User talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive 3

Re: Template adjustments, sorry!

Yikes! Good think I caught myself... between the large size change and and extremely long link jumble it looked to be vandalism all over and I accidentally temporarily reverted your template edit. Before I'd even unpressed my mouse button I'd realized that something was amass and was instantly ashamed and was in a rush to undo myself. It was undone in less than 5 seconds and the log shows a normal edit-undo and nothing should be wrong... you've even had an edit since then so I assume all is well. Really sorry for the mistake! Datheisen (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox type

I see that you changed the infobox on Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station from {{Infobox UK disused station}} to {{Infobox London station}} - what are the circumstances favouring the latter? The documentation (Template talk:Infobox London station and Template:Infobox London station/doc) is silent. Further, since the station has been closed for some 74 years, surely {{Infobox Closed London station}} would be preferable to {{Infobox London station}}? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award

As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

On November 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern line

I've just started a discussion about car/carriage terms on the talk page. Grim²³★ 15:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SECR K and K1 classes Peer Review.

Hello there. I am wondering whether you may be interested in Peer reviewing the above article. You have been recommended by user Irridescent, and as one of the editors of the article, I would like to have an outside opinion on possible article improvements. We intend to put it up for FAC (several have been so-treated in the past) in the near future, which means it would save a lot of time if a lot of the issues are addressed at Peer review stage. Thanks in advance of a reply, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input so far. I will address any comments in due course.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the lead, made a few adjustments, and wish to see what you think? As you know,it is important to get the lead 'right'. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Highgate

I am trying to research into a bridge.... I was wondering if there was any mention in any books you have on the City and South London Railway of tramways in Highgate. Simply south (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i thought i would only have one book to use which wouldn't in my eyes be a good way to go. Should i tell you when I've (properly) started it? Simply south (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is BHO where you get a lot of your info from? Simply south (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. Now i am beginning to worry that once i do the article, it will clash with Archway, London. Sorry to bother you. Simply south (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do the article and worry about it later then. Though i can't start tonight (btw, under construction at User:Simply south/Archway). The history of it all does really concern the bridge. I was thinking that there could be summaries in the Archway article with {{main|Highgate Archway}} at the top of the history and name sections. Simply south (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DavidCane. You have new messages at Redrose64's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't know if you're watching my talk page, but I left further comment at User talk:Redrose64#Royal Oak tube station Assessment: basically, which edition of Harris did you use? Mine's a 4th ed (2001), which is older than your ???th ed (2006). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi David, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2005 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 08:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Geographic overlays

Hi David, I've added the coordinate file to your City and South London Railway Engineering Drawing.jpg for display in Google Earth. Your numerous excellent map extracts would make perfect overlays, should you find the time :) More info at Commons:Geocoding/Overlay. Cheers! - Gobeirne (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

City and South

Well done on that again. Simply south (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

City and South London Railway

Hi DavidCane. Thanks for your comment on the reading link contribution to the excellent article on City and South London Railway. You are most welcome. I pursued the link to Greathead, then given the era in which he lived, wondered if I might find something via Internet Archive, which is how I arrived at the reference. I have found some good stuff from that era via that website. It can be a bit frustrating sorting through multivolume works when the same, undifferentiated title was used for multiple uploads. I found that for example with my searches for specific volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica, when searching for the volume containing Hydropathy, for the Captain R.T. Claridge article. If you go up a level, you see it's this. While writing this reply, it occurred to me that the Encyclopaedia Britannica may have something on Greathead or the City and South London Railway, or both. A Google search using the terms:

encyclopaedia britannica "south london railway"

