This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Isle of Man, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Isle of Man on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Isle of ManWikipedia:WikiProject Isle of ManTemplate:WikiProject Isle of ManIsle of Man articles
Merge is supported. Counterarguments include the existence of photos, but that's rather meaningless, and the existence of other sources listed in another AfD--but a look at those sources does not suggest they are individual discussions of this individual road feature. "Per above arguments" is not helpful, and Agljones's long comment does not involve policy, and a comparison with the Dutch wiki (and its notoriously low standards) is useless. What matters is size, independent notability, and common sense: "A good overview is preferable to [a] bunch of start and stub class articles". Drmies (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Something other than keeping as a standalone page would be the right thing to do with the article in my opinion, but my opinion doesn't matter when closing the discussion and unfortunately the AfD failed to come up with consensus on what that something is. A discussion on the article's talk page re. merging some of the content to a specific article (e.g. Snaefell Mountain Course) would likely gain consensus, and would in my view would be more appropriate than prolonging this discussion to try to gain consensus on where to merge or redirect to.
I'm in favor of a merge of all these very narrow articles into one. I suspect that editorially speaking there is too much to merge to this existing article and a breakout article might well be appropriate. Hobit (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This clearly passes the relevant notability guideline and the page is already quite substantial, being over double the size required for DYK, for example. Merger to the suggested target would be inappropriate and unhelpful for several reasons:
There are many other topical contexts for the location besides the TT race, including geology, bird-watching, local history and topology.
The suggested target page is already quite large - over 30K, with many and various sections - and so adding context of this sort will make that page too bloated and indigestible.
The current page works fine and so pushing with its content around would be vexatious and wasted effort.
There are Windy Corners in other places such as the Isle of Wight and so we have some need for disambiguation, which will work best if this is a separate page rather than a redirect to a topic with a very different name and scope.
No, it doesn't pass GEOLAND (it's a freaking corner that doesn't get anything other than brief mentions in local or primary sources), the size of the page isn't relevant, and turning this into a disambiguation page doesn't have any relevance to this merger, since this article at present talks about ONE Windy Corner. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)14:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does pass GEOLAND and the size of the page is very relevant to this. GEOLAND states "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." So, the fact this is a corner rather than a hill or stream is unimportant. What matters is that it is a named topographical feature and that we have enough information - more than just the name and coordinates. We clearly have enough information for a page because it already exists and there's plenty more out there. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Named natural features" - this is a corner on a road; it's man-made, and very much not natural. Which is why it fails GEOLAND. Half of the article is barely relevant to the corner anyway. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)22:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a landmark location, not just a bend in the road, and there are natural features named after it such as a geological fault. Notice, by the way, that the Dutch Wikipedia has had a separate page for it for some time. That details significant features such as the quarry and it would be daft if English speakers were to be deprived of this information, when English is the local language. Andrew D. (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Don't need separate articles about every stretch of the course. A good overview is preferable to bunch of start and stub class articles. Montanabw(talk)18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In 2007, I rewrote the Wikipedia article for the Snaefell Mountain Course and removed a very long list of names of corners as it had been plagiarised from a publication about the Isle of Man TT Races including a number of inaccuracies and incorrect information. The current format of the article is based on other motor-sport circuits including current Formula 1 circuits. As the Snaefell Mountain Course is unusually in its length of the circuit an extra section has been included about the named corners on the circuit and the current section is a reference to corners that have been named after Isle of Man TT competitors only. It was not intended to included as an editing policy other named corners. A further section about safety issues has now been included after requests by other editors.
The current format of the Wikipedia article has a much improved structure and information can be easily added when it becomes available and due to its success has been translated into other languages on Wikipedia. There are an extensive number of equivalent articles about the Snaefell Mountain Course and their places names on the Netherlands Wikipedia site and also Wikipedia Deutschland. However, these articles do not quote any sources and have been extensively plagiarised from recent Isle of Man TT publications in the English language and also translating directly from the equivalent English Wikipedia article and again without quoting sources. The style of the Netherlands Wikipedia Isle of Man TT articles is also in an tabloid newspaper/internet blogging style and it is unusual to find this type of style being adopted on English language Wikipedia pages. The Netherlands Wikipedia Isle of Man TT articles also lists the fatal accidents to competitors and sometimes this has been included in a trivial manner. However, no action has been taken against this pages on the Netherlands Wikipedia site.
To return to the previous 2007 format for the Snaefell Mountain Course is not a viable alternative. I created separate articles for each of the more famous parts of the Isle of Man TT Course. However, other contributors have added extra articles and then abandoned them without trying to extend the articles or improving them. I have had problems with editing conflicts of many Isle of Man TT articles including incorrect information and problems with editing style. It may not be understood by editors reviewing many articles about the Isle of Man TT Races it is difficult to find and research information and present it in a way to provide encyclopaedic value or to conform with Wikipedia editing standards and rules.
I would actually support the removal of a number of articles created by other editors as it is unnecessary to list every corner of the Snaefell Mountain Course. The list of corners on Wikipedia is actually smaller than the list on the official forum of the Isle of Man TT website which runs to 35 pages and the forum has recently closed down. Two articles that I would support have been deleted without an official Wikipedia discussion. One of these articles has been deleted because of problems of notability and I have been trying to locate source material to address problems raised by editors. Nevertheless, it has now been included in the main Snaefell Mountain Course article without discussion and with problems of notability. Two other articles that have been nominated for deletion or merge have been accepted as articles. The first of this articles, an editor had deliberately deleted the more controversial safety information in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course and the Isle of Man TT Races. The second article had suffered badly from previous problems of multiple contributions by different editors.
There has been inconsistency in the application of editing policy, the application of Wikipedia rules and the inclusion of notability. The articles on Wikipedia is an inclusive, proactive process and regard to notability many of the named corners would be regard as passing the notability test in respect to editors that concentrate or specialise in articles about the Isle of Man or the Isle of Man TT Races. A consensus was reached after discussion by the specialists Isle of Man editors on how to develop and structure the Isle of Man TT pages. Rather than a "pile of stubs" many of the articles exist as specialist Isle of Man articles and as the Wikipedia frowns on orphan articles they have been listed together as part of the Snaefell Mounatin Course. Again, I would support the removal of some of the articles in response to the correct criticism by other editors which includes the requests for further information, restructuring or removal of incorrect or plagiarised information . However, other articles have been removed/merged without discussion or before I can improve the the article as a specialist Isle of Man editor. Another editor has made the point that "Eau Rouge" as part of the Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps article has no article and this policy should apply to other pages. I think the editor was actually referring to the Eau Rouge / Raidillon combination corner and actually Wikipedia does lists an Eau Rouge page which does not pass the notability criteria and since December 2009 listed as a page as having no inline citations.
I have tried to maintain a certain style for these Isle of Man TT articles and there has been previous problems of multiple contributions by different editors and some Isle of Man TT articles have been subject to a Wikipedia deletion policy and then later successfully reinstated. I am currently in the process of a complete rewrite of the main Wikipedia Isle of Man TT and the proposed amalgamation/deletion process is unhelpful. Agljones 10:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. The corner/piece of land is not notable enough for a standalone article. The content of this article is largely unencyclopedic and the key facts can easily be summarised in the article on the course, so a selective merge and redirect would be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are very relevant academic papers that I found and list in ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gooseneck, Isle of Man, which don't seem to be used yet in articles about Windy Corner, Gooseneck and other locations. Editors of the Isle of Man location articles should get copies of the ones behind paywalls. Spectators’ Negotiations of Risk, Masculinity and Performative Mobilities at the TT Races", by Allen Terry, Avril Maddrell, Tim Gale, and Simon Arlidge, (April, 2014), in Mobility, is one I found searching on "Gooseneck"; it likely reports on spectators at Windy Corners as well. I perceive there to be a lack of coverage in the articles about spectator and rider deaths. About Windy Corner, there are six memorials there to spectators killed there, per Memorials from the Isle of Man TT Races (click "query" then search on location=Windy Corner) and there must be news coverage about the deaths in local papers, in the individuals' hometown newspapers, likely in national coverage. So there's more RS specifics to add to this and other articles, best to keep separate, let them be developed.
Also there are race photos to be added to Windy Corners and all the other articles, and links to photos and videos. Windy Corners article has photos but not any race ones, why on earth not? See Flickr pics[1] and Youtube videos on Windy Corners. Galleries best in separate articles. --doncram00:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Windy Corner now has large restricted areas which does not really allow for good race photos and unsuitable for spectators due to the limited off-road parking. Also, access to the Windy Corner after race or practice road closure can only be made from the U31 Nobles Park Road which is only suitable to good off-road motor-cycles or mountain bikes. A good photo exists of the 1938 Lightweight TT Winner Ewald Kluge at the Windy Corner and this cannot be included due to copyright reasons. agljones(talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This edit added an uncited claim that "Windy Corner is an area of open Moorland". This appears to be an attempt to fudge the notability issue, presenting the subject as a natural geographical feature, rather then the "bend in the road" described in the rest of the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bend in the main road is also a road junction and, in this bleak and barren landscape, this naturally forms a landmark which is used as a reference to the surrounding locale. For example, see list of cols and summits where Windy Corner is one of the cols (saddle points). Other sources talk about the Windy Corner Fault (a geological feature) or make reference to bird life there and so on. Comparable examples are Staples Corner and Scotch Corner, say. What's the problem? Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines Moreland as "characterised by low-growing vegetation on acidic soils. Moorland nowadays generally means uncultivated hill land (such as Dartmoor in South West England)." This actually can be seen in the main photograph. This is also covered in the publication A New History of the Isle of Man Volume 1 – The evolution of the Natural Landscape Edited by Richard Chiverall and Geoffery Thomas(2006) Liverpool University Press ISBN0-85323-572-2 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum
The articles and editing process on Wikipedia is an inclusive, proactive process and in respect to notability, as mentioned previously, a specialist Isle of Man editor would consider the article having notability. Also, Wikipedia states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article" and "Article content does not determine notability." It also mentions that "Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Wikipedia states "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability and "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
In regard to viability, Wikipedia states;- "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Primary sources can include artefacts or documents such as maps. The is no distinction made to "local" sources. Reference 19 is not a "local" source and is a UK publication by British Petroleum a major UK company. References 1 to 7 are secondary rather than primary. Reference 1 is a publication that over a number of chapters describes the Snaefell Mountain Course in detail and splits the course into a number of sections that has used by the Netherlands Wikipedia site. References 3, 6 & 10 describe the area as part of the Isle of Man TT Course. References 4 & 5 show the area marked on a map of the course. Reference 11 is also a major secondary source as it describes the entomologies of local Celtic and Scandinavian Isle of Man place names and the maps show the area in the civil parishes of Braddan, Lonan and Onchan. References 14, 15 & 19, are description of the building of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road and also the 1860 Disafforesting Act. References 8 & 9, broaden the article in reference to the technical driving nature of the road and reference 9 mentions the "moorland." Reference 23, is about the major road widening scheme in 2004 including the first road traffic safety initiative of this type and also removing the problem of the notorious moorland "peat-bog" on the outside of the corner.
