This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Trans Pennine Trail is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cycling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cycling 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.CyclingWikipedia:WikiProject CyclingTemplate:WikiProject Cyclingcycling articles
Ok, so let me see if I understand this. There is a 207 mile west-to-east trail from Liverpool to Hornsea. There is also a 70 mile north-to-south trail from Leeds to Sheffield that crosses the west-to-east trail at some point south of Barnsley. So if you start at Liverpool and head east to that point, then go north to Leeds and back, then south to Chesterfield and back, and continue on to Hornsea, that would be 207+2*70 = 347 miles, close to the promised 350 miles for the "whole route." Is that right? --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not convinced that the link to Sheffield Sustrans belongs in this article. The relevant policy I quoted (WP:ELNO) states that external links to the following should be avoided: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." The latter would not appear to apply here: Sustrans Sheffield have responsibilities other than the TPT and, looking at the blog, there's plenty of stuff there that is unrelated to the TPT. The Penistone group you mention in your edit summary is possibly similarly marginal, but is at least directly concerned with the upkeep of the TPT. I don't feel strongly and I've nothing against Sustrans (very much the opposite in fact), but I was trying to follow Wikipedia policy. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David,the work that the Penistone group do is essentially the same as the Sheffield group, the main difference being that they only have the TPT to work on, whereas we have the TPT and some additional Sustrans routes. If anything the name they have given their site is misleading as they are only one group out of the hundred or so volunteers who look after the TPT. If you look at the Sheffield blog, the posts on the 10th September, 5th September, 15th August, 18th April all relate to direct work on the TPT as do earlier posts. So I suggest we leave this link in place and add links to other groups that are maintaining the TPT as well. As a Board member of the Friends of the TPT I am concerned that we get as much accurate information about volunteer and community involvement with the trail in the public domain as possible. Wildnorthlands (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Sustrans Sheffield has responsibility for the TPT and other routes, I'd suggest that that by definition makes it only peripherally related to the subject of the article, and thus technically in breach of WP:ELNO; the Penistone group, if it is entirely devoted to the TPT, is marginally less problematic – though, personally, I think WP:ELNO probably applies to both groups, and there's a slight whiff of WP:PROMO around their inclusion. Wikipedia isn't a tool to promote organisations and their work (however worthy, and I'm a fan of Sustrans). As a positive proposal, if you added a new section on "Maintenance and monitoring of the Trail", or whatever, with statements about the work and responsibilities of the professional bodies responsible for the Trail plus the various volunteer groups, backed up with inline references to relevant pages (not just the home page) on the various groups' websites, that would be more acceptable. But listing some or all the groups under "External links" without context falls foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY to me – the links don't add much other than the (implicit) information that "there are several volunteer groups who monitor and maintain the Trail" - which would be better (and more useful to readers) as an explicit statement within the article, appropriately referenced. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}