User talk:Kierant/Archive1

Brighton Railway Station

Hi KieranT,

Thanks for correcting the further ambiguity I introduced when trying to correct some existing ambiguity - these twice-daily services aren't the easiest to describe!

Roof renovation info was found on Kier Construction Ltd's website - there is a page referring to the project and the contract (with Railtrack) that it was part of; any advantage in adding this as an external link or citation, would you say? (As a new user, I'm not familiar yet with linking to external pages.)

Kind regards, Hassocks5489 11:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi — and welcome! Be warned, this place gets addictive ;)

I think that sort of info is quite helpful, given that a lot of people looking into a railway station on an encyclopaedia are probably interested in its history, or engineering, not just when they can catch a train!

There are two ways to proceed. Either putting the link in (inside single square brackets) under "==External links==", where you can also explain its significance with a sentence or two; or by using the external link as a reference (like a footnote) alongside the fact you've gleaned from that site. Inserting references is a little trickier to learn, but if you'd like to learn, the main Brighton article has some you could use as a good example. Just copy the syntax and change the detail, alongside the actual piece of text, then make sure the article has a references section at the end, just like in the Brighton one.

Personally I prefer references, since they make it clear why the external site is useful, and save people from having to plough through all the external links to find the kind of info they're after. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help - I've added it as a reference with some explanatory text. Hassocks5489 12:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Brighton article revisited

Saw this bit Kieran in your Brighton article: "In many ways, Brighton's postwar position has been a continuation of the 'fashionable Brighton'"

I would say from a building point of view, postwar Brighton has done all it can to build monstrous carbuncles up until recentley. eg whitehawk,tarnerland,the knoll [hove yes] ,coldean,hollingdean [the top flats],bevendean the scoomb etc Ukbn2 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble with statements like that is that when the article gets edited over time, they end up referring to the wrong bits of text. And sometimes its very hard to track back and see who added what, when, and what was meant.

I expect you're attributing it to me because I recently edited that section. (I'm not saying I didn't originally write it — I honestly don't recall!) However, the problem was that the previous user had left a single line-feed (not a blank line) after their edit, making the two paragraphs appear as one. When I edited, I simply didn't correct this.

Certainly I wouldn't dream of calling any of those estates "fashionable architecture" — they're all pretty bleakly functional. And that's coming from someone who likes a lot of 1960s and 1970s stuff.

I think the solution here is to move that sentence to a new paragraph. I'll have a fiddle with it shortly. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good re-writeUkbn2 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tagora

Hi Kieran! As you might have seen, the Talbot Tagora article underwent an extensive copyedit by a native speaker. Still, one of the reviewers still does not seem satisified, and I am afrais the article's English has become too sophisticated for me to really be able to appraise whether it expresses what was originally meant. I was wondering whether you, as not only a native speaker but also a person definitely knowledgeable on the subject, could take a look at the article and make sure there really is nothing more to improve, and perhaps be so kind and do some copyediting here and there if you would feel it is not the case.
I was also wondering whether you have some contacts to Simca/Talbot enthusiast clubs - we've been talking about that a propose the Free Image Drive, and all the efforts of procuring a Tagora photo did not bring much results as of now, so perhaps you know somebody who could help?
Thanks a lot, Bravada, talk - 11:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your confidence in me :-) I'll have a look over the Tagora article. As for images, I can certainly have a go; I don't know anybody directly who has a Tagora, but I might find something. Can you let me know which clubs have already been contacted, so I don't trouble them a second time? (Perhaps in an email, for privacy, if you'll be mentioning people's addresses – there's a link to email me over on the left of this page.) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again! Did you receive my email? Steve just told me I somehow get categorized as spam by his email server, so I wanted to check how it is with yours. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 13:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, and I've replied... hope mine isn't being blocked as spam! – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I only noticed the ~~~~ get converted to a different time on your talk page :D I was a bit confused at first... Anyway, good to hear you've had no problems, but my inbox is empty at the moment - perhaps it's the wondrous o2 server, but I generally get no problems and even mail classified as spam goes to the "spam folder" and I also check it... Perhaps you could try to send it again? Bravada, talk - 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bizarre. Well, I've resent the email from Gmail, so hopefully you'll get at least one copy. :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I got the copy from the other mail and just replied to it, no gmail yet. I am beginning to lose faith in my mailbox - damn it, perhaps somebody actually replied! On the other hand, that's the first time somebody declared sending me an email to o2 and I haven't received it either via Inbox or Spambox. I think I also have received mails from gmail... I am beginning to get worried! Bravada, talk - 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Champagne!