Reference 16, describes the area in a non-partisan context. Reference 2 & 13 also describes the area and is a study of the local Isle of Man Hill Farms (Tholtons). The Isle of Man is known world-wide for the Isle of Man TT Races, tailless cats and allegedly an offshore tax-haven. Nevertheless, it is not widely known that a large subsistence farming economy including the moorland hill farms (Tholtons) almost similar in extent to the subsistence farming on the west coast of Pre-Famine Ireland, existed in the Isle of Man to the end of the Nineteenth Century and persisted until the end of the 1930's. The problems of Feudalism and feudal land-rights including moorland grazing rights, common-land (including upland moorland) and rights of access in the Isle of Man also persisted to the end of the Nineteenth century. The 1860 Disafforesting Act mentioned in reference 12 is an attempt to reform Isle of Man land tenure which occurred in England and Wales under Parliamentary land enclosure in the Eighteenth century or under the Highland Clearances in Scotland. Also, a feature of the Isle of Man economy in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries that a large mining operations developed in the Laxey area as featured in references 18 & 19. The three large mines in the area had a 6-8 mile large catchment area and local miners would use the pre-existing footpaths that crossed the moorland area including the U31 Nobles Park Road. Largely, the Industrial Revolution in the United Kingdom bypassed the Isle of Man (principally due to the lack of coal reserves despite the extensive mining) and Isle of Man economy passed from a primary to a tertiary (service) economy at the start of the Twentieth century. One major factor for this was the development of the Lancashire textile holiday trade and the interest in the Isle of Man TT Races.
In this context is not an attempt to "fudge" the issue. Either delete the article or take it to arbitration. It is your editing policy that has been wasting time and attempts to use general largely undefined editing practices on specialist areas. Agljones 14:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please avoid these wall-of-(largely-irrelevant)-text screeds. As for "...this is also covered in the publication A New History of the Isle of Man Volume 1 – The evolution of the Natural Landscape, it may well do - but unless it explicitly says that Windy Corner meets that definition, the reference to it constitutes original research and is not a valid citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimate secondary source under Wikipedia rules from noted UK publication and not original research. Challenge the source or delete the article Agljones 12:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If you check the reference for the Wikipedia article for Dartmoor you will find a internet "dead-link." However, if you search the website you can find the information describing Dartmoor as moorland. This is the reason why I always try to use citations from publications as secondary sources to prevent "deadlinks." The Manx Wildlife Trust (http://www.manxwt.org.uk) describe the Northern Uplands (Northern Upland Massif) as follows:- "Wide open, heather moorland landscape with conifer plantations and occasional fragments of broadleaf woodland on the flanks and in the valleys. There are pockets of acid grassland, bog and acid flushes in depressions and hollows....The area is dominated by the island's highest point at Snaefell with a ring of steep valleys radiating away from it: the Ballaugh, Sulby, Laxey, East and West Baldwin valleys." This includes the area in question (ie Laxey and Baldwin Valleys). Your editing policy is wasting time and it is not necessary to "fudge" the issue over secondary sources which quoted from a scientific study of the natural landscape in the Isle of Man. The article does not now describe "the bend in road." Delete the article or take it to arbitration. Agljones 18:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is an excepted practice with Wikipedia to provided an "executive summary" (usually the first paragraph) for an article. At arbitration this article would pass for notability and also providing a correct executive summary of the article. The repeated narrow definition of very broadly defined Wikipedia policy would not be acceptable. Also, not acceptable to demand from an editor to provide a particular worded statement to provide notability or as a reference/executive summary. There are no issues of original research as it is only a summary and no bogus references included. The whole area is moorland as defined by the source(s) and sub-editing/summarising is an excepted Wikipedia practice. The information that you define can also be found in reference 17 The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot by Stan Basnett. The issue of notability is defined by Isle of Man TT connection and the fatal accidents involving two competitors. For example, a specialist (Isle of Man TT) editor would define the article as having notability. (The issue summarised and not a block of text) Agljones 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not a case of original research, this is an issue of notability which has been repeatedly been raised as a fudge. As stated previously it is acceptable in Wikipedia articles including the Executive summary to summarise, sub-edit or condense information. In respect to reference 8, this is not an issue of original research as the publication defines in a map (page 75) the Northern Upland Massif and there is no issue that the area in question is part of this defined area. The publication is a scientific study and summarizing or condensing the information as the area is an upland moorland is acceptable as defined by Wikipedia as a secondary source. In respect to the map this quite rightly can be defined as a primary resource and along with secondary and tertiary sources are acceptable by Wikipedia. In respect to agricultural land use or land patterns it is common practice that they are shown as a map or diagram and a primary source they are acceptable by Wikipedia. The area is also shown as open moorland in the maps in reference 12 and also can be found as defined as upland moorland on the Isle of Man Government Public Rights of Way Map (Scale 1:25,000) and is also shown on the Ordnance Survey Landranger Sheet 95. The publication Wild Flowers of Mann by Andree Dubbeldam page 70 -72 also defines the Northern Upland Massif as moorland as does the reference 17 The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot pages 58-60. This reference is a neutral, non-partisan which could replace references 1-7 or 2-8 except for the issue of notability repeatedly being raised. Also, in respect to either notability or the issue of original research the area is also defined as Common Land. This is defined in references 1, 13 & 15 in the sale of Land to the UK Crown by the Duke of Athol and the accompanying feudal rights. Many notable areas in the Isle of Man can be defined by the issue of Common Land rather than their agricultural land patterns. However, there is no issue raised here of original research or lack of notability and issues of slight differences in written prose style or the process of summarizing or sub-editing is not enough to suggest original research. Also, it is unusual to demand that a particular phrase be produced to define notability or to counter an argument of original research. Your editing policy has been wasting time and either delete the article or move to arbitration. Agljones 19:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Again: tl;dr. The issue of the notability of the article subject is serious, but separate, This section is about original research and lack of verifiability. You have yet to provide a source which says that Windy Corner is an area of open Moorland. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits20:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The area is falls in the Wikipedia definition of moorland in the UK which is the 'Manx Uplands' or 'Northern Uplands Massif' which is defined in the Isle of Man as "....all land above 200m.... all areas of heathland, woodland and water catchment contiguous with the 200m contour." The area is notably as Common land and an area of scientific interest. There is no issue of original research. Notability is defined by the connection with the Isle of Man TT Races and the Snaefell Mountain course. There was no consensus about deleting the article. Take the issue to arbitration. Agljones 21:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
See reference 7;- Manx Uplands and Steering Group - Issues and Opportunities page 4 - Isle of Man Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The area of the Windy Corner is 250m above sea level as defined by Sheet 95 Landranger series. The whole area is of scientific interest and again the process of summarizing or sub-editing is not enough to suggest original research. The Isle of Man Government report also describes the area of Manx Uplands for a number of reasons as "unique" within the British Isles. Reference 6 defines the area(s) of scientific interest. The process of construction of articles, the process of summarizing, sub-editing and the use of sources is something that your familiar with in Wikipedia articles. If there is an issue than take it arbitration or I will register the matter as a dispute with Wikipedia Agljones 21:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
…..So what leads you to that conclusion;- This would suggest that Wikipedia will accept a process of condensing, summarizing, paraphrasing and sub-editing source(s) either primary, secondary or tertiary. The report from Defra comments that the Northern Upland Massif is an area of scientific interest but also comments that it is not adequately understood by the public or promoted as a resource. The area in question is a range for Curlew and raptors such as Kestrel. The area is Common land as defined by the report. There is no issue of original research. The issue of notability has been dealt with and no consensus had been reached for deletion. The issue is about amalgamation of a number of articles and not about notability. In this respect you have deleted an article(s) over notability without using the Wikipedia deletion process or gaining a consensus and then inserted a truncated paragraph in a section that was reserved for course names of Isle of Man TT competitors. The paragraph constituted original research, the information was quite blatantly incorrect, showed repeatedly lack of specialist knowledge or experience of conceiving and writhing encyclopaedic articles and used the same secondary source repeatedly to bypass problems of notability after deleting the original article for the same issue. In the general regard to original research, over 95 percent of Wikipedia articles would fall under this definition and this includes the Wikipedia article about moorland and the executive summary has insufficient and unclear citations along with the article in regard to the moorland area of Dartmoor. In respect to scientific method you repeatedly mention original research but only provided a vaguely defined Wikipedia policy and no evidence. It is not QED as you have not demonstrated a scientific proof and it is actually Quod erat faciendum…. The use of persistent Wikipedia trolling editing activities and article vandalism is not acceptable. Agljones 11:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
From what's in this section above, though, I am not seeing "Windy Corner" being the name for an area of moorland around the road corner. I do accept that the road corner is within an area of moorland, and is in the Northern Uplands, and so on, and some such description of the area in which the road corner is situated can be included in the article, using these sources. But the sources and description of the surroundings, above, does not go towards establishing notability of "Windy Corner", because they apparently do not name "Windy Corner".
And the discussion seems to justify "Windy Corner" being the name of the col/saddlepoint in the ridge, adjacent to the road corner. So Windy Corner is the name of a natural geographic feature which may or may not be notable by wp:GEOLAND and of an "Artificial feature relating to infrastructure" which may or may not be notable under wp:GEOFEAT. Any article about Windy Cover should cover both; we obviously don't need two separate articles "Windy Corner (col)" and "Windy Corner (roadway)".
If "Windy Corner" is a location on maps and/or has posted signs naming it, that does support notability, because as wp:NGEO states "per Wikipedia's wp:Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer; therefore, geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable."
Note: if sourcing on "Windy Corner" topic meets wp:GNG, it is definitely wikipedia-notable; wp:GNP is a higher standard that trumps both wp:GEOLAND and wp:GEOFEAT.
I edited the lede of the article, added an infobox which now holds the photo that already was at top of the article, added memorials information, and made other changes. --doncram01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Windy Corner now refers to the general area and the emphasis should be placed on this point first rather than the road corner on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road in the executive summary and defining the notability under Wikipedia rules. (For example: The mountain bike route shows this and describes the route as follows;- "... head south for ½ a mile to ‘Windy Corner’ where a chevroned bend swings round to the right." The area described as the 'Windy Corner' and the corner as the ".....chevroned bend...."
After reassessing and re-reading the publication;- The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot by Stan Basnett (1990) Lily Publications ISBN1-899602-72-0Walk 10 - Abbeylands and Nobles Park to Laxey, a summary (or as Wikipedia describes "...."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content....") of the information in this publication does describe the area of the Windy Corner as an area of open moorland part of Nobles Park (the word Park meaning sheep grazing area rather than an artificial created municipal garden or park) and is suitable for defining notability and also as Wikipedia describes in a singleneutralindependent publication that repeatedly uses the name Windy Corner.
