User talk:Redrose64

Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Railways

Hey. I saw the message you posted on Talk:Verney Junction railway station. You seem to be knowledgable on railways in that area and was wondering if you may be able to help in the writing of this article I've been working on, Railways in Buckinghamshire. I've done the history up to about 1906, but my knowledge of the post-grouping era is a little lacking, so any additions you could make would be well appreciated. If this doesn't interest you, don't worry. Thanks. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have a huge number of railway related books, maps and publications! I only have 2...! Anyway thanks for your help. Feel free to add stuff to article itself!

I noticed you are living in Didcot. Have you ever thought of writing a 'Railways of Berkshire/Oxfordshire' article? Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|OllieFury}} Do you have my talk page on your watchlist? Just to be safe...! Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 20:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I watch every page I amend until nothing further occurs --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Route box direction

From what I've been led to believe the direction should be up to London (i.e. north - south). I remember reading something to this effect many moons ago by User:AlisonW but can't for the life of me find it again. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

About the Oxfordshire disused stations template, I won't get around to this until I get my copy of Cobb's atlas back in mid-August, so if you want to make a start, feel free and I'll chip in later. I also see that you're in Didcot, I've been meaning to get the DN&SR article into shape at some point. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

County railway templates

Hi. I am compiling a list of all English {{Railway stations in county}} templates here, where I've just added Oxfordshire which you recently created. If you make any more, please add them alphabetically to that list! The same goes for any city station templates. Cheers. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 07:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a similar list for closed stations templates? I did also create {{Closed stations Oxfordshire}}, but it's not complete; reasoning is given in its talk. I did also put some messages on User talk:Lamberhurst inviting comment about both, which I now see you've noticed. Unless I get complaints by the time I get back from the shops, I'll continue! --Redrose64 (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Can't find icons

I have added my revisions in your sandbox. Hope they help. But next time you may post your request in the project talk:Route diagram template so more users will know your situation. Anyway you're welcome. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cite formats

Two citation formats are available here User:Jeepday/Cite Jeepday (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with {{cite book}}, {{cite episode}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite map}} and {{cite web}}, also with <ref></ref>, <references /> and {{reflist}} and have used all of these with varying degrees of success - what I'm lacking is an equivalent to {{cite book}} etc. which is suitable for referencing information pulled from a record sleeve or CD booklet. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of template for that. Per WP:PRIMARY primary sources are discouraged, though WP:SELFPUB does allow for some use (i.e. number of tracks, copyright, etc). When ever possible secondary sources like books, newspaper reviews, etc should be the primary foundation of the article. An article without these secondary sources is more likely to be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability. So that is why there is not a cite template for record sleeve or CD booklet. Does this address your question? Jeepday (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If I have in front of me, a CD titled Live at Cropredy '08 by Fairport Convention, which is on the Matty Grooves Records label, I want to add it to both the latter articles. I also want to create the former article for the CD itself, and show the track list and personnel. But you're saying that I can't, because I don't have a book or magazine which reviews it? I have found that track listings are common in Wikipedia album articles (it's the tiny minority that don't have them), but that track listings are rarely given in books or magazines. Thus, are the majority of album articles candidates for deletion? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The complexities if WP:N are constantly subject to debate, and I am not the "expert" on it. I am not saying you can't add the info, just saying the template does not exist and because of above there are some issues with existing policy. You might go to Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Sources of articles and look for or start a conversation about making the template you want. The guideline WP:NALBUMS speaks to which albums are more likely candidates for deletion. But basically if the Only published source is the album cover, it would be a strong candidate for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fairport Convention etc

Good job on the place of publication for the Woodworm era book. I'd love to know how Patcham, Kent got in there.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, it seems to have originated with this edit. Incidentally, there seem to be several cases where the same ref occurs several times with the same page number - this gives several identical entries in the reference list. These may be condensed - the easiest way is by use of the name= attribute on the <ref> tag. I also like to use the {{cite book}} template (the one does not require the other). We thus have:

Statement 1.<ref name=refexample>{{cite book |last1=Redwood |first1=Fred |last2=Woodward |first2=Martin
 |title=The Woodworm Era: The story of today's Fairport Convention |publisher=Jeneva |location=Thatcham
 |year=1995 |page=14 |isbn=0-9525860-0-2 }}</ref>
Statement 2.<ref name=refexample />
{{reflist}}

which comes out as:

Statement 1.
Statement 2.

I knew it was one of my edits, just dont know how I got the wrong place. I have to be honest I don't care for the cite book template as they make it so hard to read a page when editing. I tend to prefer using <ref name=>. As it breaks up the text rather less.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrebd (talk • contribs) 16:15, 17 August 2009

Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 August 2009

Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 August 2009

I have provided my reference; but would like to know why my edit was singled out for reversion when the entire article was unreferenced. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology

Apologies- regret error in removing text on Barton Stacey station. Since you issued your comment I have since found reference elsewhere to it. I am endeavouring to update the "disused stations" section for you and to correct errors in the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.251.141 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Uploading image

{{helpme}} I've got an image which I want to add to the Port Meadow Halt railway station page. It's a 1280x960 JPEG photo of the station site, which I took myself, yesterday. However, never having uploaded an image before, I don't know how to go about it. I am particularly concerned with this business of "fair use rationale", which seems to be common grounds for the removal of many images. I don't want to get caught out, so how should I get clearance for it? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You should upload it on commons:upload, choosing the 'It is entirely my own work' option; hopefully it's pretty self-explanatory on those pages. If you get stuck, use another helpme or (maybe better) talk to us live, with this.  Chzz  ►  18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Hi Redrose64.

Firstly, you need not worry about fair use rationales. These only apply to images which have not been freely licensed by their copyright holder, but which can be used under certain criteria. This is not relevant in this case, as you yourself are the copyright holder.

You should preferably upload the image at Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork is the relevant upload page. I think the form is relatively straightforward, but if you have any further queries just ask. You can post a follow up Q here, or find me in the live help chat, here or here. ∙ AJCham^talk 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More imagey stuff II

Re old magazine cover scans: notes on copyright, which templates to use, etc. - try Template talk:Non-free magazine cover, also Wikipedia:Public domain; Wikipedia:Image copyright tags; Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Public domain; Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free; Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

• Some templates: Template:Non-free magazine cover; Template:Magazine rationale; Template:PD-US-1923-abroad; commons:Template:PD-old. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Some PDF docs: DURATION OF COPYRIGHT - Literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works

Image v File

When visiting toolserver, there is what I consider to be a daily list with double images/files. When I got it right, images on the different wiki should be replaced, one by one by a commons (file). Correct me if I am wrong. Ida Shaw (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess, if in a later stage all images on the different wiki will be on commons, there will be no need of the images anymore. Maybe right now just to keep track by the administrators looking into this. I feel sure, if I am doing something wrong here, an administrator would have informed me already. Ida Shaw (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

More imagey stuff

The rest of the above disjointed conversation is at User talk:Ida Shaw#Image vs File, User talk:Magnus Manske#Images from Commons and at User talk:Axpde#Image vs File. They don't help much, but poking around elsewhere it seems that Image: and File: are synonyms, although File: is newer. Most help page examples still show Image: - and indeed several help pages ignore File: entirely. See Help:Files, Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases, Wikipedia:Images (talk), Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons#Embedding Commons' media in Wikipedia articles, Commons:Commons:First steps/Reuse section Embedding Commons' media in Wikimedia projects, Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chiltern Mainline stations

I've had a go at filling in two of the three missing Chiltern Main Line stations, Cropredy and Southam Road and Harbury. I was thinking that you could put all your good GWR knowledge to good use expanding them a bit, if you have the time. Rsloch (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made minor changes to the Cropredy station article, more substantial changes to Southam Road & Harbury station article and created discussion pages for both. My references to the Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway are from memory, so if you know that they are inaccurate please amend and cite accordingly.

Whilst in that geographical area I greatly expanded the article on Claydon, Oxfordshire, and discovered that village has a museum of steam stationary engines. The museum lacks its own website and I haven't found a link that includes current opening times, but I've included in the article as much about the museum as I could glean from other websites. Motacilla (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo size

Usually for photos a quick way to reduce file sizes without sacrificing quality very much is if you have Microsoft Publisher, import the photo from its file and then right click on the photo and save it again, preferrably under .jpg. I'm not sure for other systems. Simply south (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have MS Office "Home and Student 2007" edition, which doesn't have Publisher - only Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote. And the interface for Word & Excel is simply shocking compared with previous versions. I would have to have gone for the "Small Business", "Professional" or "Ultimate" editions to get Publisher. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the 2003 version. Never mind. PowerPoint 2007 should do the same job. Go to the insert tab, click on Picture, browse to where your photo is, double click (or press insert), then on the inserted image right click, Save as Picture then decide on either .jpg or .png for the file. Hope this helps. Simply south (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Found that I have MS Office Picture Manager 2007, bundled with the other stuff. It's not listed on the box. Select image, then Edit Pictures, then Resize. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback II

{{talkback|HappyInGeneral|Template:Combi}} Thank you! HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources with multiple authors

FYI and reference, I copied our discussion over to Talk:Blood pressure #Sources with multiple authors. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's meetup

I don't belive so. Most of the discussion was about the editing we were doing and maps.©Geni 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation?

{{helpme}}

Resolved

In the article Miranda Hart, there is an image File:Miranda 1.jpg (held on English Wikipedia, not Commons) which appears to be identical in appearance to one found on the subject's own website - the dimensions and file size are also identical. However, the Wikipedia uploader claims "I created this work entirely by myself.". How can we tell if the copy on Wikipedia is legal, and if not, what is the procedure for dealing with it? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

We try to assume good faith - so it depends if you think it's reasonably plausible that it really is the work of the uploader - feel free to ask them on their talk page.