Yahoo! Raul decided today the Talbot Tagora is worthy of the coveted little star! So, you are among the very elite group of Wikipedians who can use this Userbox! I do, of course, hope you will not rest on the laurels and treat this article to the copyedit you have announced on its talk page :D
Now we can lobby for the Tagora to become Wikipedia:Today's featured article and to be featured in Template:Did you know! Bravada, talk - 11:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This user helped promote the article Talbot Tagora to featured status.

Woohoo! Bizarrely, I'm just about to click "save" on my copyedits! ;-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Raul must by clairvoyant. I am almost sure he is :D Remember the Tom Cruise movie where they arrested people before they committed a crime? Perhaps we can now nominate articles we KNOW will become good enough for FA :D :D :D Bravada, talk - 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi - and Tollcross

Hi Kieran - I have a feeling we're "talking" (via edit-summs!) at cross-purposes about the Tollcross article - though I realise it's not earth-shatteringly important. :) I thought that any website used as a source for writing/verifying an article can/should (?) be cited under 'References' (perhaps with date it was accessed/retrieved), leaving the 'Further reading' section for: "links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article . . ." I now see that some good articles follow your style - but I've seen plenty of others following the approach I prefer - which I've been thinking of as "correct" by WP guidelines. Personally I find it helpful to know what is an actual source, and what is a 'further reading' suggestion - but perhaps other readers are less bothered about this. Hope you'll forgive me going on about it . . . . (I'm not pedantic all the time, honestly.)--HJMG 20:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your message – it's really nice to properly work together on these articles. Don't worry at all about pedantry. I understand how addictive "getting it right" on Wikipedia can become. With regard to these references: I think you're right about the distinction between sources used when writing an article, and sources merely relevant. However, I always find it a bit unhelpful to see references which aren't also footnotes; in other words, references which could be related to any part of a potentially long article. And it's to distinguish those that I was after. In fact I've never used a "further reading" section before – I did that after reading the WP page you pointed out. Perhaps I was over-eager with that. I'd have no objection to those links going back into the references section – but I'd prefer it if they were separate from the directly-cited Rodger reference, although I'm running out of words to describe why that seems justified in my mind! What do you think? – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 20:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice response to my fretting - yes, talking about editing work is good. If you're saying that one single footnote-citation combined with other refs looks messy, I agree. I'm not planning to tweak the Tollcross article again unless/until I add some more content. (It's not exactly at a 'final polishing' stage, anyway.) Thanks again and happy editing - --HJMG 09:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hello Kieran! After a short break I am returning to wikiing with full steam, to say so, so I just wanted to say hello again :D I know I am due to contribute much more to the Polski Fiat 125p article, but for reasons already stated I am not that enamoured with that perspective, so please give me a bit more time to warm to it :D I have found myself a good distraction in the form of Autobianchi, a brand that's been on my mind for some time, as it only had a handful of models, all produced more or less within the period of my interest (not to mention this is a Fiat affiliate). I have committed two heaps of rubbish under the titles of Autobianchi A111 and Autobianchi Primula today - they surely need the attention of another editor. The A111 is interesting in particular - if you think the Tagora was an obscure and rare model from a relatively unknown brand, try to find something on the A111! This is one challenging task!

Meanwhile, User:DeLarge proposed once again to collaborate on the Mitsubishi Motors article to make it the first brand/company to have an FA, which I believe is a good idea, as such articles are surely lacking a model. Moreover, I have finally encountered an editor from Brazil, who uses great English and is interested in cars - see the Fiat Marea talk page for details! So, perhaps we can get some support regarding the elusive Latin American and Brazilian models!

I am sure you were dying to know that... Perhaps I should call that section "Bravada's unsolicited gossip column" or something... Good night, Bravada, talk - 21:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't go placing tags, start mailing :D Unfortunately, Autobianchis, to my best knowledge, have never been sold in any English-speaking country, so most enthusiast clubs are either Italy- or France-based. I am looking forward to your copyediting and perhaps further expanding of my puny creations - I guess I will be slowly going to sleep now, but I promise to dream about the Polski Fiat :D Bravada, talk - 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, okay... but in the meantime, the tags automagically place the articles into a category, so just maybe an owner will spot them. :) (EDIT: Comment by Kieran, 00:32, 5 August 2006)

Hi again, Kieran! I know I am being terribly ungrateful again, and neglect the poor 125p shamelessly, but I really found a lot of interesting stuff on Autobianchis and I think we might be close to creating another FA here. I just came to the moment when your great copyediting skills became indispensable, not to mention the valuable help of yours which could be priceless in other areas. Please see talk:Autobianchi for details and thanks for considering devoting any bit of your time to that. Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Aw, gee, shucks, thanks ;-) On da case. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bon voyage!