The Basnett publication has been mentioned previously for defining notability rather than an attempting to "fudge" of the notability issue (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article) with the discussion of the definition of moorland. For general notability sources should be secondary sources and also primary sources such as maps are acceptable. The area of the Windy Corner is shown within the moorlands area of the Northern Upland Massif and qualifies for notability as a geographical feature. The fact the name of 'Windy Corner' is not mentioned is not an issue as Original Research is not permitted and no further synthesis as described Wikipedia is permitted. Conversely, Exceptio probat regulam, the exception proves the rule. The fact that the maps from Isle of Man Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not locate the 'Windy Corner' decease the issue of notability, conversely the absence defined its notability. The name Windy Corner does not appear on the 1921 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Map. However, the name "Windy Corner" appears on post-war maps for the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix and as stated before the maps as primary sources for notability are acceptably for Wikipedia. The name "Windy Corner" appears on abstracts of the 1969 Isle of Man Ordnance Survey Map used for maps of the course for the Isle of Man TT Races and is named on the current Landranger Sheet 95 for the Isle of Man. To conclude, the notability is defined by the Basnett publication with the description of the moorland. The notability of the name originates from the connection with the Isle of Man TT Races. To describe that only a source should state that the "Windy Corner is.....()...." to define either notability or the description of moorland would either be plagiarism to use the source;- or again as Wikipedia describes as synthesis or Original Research which is not permitted. To summarize, as mentioned previously it is not acceptable to have one article describing the moorland and another article to describe a non-notable bend and Wikipedia articles are about providing encyclopaedic value.
The description of the driving corner and the significance of motorcycle racing speeds constitutes Original Research which is forbidden under Wikipedia rules and is insufficient to define notability and again would attract a further AFD nomination which would be successful. The description of the col or saddle ridge line (also described in the Bassnett publication) runs from the 32nd milestone to Cairn Gerjoil and the current description in the first paragraph (previously an executive summary) is incorrect and is duplicated in the second paragraph. The Isle of Man TT Marshal communication shelter is located on the eastern part of the col on the junction of the A18 Mountain Road and the U31 Nobles Park Road and the area is a small plateau running from the 32nd Milestone to the base of Cairn Gerjoil (from spot height 391m to spot height 372m from west to east and from the Marshal's Station to the Nobles Park Lytchett Gate from north to south). The 372 m point on Ordnance Survey Sheet 95 is a spot height and is possibly a surveying "bench mark" built into the Marshal Hut or nearby wall. The saddle or col does not funnel the wind across road at this point and is also an incorrect description. The prevailing wind is actually south-west (sometimes north-west or from the east during the winter) rather than south-east as described in the information box. Cross-winds occur from any direction but mainly from a south-westerly direction from the Baldwin Valley (there is a geographical term for this but I am unsure what this is). The entomology of the name of Windy Corner is not known and is possibly dates from the late 1940's. The previous name is Nobles Corner rather Noble Corner and is only listed in the Isle of Man Highway Boards minutes of 1922 and is not in common use and is also mentioned in the Basnett publication. The general area was previously known as Nobles Park and partial replaced by the name Windy Corner.
Other than (Niven), I am unsure of the location of the other memorials and one of the persons named may have died in a RTA at the 33rd milestone and not the Windy Corner. Wikipedia is not a memorial WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and does not allow this type of listing. A prominent Windy Corner road-side memorial to a 15 year old girl that died in a RTA in 1992 adjacent to the 300m Windy Corner brake marker board is not listed. To conform to Wikipedia rules regarding original research and memorial listings, perhaps only include memorials to fatal accidents to Isle of Man TT or Manx Grand Prix competitors and use the publication Isle of Man TT Circuit Memorials Revisited by Paul Copparelli and Peter Mylchreest.
Reply, later: Given that RTA is your abbreviation for road-traffic accidents, i.e. unrelated to the racing, yes I agree that those are not to be listed. And they are not in the database available online, anyhow. --doncram15:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please correct the issues in respect original research, notability, the issue of memorial listings and restore the executive summary. agljones(talk) 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove original research and restore executive summary. The only spectators that have died in racing accidents occurred at the 26th Milestone. There are more than 15 notable viewing points on the Snaefell Mounatin Course. I am unaware of the location of the memorials other than Nixon and the memorial close to the 300m brake board. The number of fatalities in RTA from the 1920's on the A18 Mountain Road is highly substantial and completely unresearched. agljones(talk) 00:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick response: There have been lots of spectators killed on the course, named within online memorials source included in the article, at many spots besides 26th milestone, I believe. [Correction: memorials database includes memorials of longtime spectators, who died elsewhere but family/friends placed memorials there.] Please do the Query and see photos of memorials at Windy Corners, per instruction in footnote. And [racer] fatalities have been researched: that is a database covering as many as can be documented, over 100 years. I don't know what "RTA" means. [Update: that is agljones abbreviation for road-traffic accidents, unrelated to races.] Yes there are 60 or more named corners, I do understand, but only about 15 (actually 14) are listed as highly notable ones that "are part of road-racing history" by the source. By executive summary, i ask below whether you mean the former first paragraph? See questions regarding sentences 1 & 2 below. --doncram02:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: agljones, you were mostly or completely right about the memorials and deaths. I explored the memorials and deaths "databases" in Excel. The memorials database confirms that the 5 database-listed memorials at Windy Corner were for one racer and four coded as spectators, i.e. persons who had associations with the racing but who were not involved in fatal accidents on the course. The memorials database includes memorials of 255 race-associated persons, 152 of whom died from fatal accidents on the course (none at Windy Corner). The deaths database includes details for all 239 racers killed in practice or in racing from 1911 to 2011, including the two already in the article whose accidents were at Windy Corner (Johan van Tilberg and Nigel Christian). The databases do NOT include "RTA"s, i.e. road-traffic accidents not associated with the races.--doncram15:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the above, agljones, it seems you find Basnett's Walk 10 - Abbeylands and Nobles Park to Laxey to be a reliable source defining/describing Windy Corner to be an area. Great! (Personally, I'd love to see the text. Any chance you could scan the relevant pages and email to me?) --doncram02:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks so much agljones for your helpful, prompt comments! I have further edited the article to respond to some of your comments (Noble-> Nobles ; in discussing memorials, just state there are at least four and move the specific names down into footnote, as documenting the count of four from the online source available to me; drop description of col funneling the wind and of high-speed racing; other revisions of wording).
On your assertion that "The Windy Corner now refers to the general area", I believe you but I myself don't have access to sources that say that. Can you possibly please type out a quote from the Stan Basnett (1990) source and/or other sources available to you that actually states that?
On restoring the "executive summary", there was no section labelled that; I assume you mean the lede paragraph?
Windy Corner, Isle of Man[1][2][3][4][5] is an area of uncultivated grassland, heath moorland[6] and blanket peat-bog situated in the Northern Uplands[7] of the Isle of Man.
The previous second sentence was
The area of moorland is adjacent the 32nd Milestone and 33rd Milestone motor-cycle racing road-side markers on the primary A18 Snaefell Mountain Road[8][9] with the road junction of the old Glen Roy pack-horse road, the tertiary U31 Nobles Park Road.
I don't understand all of that and think it needs to be re-written, if kept/restored. Some Q's:
1. It seems to imply that Windy Corner is an area that is at least a mile long, okay, but as written it seems to be adjacent to, and not include, the road (or not include the milestones, anyhow). I'm not sure what I want for it to be, but don't you want Windy Corner to be an area that includes the roadway and land on both sides? Based on some source(s)?
2. Is the "tertiary U31 Nobles Park Road" the same thing as the "old Glen Roy pack-horse road"?
3. BTW, on Google maps' satellite view, I can't see any smaller road or path joining the road (do the coordinates point to exactly the right spot, can anyone tell if it does? Can you point out any smaller road?
The current ("doncram") version of first sentences is:
Windy Corner,[1][2][3][4] in the 1920s known as Nobles Corner,[5] is a notable named corner of the Isle of Man motorcycle racing course and also is the name applied to geographic features in the area. It is more a curve to the right in the road, when going southbound in the racing direction, than an abrupt "corner", and it is one of the better-known vantage points for spectators on the 37-mile (60 km) course. Windy Corner, along with the 15 or so other most notable named corners on the course, has "become part of road-racing history".[6] It is also the name of the 372-metre (1,220 ft) altitude saddle in the ridge-line that the road runs beside.[7]
I'd be happy to have that ripped apart, but maybe we have to get agreement on what Windy Corner is, first, before focusing on specific wording.
Also, agljones, do you have the publication Isle of Man TT Circuit Memorials Revisited by Paul Copparelli and Peter Mylchreest, that you mention, and what are the names and years of fatal accidents for any more memorials (to add to the memorials footnote, documenting a revised number in the text)?
And what does "RTA" stand for?
On racing speed, I'd really like to know how fast racers can and do go through this section. Am I correct that there is no speed limit in this section, at least during races? What about in non-race season?
On etymology of the name "Windy Corner", you suggest it is really known but possibly dates from the late 1940's. It would be great to be able to state that in the article, even though it is vague, if it can be sourced. Can you possibly please provide here a direct quote from one of your sources on that?
I'll stop here. Agljones and/or others, if you can reply, it's fine by me if you insert replies amidst the my questions/comments above. --doncram01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There has only been two "spectators" killed in a fatal racing motor-cycle accident which occurred in 2007 at the 26th Milestone. There has been many accidents from the 1920's during racing when a racing motor-cycle has collided with "spectators" and only two "spectators" have been killed during the 2007 Senior Isle of Man TT Race at the 26th Milestone. As I previously stated the number of fatal Road Traffic Accidents (RTA's) on public roads from the 1920's on the A18 Mountain Road and the rest of the public roads which make-up the Snaefell Mountain Course is highly substantial and completely unresearched. For example, during December 2014 a fatal road traffic accident (RTA) occurred at the Mountain Box on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road involving a light commercial vehicle and a car, a second fatal accident occurred close to Alpine Cottage on the A3 Castletown to Ramsey Road and third fatal accident occurred on the A5 Castletown to Douglas Road after a Coach hit a pedestrian on Richmond Hill. A number of commemorative plaques are located at the Windy Corner and are not exclusively related to fatal road traffic accidents that have occurred a the "Windy Corner" One of the memorials listed is possibly refers to road traffic accident that occurred at the nearby 33rd Milestone involving two motor-cycles on the day after the Manx Grand Prix Races had concluded. To summarize, not all fatal road traffic accidents (RTA's) in involve motor-cycles or "spectators," the fatal accidents also occur outside of the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix and the "Windy Corner" is not the only accident "Black Spot." I am aware that at least four fatal road traffic accidents have occurred at the Bungalow Bridge since 1991 and the actual total number of fatal accidents is much higher if the pre-1990's totals are included.