Sometimes, you can assess the likelihood of it being a copyvio yourself ; If it's very likely a copyright violation, then you could mark it as such, and propose deletion of it - either speedy deletion under the 'blatant copyright violation', or via discussion in WP:AFD.  Chzz  ►  22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files; commons:Commons:How to detect copyright violations --Redrose64 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, try Template:Wrong-license. Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#What should I do about a suspect image. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Button Fact

Hi Redrose64. I'm a bit new to the editing of pages in Wikipedia so thought I'd drop you this note on the Button fact you mention on the discussion page of "List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions". Sky Sports have the fact listed on their website at http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12538_5637133,00.html.

Can that now be used as a reference to allow you to include the fact on the main page?

Regards,

Boris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisbadgerbear (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated 2009 Formula One season with fact, welcomed above user also --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Curved viaducts

Hi. I don't know if you noticed my reply to your question about curved viaducts on my talk page. MegaPedant (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wotton Railway station

Thanks for noticing that. I forgot to include the "closed" bit in the previous edit to the infobox. I have reformatted it correctly now. --DavidCane (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To attempt to answer your other question, as the station saw LT services that seems to qualify it for the London infobox, as per Waddesdon. However, if it was served by both LT and other "national rail" services then the UK infobox would apply, as per Verney Junction. One question for you - do you think there would be any merit in creating an article on the Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Railway? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, it seems that Template:Infobox Closed London station provides far fewer features than Template:Infobox London station. The logical thing would be to have substantially the same parameters, so that should a station close, or reopen, it would be a fairly simple matter to insert or delete the magic word "Closed". For the "to think about" list methinks. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and if you do work out how these templates operate, it would be useful to have usage data not only in the Template:Infobox Closed London station but also in the Template:Infobox UK disused station. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Met & GC Joint article, yes; we have one for the GW & GC Joint after all. Judging by Dow, vol. 3, pp.187-195, the Met & GC Jt Ctte was set up on 2 April 1906, and the lines covered would be:

• Harrow-on-the-Hill South Junction to Verney Junction;
• the Chesham branch;
• the Brill tramway.
• To these we would add Rickmansworth triangle and the Watford branch (opd. 1925).

The recently-opened Uxbridge line (July 1904) is specifically excluded. We would certainly also omit the Stanmore branch (opd. 1932).

As regards the section from Canfield Place to Harrow-on-the-Hill South Junction, this seems to have been built entirely by the Met, and the southernmost pair (of six tracks) were leased by the Met to the GC for 999 years from 1 March 1906, but does not appear to have been part of the Joint Committee.

Aylesbury station became doubly joint in 1907 (my Ian Allan pre-grouping atlas states "MET. & G.C. Jt. & G.W.& G.C. Jt. COMMS.", whilst this map uses a distinct colour (pale blue), denoted as "G.W.&G.C.J^nt AND MET.& G.C.JOINT"). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The joint railway is alreday redlinked from Template:Wycombe Railway RDT as Metropolitan and Great Central Joint Committee. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback III

{{talkback|Talk:Ares I-X}} GW… 23:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?

That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Requesting Move. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand, that is OK, if you know somebody who would be interested in this topic please let him know. The point is that the page does need some impartial assessment. Thank you again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

EKLR

Nice work expanding the article. I've sorted out the Stephens Museum links and they are all working again. Re the stations distances - are they in miles and furlongs? If so then I can sort out conversions to km. Are you intending to expand the carriages and wagons sections? This article has the makings of a GA in the medium term. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All that I expanded was the locomotives section, because that's what I have info for. I added fully-linkable refs for my material. By fully-linkable, I mean that as usual, you click the little number to take you to the "References" section; but in there, additionally "Bradley 1967" is bluelinked, and clicking that will take you to the relevant row in the "Sources" section. This works in Firefox 3.0, IE6 and IE7, but looks better in Firefox 3.0 because the target gains a pale blue background. For some reason IE6 and IE7 don't do that - style sheet handling I expect.

Anyway, also under "Locomotives", I also improved the way that Lawson Finch & Garrett is linked through to the actual {{cite book}} template - these are also now fully linked, and so behave similarly to the Bradley refs.

I did nothing for station distances, but judging by paragraph 2 of East Kent Light Railway#Stations on main line, it's miles and chains (1 mile = 8 furlongs, 1 furlong = 10 chains, so 1 mile = 80 chains) - furlongs are rarely found in railway context but common in horse racing. Despite being unmetric, distances in miles and chains remain the official measure on Britain's railways; many WP articles show only mi:ch figures and ignore the metric equivalent. The {{convert}} template will handle miles and chains, but not nearly as compactly. Taking Eythorne as an example, the present Wikitext has

* '''[[Eythorn]]e.''' 1:52.

which renders as

• Eythorne. 1:52.

If you amend thus:

* '''[[Eythorn]]e.''' {{convert|1|mi|52|chain|km}}.

it will render thus:

• Eythorne. 1 mile 52 chains (2.7 km).

One common source of up-to-date distances is the "Railway Track Diagrams" series of rail atlases, also known as the "Quail Trackmaps" (home page). These mostly use miles and chains, only giving kilometres if that is the official measure on the line concerned - the Heathrow branch from Hayes & Harlington for example, as well as the whole of the London Underground. The current editions are mostly shown on their website but vol. 6 is out of print:

• 1 Scotland & Isle of Man (Map) (5th ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. December 2007. ISBN 978-0-9549866-3-6.
• 2 Eastern (Map) (3rd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. September 2006. ISBN 0-9549866-2-8.
• 3 Western (Map) (4th ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. November 2005. ISBN 978-0-9549866-1-X. {{cite map}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• 4 Midlands & North West (Map) (2nd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. March 2005. ISBN 0-9549866-0-1.
• 5 Southern & TfL (Map) (3rd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. November 2008. ISBN 978-0-9549866-4-3.
• 6 Ireland (Map) (2nd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Quail Map Company. November 2003. ISBN 1-898319-68-5.

However these are near useless for lines which have been lifted. The surviving portion of the EKLR is in vol. 5, page 13.

Sorry, but don't think that I have any info other than what I added for locos. I do have some books on SR coaching stock, so might be able to expand the entries for coaches nos. 5 (1st & 2nd), 6 (2nd) and 7-11. Most are doubtful, particularly the 4- and 6-wheelers, since many C&W authors concentrated on bogie stock (it lasted longer so more information was available to them). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Charwelton (and others)

Hi Redrose64

Just seen your edits. Thanks - I was going to do that myself but you just beat me to it.

I've also added some info on the ironstone line. Just got to work out how to provide a source for it.

I'm also working my way through other stations on the Great Central Main Line in similar fashion - I've been absolutely fascinated by this line for years, walked from Aylesbury to Woodhouse, Sheffield in 6 days in 1978 (I was young then), saw part of Brackley Viaduct being blown up later in the year, managed to walk through Catesby Tunnel in just 40 minutes in 1980. (I am also quite mad!)

Regards Tonythepixel (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest

• Tonks, Eric (1988). "Northern Group: The Northamptonshire Quarries: Charwelton Quarries". Part II The Oxfordshire Field. The Ironstone Quarries of the Midlands. Cheltenham: Runpast. pp. 124–136. ISBN 1 870754 02 6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

--Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Charwelton again

Hi Redrose64

I don't own a copy, though it is higly likely that it will contain the info given in the Wikipedia article; alternatively it should perhaps be recommended for further reading. I have listed another source that I have seen online that definitely does give some of the info.

Although I've been creating/editing Wikipedia articles for a while now, it's only recently that I'm getting more into the "technicalities" of it, including the provision of references and sources etc. I shied away from this for some time which I hold my hands up to, but I'm now taking the bull by the horns so to speak. There's a good bit to learn, and I'm at an age now when my mind isn't as sharp as it once was, but one way or another I'll get there!

All the best, hope we can keep in touch.

Regards Tonythepixel (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Charwelton (sources)

Hi Redrose64

The info I put in about the Charwelton ironstone line came from three websites (I've taken the time to search for these and give their web addresses, so we can hopefully get this right):

www.irsociety.co.uk/Archives/21/Ironstone_7.htm

www.steamindex.com/brj/brj5.htm

www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/c/charwelton/index.shtml

Perhaps these should be given as the sources and Eric Tonks' work recommended "for further reading". I'm simply trying to avoid having you spend time searching for things when really it should be me doing that.

Remember - I'm still learning!

Kind regards Tonythepixel (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Judy Dyble

Resolved

{{helpme}} I was under the impression that subpages could not be created in article namespace, but that restriction does not seem to apply to Talk: namespace. For example, see Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments. I found this page because Judy Dyble, being a page to which I have made significant contributions, is on my watchlist. A recent edit was carried out by User:Jude12, and I was curious to see what else this user had done; so looked at their contributions, which is where I found Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments, which was created by User:Jude12, and edited once, by the same user. There is no such page as Judy Dyble/Comments, and by my reckoning, there cannot be. What should be done? The following alternatives occur to me:

1. Ignore
2. Copy all the comments from Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments to Talk:Judy Dyble
3. as (2) and also mark Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments with {{db-talk}} as a talk page without subject page, per WP:CSD#G8
4. as (3) and also put {{subst:uw-creation1|Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments}} onto User talk:Jude12
5. as (2) and also blank Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments and turn it into a redirect to Talk:Judy Dyble
6. as (5) but use {{Soft redirect|Talk:Judy Dyble}} possibly with a message, so that should User:Jude12 go there again, they will be informed of their error
7. as (5) but put a suitable message on User talk:Jude12

Is it a task entirely for myself, or should consensus be obtained and an admin's help sought? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• If I were you, I would be bold and do option 3. It is important that the comments are kept, and they should be on the main talk page of the article. I would also leave a uw-creation type message, but write your own rather than the template, explaining why the comments have been moved. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3 followed, which has placed both Talk:Judy Dyble/Comments and Talk:Judy Dyble into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Hopefully only the subpage will go. Have stuck a {{hangon}} onto Talk:Judy Dyble just in case. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Done. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Brawn GP

Hey. I removed your comment from the WP:F1 page as it is a chatroom topic, not concerned with the editing of articles here. But in answer to your question: no, Mercedes are already there, being 2 for 2 in 1954 and 1955. Whether they can keep that up in 2010 is another matter... ;-) Pyrope 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be seen as a "chatroom topic"; personally I never use chatroom sites. It was intended to be a topic which could stimulate interest, be followed up by those with access to relevant books, and thus be sourced and so be legitamately added to relevant articles. To my mind, within the scope of WikiProject Formula One there are pages containing items which are less notable. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you were coming from now. Sorry about being a bit quick off the mark, but WP:F1 does tend to attract quite a few off-topic additions. Phrasing it more as an editorial query rather than a general comment would have helped avoid confusion. Pyrope 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Section heading style

Whichever you like. On the whole SmackBot leaves these alone, certainly for its main task of dating maintenance tags. The substantial majority of headers in articles have no extra spaces, presumably in analogy to other delimiters like () {} <> but if you use the new-section tab you will get spaces, so I would conclude editors in general prefer without - though I have heard both points of view. Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Reading Railway Station

I've now belatedly responded to your query of a couple of weeks ago on my talk page. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanslope Ref List

Mate, I just cut 'n' paste what I see when I click the button at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php When I get the warning message on the page I have edited that the carefully crafted ref I have inserted will not be displayed I cut 'n' paste what is suggested there - I can't see why that should be a problem. Don't like it? Take it up with this cove.

