Talk:High Speed 2

Updating of compensation section

I have recently added relevant content to the Compensation section, including the addition (sub-)sub-categories. I was looking for authority to remove the Update template banner within the section. However, if it's deemed necessary to add improvements I'm more than happy to listen to everyones opinion. Døddmeïßter47™ (talk) 12:58, January 2013 (UTC)

"Omission of Liverpool and Merseyside"

I have reverted an edit by an IP which added the phrase "omitting Liverpool and Merseyside" here as it amounts to a non neutral pharse. To avoid an edit war have suggested in the edit summary a discussion here. While it is correct that the proposed route of Phase II does not extend to Liverpool or Merseyside by adding the term 'omitting' infers that the decision on the proposed route was either an oversight or involved some bias. The route does not pass through or end at many places of which Liverpolis just one. I am not ruling out making reference elsewhere in the article to options for the route and destination might be the correct place to make reference to regions or cities which had been earmarked as possible locations if this can be cited. Tmol42 (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. HS2 "omits" hundreds of towns in England and all of Wales, but there is no justification for mentioning this unless there has been some notable media coverage of "what might have been". We could end up with a very long list of "what about poor Liverpool/Warwick/Oxford/Chipping Sodbury". Simpler to stick to what is planned rather than what is not planned. The reader can infer what they like, but it's not Wikipedia's job to imply anything. Cnbrb (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage? Are you right? The two of you are prattling nonsense. The article states " At present there are no plans for a link to Heathrow". It appears Heathrow airport, to the writers of this article is more important than a major metropolitan area. The Liverpool City Region is a major metropolitan area of 1.6 m people and has been left off. LIVERPOOL is NOT a small town. The original concept had Liverpool with HSR and a HSR rail line from Liverpool-Mcr-Leeds. Where are you two from? I am putting the Liverpool piece back in.78.105.235.103 (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's no need to get defensive, it's not about being anti-Liverpool or a personal insult. You can of course mention that Liverpool got left off, but there's a particular way of doing it on Wikipedia. You need to include a reference to a reliable source like a newspaper or a government document or website (Liverpool Echo? Department of Transport website?). That way, it shows that the statement is not just your opinion but has actual significance in the public discussion of the project - check out WP:Sources to get an idea of what's needed. At the moment, the statement has no reference. You say that the original concept did include Liverpool, so why not research the original document and make reference to it in this article? Then it would make perfect sense to include it. Secondly, be careful about words like "controversially" - it may be controversial to you but it strays away from an impartial tone - see WP:WORDS for an explanation of why this is can be a problem. I'll leave it to you to come up with another way of phrasing it. I suggest including the Liverpool information somewhere in the History section. The problem arises, though, when all the "what about us?" stories from all over the UK all get included in the article, but let's just see how it goes. Cnbrb (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Over time, there has been discussion of whether to route a proposed-HS2 line via Heathrow. AFAICT, this has not been the case for Liverpool. —Sladen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

That is totally and utterly incorrect. All documents up until 2009 had Liverpool with a dedicated HS2 service. One proposal one line snaking up from Brum to Liverpool to Mcr-Leeds-Newcastle and up to Scotland. If you were following HS2 you would know this. 78.105.233.20 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Extra details, plans, maps etc from Environmental Statement

The 50,000 pages of Environmental Statement include effectively every construction detail of Phase 1, including plans, sketches and renders of the stations and some other structures. These would be very useful to replace the low-detail maps but the document is covered by Crown Copyright so it's not possible to simply copy over anything. What would be the best way of adding these resources to the various pages about HS2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkProvanP (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Units

At 02:25, 1 January 2014 Archon 2488 decided, without discussion, to flip the units in this article to be metric-first - contrary to UK practice and convention as described in MOSNUM. My attempts to revert to the original unit presentation have been continually reverted without discussion first. Please discuss now, and do not try to force your personal opinion of what the units should be. Passy2 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing the format of an article to be more MOSNUM-compliant does not require prior discussion. Once a MOSNUM rule has been established it can be invoked readily, by anyone, at any time, to change the formatting of an article. In this regard it is no different from correcting spelling, which also does not require prior discussion or authorisation. I had pointed Passy to the relevant part of MOSNUM, then I gave a more detailed explanation on his talk page, but he still does not agree with me.

In this case, there was an extensive discussion some time ago at the MOSNUM page relating to the primary units to be used in British civil engineering projects, revolving primarily around the Edinburgh_Trams article. To summarise the discussion: we agreed that, if an engineering project uses metric units in the real world (and pretty much any modern British engineering does), it should be described primarily in terms of those units, as to refuse to do so would be anachronistic and potentially silly. In particular, nominal and defined values should always be given in the original units first, regardless of other considerations. This is a strong general MOSNUM rule. Thus a 10 km race is never to be referred to as a "6.2 mile race", and a 300 km/h speed limit is not a "186 mph" speed limit. Once again, these are commonsense provisions that should be uncontroversial.

The simple criterion here is "if it's an article about an engineering project, use the units that were used to design it as the primary units". This is quite a commonsense rule, even if it can tend to produce inconsistencies, but from discussion on Passy's talk page, he seems to be trying to lawyer the subject by arguing that the HS2 article is not "really" about a civil engineering project. I don't understand his argument; it sounds a bit too "no true Scotsman" to my ears, so perhaps he could make it more explicitly here. Archon 2488 (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

RfC on Units

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)