...in Poland we say "have a wide road" - seriously! And if you still have time to check WP before you go, don't go spreading gossip about the Prelude, tell us what you think of the idea! Bravada, talk - 09:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll avoid driving in the hard shoulder though; they arrest you for that over here...

I've put a note of support in, although I hope you don't mind that it's a bit "equivocal" because I want to cover myself given the fact that I've not had time to read your proposals fully! But at the end of the day, I have a feeling I trust your judgement quite well, so I'm happy to sign up for the moment! Good luck with it and I'll join in when I get back. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good trip again :D CU when you're back! Bravada, talk - 10:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whitehawk and Peter Ward

Hi, I've noticed your name from the Brighton talk page. I also noticed that you are currently taking a Wikibreak, but this isn't urgent and can wait until you return.

I have totally re-written the Whitehawk article (in June) and have just conpletely overhauled and added to the history section within that article. As another user with an interest in Brighton I would appreciate it if you looked over this article whenever you have time.

I have also added an article on legendary Brighton footballer Peter Ward. Likewise, I would be happy if you would peruse this. I am also looking of a better picture for this page (ie one with Wardy in a Brighton kit!) that fits in with Wikipedia policies. Preferable from a newspaper, program etc. (All the pics I have found of the web so far have no reliable copyright details - thus the picture in a Forest kit). Thanks in advance. Fork me 09:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! Fork me 11:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for your work too; it's a great article for Whitehawk. Very often the less "grand" parts of towns and cities have very thin articles, as I've found while expanding many of the "Areas of Edinburgh" series. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth it?

Hi Kieran,

Good to see you're back for good! I guess you do not have that much time for WP now, but if you could spend a few moments, could you have a look at the WikiProject talk page, and the discussion about standards (Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Standards) and my new proposition concerning the European Car of the Year. Am I really doing something nobody wants and trying to break up the community, or in short - blowing against the wind? I am starting to feel I am really against the tide here and do not belong - perhaps I should finally realize that and move on. Thanks, Bravada, talk - 18:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brav. It's depressing sometimes, when people don't understand where one is coming from – and worse when they deliberately become obtuse. I'm taking a bit of a back seat for now because I'm bored of endless arguments (such as in Kosova-related articles) and of trolls. I even had to choose to blank my user page after a particularly tedious character started spamming one article, and went so far as to include personal information about me in a rant he wrote which has been published on a news website. He's since been blocked and his site added to the spamfilter, so I feel reasonably happy with the outcome, but it's still a bit demoralising. Wikipedia remains what it always was, but the community spirit is perhaps a bit dented.

At the moment though, I think your task forces and standards ideas are still sound. If other people don't like to be "constrained" by them, that really isn't incompatible; so long as nobody gets into an edit war. All it means is that the people involved in the "standards drive" will be working on some elements of some articles, and other editors will be working elsewhere. It's a lack of co-ordinated effort perhaps, but it's not a failure of the concept. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and kind words! I am sorry to learn of the ongoing Kosova thing (seems like Asterion's caught in it too, or are those two different issues?), but I believe this is just one of the uneasy issues Wikipedia has to tackle and the brave editors like you have to endure. I am happy to see you are holding on and I hope you will have the courage and persistance to withstand whatever comes.

One thing bothers me - I don't actually understand what you meant in the latter part of the second paragraph. My intention was to 1) create standards/conventions to be used accross car articles that we all agree upon, to avoid edit/revert wars and make them more useful for the reader. Secondly, I wanted to help concentrate the efforts of editors interested in particular topics, so that we could more rapidly increase the standards of car articles on WP, which are painfully lagging behind e.g. those on aircraft. The one is not competing with the other, it's rather complimentary - I believe we need standards to start the TF work, so that we had the snuff to bring articles up to :D

Anyway, I was hoping you would take part in the standards discussion, and I was also wondering whether you would be interested in taking part in the European Car of the Week thing, or are you too fed up with the 'Pedia (I hope you're not, it would be a great loss for the community and all readers). Thanks again and have a wonderful week! Bravada, talk - 21:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland

Following a successful period of consultation WikiProject Scotland has now been launched. As a participant in the Scottish Wikipedians' notice board I wonder if you may be interested in this new endeavour too? If so, please sign-up here. The WikiProject will be replacing some of the functions of the notice board, especially those in the lower half.

While I am here, please also have a look at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland and give it a "Watch". It was started up by User:Visviva a few days ago, after long being mooted at the notice board, and effectively replaces all the AfD listings at the notice board. Being a transclusion of all the on-going discussions it is a much more useful tool.