A word of caution: I usually calibrate my usually not insubstantial donations to Wp fund raisers on whether or not I am currently being given the shits (even mildly) by anal retentives and deletionists. Silent Billy (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

help with updating {{cite video game}}

Been trying to figure out how to update this template for something akin to the other templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite video}}, but as i'm not skilled at coding am running into a wall. One of the key problems is core doesn't have enough feilds. Video games are inherently non-linear so many of the usual citing of specific sections fail. In addition, like other media, every video game uses different divisors to determine where it occurs, if any.陣内_Jinnai 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

{{underconstruction}}

The thing to to is to examine all the distinct parameters which are recognised by {{Citation/core}}, and decide which would be most suitable for the information which {{cite video game}} is to show. For example, {{Citation/core}} has |Date= and |Publisher=, whilst {{cite video game}} has |date= and |publisher= - there is clear correspondence there. |Edition= could be used for |version=; |Surname1= for |developer=, and so on. (please wait, Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC))

 Not done Since this is outside my area of interest, I've really not done anything about it. I see that a thread has now been raised at Template talk:Citation/core#Need updates to support "cite video game". Any further comment should be directed there. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Brackley

I've removed the WP:Crystal tag which you gave to the "future" section of Brackley Central. I've added in a few refs backing up the reopening claims, in particular for a station at Brackley. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd seen that section some months ago, with the occasional (mostly harmless) tweak from IP editors; but a cluster of edits today (also IP) kind-of kicked me into action: I felt that it was time to do something about it. I didn't simply strike the lot because there could have been grains of truth - which you have been able to locate. However, reopening to Leicester is less, not more, likely following the demolition of the viaduct there (see The Railway Magazine, January 2010, p.8 "Woman chains herself to Great Central bridge") - a students' leisure centre is apparently to be built on the site. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right: read (and see) all about it at Braunstone Gate Bridge, except that I haven't put in the latest news. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SECR PMV

I was wondering what you thought of my suggestion at WT:UKRAIL#Notability Q re working an article up in the article incubator. Alternately I could create a sub-page of my user page for this. Mjroots (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your last comment there; but thought that it was directed at the general community. Anyway, not sure what an "article incubator" is, unless it be another term for sandbox. Further comments in this thread will shortly be posted back there. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback IV

{{Talkback|Sabrebd}}

Nimbus V and Alycidon

I ahve not noticed any reference to British railway locomotives that were named after these particular racehorses and if reliable references are provided then the additions are acceptable. There were also several racehorses named Nimbus, too.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Redrose64 - You are correct and I have reverted the edits by Cgoodwin. Handicapper (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I can find simply dozens of books which give the locomotive names as "Alycidon" and "Nimbus" (and six other racehorse names for that particular class), but I was going potty trying to find books that referred to both the locomotives and these particular horses, with context such as "the locomotive was named after the 1949 winner of the Derby and the 2000 Guineas". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start: [1] Handicapper (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This gives names for the locomotives, yes - but as I say, I can find plenty of books giving Deltic loco names. What is really needed is something that ties the name to the specific horse - without that, we are equally justified in saying that D9020/55 020 was named after a cloud formation. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually had an extensive website a few years ago with the details but it has gone down. I think contacting some of these very enthusiastic "train" lovers would get the facts. (There is an e-mail address here at the Deltic Preservation society for asking questions. However, when there are six or seven locomotives in Britain with a horse's name that were launched within the years following the horse's success, then it can only be a horse because if one examines each name, I think you will see there are none in any other category with a name of such high profile that would warrant a company naming a locomotive after it. Handicapper (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I, like you, know full well that the only likely source of the names of these locos is the racehorses. Unfortunately, the racing fraternity in general are unaware of the traditions of the railway companies, so to say something like "locomotive D9020 was named after this horse", and the only cited sources are

• a railway book showing this name against this number and class without actually mentioning racehorses
• a different book stating that such-a-railway often used racehorses as the inspiration for its loco names, but without actually mentioning the loco under discussion

then to link the two together counts as WP:SYNTHESIS, which is tantamount to WP:OR and therefore disallowed.

However, with the help of Abingdon & District Model Railway Club, I have now found a website, which although not necessarily WP:RELIABLE, does give statements along the lines of "D9020/55020: NIMBUS The last of the 'racehorses' to be delivered, D9020 was named at Doncaster on February 12th 1962 after the horse which won the 1949 Derby and 2000 Guineas races". That's good enough for me as a railfan; let's hope that the horseracing-orientated users agree. Luckily, on Pinza, there was already a link to a different site which gives suitable information, so I'm using that as a second ref on Nimbus V and the others. One ref might get knocked off again: two should stick better. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection on this issue was that Cgoodwin just deleted the statement rather than insert a tag. There is a reason for his conduct, but he's not worth wasting time on. 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

All eight have now been updated and doubly referenced. Let's see how long my changes last. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Former F1 drivers

1. Juan Manuel Fangio at the 1950 British Grand Prix.

2. 1950 British Grand Prix, 13th May.

4 points, I believe? Far, far, too easy, I didn't even look them up... WilliamF1two (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I did hope that it was the sort of thing people would know straight off! You're the first back with the answer - I was also hoping for a mention of Silverstone on the second, but there you go. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Brackley Central

Hello Redrose64

Hope you're fine and had a great Christmas!

I wonder if they actually will restore "Town" back to Aylesbury station despite the fact that we now have Aylesbury Vale Parkway a couple of miles away. My gut feeling is that they won't. In south Wales, Barry's main station is widely referred to as Barry Town although officially it's been just Barry almost throughout its existence, yet it doesn't cause confusion as far as I know.

Anyway, I've been able to add some extra info to the article on Brackley Central station, plus photographs (and also provide some sources). The big mystery here that I'd love to try and solve (and I've mentioned this to user "Lamberhurst" and also on the article's discussion page), is to find out something concrete about the proposed Northampton branch. The source that I've mentioned (the only one I've come across so far online) - the Forgotten Relics website - gives fairly scant info and seems to question whether there ever was any serious proposal. Yet I've seen a map of the line - I only wish I could remember where. It was a while back. If you know anything definite, it would be great.

Regards Tonythepixel (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Butt (which is correct to 1995), Aylesbury station was always called simply Aylesbury. I'm presently still on hols in Barford St. Michael, and all my books (bar Butt) are back home in Didcot, so can't check, for example, Mitchell & Smith. Will try to do so in a few days, but don't expect a definite answer until about 6 January.

I am aware that at Marylebone, and possibly other stations, "Aylesbury Town" is indeed shown on the departure screens. However, at Aylesbury station itself, the nameboards have not been altered; the Network Rail info page shows "Aylesbury", as do the downloadable public timetables (Table 114 as PDF and Table 115 as PDF). Until the station itself actually changes, we should stick with "Aylesbury". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Clifton railway station

Alternatively needs to be a diambig page with Clifton moved to Clifton railway station, Greater Manchester NtheP (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal Oak tube station Assessment

Well done on an excellent use of references for Royal Oak tube station. I have assessed the article as B class. I made a few additional copy edits which you can see in the diffs:

• Generally, only 1 or 2 references are needed for non controversial facts.
• I reordered the sections so that notes, references and external links come last in the article.
• I added "|lk=on" into the first use of the {{convert}} template, so that a link to chain (length) is provided as this is now a fairly obscure unit of measurement.
• Generally, in the infobox, only the year is used rather than the full date
• I added one or two additional links to unusual terms such as dive under
• I removed the part of the caption in the second image of the gallery as the taxi service station is not mentioned in the article text

Are you planning on referencing other station articles in this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCane (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Separately, can you provide a ref on where Royal Oak got its name? Simply south (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not yet. Will keep looking. There are an awful lot of pubs in this country called "Royal Oak", so the present statement is plausible, albeit unrefd.

OK, in order.

• Better over-referenced than under-referenced, particularly when certain authors wrote the cited books. However, I have no objection to some of your removals in this instance: in deciding which to keep, you (and others) need to verify what I've added. MacDermot is not easy to find (I recently came across an original at GBP 50.00 for the set of 3 vols, and also Clinker & Nock's 1960s revision also for 50.00 the set). Peacock was a short print run, and is long out of print; Mitchell & Smith are not always WP:RELIABLE, but Croome is easily available and generally good - so I guess that's why you kept Croome and ditched the others. However, Croome doesn't mention the quadrupling, just the tunnel, so I think that MacDermot (the only one which does) should have been kept too.
• I didn't check the section order. I guess I should have done. My main concern was to rewrite the middle bit which I considered scanty and inaccurate.
• |lk=on, fine. I didn't know about that parameter.
• There are many railway station articles where a full date is given for |years1= etc. I've not done a quantitative check to assess relative popularity.
• Links, fine.
• None of the gallery was my work, and since I had no photos to contribute, I left it alone.