The executive summary is the first lead section or paragraph or paragraph(s). The executive summary needs to be restructured. The issue of the wind funnelling across the road at this point is generally correct, but it is due to the south-westerly prevailing wind. The previous description of left to right is incorrect as the prevailing wind is south-westerly and also the left to right description the "Windy Corner" lies on the leeward slope of the col and the effects of the gusting wind are considerably reduced. The issued is confused by (note 27) which refers to the "gully to the left" as the perspective may be reversed and perhaps means the gully to the "right" (?) The area is a distinctive col which can be seen clearly from the A2 Douglas to Ramsey at the Everlasting Corner north of the village of Laxey and is a more substantial geographical feature and is incorrectly described in the executive summary. From the south-side of the col viewed travelling northbound on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road and the col can still be viewed and the area is dominated by the open moorland of Nobles Park and the Windy Corner. The small plateau that I have described at the Windy Corner is partially the result of the original road construction which has resulted in a purpose built 90 degree bend and a graded road section that rises in elevation due to 19th Century highway construction practices from the Windy Corner travelling northbound to the 32nd Milestone. After the road improvements of 2005/2006, a 40 mph road speed restriction now operates from near to the entrance to the former Slieau Lhost Quarry travelling northbound to near the current position of the 300 metre "Windy Corner" brake-marker board. The area of the 40 mph speed restriction area would give an informal (unsubstantiated) definition of the "Windy Corner" in respect to the definition of the "non-notable bend" in the road. The description of the "Windy Corner" as a geographical feature is much broader as it includes the "non-notable bend" in the road, the small plateau that I have described and a much general area of Nobles Park from the 32nd Milestone to the 33rd Milestone.
In respect to the Basnett publication, the issue was raised in respect to the notability issue of the "non-notable bend" in the road. The Basnett publication is a single, authoritative, neutral and independent publication that can be used to define the article for notability in regard to the AFD nomination. The Basnett publication includes further information in respect to Nobles Park the Millennium Way footpath and also the ancient ridge way of the Regiam Viam which crosses through Nobles Park. In regard to (note 1) the Goldie publication also defines the notability of the article. As I think you understand, in general terms the notability of the "Windy Corner" exists through the "non-notable bend" and its connection with the Isle of Man TT Races and this is stated rather confusingly by Wikipedia as "....attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed...." and this is the issue in respect to the "Windy Corner" being listed/not listed on maps. The U31 Nobles Park Road/Old Glen Roy Pack-Horse Road joins the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road by a sheep-gate next to the Marshal's communication hut at the "Windy Corner." The U31 (Unclassified) road runs in a south-easterly direction for two miles and joins the Baldhoon Road at Glen Roy and is shown on Sheet 95 of the Ordnance Survey Map for the Isle of Man.
The general description of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road the convention has been northbound following numerically the "Garrow" milestone markers. The general description of the Snaefell Mountain Course has been clockwise following the racing roadside markers. The "Garrow" milestone markers have only been included in the article to alleviate some of the problems with notability and also broaden the article. The name Nobles Corner is only listed in the minutes of the Isle of Man Highway Board in 1922 and less emphasis should be placed on this issue. In regard to (note 6) the "Kneale" quotation, other major spectator are not listed including the TT Grandstand, The Bungalow and Parliament Square in Ramsey. The "Windy Corner" is not a major spectator point due to the lack of off-road parking. Comment from racing competitors suggest since the road improvements at the "Windy Corner" in 2006 the speeds have increased as previously the corner required heavy breaking and changing down two or three gears (I am not sure in which source that this was quoted). A one-way traffic system has been implemented on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Course since 2007 for the Isle of Man TT Races for a two week period including the "Windy Corner." The 40 mph speed restriction from 2006 operates northbound and southbound on the A18 Snaefell Mounatin Road at the "Windy Corner" and is operation all year round. I am unsure of the first publication which refers to the "Windy Corner" and perhaps (note 27) is the first major use in a published source which is acceptable to Wikipedia. I do not have a copy of the Isle of Man TT Circuit Memorials Revisited by Copparelli / Mylchreest. Due to Wikipedia rules in respect to memorials, then perhaps only list official memorials to competitors that have died in racing accidents and not commemorative plaques left by race spectators that are unrelated to fatal road traffic accidents at the "Windy Corner."
It is correct that has been previously stated that a separate articles for the "non-notable bend" and also the moorland would not be practical or acceptable by Wikipedia. However, these two features need to be included and the issues of original research, notability and the problems of general description of the article in the current form needs to be addressed. agljones(talk)
That's a lot written, agljones. Seems to me a good next step would be for you to share pages of the Basnett's Walk 10 - Abbeylands and Nobles Park to Laxey source and pages of the other sources you deem define "Windy Corner" differently than it being a named turn in the race course, to me and/or others. Feel free to email me about sharing. Otherwise the article needs to be edited down to just what's clearly supported, i.e. focusing on the turn in the race course. --doncram15:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Basnett publication has ceased publication a number of years ago and been superseded by two other publication by the same author. I do not have in my possession a copy of this publication. The issue was in respect of notability and placed the emphasis on the "non-notable bend" in the road which would again cause an AFD nomination for the article. I am not sure that I am defining the article differently. The article needed to be broaden, moved away from the "non-notable bend", address the problems of notability, provide encyclopaedic value and move to a "stand-alone" Isle of Man article. The use of the term "Windy Corner" is interchangeable with the "non-notable bend" and an area of moorland of Nobles Park. Historically, I am unsure which term came first as I am unsure of the exact entomology of the term "Windy Corner."
Again, the issues of the executive summary need to be addressed. An incorrect emphasis is placed on the term "Nobles Corner" as the only source dates to an Isle of Man Highway minute of 1922. The "non-notable bend" is part of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road rather than an Isle of Man motorcycle racing course (also the article is written British-English and the term is written "motor-cycle"). There is no citation for the "non-notable bend" being a "notable" bend. It is a public road and the traffic travels in both directions and the general Wikipedia convention has been to describe the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road northbound following in numerically order the "Garrow" milestone markers. The "Windy Corner" is not an "abrupt corner" and there is no citation for this definition. The various road improvements including the 2005/2006 road widening have made the corner much faster for racing speeds which are now as high as 135 mph and the general Whipple citation is not an appropriate description.
The description of the col is still not correct in the executive summary and the geographical feature is more substantial than described. This section of the A18 Snaefell Mountain road which runs northbound through the 40 mph speed restriction at the "Windy Corner" runs across the summit of the col for a short distance (along the top of a small plateau) and then along a small embankment or revetment that has been cut into the hillside. The summit of the feature is at spot height 391m close to the 300m brake-marker board. The problems with "strong cross winds" also affect cars, small commercial vans and high-sided vehicles and the prevailing south-westerly cause problems for road uses from the Creg-ny-Baa to the Water Works corner for both northbound and southbound traffic. The term "Windy Corner" should also be used as part of Nobles Park in the description of moorland. The length of the Snaefell Mountain Course is 37.73 miles(it is traditional that race distances and race speeds for the Isle of Man TT are only in miles per hour (mph) with no metric conversions).
If you wish to move the emphasis back to the "non-notable bend" in the road then again there is a risk for another AFD nomination for this article and also for further articles in the series. The historical motor-cycle racing part could be incorporated in the current motor-sport heritage section or moved to the bottom of the article. This is the structure of the equivalent article on Wikipedia Nederlands. However, the Wikipedia Nederlands also has notability issues with the "non-notable bend" in the road and issues with original research and wide-scale plagiarism. The issues of original research, notability and the problems with the executive summary of the article in the current form needs to be addressed. agljones(talk) 18:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments!
Okay, on the Stan Basnett 1992 book "The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot", I searched online and find that used copies are available cheaply, so I bought one for less than $6.00 U.S. including shipping. Above, agljones, yesterday you wrote "After reassessing and re-reading the publication..." at 22:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)) so I thought you had a copy, but no problem. In 3-10 days, I will have a copy.d I'm not optimistic about the Basnett book alone serving to define Windy Corner as a moorland area and to establish notability of the article, but I do expect to be able to use some info from it in describing the surrounding area.[reply]
Yes, I do want to go with defining Windy Corner primarily as the curve/turn/bend, and I do believe it is notable. Let's stop repeating the derogatatory "bend" phrase! I think there are enough sources that mention Windy Curve prominently and include it among the top named corners, and there are enough sources describing it directly, for a revised article to survive and to head off any new AFD.
I did not mean to assert there is an "abrupt corner", I was saying it is a curve, NOT an abrupt corner. I see the my wording of the sentence is bad, and I will reword it more simply, thanks.
I'll plan to remove the geographical features stuff from the lead paragraph, but will expect to say something in the body like: "'Windy Corner' is also used to refer to geographical features close by", including the col and the surrounding area of moorland (assuming the moorland usage appears in the Basnett book).
Yes, I agree the old name Nobles Corner shouldn't be presented up top, will plan to mention it later. Thanks.
Okay, I would be very happy to use "motor-cycle" as the default (and only use "motorcycle" in direct quotes), if that is the British usage, I was not aware of that.
What you say about "The various road improvements including the 2005/2006 road widening have made the corner much faster for racing speeds which are now as high as 135 mph" would be great to include, but I think that is your own personal knowledge not directly from a source. I really would like to find any source saying that!
About the Whipple citation and quote being outdated in terms of speeds and being general (if that is what you mean as "inappropriate"), I hope the quite might still be used, because I like Whipple's writing, but we'll see. In general the article should be about Windy Corner through the years, not just what it is like now. Maybe the general quote about what turns were like a while ago, can be used, but I agree it is not specific to Windy Corner, so maybe not.
I've only worked on the lead paragraph and the memorials mini-section, and I see the fatal accidents mini-section is confirmed.
Otherwise I think passages which are not about Windy Corner will have to be reduced or dropped. Cited sources that do not appear to mention Windy Corner specifically will have to be be dropped. But do I like any and all accounts of the riding experience through Windy Corner, such as the quote in source footnote for "TT 100 The Official Authorised History of the Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Racing" page 26 by Mick Duckworth (2007). That is footnote #26 in the current version of the article (permalink).
Generally in writing Wikipedia articles, editors are advised to get content in the body of an article stabilized, and return only at the end to revise a lead paragraph as a summary of the article. The first paragraph currently is not a summary of the rest of the current article, I agree.
There are more than one version of the Basnett publication and the 1992 version has been superseded by other publications by the same author. The issue was originally about notability and the Basnett publication of 1992 is a single, authoritative, neutral and independent publication that can be used to define the article for notability in regard to the AFD nomination about the "non-notable bend. " The area of the "Windy Corner" is open moorland and can be defined as such in a number of publications that have been listed above. The open moorland area of the "Windy Corner" is popular with hill-walkers, off-road motor-cycles, mountain bikes and is used for a number of recreational pursuits. There is further information to be added about the "Windy Corner" and to define the area singularly in terms of the "non-notable bend" is completely inaccurate and not provide encyclopaedic value.