Even if you do not want to spend too much time on the WikiProject, please give it a "Watch" and feel free to contribute to Talk page discussions: the more contributors the merrier.

All the best. --Mais oui! 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo Arbitration

Dear KieranT. Just thought I'd inform you that there is an arbitration proces going on on Kosovo, and since you haven't been notified of it, I thought I'd let you know. Your contribution and your opinion would be appreciated. Since there are many users involved in the dispute, I propose we set up a joint evidence page, which you could of course modify as you wish with an option being able to add your personal statement on the matter.

A group has already set up their evidence page, which we could use as a basis User talk:ChrisO/Kosovo_evidence

The actual Kosovo arbtration pages are located here

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo/Workshop

Tonycdp 12:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. It's all pretty daunting, but I'm glad it's being addressed. I'll read through it all and see if I can contribute anything. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler Sunbeam

Hi Kieran!

I am happy to see you are back to being actively involved inediting Wikipedia! I guess you have had enough of me in the past, but since I value your opinion and contributions greatly, I took the liberty to butt in into your talk page once again :D I have just composed a standalone article on Chrysler Sunbeam, starting off the part carved out of Hillman Avenger, to which it was stuck to for a mysterious reason, and used info from Rootes-Chrysler.co.uk. It was a bit of a hush job, and as I did it single-handedly, I guess it needs external judgement not only on the usual style/language matters, but also on whether I have not crossed the borders of a copyvio, and whether the information I have included are actually to be found in the sources I referenced them to, or whether I just wrote some bits off the top of my head inadvertently. You might also be able to spot some more or less minor factual inaccuracies. I know you probably neither have time nor want to devote it to Bravada's matters anymore, but I just wouldn't feel good if I haven't asked :D Bravada, talk - 04:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hiya! Not at all – it's always been a pleasure working with you :-)

I don't think the combination of Sunbeam and Avenger was in fact "mysterious" since the Sunbeam really did evolve directly from the Avenger. But the new separate article you've created is certainly deserved because there's enough distinctiveness, especially with the history of the Lotus model. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to read that :D Now, I do understand why the Sunbeam was put together with Avenger, I was just trying to express my feeling that it was a bit of a forced match. I mean, Skoda Octavia or Seat Leon are based on the Golf, not to mention the New Beetle or the Touran, but somehow I wouldn't imagine them in a single article. Even more striking example of platform sharing is one from Chrysler Europe itself - the Alpine/1307 was based off a stretched Simca 1100 platform, and was itself the base for the Horizon. I wouldn't imagine all of them, or any two, being described in one article, though. Same for Matra Bagheera and Murena. I guess the problem stems from the fact that "platform sharing" was still not so much in use at the time Sunbeam was conceived, so it was referred to as "rebodied Avenger". Today we would say they "shared the platform", as most platform-sharing vehicles are similarly related as they are, given what the concept of platform sharing consists in.

Sorry for the lenghty blabber, it was just partially to explain why I was objecting to splitting the Husky at the same time that I carved out the Sunbeam :D Bravada, talk - 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I've read enough of your thoughts to trust that you're interested in getting things right, as opposed to being obtuse! :)

Interesting comment about "platform sharing". It's not the first time I've thought that things like the weird Saab/Fiat shared platforms were really just modern-day badge engineering with a bit more new metal involved... – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's weird - it's really how most other platform-sharing looked like. There is quite a bit more to that than just badge engineering. Only recently have tricks such as creating Fiat Multipla out of Brava become possible. But now for something totally different - could you please take a look at Nissan Maxima and the stuff that is going there and on my talk page? Some user is pushing very US-centric POV and citing a "consensus" he struck with Pc13 apparently. He fails to accept that this is not Consumer Guide and we do not list "competitors", but similar cars. But, more improtantly, he tries to dismiss any mention of non-US Maximas as "distractions" to his wonderful "official" US-centric POV. Regards, Bravada, talk - 14:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, just had a look at the stuff being deposited on your talk page... I'll see if I can do some water-smoothing copyediting sometime. Sadly, however, over in the outside world I'm inadvertantly learning to be a pharmacist (a long story!) so shall not have much time for a few days. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that either you or somebody close to you is in need of extensive medical/pharmaceutical treatment, and if this is the case, I am sorry to hear that. I hope everything will be OK shortly and I wish you or all concerned all the best.