Referencing? Not sure what you mean by "in this way" - is it "too many refs that should be cut down", or "use of two-stage refs and the {{harvnb}} template". I shall assume the latter. It mainly depends upon what sort of referencing is already there.

If there are a lot (such as with London Paddington station) I'll follow precedent. But if there are few, and I intend to reference several different pages in the same book, I prefer to use a two-stage (short footnotes, longer book citations) method as per Royal Oak tube station, using <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>, which might mean re-setting the existing refs to suit.

If there are none at all, I'm likely to use a slightly different two-stage method, which uses {{sfn}}, as I did at Reading Southern railway station and Hinksey Halt railway station. The advantage of that over <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> shows when you reference the same page in two different places. Consider this:

Statement A.<ref name=Peacock67>{{harvnb|Peacock|1970|p=67}}</ref> Statement B.<ref name=Peacock67 />

which shows as:

Statement A. Statement B.

if you remove the first reference, it breaks the second. Now consider this:

Statement A.{{sfn|Peacock|1970|p=67}} Statement B.{{sfn|Peacock|1970|p=67}}

which also shows as:

Statement A. Statement B.

but here, you can remove either reference, and the other won't get broken in the process. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

By "in this way", I just meant are you going to reference other tube station articles, as there are so few which have proper referencing at the moment. The format of the referencing is not a problem at all. Personally, I format using the Harvard style as well.

Cyril Harris's What's in a name?, p. 60. (ISBN 1-85414-241-0). gives the source of the name as the "Royal Oak" pub, although he says it now called the "Railway Tap". Not sure if this has since been renamed "the Porchester" as the article states.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

My original intention was to clean up the Oxfordshire station articles, then I broadened this to Ox/Berks/Bucks; then I decided to cover the GCR main line all the way from Woodford Halse or Rugby in to Marylebone, and the GWR lines in Middlesex. Having recently acquired Butt, I decided that the logical thing to do would be Paddington first, and work out from there on a clockwise basis. So, Padd, then Royal Oak, Westbourne Park and so on to Hammersmith; then Acton out to Slough and so on. I could throw in the earlier parts of the Met too. Then the later parts. Then the District. I think you'll need to wait and see; if I get a job I'll need to cut back again.

The most comprehensive source for Underground openings, renamings and closures is Rose (which I have only added to Westbourne Park).

I clean forgot Harris, I bought the 4th ed but it's not on my railway shelves - for some reason (its size perhaps?) it got mixed in with some paperback novels. Do you think that Terry Pratchett might cover the problems of excavating deep-level tube railways on a world which is not spherical? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added |location=Harrow Weald to the {{cite book}} for Harris. Please could you also fill in the |edition=? Mine is 4th edition, but dated 2001: your 2006 edition might be either 5th or 6th ed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mine is also the fourth edition, but the 2006 reprint, which is indicated as having "some updating". --DavidCane (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Rowland (drummer)

This article, thanks to your help, is now long enough for a WP:DYK nomination; I'd like to add his work with Ronnie Lane and others, but his chronology from 1983 - 1992 on Allmusic is blank; any ideas? Also, it seems difficult to update to what he's doing now apart from the occasional Fairport live gig. I'd propose for DYK "... that Bruce Rowland, Fairport Convention drummer, also backed Joe Cocker at the Woodstock Festival and played on the original Jesus Christ Superstar album?" - a bit banal, perhaps, but I've had less exciting hooks accepted. Let me know what you think. A free image would also help, but I can't find one. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've never participated in a DYK nom before. However, your statement above is entirely supported by Patrick Humphries. Page 87 again! No pics I'm afraid. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll nominate it tomorrow, and if accepted, you'll get a new shiny. I think a discography section should be added, and again, tomorrow. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodnight all. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawkhurst branch

I know this is a bit outside your usual territory but I wonder if you would be interested in helping us get Hawkhurst Branch Line to FA status in time for the 50th anniversary of the line's closure on 10 June 2011? A question has also arisen in connection with the proper referencing of a journal article using the sfn template: when quoting a journal article - say from January 2010 - should the correct formulation be {{sfn|Smith|January 2010|p=1}} or should the month be dropped? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have replied at User talk:Lamberhurst#A challenge --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion over to the article talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An editor has now started the assessment for GA status. No comments yet though. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A reward for all your hard work. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote Hawkhurst Branch Line to good article status.

Oooh, ta! One for the userpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The 50th anniversary of closure approaches. I'd like this to appear on OTD. I did ask at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries about this a while back but have had no feedback. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice, sure, but I'm not sure how I can help to push this along... I'm not on the OTD team. BTW Lamberhurst reappeared yesterday, after almost 6 mths away. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Queries regarding SECR N1 class on SECR K and K1 classes talkpage.

Hello. I've given my thoughts on you post of 11 January on the above page. Rightly or wrongly (and I'm paraphrasing what I've written), I feel that we are broadly in agreement. However, my understanding is that as No. 822 was ordered as a K class, the fact remains that even after a delay in construction, the intention was to produce the N class. However, the order was changed in 1922, which required the conversion of parts intended for No. 822 to create the three-cylinder N1 class. In my view, because the prototype N1 class wasn't initially intended to be built as such, the resultant changes constitute conversion (especially as parts were standardised anyway). The other five were indeed built as N1 class from the outset, for the intention was there in the beginning, and therefore cannot be referred to as 'converted N class' locomotives.

I hope this has clarified my understanding on this issue, which is one that will affect around four articles, and demonstrates the complex history of these classes of locomotive. If you still disagree with my understanding of the subject, would it be possible to ask you to modify the K1 section of the article to incorporate your interpretation for comparison purposes? Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to think about this. On the one hand, we have a loco that was originally ordered in one form, but entered service in a different form. On the other, the word "convert" might suggest to the casual reader that an existing loco was taken out of service and altered. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sandy Georgia's comment

I'm not entirely sure what he means about the referencing, but it is relatively minor, as he's usually in charge of FA promotion. I'll go through the NBSPs now before I go to sleep. Just have a look through the references and make sure they are in line with WP policy. Congratulations, by the way! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cudworth locos

If you read the James Cudworth article, you'll see that the locos were rebuilt. Is it possible that the E1 class were the rebuilds of the 118 class? Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit of tidying re the tables. Also, I think I've fixed a ref (Bradley 15, which I take to mean Bradley, p15). If this is incorrect please correct as necessary. Mjroots (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you still expanding the locomotives section, the tag is holding up the DYK nom. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The refs are a bit of a mix of styles. Can you sort them out similar to the Hawkhurst Branch Line article please? (Still awaiting the GA assessment there, currently 17th on list). Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. However, I can hear simmering, so my bathwater is just about hot. No more edits for an hour or so. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If the hook is in Prep 2 that gives 42-48 hrs approx for final tweaks. Once it's in the queue only an admin can edit it. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did you get an ISBN for Nock, when that book was published several years before SBNs (let alone ISBNs) were invented? Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was working from the original, borrowed from my dad. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

I asked some questions in the Criteria for Inclusion section on 20th Dec but no-one has yet responded. Can you take a look? GrahamHardy (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Carmarthenshire categories

I've left you a note at User talk:Enaidmawr which you may find helpful. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, seen it: I have the "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" setting enabled. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Station coords

Isn't it overdoing it to have x,y coords mentioned twice for a station? Either they remain in the top right hand corner or the infobox, but surely not both. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was editing the articles anyway in order to:

• make sure the opening/renaming/closing dates are refd from Butt;
• show the location on a printed railway atlas (Baker 11th ed for open stas; Conolly for closed stas dating back to pre-group period; Ian Allan 1955 for closed stas opened after 1923)
• make sure that the station has Category:Railway stations opened in 1873 and Category:Railway stations closed in 1952 (or similar)

and also clear up any little things. Since I'm sure that I saw a bot going around removing the {{coord}} and placing the values in the infobox, I thought I'd pre-empt it. If the coords are specified in the infobox, they automatically show at upper right as well. If you try to specify lat/long in the infobox and as a {{coord}} then you get three sets, two of which overlap. Sometimes they overlap precisely, sometimes one is slightly displaced. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Decdeg

Thanks for you comments about {{Decdeg}}. I could not duplicate the bug. Could you give me an example where it occurs. –droll [chat] 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I was able to duplicate the bug and looking at my old code it is obvious that your fix is necessary. I guess no one ever used the rounding functionality before. It was a bug that did not always appear. See the testcases. Thanks for reporting the problem. –droll [chat] 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Bosnian Royal Family

Hello, and thanks for editing the page I wrote. I hope find it worth of Wikipedia, given that you took time to correcting it. But of course I may be wrong. In any case, would you care participating in the ongoing discussion on the proposal by some that the entire page be deleted, which was posted quite hastily 10 minutes after the page was up? The discussions are at Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosnian_Royal_Family and related at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1463–1878). Regards Bosnipedian (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

These all appear to be heated debates. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, true. Although, when you invest time writing a comprehensive article with many new reliable references presenting new findings by historians on a subject, and get faced with a hasty deletion request within 10 minutes from putting the page up, what can you do but defend yourself. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of old FAs: LSWR N15 class.

