this thread), but I allowed my concerns to be dismissed. I'll be more vigilant in future. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear lord, is it really him causing trouble again? I should've suspected that no one would've started this nonsense other than him. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing you people don't have jobs (or family) MarkTB (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Link Camden

http://www.camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/environment/planning-and-built-environment/two/major-developments/high-speed-two.en;jsessionid=C011DB9228D40511D6F82D419A6DE02A.

I don't know to what this link is referring but the page does not exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iesvoagel (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced it with this [8]. Biscuittin (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Crewe Hub

The head of HS2 Ltd has proposed a hub at Crewe for phase 1 of HS2. High-speed track to enter Crewe from the south and all the classic compatible tracks can have HS2 train run on them. This makes sense. Why no mention? 188.220.97.106 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added it to the "Crewe" section. Please feel free to add more information if you have it. Biscuittin (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)