That led me to this. Given the engineering significance of the CSL Railway, there's a pretty good chance there's an article in at least one of the editions of the Encycl Brit. Indeed, I see the edition that I've cited below has a railways editor (Major Henry G. Prout; editor of The Railway Gazette, N.Y. see editor listings page n7). A note by the way, on the way I use the citation templates. It's not accidental. Some citations, especially from that era, are complex and unwieldy. I don't care one iota about the underlying template, which is but a tool to use insofar as it's useful, as any engineer would concur. The object for me, always, is to get the display I'm seeking. Doesn't mean I always get it right. But it does mean I'm consciously thinking about what I'm trying to achieve with the tool at hand, which is a citation that is accurate and descriptive, but not too unwieldy to read. Wotnow (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brief note: I added back into the above, the words "by the way", which I originally deleted prior to saving, as I was a bit jaded, and I thought I'd repeated myself (I had, but not in the nonsensical way I thought at the time). On looking at it afterwards, I really wasn't happy with it, because without the "by the way" caveat, it looks to me a bit petulant, which was never the intent. The intent was a passing explanation, and an attempt at formalisating of my thoughts, so ye olde brain of mine can chug away on the matter in the background of my subconscious, or whatever dark recesses these things ferment in. While I thought early on to correct myself, I didn't at the time, and then time passed, and I thought a late correction would look a bit silly. But on reflection, I prefer to look silly than petulant, especially since it kept bugging me. Wotnow (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something for your efforts

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work all through on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --DavidCane (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Upminster Bridge tube station

Thanx for the GA review. I have adressed all the issues you listed and commented on one. Please double-check and hopefully pass the article. Mephiston999 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uxbridge buses

An editor seems to have added a list of unformatted bus numbers to the article on Uxbridge. Could you do a quickie cleanup. I just added a heading 'Buses' but wouldn't it better if there was just a statement saying the 'The following buses pass through the area, or tabulate them as in Harefield. Maybe the Wikiproject has a standard format. Thanks! (I came across this error by chance.)--Lidos (talk) 10:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CLR DYK

Posting here to avoid derailing (sic) the DYK discussion, but is "the CLR's first underground trains were so heavy that they shook buildings as they passed below" really that unusual? Having had the dubious privilege of working above the District Line, I can testify that underground trains still shake buildings as they pass. – iridescent 00:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The vibration was so bad that there was a parliamentary enquiry and the locomotives had to be replaced after a couple of years. I was going to make the hook longer but I think I'm out of words. I'll check the limit tonight.

There's an alternative: "Did you know that one of the Central London Railway's first locomotive's spent time at the bottom of the River Thames before it was put into use?" (it's in note 33}

--DavidCane (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Central London Railway

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Central London Railway, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN etc

Hi DavidCane. Thanks for you note and best wishes for improving the article. That was the first of your railway GAN's and also the second of your of your GANs that I'd reviewed. Ancestors on my maternal grandmother's paternal side seemed to be either agricultural labourers or "cannon fodder"; but from the late 19th century became postmen or railway labourers and in two other cases a GWR signal man and a GWR Goods Agent's clerk. I'd previously used the Gazette to find information about the "cannon folder" and the postmen (in those days Civil Service entrants), but I'd never considered looking up railways. So very thanks for that lead. Pyrotec (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

The article Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield for things which need to be addressed. S Masters (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

The article Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield for eventual comments about the article. Well done! S Masters (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on the GA - Derbyshire will have to feature him on the portal! Well done Victuallers (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Met

Is the Metropolitan and/or its predecessors & subpages on your to-do list? Whilst writing St. Mary's Church, Chesham I'm struck by how poor most of that particular family of articles are, and this is one area where I do have most of the books already to hand; however, if you're already working on them I don't want to step on your toes. (I'll probably start with the branches and/or the smaller stations before trying to clean up the Metropolitan Railway, Metropolitan Line and London to Aylesbury Line articles themselves, all of which are (rather appropriately) complete trainwrecks. – iridescent 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

One down, 63 to go

Westcott railway station. Talk about a blood-from-a-stone exercise... I did this one first, to get a feel for how big the most insignificant ones would grow; in light of it, I don't think the "one long list" format will be feasible, even for the insignificant branches. (That said, the background section will necessarily be duplicated along each branch; can't see a way around that.) – iridescent 11:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! And GA already. That's a lot of blood from a very small stone.