Hello again. Whilst the K/K1 article is under FAC, I have been working on revising and improving some current FAs in the light of obtaining more material and experience with more recent FAs. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the result, which is located at User:Bulleid Pacific/Sandbox 1? The intention is to give it the lowdown on C/E and prose, then paste it to the main article, possibly putting it under FA review if necessary. If you could, I would be most grateful. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to amend directly, or suggest on a talk page? If the latter, which talk? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You can amend directly, as I have a hard copy saved on MS Word should anything go drastically wrong. Ps. Just discuss any problems on my talk page under an appropriate title, and I'll follow from there. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that you've been able to find wrong with the revision in my sandbox thus far? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

LoTSW

If consensus is to have the table, by all means escalate the block level. Another avenue is WP:RFPP, with a request for semi-protection if there are numerous IPs editing against consensus. If it's just the one, then once a lvl4/4im warning has been issued the next step is WP:AIV. Mjroots (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the save on Ar Rahaliyah!

Hadn't realised my lat/long format was the thing ruining the infobox. Thanks for the help! I spent some time in Anbar, so it's important to me to get some coverage up on the subject. Will keep your tip in mind for future infoboxes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ar Rahaliyah Ar Rahaliyah (Iraq)	Ar Rahaliyah Ar Rahaliyah (Iraq)
Coordinates: 32°45′0″N 43°24′36″E	Coordinates:

The problem was the combination of the parameters. On my first reading of the template source, I worked out that if you specify a value for |latNS= you must also provide a value for |latm=, and also the value of |latd= must be an integer (similarly, if you specify a value for |longEW= you must also provide a value for |longm=, and also the value of |longd= must be an integer).

Accordingly, I amended Ar Rahaliyah to suit those rules, which worked (see first example at right).

However, on checking again, I found that if you leave |latNS= blank, you can also leave |latm= blank, in which case the value of |latd= may be a decimal value (similarly, if you leave |longEW= blank, you can also leave |longm= blank, in which case the value of |longd= may be a decimal value).

Thus I could have changed the parameters to:

|latd=32.75 |latm= |lats= |latNS=

|longd=43.41 |longm= |longs= |longEW=

which would have produced the second example at right. The only visual difference is whether the co-ordinates are displayed as DMS form or as decimal form - the display form matches the form used for the parameters.

In other words, if you prefer the decimal form, you can use it, but don't specify North/East as well. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Socks

The venue for sockpuppet investigations is WP:SPI. I'll look at the contribution of the editors in question later this morning. BTW, the {{User}} template is a handy tool to allow editing history to be investigated. I've refactored your message on my talk page with this template. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Gellrok (talk · contribs) as a VOA and almost certain sock. I'm not sure about the other two accounts though. They might be socks of each other, but I don't think they are socks of Gellro(c)k. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've granted JoshuaHillman's request for some time away from Wikipedia. Maybe he'll learn that when we say stop vandalising we mean stop vandalising. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jumbles Reservoir

How do the spaces in the OS grid reference change the accuracy? •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tri-ang refs

No problem. 'One of the unseen rules' - exactly - I had to work it out for myself that it looks better, although officially I think you're allowed to do it either way - so I'm glad you agree. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Redrose64, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: I watch all talk pages where I leave a question/comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cecil Kimber

Right - sorry, didn't mean to step on any toes. I just saw the link, wasn't sure if you were aware of it, and went ahead and filled it.

Apologies for being a while in responding, but they day kind of moved on from that point, as it were. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback V

{{talkback|RP459}} -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks: I watch all talk pages where I leave a question/comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Criminal creology AfD

I just couldn't resist... [2]. Expect hilarity on my talk page soon. :-) Sorry for ignoring your talkback guideline, but we wouldn't want him to see this message and miss all the funhis revolutionary research Smocking (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Redrose64, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Redrose64/Sandbox6. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes

Yes indeed, hi to Jc37; I don't think we've conversed before, but I did leave you a message a couple of months ago, knowing full well that you'd not been around for weeks. I guess you've got something of a backlog and will only deal with the important issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi.

The quick answer to your question is: It's to reduce disruption.

There were a LOT of discussions, spread over a lot of talk pages, the VP, and other pages. And this includes quite a few proposed policy pages which have since been merged/deleted.

There's also issues regarding transclusion. Several people wanted to transclude the gallery portion on other pages, for example.

I hope this helps. If you have further questions or would like further clarification, please let me know. - jc37 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copied to original discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Midland Railway

I see that you've created Template:MR colour, which is useful but touches on a problem that I've unintentionally created. If you look at the colours list you'll see that the MR and LMS colour codes are identical. My understanding is that whilst both used venetian red , the MR's version had a slight brownish tinge (maroon?). I played about with the MR colour but couldn't get it quite right. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The hex colour values are indeed identical. I took the MR value from the list which you linked above. I did consider setting up {{MR colour}} simply as a redirect to {{LMS colour}}, but then decided against because one may need to be amended independently of the other. At any one time, the locomotive and carriage shades were supposed to be identical; but regarding the actual shade, it depends which books you read!

... the subject of Midland carriage livery and that of its LMS successor has already been covered comprehensively in ... Midland Style, published by the Historical Model Railway Society in 1975 ...
Midland Red (Crimson Lake) - shade remaining consistent from 1883 to 1923 (and during the LMS period to 1939), save for any variation in manufacture. There was never an official instruction to alter the colour itself until 1946 when the LMS changed it to 'Maroon'. (Jenkinson & Essery 1984, p. 179)

The standard LMS body colour was crimson lake, being basically the ex-MR shade. This colour has been discussed at length elsewhere so the argument will not be repeated here. The shade may have become a little darker as the years went by but until 1946 the nomenclature never changed. In this year, the LMS changed the name to maroon although whether there was any noticeable change in the actual colour is conjectural.
In 1956/7 when BR adopted an all-red coach livery, a definite attempt was made to revert to the pre-war MR/LMS shade and careful matching of painted panels indicates that this was achieved, especially when BR coaches were newly ex-works. At the same time, BR never reverted to calling the shade 'crimson lake' and it was always referred to as 'BR locomotive hauled stock maroon'. However, as the shade is more recent in history than LMS red, it will probably help readers to visualise the colour more readily. (Jenkinson & Essery 1977, p. 41; Essery & Jenkinson 1991, p. 41)

The paint recipe is also given on subsequent pages of the two LMS books. There are, however, factors that affect the final paint shade which are independent of the proportions of pigments used - these include (but are not limited to):

• the nature and colour of priming, sizing and undercoats
• the nature of the binder used when making up the paint (linseed oil was normal in Midland/LMS days)
• the number of main colour coats
• the number of varnish coats
• the type of varnish used
• actions carried out between coats (such as stopping and rubbing-down)

Considering, for example, the type of varnish; in LMS days the varnish was linseed oil based, and was a definite yellow. Modern varnishes are normally polyurethane, which is almost colourless. To appreciate the difference, look at a coach painted in LNWR livery. The upper panels of preserved examples are normally pale blue - but they should not be. The correct colour for LNWR upper panels is

dry White Lead, ground in raw linseed oil with '... just sufficient Ultramarine Blue added to counteract the yellowing of the varnish in the finishing coats' (Jenkinson 1978, p. 22)

Thus, by analogy, a preserved coach in allegedly LMS livery may also be "too blue", because the varnish isn't yellow.

• Essery, Bob; Jenkinson, David (1991). The Illustrated History of LMS Standard Coaching Stock - I: General Introduction and Non-Passenger Vehicles. Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 86093 450 0. T450. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jenkinson, David; Essery, Bob (1977). An Illustrated History ofLMS Coaches 1923-1957. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 902888 83 8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jenkinson, David (1978). An Illustrated History of L.N.W.R. Coaches (including West Coast Joint Stock). Headington: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 902888 90 0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Jenkinson, David; Essery, Bob (1984). Midland Carriages - An Illustrated Review. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 86093 291 5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Now, Essery & Jenkinson are normally very WP:RELIABLE sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above - would you not say that █ #AF1E2D ("sign red") would be more appropriate as the MR colour? If not, could I ask you to have a gander at these two pages (warmer reds and colder reds) to see if there's a better colour? The current crimson lake colour is too light (see for example the modelling page here: stationcolours). Lamberhurst (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have examined the stationcolours page, particularly the blocks titled "London, Midland & Scottish Railway Red"; "Midland Railway Dark Red" and "British Railways London Midland Region" - these three colour dabs are identical in shade, being, quite simply, #800000. This is reasonable given that, as stated above, the BR 1956 colour was matched to "the pre-war MR/LMS shade", so the three should be the same (where a difference existed in real life, it was between the earlier and later LMS colours, the later one being darker). Whether #800000 is a faithful reproduction or not is an entirely different matter: this being such a precise value (50% red, 0% green, 0% blue) suggests a desire for ease of use in computer software rather than accuracy of appearance.

The problem with trying to pick a good match on a VDU screen for a paint colour is that you are considering items of different nature. The VDU screen uses emitted light and additive mixing, whilst a painted (or printed) item uses reflected light and subtractive mixing. Colour-matching one to the other hardly ever works - try doing a scan of a printed item containing an area of plain, solid colour, display the resulting file, then hold the printed item close to it. They will never look the same, no matter how much you tweak the component colour proportions. Even if you then get it to look almost right, adjust the brightness and/or contrast controls of your VDU; the colour changes immediately and the match is lost. My brightness/contrast are almost certainly set differently from yours; so what looks "right" for you probably looks "wrong" for me.