The 1990 version of the Basnett book "The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot" lists a walk;- "Manxman's Meander, Stage 1 Douglas/Strang to Laxey." It describes the walk on page 79 as follows and is typical of the author;- "....After a short distance walking on the roadway, a view of the central hills open up(ie the open moorland of the Northern Uplands)....We shall head for the saddle (ie the col at the Windy Corner) between Cairn Kerjol and Mulagh Ouyr and the hut (ie The Windy Corner Marshals Communication Building) on the skyline is a good landmark...." The article then follows; "....The roadway is one of a number of ancient highways in the island, some remnants of which are surfaced and in constant use, while the remainder are the domain of walkers and others engaged in outdoor pursuits. Don't be surprised to encounter motor-cycles on these tracks - this is the Isle of Man...." Further along the walk on page 81, the author writes;- ".....Cross the style and enter the "mountain land".... (ie the open moorland of the Northern Uplands) and "....We head for the hut we could see earlier to cross the main road at Windy Corner.... (ie the area of moorland and the author is describing the area from the southern side of the col at the "Windy Corner" and the small plateau area at the summit of the col). The author then explains with this description;- "....The hut is a marshal's shelter used in June and September when the road is closed for racing...." Again on page 81, the author explains;- "....After crossing the (A18 Snaefell Mountain) road we walk over the (Windy Corner) cattle grid and head off down the (U31) Noble's Park Road, which was built in 1860 under the terms of the Disafforesting Act, following the sale of the island by the Duke of Athol to the (UK) Crown...." The author is describing a walk from a different direction compared to the later 1992 version of the same publication. All the features for defining notability are listed including the mountain land, the saddle or col, the Marshal's station and the U31 Nobles Park road. The author describes the area of the "Windy Corner" outside the context of the "non-notable bend" and only mentions crossing the "road" at this point (I have added notations in parenthesis to explain information).
The road improvements of 2005/2006 have increased racing speeds and this can be seen on Youtube videos of inboard racing cameras on racing motor-cycles before and after the 2006 Isle of Man TT Races. The previous quotation of Isle of Man TT competitors explaining the increased speed differential may have been attributed to Bruce Anstey the current Isle of Man TT lap record holder. The Whipple quotation dates from 1979 and the average race speed has risen from 111.75 mph for the 1979 Senior TT Race to 128.68 mph for the 2014 Senior TT Race won by Michael Dunlop (lap 2 sector time from the Bungalow to Cronk-ny-Mona for Michael Dunlop is 2 minutes, 16.322 seconds an average speed of 136.285 mph). The John McGuinness quotation of 2007 provides a better explanation of the problems of racing on the A18 Snaefell Mounatin Road section of the course. The road improvements of 2005/2006 actual increase the probability of a further AFD nomination as a "non-notable bend" as the "Windy Corner" has been transformed into a large non-de-script constant radius curve. Since the improvements, the road from the 33rd Milestone to Keppel Gate remains technically more difficult than the "non-notable bend" for both road traffic in both directions and for motor-cycle competitors. A Wikipedia article for this area of the 33rd Milestone would be would be difficult to sustain outside of being another a series of "non-notable bend(s)"
The issue of commemorative plaques is speculative and is Original Research (OR) and these types of memorials are placed for a number of different reasons. The road-side memorial close to the 300m brake-board at the "Windy Corner" is ignored and is the most prominent non-competitor road-side memorial on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road.
The issues of original research, notability and the problems with the executive summary of the article in the current form needs to be addressed and some of the geographical information restored. agljones(talk) 11:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To agljones, I said i would revise article after receiving book that is being shipped to me. Long passage and repetition of demands seem not helpful; I think you have already expressed most or all of the points here, right? If you have any new points, they may not be noticed due to length of post, is a danger of that style of communication.
I noticed your removal of memorials section in the article, and I restored it with some revision. It is documented, there is no OR there. If you want to argue there's OR, please answer: have you examined the source? And what do you see supported or not supported, in the source? Or maybe the revision of wording works for you.
And then yes i see merger proposal closure and I comment on its implementation in discussion below.
The article describes the "....commemorative monuments to the deceased at the place of death." I have looked at the source as it is a series of five photos. Without a written explanation within the article these are not roadside memorials but commemorative plaques (perhaps there is a UK culture difference here and these plaques are installed for various reasons) and you have speculated about the reasons for their location. (Again as mentioned previously, maps and photographs are primary sources and no further “synthesis” or ‘speculation’ is appropriate as it is considered Original Research).
Under the proposed merger to the article Snaefell Mountain Course only memorials to competitors could be included. The photos are unclear where the plaques are located and the smaller roadside memorials do not last very long due to the winter weather, disturbed by animals, destroyed by road traffic accidents or road improvements. The plaque located to the seat is not currently located at the Windy Corner and is perhaps the seat has been removed for winter storage. There has been some speculation on the reasons for these plaques and the article does not specify if they are commemorative plaques or road side memorials. The roadside memorial located close to the 300 metre brake-marker board which is within the Windy Corner 40 mph speed restriction zone is not mentioned and I have previously stated is the most prominently visible non-competitor memorial on this part of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. The non-competitor memorial near to Hillberry Corner has in contrast been included in the article. agljones(talk)18:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problems of the Executive Summary need to be addressed.
The executive summary of these Snaefell Mountain Course articles have been written in a standardised fashion for clarity and for consistency. First, the common English name/Course Name in bold. This followed by a Manx/Irish/Scottish Gaelic translation where appropriate, followed by previous or former names (but not including minor minutes of the Isle of Man Highway Board). This is followed by the proximity to the roadside racing markers (ie with a clockwise convention), the road names with official numerical designations (sometimes with Manx Gaelic translations in italics) and followed by the Isle of Man civil parish(es) name.
The very general “Whipple” quotation which does not mention the "Windy Corner." It is more than 30 years out of date and is now largely irrelevant as racing speeds have increased. Trying to define the name with the Motor-cycle Mechanics quotation is incorrect and the use of a trivial and humorous quotation is misleading. I have mentioned previously that I am insure of the exact entomology of the name. As with many Isle of Man place names they pre-date the Snaefell Mountain Course and the name “Windy Corner” may have been in informal use before the building of the “non-notable bend” which also predate the 1922 minute from the Isle of Man Highway Board. I am aware that the only current written source for the name is 1947 and I am currently unsure the best way to research this issue… The description of saddle/ridge/road…. etc is incorrect and the same information is repeated in the second and third paragraph. In British-English (which the majority of Isle of Man TT articles are written in) the term more often associated with this feature is col rather than saddle. The geographical features need to be restored in the executive summary and the term Snaefell Mountain Course used rather an Isle of Man motorcycle course. Again, the length of the course is 37.73 miles.
The 1990 version of the Basnett publication that I have quoted is similar to the 1992 version and there are many spelling mistakes of local place names and much journalist hyperbole, but essential correct in the descriptions of the mountain moorlands. The two Basnett publications, the Goldie publication and the publication from Liverpool University Press define the notability in terms of the geographical feature. It also defines the notability of the “non-notable bend” in terms of the motor-cycle racing connection. agljones(talk)Agljones 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I received a copy of "The Isle of Man by tram, train and foot" guidebook by Basnett and Freke, 1992 edition. I find it does NOT support any assertion that Windy Corner is an area of heath or upland or any other kind of area at all. On page 81 and continuing, it has text as quoted by Agljones from the 1990 edition above in paragraph "The 1990 version of ...". Now i can better interpret the quotes in that paragraph above: there is only one mention of "Windy Corner" by Basnett, and the other mentions are inserted by Agljones (they are labelled as explanatory insertions by Agljones, I am not saying there was any intent to deceive). In the 1992 edition there is the same one mention: "We head for the hut we could see earlier and cross the road at Windy Corner. The hut is a marshal's shelter used in June and September when the road is closed to traffic and used for motorcycle racing.". So, while there's some information in the Basnett source that could be used in describing the general area, there's no support in it for the notability of Windy Corner as a wikipedia topic. And no support for Windy Corner being an area or anything different than a bend/corner/stretch of the roadway and motorcycle racing course. --doncram15:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFC on merger has been closed with suggestion of merger. I am willing to implement the merger, but not until after I receive a book that I ordered (the Basnett source discussed above). And I may merge it to a new List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course (redlink currently) or similar name, which can cover the individually notable named corners and the other notable named corners that don't have or need separate wikipedia articles. Perhaps as many as 60 items to include. I do believe the topic of named corners is obviously notable. --doncram06:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that we should be merging here. There was no clear consensus in the discussion above and the supposed close was just a deletionist supervote. Elsewhere we have discussions for lots of the other corners being closed as Keep, not merge, and so we should be consistent with the general finding that these are best done separately. Andrew D. (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a merge will leave a redirect behind, with the edit history available, so it is not an irreversible decision. And the info really available and sourced here for Windy Corner is not that much, maybe merging to a long blurb in a list-article will not lose anything important. A corner can be split out again to a separate article if/when there is really too much info that a split is needed. How about work together on Draft:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course for a bit, and see how that turns out? That shouldn't be controversial. I am suggesting a separate list-article rather than merging into Snaefell Mountain Course#Named corners because that section would get too long. I would plan to make a sortable table. But what order should the named corners be in, in the main presentation? To discuss at Draft talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Actually I don't understand why there isn't a list-article yet, it seems obvious to have one, but maybe that's just me...i like list-articles. --doncram11:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously mentioned that changing the emphasis of the “Windy Corner” article to the “non-notable bend” will result in the article being first merged and then deleted.
In respect to the merge issue, there was no clear censuses of the voting. The issue of “common-sense” was mentioned and the problems with the equivalent Wikipedia Nederland’s articles was ignored and dismissed out-of-hand. However, some of the small articles/stubs have that have had AFD nominations have been voted as Keep. Articles have been deleted retrospectively without an AFD nomination. (I have not deleted articles as I do not have administrator deletion rights). Many of the articles are now stand-alone Isle of Man articles and have not been nominated for merge or deletion. The are currently two or perhaps three redirects to other articles. Would these articles need to be deleted (?) One of the articles has been changed into an Isle of Man Railway article and two other articles have associated Isle of Man Railway articles with similar names.
The articles are linked together as it is not acceptable policy to have “orphaned articles” and as a previous contributor noted the articles fit together like the pieces in a “jigsaw puzzle.” There is no current consensus on a super-article which would be much larger than the current Snaefell Mountain Course article. A much larger super-article with all the merged information would be subject to the addition of much personalised information, (unsubstantiated) unsourced claims, (unnecessary) trivial banality, differences in editorial styles, the retrospective deletion of the more controversial aspects of the Isle of Man TT Races, contradictory safety issues and the addition of poor (personal) racing photographs which Wikipedia has certain rules about graphic design elements of Wikipedia articles and the position of photographs. This would result in an article that would be difficult to maintain or edit and the problems of notability and original research would again resurface. As mentioned above, much of the trivial and also non-trivial information in the article would disappear from Wikipedia as the super-article would be strictly about content relative to the Snaefell Mountain Course. The current names section of the Snaefell Mountain Course after the rewrite of the article was for names of competitors only.agljones(talk)19:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I received the Basnett book that I had ordered, and commented in section above. I plan to proceed further with developing Draft:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course a bit, and I welcome help developing that. It covers Windy Corner already, with about the right amount of detail in my opinion. I welcome discussion at its Talk page, too. When that draft is completed well enough and is moved to mainspace, I'll plan to redirect Windy Corner to an anchor point in the "Windy Corner" of the table there. --doncram15:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I had completed the rewrite of the article for the Snaefell Mountain Course, I considered a list of named corners like the draft list that you suggest. I decided not to create a list like you suggest as it was technically complicated to create and maintain. The list is also redirects to another page and the current Mountain Course template is common to the main article and all other related articles. The Draft List requires an excessive number of photos as the there has been a change in style of the course markers boards since 2011 (currently some of the marker boards are in storage until May 2015 and some of the positions of the milestone boards have been moved for safety reasons). Furthermore, the Draft List will not resolve the problem of the (Windy Corner) article(s) being merged then deleted. agljones(talk)20:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just chanced upon this (as I wanted a wikilink and new that it could be easily found at agljones contributions) AGAIN I'm reading "After I had completed the rewrite.."WP:OWN and "differences in editorial styles" WP:OWN AGAIN. We can see agljones' text-walling style in any of the articles and here above - overwhelming verbosity - time for a radical precis, which he calls "sub edit". Who wants and decrees many page-downs? WP:MOS?? I have largely abandoned these IoM topics due to controlling participants, but "and the addition of poor (personal) racing photographs which Wikipedia has certain rules about graphic design elements of Wikipedia articles and the position of photographs..." Commons policies of free-for-all has produced very little choice and we have to be grateful - that applies to any subject. Same controlling tendencies, same tub thumping rhetoric...Life on Mars (time travel TV show for the US readers), Time Warp, Deja Vu??? Time to move on, and ALLOW other contributors to participate without unilateral control???!!!!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This string is about the deletion and merger implications. I included a small paragraph to explain the situation about the problems of the draft list. As I mentioned previously, I did completely rewrite the article the Snaefell Mountain Course and I cannot deny this. The new article has been more successfully and been translated into other languages. My previous string was an explanation for the reason why I had used a Wikipedia template rather than a list. Here is an example of a successful (related) list which editors may find helpful and develop a consensus.