I don't think that there's any problem with the background section being reproduced across a number of articles. Each article should be capable of standing on its own so these reproductions are necessary. My two recent GAs for South Kensington tube station and Embankment tube station have got a few bits that are the same, as do others on this section of the District/Circle which I'm thinking of expanding. --DavidCane (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want a piece of Inner Circle/MDR low-hanging fruit to work on, Bayswater tube station is an embarrassingly wretched state, considering how easily it could be expanded and how important it is.

It occurs to me that we have an awful lot of significant anniversaries coming up soon—100th anniversary of UERL in July, 5th anniversary of the bombings in July (not touching that one with a bargepole…), 50th anniversary of the completion of electrification on 12 September, 125th anniversary of the MDR withdrawal from Windsor on 30 September, 75th anniversary of the closure of the Brill Tramway on 30 November. Rather than running CLR in June/July ("110th anniversary" isn't all that significant), might it make more sense to push for CCEHR, GNPBR or BS&WR on the 100th anniversary (either 1 July or 26 July, depending which date you use)? – iridescent 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The UERL was established in 1902, do you mean the LER formed from the merger of the BS&WR, CCE&HR and GN&PBR. They are all FAs so it might be interesting to try to get three FAs on the main page at once through the same TFA, although I'm not sure there's enough to say about the LER itself to develop an article up to FA standard?

Oops yes, the 100th anniversary of the LER's formation - I think of that as the "true" birthdate for UERL and thus LU. Before that they were assorted companies, some of which happened to be owned by Yerkes & friends, but all had their own style; the Union of the Crowns as compared to the United Kingdom. It was the merger of 1910 that gave London (uncoincidentally) a Chicago-style unified core fed by independent suburban railways, instead of a New York or Tokyo system of duplicated and competing routes through the centre. If it weren't for that merger, there wouldn't have been a body strong enough to resist the Grouping Act, and the tube would have been parcelled out to become feeder lines for the Big Four. (A point that isn't made often enough is just how powerful an influence UERL's and LT's ability to keep rival lines off the tube map was. What would the New Works Programme have been looked at if the SR and LNER had been involved in the planning?) – iridescent 19:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Central London Railway.

Redirect to FA in less than a month! Impressive! LittleMountain5 00:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--DavidCane (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Frameless

Hi, I have made the box transparent, as indeed it was meant to be all along. I noticed that the LT box is in many navboxen, so for example the article on "A Stock" has it in the "Infobox LT rolling stock" (or whatever) and four times in various navboxes at the bottom. This seems like overkill. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. I would have fixed it myself but the template was locked. I don't think the multiple appearances in the various London Transport navboxes is a problem. They are used for multiple purposes so can appear in various types of articles. Where a number of navboxes appear together they are set to collapse, so the reader will not see the duplication by default.--DavidCane (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

British Museum-WP mailout list

I'm writing because you have indicated your interest in the collaboration between the British Museum and Wikipedia currently underway. If you are willing, I would like to add you to a mailout that I will be sending frequently during this month to try and keep everyone related to the project informed of all the activities underway. That way, we can as a group co-ordinate our efforts and get the best outcome in the short space of time. People on the list include wikimedians (London-based and global) and British Museum staff (Departmental contacts and individual curators). It is also a place where, if you have a request or idea you can write to me and I'll pass the information to the group. Finally, it is where any prizes that become available will be announced first.

By way of a privacy policy, I will be using blind-carbon-copy so your email address won't be published if you don't want it to be. I will only share the list of addresses with the executive of Wikimedia-UK and my supervisor within the British Museum.

Would you be happy to be added to this mailout? If so, please email me with your preferred email address.

Sincerely, Witty Lama 11:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The 'Modern' Tubes...