I don't think that we should seek an exact shade, but one that is representative. If the MR and LMS colours should be different, the MR colour should be the lighter one, and the LMS colour the darker. On this basis, since your suggestion of AF1E2D is darker than the existing value DC143C, then {{LMS colour}} should become AF1E2D, and {{MR colour}} can remain as DC143C. Here are some samples for comparison, together with 800000 as suggested by the stationcolours page:

Preceding station	Historical railways			Following station
Cleeve Line open, station closed		Midland Railway Using colour value DC143C		Cheltenham Line and station open
Cleeve Line open, station closed		Midland Railway Using colour value AF1E2D		Cheltenham Line and station open
Cleeve Line open, station closed		Midland Railway Using colour value 800000		Cheltenham Line and station open

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - more complicated than I had imagined! I had become too overconfident after I managed to pin down the colours for the BR regions. I'll take up your suggestion to switch the LMS colour. It would be nevertheless useful over the course of time to add in the missing railway companies to the colours page with their representative colours (e.g. GNR/M&GN). Lamberhurst (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done at least, the {{MGNJ colour}} is done, while for {{GNR colour}} I've pinched the value from {{LNER colour}}. It can be adjusted later (something darker I expect), and presently looks like this:

Preceding station		Disused railways		Following station
Terminus		Great Northern Railway To Leicester Belgrave Road		Orton Waterville Line and station closed
Terminus		Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway Sutton Bridge line		Eye Green Line and station closed

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff with the {{SMJ colour}}. A much needed colour. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Milk Tanks

Re the Bluebell list, there are lots of other wagons which could have been seen in a passenger train. As we are supposed to be writing for the general public rather than the rail enthusiast, I think that my edit was reasonable. A milk tank is a tank wagon, in the same way that a petrol tank is. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit of shunting on the list. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Clapham Junction rail crash

I cannot seee anything npov about "due to safety concerns. The carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision". That's my recollection of why these carriages were withdrawn / what the Hidden report said about the crash. (Meanwhile, fwiw, I think the picture is crap and does nothing for the article.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The full sentences as they stood were "The aging Mark 1 carriages were being phased out at the time of privatisation due to safety concerns. The carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision."

Regarding the first sentence - the mention of privatisation is irrelevant, since this happened some years after Clapham. The Mark 1s were being phased out, but this was a policy which had been going on for a long time before privatisation - in fact since the mid 1970s, and was not due to safety concerns - quite simply, they were life-expired: they had a planned service life of 40 years for the underframe, and 20 years for the body, which in many cases had been reached.

Regarding the second sentence - I have a copy of the Hidden report, and Appendix G (pp. 191-199) covers the damage to the rolling stock. This was substantial; but at no point does it suggest that "the carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision". It mentions bogies being separated from the underframe (para. 1.iii, para. 10, para. 32); and the leading third of the first coach of the second train did indeed disintegrate (para 1.iv, para. 8); but the implication of the sentence as written was that all the coach bodies separated, and all of them disintegrated, which is simply untrue. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Routes of High Speed 2 to East Midlands should be banned.

• Routes of High Speed 2 to East Midlands should be banned.
• High-speed train routes from Germany/Netherlands via Brussels to London should be banned. And high-speed train routes from Germany/Netherlands via High Speed 2 to East Midlands should be banned.

121.102.47.215 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX - Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

N1 class?

Hello there! Just wondering whether you'd like to have a look at the SECR N1 class article? I've spent a little time expanding it and would like to have an outside opinion on both prose and content. I've also asked EdJogg so between us we could potentially see this article through to FA. Just a thought, anyway. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback VI re lifeguard

{{talkback|Thryduulf}}

Talkback VII re Banbury

{{tb|Andy F}} {{tb|andy F}}

Flying Scotsman named after a racehorse?

I've acknowledged the confusion my contribution on the Talk:Flying Scotsman (train) page seemed to cause. I did know about the race records of the other three horses concerned; your (rhetorical?) questions about "a racehorse named Flying Scotsman" led me to see whether it was possible to show there probably never was such a horse with a distinguished record, as its name would have become "permanent" and "protected" and couldn't have been used again. That there was a year 2000 registration of the name seemed to prove this. However, those other three weren't on the list either, and more careful study of Rule 6F of the Principal Rules and Requirements of The American Stud Book and the International List of Protected Names from the IFHA showed that it wasn't as clear-cut as I thought - even though (especially) Brown Jack's spectacular record justified an A3 being given his name. Serves me right for trying to be too clever! Regards. --Mabzilla (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Andy Devine

Hi there. I really hope you don't mind, I spotted your message on 5 albert square's talk page and I replied. :) - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's OK, I watch all talk pages where I leave messages. I occasionally post replies myself on others' talk pages, where the question was asked by a third person. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Lizard - parishes correction

Hi Redrose64, thank you for your very helpful suggestions about Lizard parishes. In the light of your comments, I've substantially reworked the map and corrected the text here. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion again please – leave comments on my talk page as before. Many thanks, Andy F (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to dig out the maps; I know that I have all the OS N.P. Edn and 7th Ser maps for Cornwall somewhere... --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if you have time that's be great, thanks. I based the current version on Cornwall Council's "interactive" map which shows civil parish boundaries. My map is a sketchmap, more a schematic, so it's the approx locations and relationships we are after rather than every twist and turn of each boundary. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

GWR Avalanche

This is listed under GWR 3031 Class as a 4-2-2 locomotive - but looking at the dates, I take it this is a different locomotive, using the earlier name. Apologies. I thought the standard gauge 4-2-2s were recycled from the broad gauge 4-2-2s locos - but looking at the dates, it appears not. Thanks. Mish (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The 3031 class consisted of three groups. The first eight (3021-8) were built in 1891 as broad-gauge 2-2-2 but designed for conversion to standard gauge 2-2-2 (the conversion of these locos occurring in 1892). The next 22 (3029-30, 3001-20) were built 1891-2 as standard-gauge 2-2-2, being rebuilt as 4-2-2 in 1894, as were the first eight. The final 50 (3031-80) were built 1894-9, and were always standard-gauge 4-2-2.

None of the locos used components from any true broad-gauge engines; however, all were named, and most (if not all) reused names (but not the actual nameplates) from old broad-gauge engines, many long since withdrawn. The final 50 got names when new, but the first thirty were named in 1893 (ie those built for the broad-gauge were not given names until after they had been rebuilt for the standard gauge). Details are in

• Reed, P.J.T. (1953). White, D.E. (ed.). Part 2: Broad Gauge. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Kenilworth: RCTS. p. B47. ISBN 0 901115 32 0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• le Fleming, H.M. (1954). White, D.E. (ed.). Part 7: Dean's Larger Tender Engines. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Kenilworth: RCTS. pp. G7–G12. ISBN 0 901115 18 5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

BTW I watch all talk pages where I leave a message. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. From what I can make out, the 2-2-2 arrangement put too much load on the front wheels? And the 4-2-2 arrangement was phased out because there could be issues with traction using only one pair of drive wheels? I am only trying to clean up the links on the 3031 Class page - as they all link to what they are named after, not the locos themselves. I don't suppose you happen to know if anybody has ever made a OO model of a UK 4-4-2 locomotive, by any chance? There are plenty of 4-2-2s, 4-6-0, 2-6-0, 0-6-0, 4-6-2 Pacifics, etc. but I can't find any details of anybody having made any models of the UK Atlantics. Mish (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The first 30 of the GWR 3031 class were rebuilt as 4-2-2 because of the derailment in Box Tunnel on 16 September 1893; it was partly the heavily-loaded front axle, but also the short wheelbase compared to the length of the boiler.

The 4-2-2 wheel arrangement went out of favour because of increasing train loads (corridors came in in the 1890s, restaurant cars a few years later), and the adhesive weight could not be more than 20 tons. Four coupled wheels would allow 40 tons adhesion.

There have been no 4-4-2 locomotives in 00 scale as far as I know; I have previously searched for these in

• Ramsay, John; Hammond, Pat (2002) [1998]. King, John (ed.). Ramsay's British Model Trains Catalogue (3rd ed.). Felixstowe: Swapmeet Publications. ISBN 0 9528352 7 4.

and not found anything. Neither is there anything in the more specialist books on Hornby-Dublo, Tri-ang/Tri-ang Hornby/Hornby Railways. I think the main problem is lack of scope. A man at Dapol told me they would only consider a model if it could be produced in at least three different liveries, each with a variety of running numbers. Most Atlantics were extinct by the end of 1951, so a BR livery is not possible for these; the only exception which I know of is the LB&SCR H2 class, which lasted until 1958 - but there were only six of them. Also, if a class of loco was only used in one part of the country, models of it might not sell well in other areas; for example, the GNR C1 almost never got beyond York. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Model locos

Thanks, I guess also that the chassis for the Pacifics is similar across the different variations.Mish (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, model or real loco? Which class(es) are you thinking of? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Model.Mish (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, whilst in the past it was the practice to share components between model locos (in order to cut down on the number of new moulding tools that were required for a new model launch), that doesn't happen so much these days. The big manufacturers - Hornby and Bachmann - are in direct competition, and they are now fully aware that the model railway press - particularly Railway Modeller - will take the micrometer to all new models and check against the diagrams of the real loco. Hornby's models of Southern Railway pacifics, for example, cover three main variants: rebuilt Merchant Navy, rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain. At a casual glance, the two rebuilt varieties look the same - and maybe fifteen years ago Hornby would have made one moulding cover both - but put the models side by side, and you'll see the differences - length, wheelbase and dome position relative to the centre coupled axle are the main things to look for, but there are others. The rebuilt and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain may share some chassis components, but probably not all. This contrasts with the situation of circa 1972 when one chassis was shared by the Tri-ang Hornby Princess Royal, Coronation and Britannia. So if you can give specifics, I might be able to help further. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing specific. I have four locos, only two have ever run a 0-6-0 tank, and a Battle-of-Britain class Winston Churchill made by Triang around 1969. About ten years ago I bought a Flying Scotsman, kind of in memory of the time I rode on that from York to London, which was its 'final' trip, around 1968. Then I was bought Mallard a couple of years ago - both Hornby. I was struck by how the Mallard is a bigger loco than the other two, which are about the same size. I have just picked up a Britannia on eBay. I'm quite keen to get a rebuilt Merchant Navy Class, and a rebuilt West Country Class, and the Coronation Class unrebuilt and rebuilt. That's all 4-6-2s. But I was interested in getting a 4-4-2 as well - except nobody does them, and then a 4-6-0 and 8F and 9F. Then there's That's all I was thinking about really.Mish (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Toby

Hi,

Thanks for pitching in with those page numbers, a big help! Could you fill in the blanks in the Reference cite-book section too, I assumed the publisher info and made up the ISBN!!