There has been some comment out of context. The "differences of editorial styles" is a comment that I have made about the Isle of Man TT article. After the successful rewrite of the Snaefell Mountain Course article it was agreed amongst editors that the Isle of Man TT article should be rewritten (currently the same article on Wikipedia Nederlands is better than the English Language version). The new article would be complete change from the current style and written in the same style like other sporting events like the Tour de France. The "difference in styles" is a polite reference to very poor written English which has no place on Wikipedia. If you check the many articles and you will see many of the contributions have left in situ when they have should have been removed or corrections to the very poor written English. For example, in respect to the "....controlling tendencies....etc" the article for the Manx Grand Prix the only additions that I have made here are updating the lap records, overall winners list and race trophies. The Manx Grand Prix article has encyclopaedic value in its current form and perhaps needs updating to include the Classic TT. The comments in respect to lack of racing photographs was replying to to an enquiry in respect to the article about the Windy Corner article. The area of the Windy Corner has a large restricted area on the outside of the corner and has restricted off-course parking which is not practical for racing photography. Again, in respect to the "....controlling tendencies....etc" the poor racing photographs are left in in situ and Wikipedia does have guidelines in the placing of photographs.
I spent more than 1 hour at the Windy Corner in gale force winds 5/6 trying to confirm the location of the commemorative plaques and memorial (I located 5 out of 6.) After being forced to stand behind the Marshal's shelter due the gusting wind which is forced-up the valley and over the top of the gully, I decided that the name of the Windy Corner is not due to the "....wind that whistles up your trouser-leg as you stand on the corner watching the riders hurl their bikes through the right-hander...." I rewrote the executive summary to address the issues of notability(I had previously written in a string moving the notability from the open moorland and public land back to the emphasis on motor-cycle racing and the "non-notable bend" would lead to the article being deleted or merged with another article. The article was then nominated for merger), removing trivial and out-of-date/irreverent quotations, correcting poor English and removing duplications. Again, in respect to (race) photographs/"....controlling tendencies....etc"/draft list there has been a change of style in race signs since 2011 and currently the race marker boards from Brandish Corner to Signpost Corner have been removed for the winter. Also, for photographic purposes, walking on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road at any time of the year is downright (fatally) dangerous..............(for 2014 the rate of fatal road traffic accidents in Great Britain was approximately 2.5 fatal accidents per 100,000 of the population compared to a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 for the Isle of Man and 10.5 per 100,000 for the USA).
I have previously stated that I have not have deleted any articles as I do not have administrator rights for article deletion. An article was deleted by the editor that has repeatedly nominated the articles listed above and also deleted four(?) other articles without referring to the article deletion process. I have previously stated that I accepted that perhaps some streamlining of the number of articles in respect to the Snaefell Mountain Course was inevitable and if you check the article deletion nominations you will find that I have not expressed a vote in all of the article nominations. I have accepted that some of the small articles may be deleted due to lack of notability (one article was a duplication). I have challenged and removed a small section which had been placed in the section reserved for parts of the course for competitors names as the information was inaccurate, lacked notability and missed completely the main points(it could have been mistaken for a commercial advert). Also, the correct spelling of the area at the 6th Milestone is Appledene rather than Apageledene. In respect to No 67 & No 146 the fatal racing accidents occurred at Appledene.
In conclusion, in respect to the "....Same controlling tendencies...." I have no issue in editors completing the race results for the Isle of Man TT Races or Manx Grand Prix or any other article. There is no interest in editors completing a Practice Leaderboard or completing race results as the events occur. The issues have been about "consistency" and the "articles fitting together like a jigsaw," addressing notability issues and developing articles on the long-term. I have not "adopted" any articles. The only issue has been with out-of-place comments (including trivial banality) in respect to fatal racing accidents which another editor later apologised for these comments. Also, edits in respect to fatal Isle of Man TT/Manx Grand Prix racing accidents being recorded before official announcements being made about any fatal accident that has occurred(this must be an individual within the Race Office and against Wikipedia rules). In regard to the "....same tub thumping rhetoric...Life on Mars (time travel TV show for the US readers), Time Warp, Deja Vu??? " I am not sure how to respond(what does that actually mean ??). Perhaps you like to look at this Isle of Man article for Port Jack Halt(I have followed Wikipedia rules marked the article as unreferenced and where citations need to be added). There are issues of notability, Original Research(OR), lack of in-line citations, poor written English, completely trivial (libelous) information, lack of neutral point of view.....etc, etc, etc. If there is an issue then you can take it the matter to arbitration and do not resort to personal comments. In respect to the TV series Life on Mars the issues were more than just about time-travel..........(Wikipedia states....the " plot centres on the ambiguity....it being unclear to both the audience and the character whether he has died, gone mad or into a coma, or has actually travelled back in time." The term "Life on Mars" in the context of the TV series was also used by Kate McCann after being arrested as an Arguida (Portuguesedefendent - USA Person of Interest / hostile witness) by the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária after the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine McCann). In response to rhetoric, the approach to articles has been conservative and respectful. In respect to walls of texts or page downs perhaps refer to your own comments about WP:OWNagljones(talk)13:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I noticed somewhere above agljones stating "I considered a list of named corners like the draft list that you suggest. I decided not to create a list like you suggest as it was technically complicated to create and maintain." Well, the list of corners has been created, and maybe it is complicated technically but it done. Meaning it is set up, although it is not complete in terms of listing all corners or describing them all. I think it's good to have the list-article with blanks where pictures are needed; it properly calls for photographers to get busy. Hopefully it will get further developed. I don't happen to think it will be complicated to maintain. Thanks again for discussion here, hope for productive discussion at the Talk page of the list-artice. Cheers, --doncram04:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sometime after the long RFC concluded with decision to merge/re-direct, an editor restored the article including all or almost all of the previous text which had been found to be deficient. There is an edit summary asserting that a source was found & added which would establish notability; it must be apparent in this diff of before vs. after (plus updates to now). However, there has been no discussion and the consensus has not changed, and I have re-implemented the re-direct. Please don't restore the article without a new consensus. --doncram21:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that an editor has immediately restored the article, with an edit summary naming my action "vandalism", which it clearly is not. The edit summary referenced the Wikipedia essay (not a policy) wp:NOW. The nutshell summary of wp:NOW is: "When an article contains unverifiable content, it needs to be corrected now before someone reads it and is misled by it." I see no way that wp:NOW applies, except in the opposite direction, towards re-removal of the Windy Corner previous text. IMO the content of the previous Windy Corner was seriously deficient --it includes fabrications/wp:synthesis/wp:OR as discussed in the RFC-- and it should not be exposed in Wikipedia. 11thmilestone, would you please comment? --doncram21:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11thmilestone, would you please use Talk to communicate (which allow for real discussion and can involve others) rather than edit summaries?
Let me assume your last edit summary was written here. Then what you said (by edit summary) is:
"Restore article after Vandalism (Merger was about road feature and article is a geographical feature and issue of "independent notability" has been resolved and not a fabrication/synthesis/WP:NOW and re-listing is not appropriate) Wikipedia common sense" --11thmilestone
If that is what you would say in a Talk discussion, then my reply would be:
1:"Sorry, you are incorrect about my re-implementation of RFC decision being Wp:VANDALISM. For someone to assert that, they must be unaware of Wikipedia policy or be willfully ignoring it and _lying_, I guess, because it is simply a false assertion. I wish you would not speak that way, because undermines possibility of real discussion and tends to make Wikipedia a more toxic environment for everyone. Please don't do that again, okay?
2:"You imply you think the RFC discussion was considering only whether Windy Corner was a notable road feature (being a named corner in the Isle of Man TT course). And you think that Windy Corner is notable as a geographical feature (which was not adequately considered as a reason for notability in the RFC). However, I participated in that discussion, and that is not my understanding at all. (Note: The RFC started at #RfC: Proposed merge to Snaefell Mountain Course and involved #Moorland and #February 15 sections which were opened and discussed, too, before the RFC finished. The RFC closure should have closed those sections too, as they are part of the discussion, but closure currently shows as only having closed the first section.) I and others explicitly understood that some editors had tried to develop its notability as a place or wp:GEOLAND geographical feature as "moorland" or a "col", in addition to any notability as a named corner/turn/road feature. I and others explicitly reject those tries. I tried supporting the article being kept. For example, I myself tried to develop support for Windy Corner being notable as a named corner / road feature, including by adding sourced information about roadside memorials there, but mentions of numerous fatal or non-fatal accidents and memorials, even well-sourced ones, is strongly opposed by at least one editor (due to POV of that editor and by incorrect interpretation of Wikipedia policy, IMO, but that is a separate discussion).
And as I participated further I came to agree with others that there seemed to be no reliable sources that provided substantial coverage of Windy Corner in any of those ways. What were asserted to be valid sources turned out to be mere mentions. For example a key claim was
"...the publication;- The Isle of Man by Train, Tram and by Foot by Stan Basnett (1990) Lily Publications ISBN1-899602-72-0 Walk 10 - Abbeylands and Nobles Park to Laxey, a summary (or as Wikipedia describes "...."Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content....") of the information in this publication does describe the area of the Windy Corner as an area of open moorland part of Nobles Park (the word Park meaning sheep grazing area rather than an artificial created municipal garden or park) and is suitable for defining notability and also as Wikipedia describes in a single neutral independent publication that repeatedly uses the name Windy Corner." [bold emphasis added by me]
That was the very best evidence given for Windy Corner being notable as a geographic feature, IMO. However, that was a false claim. I requested posting of pages from the document, and eventually purchased a copy of that source on my own, and I found it does NOT describe Windy Corner in that way. Windy Corner was merely mentioned, once, and only as a location (the curve of road: "We head for the hut we could see earlier and cross the road at Windy Corner. The hut is a marshal's shelter..."); there was no suggestion that "Windy Corner" is used to describe an area of moorland. I reported that and there was no reply, it ended the discussion.