David, I note your excellent, extensive and enjoyable edits of numerous constituant railways of the Underground. Being interested in the subject aswell its really good to see such articals become comprehensive and reliable sources of often obscure/expensive information. Its not my place as a humble and lowly small time contributer to say thanks, but they have become a pleasure to read, and the maps too are immensely fascinating. I'm sure I'm not the only person who has this opinion :)

I'm curious as to whether you have any plans or aspirations to do the same or similar for the background to the modern tubes/schemes; the Victoria, the Fleet/Jubilee, and the proposed Chelney?

I've made edits to the latter 3 / 2, but lack the time to really make something amazing out of all three. The Fleet/Jub is a particularly complex one because of its long history. I've helped make a seperate artical for the Fleet, in order to clarify the Jubilee's artical. What are your thoughts on the subjects?

Regards OutrageousBenedict (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. There's a lot of work to do on the modern day line articles. Some, such as Northern line, have a reasonable level of detail, but others are surprisingly under-developed.

My particular interest is in the early days of the tube system and I haven't really thought too much about the two most recent lines. My current goal is to get a featured topic together for the UERL that would include the existing featured articles for Baker Street and Waterloo Railway, Charing Cross, Euston and Hampstead Railway, Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway, City and South London Railway and Central London Railway plus a, to be written, featured article on the Metropolitan District Railway (currently in a woeful state following its split from a joint article with the Metropolitan Railway). I therefore have two articles to work up: the UERL one as an umbrella article (which I'll take to GA) and the MDR one. Both are in early draft form, but I'm not quite ready to take the plunge on the MDR yet as this is likely to be longer than the others due to its earlier start date and huge geographic reach. It's also going to need a lot of maps. Whilst I do some background reading, I've been picking-off a few GAs by working up some of the MDR's original batch of stations from frameworks I did a while back and a couple of biographies.

After the featured topic, there's possibly some work to do on the Great Northern & City Railway (although it's short independent history means that this is probably a GA level article). The Waterloo and City Railway's history is probably too dull to be able to work-up independently from the current Waterloo and City line article. I've not forgotten the Metropolitan Railway itself, but Iridescent has chosen to take on that particular exercise and is currently taking the Brill Tramway stations to FA status for a planned featured topic of his own. The Metropolitan Railway article will include some of the early history of the Jubilee line

Once all the ancient histories are done, I'll probably move on to improving their modern day counterparts, doing the Northern, Piccadilly and Central lines first, but eventually getting to the Victoria line. Regarding the division of content between Jubilee and Fleet lines; I think anything that was built should go in Jubilee and the Fleet line should cover the overall plan including the bits that weren't built.

--DavidCane (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet

The article Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sir John Fowler, 1st Baronet for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Metrpolitan Metropolitan

Hi David Crane, please revert my edits if the original title is really "The Explosion on the Metrpolitan Railway". The Times (35189). 28 April 1897.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Pitts&diff=prev&oldid=370679510 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attacks_on_the_London_Underground&diff=prev&oldid=370678397

but there you wrote Metropolitan: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_the_London_Underground&diff=prev&oldid=307453839 --Diwas (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It was a typo, so the amendment is correct. --DavidCane (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

UERL page

Hi, regarding Underground Electric Railways Company of London, I see that rather than moving the page, you did a cut-and-paste move; you are probably unaware that this practice is deprecated. Since you're an experienced editor, I've not given you a {{Uw-c&pmove}}, but please see WP:CUTPASTE and fix it up. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started my GA review - the article looks very good and I have just one minor comment on the GA review page. I do want to give it a week so that people have a chance to raise any objections so if you do fix the issue quickly and I don't pass it that is why :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong about the minor issue - now all I want to do is to give it a bit of time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Central London Railway

What's the problem here? That name change is not mentioned elsewhere in that article. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It was already mentioned in the legacy section, where you added the Lee reference.--DavidCane (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