As concerns the Maxima debate, we have came to a rather good agreement on that, since my "adversary" also had a connection to Poland, so it was only a matter of time until we found common ground :D When, however, you will return to WP with more time to waste on your hands, you might want to see the debate at WP:EL, which IMHO seems to be a bit one-sided and might lead to rather improper changes in an important policy, and, for a more creative and upbeat note, there is some positive action concerning the improvement of Good Articles (both them and the process), suprisingly discussed mostly at the talk page of WP:GAN. Regards and come back soon! Bravada, talk - 11:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding a video link to West Pier Page

Dear Kierant,

I just uploaded a video to wikimedia commons in preparation for adding to the West Pier Page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Westpier.ogg

However I'm a bit new to wikipedia and thought I check with you as to whether this is a sensible idea?

P.S. I think we have a mutual friend from Knightsbridge... Wakamelover 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, it's an interesting piece of video. Is it a sensible idea? Well, personally I'd usually add video by means of an external link to wherever it's hosted, to avoid duplication of relatively large files. But if it's not online anywhere else, and you were able to license it appropriately for the commons, then sure, it's a fine idea. There's a template for adding video to a page (as a linked file); look here. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I put a link to the external quicktime format movie aswell - hope that's the most useful thing to do... Wakamelover 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for moving WikiProject Brighton banner

Sorry I put it on the main page instead of the talk page. I had been driven a little mad by the task of learning to write a template. Of course I shall remember in future. Would you by any chance be interested in joining the WikiProject? Itsmejudith 13:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, sure, thanks ;-) For a while User:Seaweed and I have been pretty much running a Brighton-articles-cleanup project anyway (see the discussion page and its archives) – so it'd be nice to invite him (or her) as well. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Brighton WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of everything to do with the city of Brighton and Hove.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Unisouth

I saw that you've been putting in a massive effort and also that it got very contentious at one time, due to someone now banned (if I've understood correctly). But now it'll be fun and collaboration all the way, thanks to user:Unisouth's initiative. I'll go straight to Seaweed's page and if there's anyone else you can think of, please go ahead and invite them, or ask me or Unisouth to do so. Nice to meet you. Itsmejudith 16:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sassoon Mausoleum

I hope that you or someone else knowledgable can help fill in the details about this interesting building. I put a note on the talk page of Edward Sassoon about my present confusion. I am amazed there is a Brighton project.--Filll 20:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)‎

Hiya, I've replied in Talk:Edward Sassoon rather than here, so that your question there is "attached" to my suggested answers :-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Shopping at Wikipedia"

You raise some good points. I don't know where the best place to have the discussion is, as I say, the Aberdeen one was a coincidence in passing. Look at my talk page for the whole thing unravelling! Anyway, my short but eventful Wikipedia history summarises like this: nominate whatever you feel is non-notable – people will soon put you (and I mean you or me!) in your/our place if they feel strongly enough about it; and if you even so much as CSD or AfD more than one article about the same thing/by the same person, they immediately suspect a vendetta. You can't win, really. We're both - along with others - trying to make the Wiki a better place and it appears (if there is enough consensus) that anything is OK, as long as it's OK. Makes you wonder what the point is, eh? Just lately, I've been wielding the {{notability}} and {{unreferenced}} and {{tone}} tags with more readiness than the speedy ones, just to let my feeling's known. And aren't AfDs a long-winded pain in the... Rant over. ;) Bubba hotep 00:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Heehee – essentially yes, yes, and yes! (Though don't try to match those up precisely... :-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2+2

NICE work on 2+2, it looks like it was saved from the deletion pit not once, but twice. Definitely something that should stick around. I don't get the super duper deletionist position, disk space is cheap, and if someone is not interested in something, just don't look at it, or click it, sheesh. Tim Sailor 02:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! It certainly seems a fair topic to me, not least because the car body styles articles in general have raised some interesting (=geeky) discussions about how we really define these things. Some of the commonest terms seem very hard to pin down, and digging out the sources to back them up can be revealing. I do get pretty deletionist about vanity and advertising pages though... hope that doesn't make me one of the bad guys... ;) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RBS

Yes, I would agree with you- it makes sense to but the translation and subtext in that part rather than the Group. Thanks. Astrotrain 13:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Transport in Brighton and Hove" article

Hi again Kierant,

I've just been looking for references for the claim you removed from the "Transport in Brighton and Hove" article. I agree with the removal - I couldn't really find anything substantive, with only these making any direct reference to it: [1] [2]. Even these are quite tenuous, being old and not very specific. I think it was the case around 8-10 years ago that Brighton was unique outside London, but since then many more cities have started to experience these growth trends. One source I found mentioned Nottingham, Cambridge, Oxford, York and around 4 others. So overall, although it was an interesting statistic at one time, I don't think it is significant enough to include now. Regards, Hassocks5489 15:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)