Talk:Totley Tunnel

TWP banner and importance ratings

I'm not entirely sure what your getting at here. If you take an article such as Tramlink, its talk page has, naturally, the local wikiproject (WP:London), and the trains wikiproject (TWP). Within TWP there are various subprojects such as UK railways, UK trams, London transport, and rapid transport. Each of these subprojects has its own assessment departments (in addition to the general TWP assessment) and thus get to rate the articles importance within their own project - these ratings can be different. As to the broader picture of weather each project banner should have its own importance rating, this is not the place to discuss about it. The importance ratings are not a Wikipedia wide rating only that of its project. I'm sure there is some page somewhere in Wikipedia where this was approved. If the "UK-importance=low" is not put in, it adds to the Category:Unassessed UK Railways articles, which is something that is slowly being worked through. Pickle 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Choose which project has the importance rating and remove the others. There is no need for duplication of importance ratings, Sambo is working on the banner and making fields non-mandatory, you should not have implemented this mess of an importance rating duplicate-fest before he had finished his work. On Wikipedia no article is more important than any other and rating an article important or not for one group of contributors is hypocrite and misguided. This article has one impotance rating and one alone. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ;

a) this is a banner on the talk page for the use of the editors involved. thus it doesn't bother joe public that an article is in the "scope" of numerous wikiprojects. there is the recent (6 months?) "nested" feature to save more space.

b) the issue of how to represent numerous subprojects of one wikiproject is a valid one, and good luck to slambo investigating that one - the coding is beyond me

c) however having separate "importance" ratings for different wikiprojects and their subprojects has been about for years, and i really don't think now is the time, or here is the place for you to suddenly develop an issue with such a longstanding, common item of Wikipedia (not that i know where you should file your objections)

d) yes every page is of equal "importance" to Wikipedia, but its equally valid to have importance within wikiproject. an abstract ish example might be say WP:Sheffield who might have Sheffield as "top" importance, "Sheffield railway station" as "mid" and some obscure little commuter station as "low". but differently WP:England won't have Sheffield as top for example.

Pickle 07:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I can have my own banner and put whichever importance because i really like Totley Tunnel? I'm Joe public and it bothers me that a random group of editors take a possession of an article and judge it under their criteria. While it may be appropriate for a group of skilled contributors to judge a topic, the importance would in any case be the same throughout Wikipedia. There has been multi importance abuse for rail related topics just since you've added them whatever happens on Rice is of no concern to me, this is the article I'm accusing you on. either this article is important or it isn't. It cannot and should not be more important to you than to me or whoever else: Wikipedia is one. As far as i know, WP Sheffield does not sort articles by importance, having founded the project with certain ideas, no article is moe important than any other, users edit whatever they like and seek guidance if needed on WP:Sheffield... We're not presomptuous to the point of labelling an article more important especially if it would for the project alone, we'd have put that on the project page rather than graffiting an article with our verdict. Having a project is fine since it means that fellow editors can seek help, information and guidance but not impose its point of vuiew since no Project owns any article. If you must put an importance rating for god knows what reason, put the daughter project's rating since the mother project will have little input on the article as it (ought) will delegate. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On the first point, if a wikiproject has been given the go ahead to be rated then as far as i can tell it does give them the green light to go around "grafting" talk pages they think is within their scope. As to qualifications for a person to make such judgements, i don't seam to recall there being any need for qualifications to partake in Wikipedia. i understand many editors very legitimate concerns on these matters, but Wikipedia isn't Citizendium. I respect that you have very different views on a subject i previously thought was uncontroversial ;) Since I am no where near completing the backlog at Category:Unknown-importance UK Railways articles, I'll agree to disagree on this matter - hey this isn't the most important issue in the world - eating chocolate cake, etc is much more fun! Pickle 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW since there was no explicit consensus (as i read - please point out otherwise) have you just reverted the "uk=yes" 3 times ??? Pickle 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First edit was a change, the two other editions were reverts. It is my fourth edition, third revert that would get me the boot. Maybe you should concentrate on the reason of those reverts rather than arbitrarily throwing out 3RR, it's not helping your case. Focus on the truth and don't avoid confrontation through 3RR you're better than that ;). I'm more interested in maintaining the banner's state to its previous state and implement change once we've agreed rather than fightin about whichever change should be kept. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: First removal of UK importance tag was on the 4th, being pedantic as I am 3RR doesn't apply anyway. There is however a problem we need to sort out I'll grant you that. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Panic not i can't be arsed with the bureaucracy of it all! Pickle 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrived 'longest' claim.

The opening section seems to have a rather contrived claim to make it the 'longest' railway tunnel. When opened it was the 2nd longest railway tunnel in the UK (the Severn Tunnel is 1.3km longer). After the High Speed 1 line opened it became the 3rd longest in the UK. I'm minded to alter the opening text to make this clear. Currently the Severn Tunnel isn't mentioned and the current claim of 'longest' is made by putting artificial conditions of being wholly in England and non-electrified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Totley Tunnel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires infobox Requires structuring Location details in lead are confusing Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Requires copy edit for WP:MOS Keith D (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

longest wholly underland tunnel in the UK

The article claims, without a source, that "Totley Tunnel is now the longest wholly underland tunnel in the UK." How is "wholly underland" being defined? The Piccadilly line between Bounds Green and Barons Court is more than three times longer (19,610m vs 5,700m) and doesn't pass under any significant rivers (unless I suppose you're counting the Regents Canal), nor does the 6,400-metre Crossrail tunnel between Farringdon and Royal Oak, which doesn't cross even the canal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree and have deleted this sentence. Zin92 (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)