'... "London" was omitted from the line's name on 23 August 1937; thereafter it was simply the Central line.' does not explicitly state the name of the line prior to 23 August 1937 - readers need to work it out and might deduce that the previous name was "London Central Line". It also does not state the date when the term "Central London Railway" ceased to be used. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see what you meant. I have put this back in a slightly altered form under the legacy section, as the change was post-take over.--DavidCane (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The other Metropolitan

If you're not too busy when the time comes could you do the August edition? Simply south (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Simply south (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess a lot of the previous stuff was just repeating itself. There should still be a section on the editorial comment i think as well as making some areas more colourful as before. Some of the other rearranging does make sense. Some editorial comments i don't think can be bulleted. Personally i miss the DYK but i also think they should only be limited to new\expanded articles in say the last quarter or half year if possible... Otherwise thanks again. Difficultly north (SS talk) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Brill Tramway

If you get the chance, can you have a look over my rewritten Brill Tramway for any obvious howlers? I've spent so much time with it that there may be glaringly obvious problems that are passing me by. The one significant removal I've made has been to remove the route diagram template; I think that in this case, the inkscape diagrams are more useful as they show the curves-and-branches more clearly than an RDT would.

Even though it makes the article longer, I've kept the de facto "Infrastructure" appendix at the end. I think it makes more sense using this arrangement; that way, the technical details don't swamp the article text itself. I'm reluctant to move it off to a subpage; any subpage would need an explanatory potted-history of the line to provide at least minimal context, and thus actually add to the overall length. (Anyone interested in one is likely to be interested in the other, so will end up reading the same material twice.) The section only adds 800 words to an article that's 10200 words without it, so it's not having a significant impact on length. – iridescent 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'll have a look tomorrow. I've lost count, does this complete the set? I do like the geographic route map. I would normally leave a support for your Wootton railway station FAC, but I haven't in this case, as I want to avoid any suggestions of impropriety, by currying favours for my own UERL FAC. I'm sure it will pass anyway. --DavidCane (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Quainton Road is still outstanding; that's going to be the problematic one, as it's going to be tricky to separate out the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre stuff from the stuff that's actually about the station. I'm seriously considering wiping it out and rewriting it from scratch. – iridescent 23:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would separate the station from the railway centre. The history of the later could be mentioned briefly in a legacy section with a link to its own article.--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It has its own article already—the problem is that the two of them have cross-pollinated. I agree that the station article should just be about its time as an operational station. – iridescent 23:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Central London Railway II

Re this edit and your revert - the first edit was correct, since if you click ISBN 1-85414-316-7 it throws an error "The given ISBN does not appear to be valid; check for errors copying from the original source.", whereas if you click ISBN 1-85414-316-6 it does not, and following the various links later on, the correct book is found. I have reinstated ISBN 1-85414-316-6 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think the problem was the difference between the ISBN 10 and ISBN 13 numbers which have different check sums numbers. I'll have to check where else this occurs, as I've used this book as a source quite a lot.--DavidCane (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 do have different check digit calculations; in particular, ISBN-10 was devised in pre-barcode days, and uses a calculation involving modulo 11, so when this yields the final value 10, this is shown as "X". ISBN-13 on the other hand was devised to be compatible with the EAN-13 barcode (which recognises ten unique symbols, with no provision for the letter X), and consequently uses the same check digit calculation as is used to produce the barcode on your cornflakes box. In my experience, whenever I've come across a book with both ISBN-10 and ISBN-13, the check digits rarely match (sometimes they do: ISBN 0-319-22897-5 and ISBN 978-0-319-22897-5).

To convert an ISBN-10 to ISBN-13: take the first 9 digits of the ISBN-10, prepend them with "978", and then apply the formula here. Doing this for 1-85414-316-6 gives me ISBN 978-1-85414-316-7, so it certainly seems like you took the ISBN-13, including its check digit, but omitted the "978" part. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Central London Railway (suggestion)

Excellent article... and well deserving of its featured article status! Congratulations for your part in it!