The RFC was correctly closed, IMO, and I implemented a merger redirect (to the new List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner, better than to Snaefell Mountain Course. (Oddly, by the way, since then an editor has repeatedly deleted the coverage of Windy Corner there. I support it being covered at least briefly there, but they do not; I don't understand their reasoning.)
Now, with edits restoring the article, but no posting at this Talk page, an editor is rejecting the RFC decision. I'm sorry, I have an informed opinion that notability cannot be established, and at this point I feel justified in being skeptical of new claims about any sources held privately. I thought I saw some new source being cited, adding other mere mentions of Windy Corner as a location? But currently, what I see in this diff from last version before redirect (6 June) to current version (13 June) that absolutely no new information has been added. It is simply a restoration of the rejected article. There are 30 sources cited, yes, but those have been considered and judged to be inconsequential or completely irrelevant. So, 11thmilestone, will you please explain what you see differently? If you have substantial sources not previously considered, that inform your view, please do share about them. New information could change my opinion and the consensus decision so far, if you seriously make a case. I personally invite you to do so.
I will pause for a day or two, but anyone is justified in restoring the redirect right now, and I definitely will re-implement it again soon if there is not serious, civil, real discussion ongoing. Perhaps an administrative freeze/protection of the redirect is needed. --doncram17:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the talkpage, there was no “consensus” on deletion. The issue with the deletion was about (independent) notability. The editor making the nomination had correctly identified the issue and then caused problems about secondary issues with the article content. This issue has been resolved in regard to independent notability with the inclusion of a revised (ref 1) from the Isle of Man newspaper ‘Manx Sun’ which uses the term “Windy Corner” in an independent context outside of the issue of non-notable bend/Isle of Man TT. The second reference (2), for illustrative purposes describes the term “Windy Corner” as a general term or generic term regarding the “land” (in Brit/English agricultural farmland including upland grazing land, open moorland…etc.) retrospectively to the other lands of Nobles Park, Barrule Commons and Clough Willy Park. As with the previous editor DRIMES that has stated that “ What matters is size, independent notability, and common sense." If you have carefully assessed the revisions as you have stated you would have seen that the issue of notability has been resolved. The size of the article you have already commented on in regard to the number of sources. The issue is not about “consensus” as Wikipedia states it is not a democracy but about “common sense” and the article has been rewritten and reinstated to include previous text (a “consensus” with the work of other editors) and some suitable/subtle changes of wording to provide encyclopaedic value. The issues of notability as Wikipedia states do not apply to the text and the issues or moorland/geographic content/notability are not relevant and Wikipedia makes no distinction over the use of “local sources” compared to any other sources. To define (independent) notability by the issue of roadside memorials is also ludicrous and shows lack of informed opinion on your behalf(as you have to keep asking other editors for information, rely on inaccurate internet sources including commercial websites and are completely unfamiliar with any issues in respect to the IOM TT or the named corners on the Mountain Course). Also a contradictory policy in your nomination for deletion of Laurel Bank and the redirect policy for the Windy Corner articles as both have memorials/sites of fatal racing accidents. It is also not possible to provide a “consensus” if the article is redirected and the really issue is again about “COMMON SENSE” as defined by Wikipedia. 20:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 11thmilestone
Do not apply your own (WP:OWN) policy in re-editing content from the Windy Corner when it is included in the list corners Snaefell Mountain Course. What you describe as sources being “inconsequential or completely irrelevant” in the Windy Corner article are now acceptable when you include the information in the list article Snaefell Mountain Corners. Do not summarize content from other articles as you have stated previously as it may be considered as plagiarism which is not acceptable by Wikipedia. Do not apply your own (WP:OWN) policy in redirecting articles to your list of Snaefell Mountain Course to support whimsical or flippant content which again you have already previously defined as “inconsequential or completely irrelevant.” Do not nominate articles for deletion such as Laurel Bank (more lack of informed opinion as you have not realised the meaning of the Manx Gaelic translation or realised where the crash in respect to William Dunlop had actually occurred) to support your own editing policy (WP:OWN) in respect to the article list corners Snaefell Mountain Course. The issue here is the use of “flag marker” a term not used in Brit/English and has no meaning in the article . The articles independent notability has already been defined and again trying to define the article in terms of either “left” / “right”/ “single”/ “more than one” bends as this will again cause more articles to be nominated for deletion as “non-notable” bends including the list corner Snaefell Mountain Course article (again as other editors have stated that road traffic operates in both directions). Do not extensively synthesise/fabricate content and include OR (WP:OR) or use / summarize content from websites about road memorials as the Wikipedia policy of (WP:NOT#MEMORIALS) applies. Do not duplicate / fabricate information/sections/article content from the main Snaefell Mountain Course or use contradict information in other articles in the main motorcycle/TT Isle of Man article listings or include NON RELEVANT information about numbering policies at the Indy Speedway/Le Mans 24 Hours/number of corners/cars travelling at low speed as (WP:OR) applies or cars not hitting bumps or corners at low speed/synthesises content from internet forums/directly or indirectly plagiarised information or plagiarise by summarising. Do not set your own time limits unless specifically mention by Wikipedia rules. Do not disrupt the IOM TT (nb that there is no Wikipedia 2015 IOM TT aricle as a result of your repeated disruptive editing )/ IOM motorcycle network with your own editing policy in trying to justify a list article which duplicates / contradicts pre-existing information. Do not vandalise articles.20:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 11thmilestone
I'm sorry, but the tone of that makes me wonder: 11thmilestone, are you the same editor as Agljones? If so you are in serious violation of wikipedia policies about having multiple accounts. I have believed 11thmilestone to be a different person, whom I belatedly "welcomed" to wikipedia on 19 April 2015 (noting they had edited starting in 2008), and to whom I posted notes on 10 June and 15 June. Agljones edited first 21 October 2006.
On this page both editors have edited, and it appears to me that 11thmilestone is picking up where Agljones left off, seeming to indicate that there is more support for the position that Windy Corner is a notable area. Here in this discussion section I mentioned assertions of Agljones which were proved to be wrong previously (which I believe Agljones never acknowledged or apologized for), and then 11thmilestone, a separate editor is continuing the general discussion leaving that aside/behind. Assuming 11thmilestone is a different person, I would tend to agree that errors by someone else no longer participating here are not so important. I was myself unsure how explicit I should be in restating what happened previously, to a new and different person who was not responsible for that. But, your words and writing style seem much the same. If you two are one person, this is not fair treatment of me and others here; this is undermining the possibility of trust and real discussion. It is discouraging for me personally to be dealing with one editor calling my contributions "vandalsm" and so on, and seeing another person turning the same way makes me worry about whether there is some local consensus that needs to be given more attention. Maybe I offended some IoM TT-interested person(s) in my disagreements with Agljones here and at other Talk pages previously (after I spent a long time agreeing with Agljones and trying to collaboratively build wikipedia coverage); that would concern me very much. Even if I and other more widely-experienced editors were "right" on what makes good writing and what are Wikipedia policies and so on, if there is a group of local people feeling disenfranchised or whatever, then to be decent we would have to take it slower to allow less-informed persons a chance to learn. I have also been hesitating about how skeptical I should be about claims of 11thmilestone that they are finding sources which happen to establish what Agljones wished to prove. 11thmilestone showed up here 2 May with this edit "reference to resolve problem of name and notability issues that does add some reference(s) as can be seen in this diff. If it is a second person coming to the same conclusions, well, it has to be given more consideration.
Which is it? Agljones and 11thmilestone, could you please respond? If you are two separate persons then I hope you will understand I have reason to see similarities. If you are one, then please explain why you are exempt from Wikipedia policy. For me, this needs to be resolved before anything else here. --doncram09:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So - two different Wikipedia contributors, both contributing to IoM-only articles, both taking the same images from the same viewpoint, at the exact same point in real time, using the same model of Canon PowerShot SX120 IS camera, both uploading to Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons???? (Thanks for sending me the warning to my talk page...whomever you are...just what I needed). Thanks, @Doncram:AGLJONES, start line Senior 201011thMILESTONE, start line Senior 2010--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution was that the two were determined by sockpuppet investigation to be the same editor. 11thmilestone was permanently blocked, Agljones was blocked for a period and has since been unblocked and is currently allowed to edit. --doncram20:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus towards the redirect to the Snaefell Mountain Course article amongst editors. The issue of the independent notability WP:N has been resolved as it is now "factual." The suggestion for the BRD discussion is that it is not practical to "plop" the article content into the names section of the Snaefell Mountain Course article. If there is an issue of redirect to another article not stated in the initial merge discussion then censuses should be gained amongst editors about a different type of redirect. That article should have independent verifiability WP:N and not contradict the content of the main article. Neither should the content place this article at risk of a further Afd nomination. agljones(talk)19:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, there was an RFC about this. Your bold edit restoring the article, contrary to the RFC decision, is reverted by me. It is redirected to a short description of Windy Corner within the list-article about named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Thank you for opening a discussion section about this.
If you wish to revisit the RFC decision (which you apparently do), I suggest you try to identify what is different now, if anything. As I recall, one problem was that there was unverifiable information in the former Windy Corner article, such as assertions that it is a larger area, not just a named corner. As I recall the consensus was that there was not sufficient sourcing for there to be a standalone article about Windy Corner. Are there new sources? --doncram19:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect the BRD discussion in full and do not use any redirect or the edit summary to bypass this process. There is now further "factual" evidence for a stand alone article including independent notability WP:N and it is not possible to include this if there is a redirect. It is a part of the BRD process for other editors to also discuss the factual evidence. There is more evidence than for some other listings including the Keppel Gate article (or Ginger Hall article which was subject to an Afd deletion) and this process has been fragmentary and indiscriminate. This talk:page for the Windy Corner actually defined the parameters for independent notability WP:N for this series of articles and for Wikipedia in general. For the BRD process perhaps you would like to respect this and not take unilateral action in future.
If you "recall," the redirect was to the Snaefell Mountain Course article and not to another article and your comment was that it was not acceptable to "plop" this content into another article. If you wish to redirect to this list article then you gain a consensus for this redirect. The list article that you mention, as you are aware has no independent notability WP:N and it is necessary for any list article to have an independent article. The list article has excessive amounts of Original research WP:OR and in the executive summary it is unclear what the list article refers to.
If you "recall" the redirect was to the Snaefell Mountain Course article (as a non-notable bend) and not something called the "Snaefell Mountain Course" as (not) described in the list article. The summary for the BRD discussion is that there is no grounds for the incorrectly described redirect as independent notability has been satisfied and of sufficient length for an independent article. The list article in its current form is not of sufficient encyclopaedic quality to satisfy the terms of a redirect if a consensus could be obtained. Again, please fully respect the BRD discussion.
There was a consensus decision that there should be no article, based on thorough discussion. It would take a new consensus to change that. This situation is different than the addition of new or rewritten information to an article, where wp:BRD may apply better. Or, your edit to restore an article can be taken as a "Bold" edit, which was reverted by me, and then there needs to be discussion to a new consensus if there is to be any change.
