Talk:Lydd/Archive 1

Archive 1

Schumacher road traffic incident

The information has been deemed notable for this article on the Schumacher page but not for the Schumacher page please discuss if you disagree with this.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely non-encyclopedic trivia. It should be axed. This isn't the Sun or the Daily Star. It's an encyclopedia. If you looked up Lydd in the Encyclopedia Britannica, would you expect to read about an minor RTA? No. So it doesn't belong here. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And where was the agreement? All I see is a bunch of people saying its trivia and doesn't deserve a mention on the Schumacher page. No-one here agreed to include the trivia on this page, did they? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was on the Michael Schumachr talk page it was deemed that the information should not be included in the Schumacher talk page but should instead be on the Lydd page and the other information should go back to the other articles. Please can you give more constuctive policy based reasoning to your POV. At the moment you are making a comparison with Britannica which cannot be made as one is paper and this is only online, please see WP:Not#Paper. Also the incident is not as minor as you are making out as it was covered nationally on the BBC and Channel 4 weekend news broadcasts when it happened, due the person involved--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where was the "consensus" to add it to Lydd? The incident is wholly trivial. Nothing happened. It was covered as a "And finally..." report which was for titillation and carries no encyclopedic weight whatsoever. If this incident is one of the most notable things about Lydd, I feel very sorry the place and the residents. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If you believe strongly there is consensus against adding it here lets leave this discussion here and wait to see who else says anything if at all with regards to the information. The information probably is a significant event in Lydd as most small towns and villages in England have little happening in them, just a cursory watch of local news in England spells that out.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Cursory glances at local news does not equal material for encyclopedias. Come on, that's obvious. This isn't a relative thing, it's absolute. And this event is entirely unnotable. So the material should be removed. I'm still waiting for the evidence of consensus for its inclusion in this article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The local news bit was to give an example of just how little happens in these places, there is nobody except you arguing against it and it is the only thing referenced in the whole article. I have also said lets wait and see if anybody else says anything against this information. Do you agree with waiting and seeing?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to see the consensus you claimed for inclusion in this article. If there isn't one then I'll remove the trivia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to wait and see if there is opposition and I would also like to ask what make you have the final say over what is and Isn't notable in this article or any article. I say we wait and see over its inclusion as at the moment this is the most reliable thing in the article as it is the only thing with a reference of any kind.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you said its inclusion was deemed notable and there was consensus for its inclusion here. Where is this consensus? This kind of trivia gives Wikipedia a bad name. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I said it was deemed notable for this article in a compromise which was laid out by one of the editors on the Michael Schumacher page I agreed and the compromise has been implemented. Now all I say is lets both leave this article alone with the information included and see what other people think of its inclusion. Can you agree to that?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that I want to see a consensus for inclusion, not exclusion. It's pure trivia. If I don't see a consensus for its inclusion (as you alluded it already existed) then I'll remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I say just let it go and who made you the person who had final say over what can and cannot be considered trivial or not. I have said lets wait and see if anybody else says anything at all. Can you agree to waiting and seeing?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you know that given the "traffic" on this talk page your trivia will remain because it's just you and me here. It's nonsense. I'll remove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask why you are so adamant on removing this from this from the page. It is the only thing sourced in the whole article and is notable because as you said the traffic is so low indicating nothing happens in these villages. Its only nonsence accroding to you Channel 4 and the BBC didn't consider it nonsense and nor do I. Please stop trying to own the the content of this article..--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I never mentioned it being nonsense. Its inclusion has no consensus and its pure trivia. In the entire history of Lydd, do you expect this minor incident (where no-one got hurt, nothing actually happened!!!) to be a major milestone? No. So the trivia goes. It's not encyclopedic. I'll ask for the last time, would you expect to pick up an encyclopedia and read this kind of trivia? Nope. It's outa here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to quote you here "It's nonsense. I'll remove it." is exactly what you said. In Britain I would expect to find any kind of trivia regarding anything in the uk. An example is one news broadcast they said that a man killed had posted internet adverts for people to watch football matches abroad. They will report and include everything in the UK.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its inclusion is nonsense. It's going now. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you feel a whole lot better now knowing that you have done that.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I sure do. Next, the world. If I were you, I'd focus on improving the Wikipedia rather than "boldly moving pages where no woman has moved them before" and inserting irrelevant trivia. Find some references, for example. It's quite simple. And it really helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rambling Man - your deply unpleasant tone and treatment of Lucy-marie is a poor moment for Wikipedia. 194.75.236.71 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lucy-marie account was eventually blocked as a sock-account belonging to a disruptive user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

PLUTO

The fuel was pumped through steel pipes made by Stewarts and Lloyds at their (then) recently completed, integrated Iron & Steel tube-making plant at Corby, Northamptonshire. Sections of straight steel tube were welded together before being wound like a thread onto a huge drum - called HMS Conundrum, which was towed across the Channel several times to lay the network of pipes required. The company made a film about the project just after the war, which can be viewed at a heritage centre near Corby.

Though of course the welding was done by AI Welders of Inverness. --jmb (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)