One thing that I remember learning about the western end of the Central Line, though, that doesn't appear to appear in the wikipedia article, is the way that the stations are purposely built on embankments, so that trains decelerate under gravity when entering a station, and accelerate again when leaving. Even before today's energy-conservation conscious world, I always found this idea intriguing. (UK motorway exits also use this, with the roundabout placed above the motorway so that those joining the motorway are accelerated on to it, and those leaving are decelerated off; and even Solar Impulse used this mechanism for the energy storage recently!). I just mention it here, for your consideration for possible addition to the article. TheAMmollusc (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The inclines at the ends of the stations weren't just at the western end of the line, but were a feature of the original line, see Construction, 1896–1900, para. 3, last sentence. They have been incorporated into some of the lines built subsequently. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It was because the original locomotives were so heavy that the inclines were employed. It's only a feature of the tunnelled section, because by the time the surface extension to Ealing was built, the lighter multiple units used were able to start more easily. I don't believe it was adopted on the other tube lines built be the UERL a few years later, but I have a recollection of reading somewhere that the idea may also have been used on the Victoria line when it was built in the 1960s (I may be imagining it though).--DavidCane (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you'll forgive the OR, it's definitely used on the Victoria line. I think the Jubilee line extension does as well. – iridescent 21:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not OR but V - Day, John R. (1969). The Story of the Victoria Line. Westminster: London Transport. pp. 29–30. 968/2719 RP/5M. ... there were ... considerable limitations ... [which] hampered the inclusion of 'saw-tooth' track profiles at stations. These give a rising gradient before the platform to help trains to slow down and a falling gradient beyond the station so that trains gather speed quickly. Tomorrow I shall dig out the relevant bits from "The Story of London's Underground", which I'm certain has something about the inclines on the Central, but I don't recall it mentioning that these were because of the locos specifically; after all, it's the inertia of the whole train that counts, not the leading vehicle. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aldwych tube station

The article Aldwych tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Aldwych tube station for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Alzarian16 (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and the comments.--DavidCane (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

LUER/UERL

Did you also want to make that change on the British Rail class 483, 485 & 486 (IOW ex-LT) cars? Useddenim (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Pensacola and Atlantic Railroad - thanks much

David, thanks so much for the improvements you made to this article, especially the template for area conversions, and for reformatting all those external reference links too - some things I really wasn't sure how to do, myself. You went to a lot of trouble when I really expected only a passing glance at it, and I do appreciate your kindness.

I have added some more details on construction, and it seems I did see somewhere an estimate of the cost of the whole project - but maddeningly, I've tried to retrace my steps to whatever that source was, googling it every which way, but to no avail. No doubt one day when I'm not looking for it, I'll stumble across that info again.

You ask if I am sure about the size of the land grant to the railroad - well, those same figures do appear in more than one reliable source, as shown by the reference links, and indeed it was not uncommon in the second half of the 19th century to encourage the building of railroads in that way; probably the states and federal government (which got reduced rates for the movement of mail and military personnel in return) disposed of several times the area of the entire United Kingdom through dozens of railroad land grants like that. What good is having a huge expanse of territory if nobody lives there - if nobody can even get there? Grin. (Compare the population of Australia and the U.S., with roughly equivalent areas.) The grantees did, of course, have to actually build a railroad within a certain number of years, or forfeit the grants; that also was not uncommon.

Northwest Florida, where it so happens that one branch of my ancestors lived, was essentially a frontier region until the railroad was put through, isolated and extremely difficult to cross, what with extensive swamps and woods, and innumerable unbridged rivers and creeks; such roadways as existed were hardly more than cattle trails, for the most part. Now, via Interstate 10, one can cross the whole of it in a mere 3 hours, which would have taken my great-great grandfather a week or more, perhaps, and on a fast horse at that. It's still very much a rural area, except for the resort cities along the coast, but the railroad made a big difference when it was put through.