—MDCollins (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done but using a 1994 Heinemann reprint, not a 1957 original. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm wondering whether for formalities, we should put |year = 1994 |origyear=1957 in? I don't tend to use the cite book much myself; As long as the page numbers match up, which I assume they would it probably doesn't matter too much (which is why I didn't bother citing the complete collection as the layout is completely different).—MDCollins (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You could; but if you do that and nothing else, it'll break the short-note linking. There are two fixes for that, depending upon whether you want the short notes to show the reprint year or the original year. To show the reprint year, all the {{sfn|Awdry|1957|p=n}} must have their years altered to become {{sfn|Awdry|1994|p=n}}; however, to show the original year, leave those {{sfn|Awdry|1957|p=n}} alone but in the {{cite book}}, change the |ref=harv to |ref={{SfnRef|Awdry|1957}} .

Compare these (works best in Firefox 3+ or Chrome, not so good in IE):

Toby was needed to double-head the train.

Toby was needed to double-head the train.

• Awdry, Rev. W. (1994) [1957]. The Eight Famous Engines. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0 434 92789 9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Awdry, Rev. W. (1994) [1957]. The Eight Famous Engines. London: Heinemann. ISBN 0 434 92789 9.

Specifying the edition (in this case as a year) is pretty important, since if you look at the Heinemann 1999 version (ISBN 0 434 80461 4), not only are there no page numbers, but the text is on both left- and right-hand pages, with the original John Kenney pictures cut into little bits and spread about. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Complicated huh? I hadn't seen any usage for the short-note linking template before. I've always just put it in plain text in ref tags, therefore it wouldn't be linked. Like you said, specifying the edition is important; I think option 2 is best (with the original 1957 year in the notes) even if it means changing the harv reference. I also think we should endeavour to reference from the original format wherever possible; the 1994 Heinemann reprints are fine then, as they are in the original formats - are they true reprints/re-impressions? Let's try and avoid examples like your 1999 version.

That said, as I don't have them available, it creates more work for everyone else! Especially if I put a load of ref tags in and expect someone else to clean them up with the correct page numbers etc. Unfortunately there's not a lot I can do about that at the moment...—MDCollins (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway line#Merger

You are invited to join the discussion here. Fayenatic (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Albums by artist categorization

Hi there Redrose64, you recently took part of a discussion at WT:ALBUMS regarding the Albums by artist categorization. I would like you invite you to further comment on the subsection Albums by genre and nationality, as no one has contributed to the discussion lately. I would really appreciate comments, as I would like to get this proposal off the ground. Regards. — ξ^xplicit 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, I am purposefully staying away from that discussion since genre provokes much more heated disagreement than is really necessary; after all, we have found it necessary to provide a range of {{subst:uw-genre1}} templates - why no similar templates for users who mess about with nationality/country of origin? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

northstar

I'm sorry but they need to be removed as the musician info dosent make sense with them divided like that- also her other albums are not similarly divided- besides the albums are now available on cd and download without that divide. I work for Universal and Sandy Dennys estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenslade32 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

fine then reinstate it. the other entries were not created by me, but in the main do not have a side A/B divide: you'll have to go through all her releases and amend them. I was not involved in the creation of these original records, so there is no conflict as far as I can see: I have merely corrected factualy incorrect entries- of which there have been many on wikipedia with incorrect dates of release, tracklisting, songcredits etc. The entries for Denny are now at least accurate and convey the neccassary information on the releases. This is the whole point of Wikipedia- that people can find correct information on things like this. Greenslade32 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vates and Thom

Yes- me too. I just created the article to kill a red link in the {{Lancashire Cotton}} template. Please go ahead and fill in the details, I am still working on mills and Castlefield --ClemRutter (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Battle

from what i can remember lewes is labour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayyzzz96 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox route diagrams

Thread moved from User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox, Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64
I just saw that you got a little problem with gaps in the route diagramms (-> Banbury)
Have a look at the german page about the route diagramms: Route diagram pictures(german), there you find the T-parameters to extend a track-icon if you have a linebreak in the text.
For further questions use the discussion page there :-)
Ingo -- Istiller (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Above user has no en talk page, but does have one at de:Benutzer Diskussion:Istiller

I don't see a problem with line-breaks in the text; rather, it's some junction shapes which are missing. The icons are pretty much all on commons, so any missing from en are likely missing from de also. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you idiot?

When i say that , It's not true, that there are busiest in Paris(RER) and Munich(S-Bahn) i mean that. 60 train per hour per platform. it's a fact and you can see it on the time tables of the systems. the reference dont worth nothing, i can also write something and add as reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.156 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

i) Please see WP:NPA.

ii) The reference was not mine; it was added on 3 January 2009 by another editor with the comment "Added the fact that platform 6 is the busiest in europe.". It was removed on 26 April 2010 with the comment "It's not true, there are busiest in Paris(RER) and Munich(S-Bahn), i dont know why NetworkRail wrote that..".

When referenced content is removed, some of us examine the references to see whether they were valid; accordingly, I then checked what it stated, and since the source agreed with the statement, I restored it as being verifiable content, with the comment "True or not, it is in the cited ref: verifiability, not truth".

The text in question, which you have since removed again, states

Platform 6 is the busiest railway platform in Europe, due to the necessity of routing all trains heading to Charing Cross and Blackfriars through it.

and the relevant text in the reference (which you may view here, see page 7) reads

the limited number of through platforms at London Bridge, especially on the Charing Cross line where all stopping London bound trains have to be timetabled through Platform 6, the busiest railway platform in Europe

It is therefore verifiable. Whether it is true or not is an entirely different matter: if you have reliable sources making similar or better claims for Paris or Munich, please provide them instead of simply stating that the London Bridge station article is wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo positioning

Could you take a look at Ohio State Bar Association? I cannot figure out how to move the warning to the left to that it will be, um, on the same row as the template. I tried subcluding the template and putting it in the left cell of a two-cell table (with the logo in the right cell), but it didn't work and I couldn't figure out what the problem was. Some issue with having a table inside a cell messes it up. kcylsnavS (kalt) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, per Wikipedia:Lead section#Elements of the lead, cleanup templates (such as {{unreferenced}}) should appear before any infoboxes and logos.

Second, the method that I suggested for your user page (put the ribbon template inside a table) was a fudge to cope with a situation that didn't have an easier way around it. (As an aside to that, I see that you used {{subst:clear}} instead of plain {{clear}} - there is no benefit to that, and if used on an article page can make the page harder to understand). See WP:IMAGE - the proper way of aligning an image is to state the alignment within the image specification, thus:

[[File:osba logo.jpg|right]]

You could not do this with the ribbon; that is why we needed the workaround. I have amended Ohio State Bar Association accordingly. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Girl Illustrated

Glad to hear you found some reliable sources for this [3]. But you didn't add them to the article ... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I did... see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, our edits overlapped. Unfortunately at least two of the sources are not reliable, and all three relate only to one particular person. To establish notability of the magazine, we need reliable sources that discuss the magazine itself, not just mentioning it in passing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

More searching... and it's nearly bedtime. I'd like to keep the page, it's notable to a Doctor Who fan, just count the number of DW forum/blog sites carrying questions of the general form "What was the magazine that Katy Manning posed nude for?". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Station Usage Statistics

Hi Redrose64. I know one of your main areas on Wikipedia is UK Stations, just wondering if you knew where I could find the statistics for station usage in 2003-2004. They seem to be easily available for 02-04 and 04-10, but not in between. Thanks Sgreen93 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. On the rare occasions that I have added usage stats to station articles, these have come from the sources listed near the top of the documentation for {{Infobox GB station}}. That infobox has six pairs of usage parameters. Each year, as the fresh figures are released, somebody adds a new pair of parameters (the most recently-added were |usage0809= and |lowusage0809=), and because it's a big job to populate the 2500+ station articles, somebody (Adambro I think) will set up a 'bot to do it automatically. This year's task is not yet complete; see Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics.

The infobox is not set up to recognise either |usage0304= or |lowusage0304=, almost certainly because no source of figures is available. Therefore, I wouldn't worry about missing usage figures on existing station articles, particularly if you notice that the same year is missing from every article - should the figures ever become available for 2003-4, somebody will add the relevant parameters and start a 'bot to fix up the station articles. Same for pre-2002. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Globe Road and Devonshire Street railway stations

Butt does not suggest that they are the same station. Normally, in such cases, he uses the code "RO & RN new name" on the old station, and "RO & RF old name" on the new one. In this case he doesn't; there are separate entries for Devonshire Street, Mile End (p. 79) and Globe Road and Devonshire Street (p. 104). I am also concerned that a cut-and-paste move/merge has been performed; what should have been done was that one article should have been moved to the new name, and then a WP:FMERGE performed. However, whatever process was used, it should really have been discussed first: see Help:Merging. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They are clearly in the same location on the same track where Globe Road and (former) Devonshire Street meet. Before we had Devonshire Street railway station and Globe Road railway station with no link to the combined name, despite maps and other mentions of the combined names. So I was bold and merged them. Since this is Wikipedia, you are of course free to undo what I did in the WP:BRD tradition.--Rumping (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this all in one place, ie User talk:Rumping#Merge of station articles, where I see you've posted an identical reply. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Railways in Ely

Hi Redrose64, I thought you might be kind enough to cast your well-informed eye over this new article Railways in Ely. Thanks Andy F (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. The additional info on Hawk Bridge (Ely) is much appreciated. I have a photo of the deck of the new bridge which will illustrate the provision for future doubling. Thanks for your help Andy F (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Added the image now Andy F (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have to change the lists again :(

As above really. I'll try and help myself if I can. Chevymontecarlo 16:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