I have already invited you to provide any new information which might support changing the decision, and since you do not do so I tend to think there is no new information.
About where "Windy Corner" should redirect to: At the time, there was no list-article of named corners. The original decision to redirect to the overall course article is obviously superseded by the availability now of the better option to redirect to the row specifically about Windy Corner in the list of named corners. The main decision taken was to remove the article (and its questioned assertions), which remains removed. --doncram00:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BRD discussion
As with the BRD discussion on the talk:page with the Keppel Gate, I have respected the BRD process by not making any edits to the content of the article before the BRD discussion has concluded. With this Windy Corner article, I have reverted the redirection as other editors can see the article and as with the BRD discussion with the Keppel Gate article, I have respected the BRD process by not making any edits to the content of the article before the BRD discussion has finished. I thought that perhaps that there had been a misunderstanding and the immediate reversion was a mistake. This in the BRD process is seen by Wikipedia as “tendentious editing” which is not permitted and the explanation for the revert seen as acting unilaterally and presented as a ‘fait accompli’ outside of the BRD process.
BRD Courtesy
As a courtesy to the BRD process, I have waited a period of time. However, the second message refers to the BRD cycle and a clarification of the engagement of BRD discussion.
In the BRD cycle;- “.... The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.... “ If there has not been a mistake then any further revert under the BRD cycle is seen by Wikipedia as “….hostile act of edit warring and is not only uncollaborative, but could incur sanctions, such as a temporary block.” As Wikipedia states under the BRD process; - “…..repeatedly rehashing old arguments without new reasoning might strike some editors as being disruptive..... " and after five redirects you have not started any BRD discussion.
Local Consensus
Also, as mentioned previously, it is not possible to gain a consensus if the article is redirected as it is not visible to other editors and the BRD process does not allow ‘ tendentious editing ' or the engagement of a “local consensus.” Wikipedia states under the BRD process that “….A local consensus to freeze editing cannot override Wikipedia:Editing policy…..” It is permissible under a BRD discussion to have local control lifted and “….if page is subject to some other access control. (Get the control lifted.)….”
There was no censuses to deletion of the article and no consensus to the redirection of the article to the Snaefell Mountain Course article or any other article and any list article. The issue of immediately reversing the edit under the BRD cycle is also not applicable as above;- a) there was no consensus on deletion or redirection to the Snaefell Mountain Course article and b) there has also been significant change since the decision in respect to article length and independent notability WP:N. The later was the question the closing admin at the DRV addresses as “….What matters is size, independent notability, and common sense: " and all of these issues have been addressed. The closing admin on the 25th February 2015 has then stated that “….A good overview is preferable to [a] bunch of start and stub class article….” This ‘good overview’ has now been addressed.
BRD Independent notability and size
As you are aware, there has been important change in the scope of some of these articles that you refer to in the general Isle of Man network of articles. There is significant change to the article as it will now incorporate a) the changes to the mountain road section during 1922-23 from the Windy Corner to Brandywell Corner, b) the previous position of the Windy Corner prior to 1860, c) further clarification of the issue of independent notability and d) as an area of Special Significant Scientific Interest. I have not instigated these changes as I have respected the BRD process by process by not making any immediate reversals and respected the 3RRR rule. It would be "....'common sense'...." that these points should be included in the article. Also, common sense would suggest a compromise should be reached between the number of citation that provided independent notability against the issue of citation overkill There is no issue of citations being "stretched" to meet the demands of independent notability.
In regard to the question of independent notability WP:N as you are aware, this was addressed in detail by the Bassnet publication with a citation which can be described as “factual” and is a substantial non-Isle of Man TT/non-motor-cycling publication. Wikipedia does not differentiate between ‘local’ and ‘non-local’ secondary sources. Wikipedia describes that independent notability is not related to the content or quality of the article. Wikipedia also describes that independent notability is not generally related to the perceived quality of the citation.
BRD Reply
The question of the area of open moorland over the issue of the ‘non-notable bend’ has been resolved with a further citation which actually predates motor-cycle racing in the Isle of Man. There is further evidence it be incorporated which supports the area being described as a general area rather than just as a ‘non-notable bend ’ which will lead to a further AfD nomination. This is supported by one general citation which supports further the issue of independent notability WP:N, one citation supports the general area/moorland but does not support the question of independent notability WP:N and two further citations that support the description as a general area. The Traffic Section of the Isle of Man Police, along with other agencies, continually refer to the ‘non-notable bend’ as a general area as with other ‘non-notable bends’ to be found on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road. There is a further reference that has recently been found that supports these other citations in respect to the issue of independent notability and that of the general area of moorland which also applies to the Keppel Gate article.
BRD Comparison Ginger Hall
In respect to the merge of this article to the Snaefell Mountain Course article as you as an editor have yourself in an edit of the 19th June 2015 that mentioned this is an inappropriate and impractical process. This was highlighted by your own comments about the Ginger Hall article;- “….a cut-and-paste….. into a new section of Snaefell Mountain Course. Then walk away. Not helpful at all; it was obviously out of place there…..The Edit was just ‘plopping it in'…..”
BRD Comparison Ginger Hall independent notability
In respect to independent notability about the Ginger Hall article in the same edit that you have written that;- “....it was a reasonable two-sentence stub article. It honestly and directly states…."Ginger Hall is an uphill left-hand bend following…..a popular vantage point.” There is no attempt to establish independent notability WP:N or as described in your edit of the 19th June 2015 "....in fact fails to assert or explain importance...." By following the same process the Windy Corner articles states ‘honestly and directly’ that “....is an area of uncultivated grassland, heath moorland…. located between the 32nd TT Milestone and 33rd TT Milestone motor-cycle racing road-side markers on the primary A18 Snaefell Mountain Road....” With this process of ‘local consensus’ that you have established as an editor the Windy Corner is suitable as a stub and no reason for it to be directed to any other list article. This confirmed by your own same edit when describing the Ginger Hall article ( which also had a similar no consensus decision for article deletion) as “….It arguably could be moved into one row in the list article but is okey IMO as a stub…….” Therefore by this ‘local consensus’ that you have applied that the Windy Corner article can exist as a standalone article/stub/other and there is no reason for a redirect to another article or list article.
BRD Comparison Ginger Hall substantial new material
This is again further confirmed by your own edit about the Ginger Hall article when you as an editor have stated;- “….If substantial material never emerges so it can be developed a bit more (more than can be said conveniently in a description in the list article row)….then it could be possibly be merged and redirected to the list-article row, later….” By this process of ‘local consensus’ you have established that ‘substantial material’ has emerged for the Windy Corner article since its original AfD nomination of the 13th November 2014, the material of the article is too large for a row in a list article and it can be merged ‘…..later…..’ and not at present without a 'consensus' that you decribe.
BRD Comparison Ginger Hall local consensus and list article
This is again confirmed by your own same edit about the Ginger Hall article that “….work some on the Named corner section…” (not an option “...'just plopping it in….Then Walk away'…") or “…..'ask others what can be done'…” (eg a BRD discussion), “....obtain a consensus to revert the merger and then redirect; open a list article.....” As an editor, your own process that you defined you have not followed as the continued redirection does not allow for a full BRD discussion and Wikiepdia does not allow for the application of any type of ‘local consensus.’ In regard to the list article you have written in the same edit of the 19th June 2015 that “....editors at a list-article level can define list-item notability by any reasonable consensus.... “ Again, Wikipedia does not allow for the application of a ‘local consensus’ and the ‘creative issues’ in establishing the list items has to be acknowledged with a suitable citation.
BRD Comparison List article
There is no consensus for the redirection to the list article that you suggest. It is a digression to suggest that this list article is a valid alternative when there was no suggestion or consensus for a redirect to this list article. Despite the title of the list article, as you are aware there has been no attempt to resolve the subject of the independent notability WP:N. The list article since its creation and in particular in the last 12 months has had no Executive Summary and its purpose, scope and responsibility are largely undefined. Again, as you are clearly aware that the list article substantially limits the development of the Isle of Man (motor-cycle) network of articles The list article contradicts pre-existing articles and unnecessarily duplicates information, does not allow for the addition of ‘saliently’ new material or further research in key areas and is an unwarranted engagement of a “local consensus.” Wikipedia does not allow for ‘false’ information or inadvertent bias with the selective use of citations.
The issue of the of acknowledgement with a citation the creative issues of producing the list has also not been addressed or that an independent article must exist for each list item. There is no consensus for the criteria for the inclusion this article in the list article as you suggest as the creative issues in producing the list have not been acknowledge as required by Wikipedia. The recent publication the “Isle of Man's Big 3 Race Events: The Spectator Guide. TT (Tourist Trophy)" and the publication does not included the ’ Windy Corner’ but includes Keppel Gate. This is a publication that you somehow appear to be familiar with as the your recent edit summary for the Keppel Gate article includes a summarisation which appears to be from this publication.
BRD Summary
As with the Isle of Man TT article there was a discussion that all historic racing information should be transferred to the relevant Isle of Man TT race year article. To bring this process into line with these other articles in the Isle of Man (motor-cycling) network of articles, then all historic racing information should be transferred to the relevant racing year article. This will avoid problems of direct or inadvertent bias, issues of independent notability WP:N, single or multiple promotional issues, the selective or inappropriate use of (questionable) citations or blogging in a commercial style. Therefore, for the BRD discussion the redirect to the list article is not a valid option.
The article has been improved since its nomination for deletion to resolve the issue of Independent Notability WP:N. The revised article included information about the road improvements 1922-23 which is an important part of the Isle of Man TT series of articles. As discussed previously [2] there was no consensus on deletion and no consensus on merging the content with the Snaefell Mountain Course article. There was also no consensus in the RfC discussion on redirection rather than merging the content to another list article which has not addresses the issue of independent nobility WP:N or addressed the creative issues of the selection of the list items. WP:CITEagljones(talk)16:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The revised article corrects the incorrect information in the list article [3] as Wikipedia does not ' saliently ' allow for false information. In redirecting the article with new additional information this acknowledges that the article is off sufficient length, the issue of independent notability of the article has now been addressed and also that an independent article must exists for any list row item. For example this article [4] is found on the the list article [5] despite being subjected to a successful Afd deletion [6], then reinstated [7] ;- the contents of the article are Original Research WP:O and 'saliently' no attempt has been made to resolve the issue of independent notability WP:N and the commercial blogging style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. In future editors must address the BRD discussion. agljones(talk)09:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? There was a consensus decision of an RFC that there should not be a separate Windy Corner article. At that time, there was no list-article. The list-article row on Windy Corner is obviously a better target for the redirect. That has been covered previously. Here, you also say there is something incorrect about the list-article's coverage of Windy Corner? Please explain what, specifically, you think is wrong, and back it up by sourcing, at the Talk page of the list-article. --doncram17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! Well, I reckon they won't be participating...unless a suspicious IP shows up at the AfD...aargh. I was just trying to avoid being accused of canvassing or showing favoritism, or whatever else I've been accused of over the years. Atsme📞📧20:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