Anyway - thanks again for your help, buddy. Appreciate ya. Textorus (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome.--DavidCane (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Can I ask your thoughts on the question raised by Nergaal at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Brill Tramway/archive1 – specifically, whether the RDT ought to be included on all the articles. My instinct is no – the articles already have to include the Metropolitan Line navbox and the previous/next templates, so including the RDT as well will mean the same information repeated three times, with two of the templates already very large. Since any "every individual station article needs a full RDT for the entire line" precedent set here has the potential to affect literally thousands of articles, it's important IMO to get this right; the Brill Tramway was short enough that this would just about be manageable, but the idea of having to work bandwidth-munchers like {{Isle of Wight Railway}} or {{District Line}} into every article isn't one I relish. I've already asked Redrose for his thoughts on the same question; you, him and I are going to be the three most affected by any "every tube station needs an RDT" change. – iridescent 23:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think these route templates belong on station articles. I deleted a Northern line one from a bunch of stations on that line recently because they functionally duplicate the succession boxes, cause slow downloads and mess up page formatting. If he absolutely insists on a topic specific template, I suggest one like {{UERL}} which I created for the future UERL featured topic. This seems to be the way other topics are linked and it could go at the top of the navbox set as the primary one in the hierarchy.--DavidCane (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Layout removal (hurrah!)

I notice you've removed Layout sections on some LU lines as "deprecated" - bravo! I'm inclined to complete the job for the Jubilee line (you've done it for Bond Street). Just in case, can you perhaps point me towards the discussion in which they were deprecated? NebY (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to do Jubilee next and then check Metropolitan and Bakerloo, so don't worry about the follow up. The discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_5#Platform_layout.--DavidCane (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you and thank you! NebY (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel Rabin (artist)

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed with your GA review of Paris Métro Line 12

Your work is very precise. I'm not sure how to follow-up. Would you strike out the points that have been taken into account or should I? Thanks again, --Anneyh (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One, two and three

"The train … was drawn by two locomotives … A third engine ran ahead of the demonstration train to act as a pilot. A second train carried the directors" is right even though the numbering looks wrong; one train drawn by two locomotives, another loco on its own without a train running ahead as pilot, and a second train coming in later with the directors. I know it looks terrible, but I really can't see an easy way to clarify it. – iridescent 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I read it as one engine running ahead, separately of the second.--DavidCane (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the cleaning up on that one. I'm somewhat embarrassed by how many typos you're spotting; I thought I'd checked it quite thoroughly. – iridescent 23:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

When you know what you're writing about, you often read the sense of the words rather than what is actually there.

I've passed it, without any qualms, although I have left a few comments in the review. Well done; you have clearly, waaayy too much time on your hands.--DavidCane (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the review. Hopefully, the mainline one will be surprisingly short; the purpose of these long subpages is to keep as much detail as possible out of the main article. What I have in mind is a main article which will effectively just be an annotated timeline with links to a lot of subpages (see History of Poland for the kind of thing I mean). – iridescent 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good plan.--DavidCane (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"... Line"

You might want to weigh in here also; if a 'every branch has to be called '...Branch Line" and treated as an independent line' rule comes in, it's going to mess up CCEHR and CLR just as much as it'll mess up Metropolitan Line. (Central Line Ealing Broadway Branch Line, anyone?) I'll say now, for the record, that if this change does go through, I'll immediately stop all LT-related stuff; I'm certainly not going to completely redesign the sketched-out internal structures of the revamped system just to suit someone who demands the Stanmore branch be treated as an independent entity. If he's so certain of The Truth of LTs internal structure, regardless of what every single book says, let him write them himself. – iridescent 23:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw the changes going back and forth earlier on and thought its was a pointless renaming. Be there soon. --DavidCane (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)