River Parrett at FAC

Thanks for your previous help with River Parrett. I thought I'd let you know it is now up at FAC.— Rod ^talk 20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jolly good. I'm afraid that I can't make many comments that are not Railway-related though. I'll have a look tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - you helped with the harvnb ref format & now a reviewer is querying lots of the ref formats. I've dealt with some of them, however others such as "First book listed is Blair, John (ed.) (2007) Author and chapter number missing (see Hollinrake and Rippon entries below)" & "Formatting of on-line sources: Where the origin is a print sources, e.g. The Independent on Sunday, the source should be italicised, otherwise not. Check 3, 8, 9 and others" are challenging me & I would appreciate any help.— Rod ^talk 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at this FAC. Would you like me to add back cite book, cite web etc or are you happy to do this?— Rod ^talk 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'll do it, but tomorrow, if OK? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be great - I'm hoping its the only outstanding issues. I've just realised I've just "crept in" another book - Victoria County History.— Rod ^talk 20:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this.— Rod ^talk 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Skype warning template

Re {{subst:uw-skype}} - you've not served one on me (mainly because I don't have Skype, in turn because my telephone works without it...), but today I've seen you use the message on other talk pages. I have occasionally had to fixup bad edits caused by Skype, as here, so I would have used the template on that user if I'd known about it... have you thought about getting it added to Template:Singlenotice/inner and also to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Single-level templates? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I had thought about it, but given that Special:AbuseFilter/313 was supposed to deal with the problem, I didn't follow through then. I have now.--Rumping (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The above was copied directly from User talk:Rumping#Skype warning template, where I have replied. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Filton Xc service

Hi. I added the XC service that way round as that is technically the correct order - it comes in from Cardiff, stops at FIT, continues to BRI, then goes back through FIT without stopping and on to BPW, BHM and MAN. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there no corresponding reverse journey? If not, maybe the row should have a note "one-way service; towards Manchester only" or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a reverse, so possibly it should be restated as Manchester - Cardiff service, but then for consistency you'd have to alter the direction on all other stations. Having BRI as following allows consistency with other stations on the journey - SWML considers east as next, and for cross country route it's north, so this is the one bit of track where it's running against the grain. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• poke* -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Submitting an article for peer review.

Hi. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but you seem to be more informed about what to do on this here website (I'm still trying to work out where you put the coal). Basically, I'd like to try and nominate LB&SCR A1 class for peer review to hopefully bump it up the quality scale, however I haven't the foggiest how to do it. I tried looking at Template:TrainsWikiProject as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review, but nothing that appears there appears on the page. Any chance you could point us in the right direction?

I have already asked Mjroots but he hasn't yet got back to me, and as you're obviously au fais with the page (having editted it yourself)

Cheers. Bluebellnutter (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulleid Pacific (talk · contribs) is a good one to ask: he's got tons of SR loco knowledge, and has also submitted peer-review requests before. I haven't previously requested a PR, so I'm going by the information at both Wikipedia:Peer review (shortcut WP:PR) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requesting a review.

I'd go with the Trains one, as being more applicable; so the first thing to do is edit Talk:LB&SCR A1 class, and add |pr=yes into the existing {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner. It doesn't really matter where it goes, so long as it's inserted either before an existing pipe "|" or the closing braces "}}", thus either of the following will work:

{{TrainsWikiProject |pr=yes |class=B|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid|locos=yes}}

{{TrainsWikiProject|class=B|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid|locos=yes |pr=yes }}

Save that, and you should find that a new row has appeared in the banner, containing a redlink:

This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Click that redlink to create the page. At the top of the new page, add a level 3 heading, wikilinked to your article:

=== [[LB&SCR A1 class]] ===

Below that, add your reason(s) for nominating the article, sign it in the usual way and save. Make sure that this page goes on your watchlist.

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requests on WikiProject Trains, edit that section (use the [edit] link to the right of the "Requests on WikiProject Trains" heading, not those of any subheadings below it). Insert one line immediately below the heading:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/LB&SCR A1 class}}

Save it, and you should find that "LB&SCR A1 class" appears as a bluelinked sub-heading, immediately followed by your review request. Then wait for the fun to start. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for that, much appreciated.Bluebellnutter (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Textile Glossary

Hi, I have added citations for all of my edits to Glossary of textile manufacturing. I really hadn't paid attention to this glossary before, or I would have been adding terms as new articles are added to the Textile arts wikiproject.

I am considering breaking out sewing terms into their own glossary separate from textile manufacturing - as an experienced editor of the current glossary, do you think that is a good idea? There would obviously be a few overlaps (yarn for example). - PKM (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually have a preference. This is possibly something to ask either on the article's talk page, or at WT:WikiProject Textile Arts (there doesn't seem to be a wikiproject for textile manufacture). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. - PKM (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fact etc

AWB itself does Fact to citation needed. SB gets anew list of redirects for its regexes every time I build the rule base. At the moment I'm avoiding it because there's a template redirect called "..." that breaks stuff but I can do a build sooner rather than later. Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, when changing a redirect's meaning the least that should be done is to orphan the redirect first. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• replies on my talk page, but this little template says it better than I can :) Courcelles (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Humm, I already got this, granted by User:NuclearWarfare at 11:48 yesterday. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't flag you, I just left the template because it explains what this flag is better than I can- not that anyone really knows what to expect until this actually gets turned on. Courcelles (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

London and North Eastern Railway

Hi again, I am a bit bemused by that Railway Magazine reference which just seems to refer to itself. Why not just put the full citation in the footnote? Maybe I am missing something. I haven't come across this before. Alarics (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to itself - the [[#RM195002| in the short note links to the |ref=RM195002 in the {{cite journal}}, see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Using freehand anchors. If you're using Internet Explorer it's not very noticeable, but in Firefox or Google Chrome, clicking the link in the short note highlights the full citation later on, in pale blue. The article already used the short-note system, so per WP:CITEHOW I kept it that way; if the full citation were in the note, it wouldn't be a short note. Having just three short notes, and three full citations does look rather redundant in London and North Eastern Railway but that article is hopelessly under-referenced; if refd properly, it's likely that multiple facts would be drawn from individual publications, and that's where short-note refs come into their own. Have a look at Hawkhurst Branch Line (the method used there uses different wikicode (the {{sfn}} template), but the visual result is similar). Each magazine cited has a full citation under Sources, linked from one or more short notes under References. Firefox exhibits another feature lacking from IE here: the short notes are in columns, each 20 em wide. If your display is 1280 pixels wide, you'll see four columns of short notes. If such short notes were mixed with longer citations, either those longer citations would wrap several times, or the columns would need to be widened. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The reason I thought the link referred to itself was that when I clicked on it, nothing happened. Generally in web design this is regarded as a Bad Thing. Alarics (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Queenstown Road

Hi, I replied to your message re. Brentford on my talk, but your comment regarding photographic evidence re. Trumper's Crossing Halte reminded me of the very topical query regarding Queenstown Road (Battersea) railway station and how the old signage in SWT colours and the new white-on-navy signage installed in the last 18 months both have the station down as plain "Queenstown Road". I tried moving the article to the more appropriate title a little while ago but had it reverted! Surely this must also be a case of Wikipedia:Common_name#Common_names too? Any way, just wanted to hear your thoughts on this. Things to bear in mind:

• old signage (pre-c.2009) says Queenstown Road File:Queenstown_Road_stn_signage.JPG
• new signage (post-c.2009) says Queenstown Road File:Queenstown_Road_stn_signage 2010.JPG
• on the new TfL Oystercard Map (2010) it is down as Queenstown Road [4]
• on SWT's own in-house map (current) it is also down as Queenstown Road [5]
• There are no stations anywhere else in the UK called Queenstown Road - so why would it need a "disambiguation" suffix? (this actually dated from the time when it was called Queen's Road, and therefore when it would be confused with its eponyms in Peckham, the tube station now called Queensway and the unbuilt station in Clapton.)

Leaving just two on-line sources insisting on the "(Battersea)" suffix:

• Wikipedia
• The National Rail website stations list [6] (but even here the station appears as "Queenstown Road" when you enter journey planner queries!)

Sorry to go off at a tangent like that, but as with Trumper's the photographic evidence is there! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that the "Battersea" was incorporated in the name to distinguish "Queen's Road Battersea" from "Queen's Road Peckham". You are also correct in stating that there is no other "Queenstown Road"; there have, however, been a "Queenstown" (renamed Cobh circa 1925), and a "Queenstown Junction" (renamed "Cobh Junction" circa 1925, and Glounthaune 27 August 1994).

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) normally overrides WP:COMMONNAME; note in particular Official names: "The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous. If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used.". Now then, official name. As you say, National Rail Enquiries - Station Facilities shows "Queenstown Road (Battersea)". Network Rail should also be a good guide. The timetables may be downloaded at Network Rail - Current Timetables; to save you hunting around, there are three relevant downloads:

• Schematic Map shows "Queenstown Road Battersea"
• Stations Index shows "Queenstown Road (Battersea)" (p. 27)
• Table 149 shows "Queenstown Rd. (Battersea)"

Three different versions; but all have the word "Battersea". I'd say that the page is correctly named as Queenstown Road (Battersea) railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm that's odd, but above you quote that "If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used." Could Network Rail be out of date? National Rail at least have "Queenstown Road" when you enter timetable queries, even if it retains the three-letter "QRB" code. Network Rail seem to disagree with both the operator (SWT) and TfL. And wouldn't it be odd that the name of the Wikipedia article be different from the name of the station as it appears at platform level? (I notice in passing that St Pancras station is labelled by Network Rail as St Pancras International, but that's a whole other story...) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall there was some heated debate about the naming of St Pancras railway station on Wikipedia... move, move again, move back etc. To save a similar non-consensus move/revert, you might like to ask about QRB at WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Red for Danger

I just checked my copy and it clearly says First published 1955, though mine is actually a reprint of the 1960 Pan edition. I've replaced the list on the Rolt page with a link to the template. It may be important for other purposes but if we do it for one book, why not all the others which have numerous editions? Can I leave you to update the template? Chris55 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1960 Pan edition is essentially a paperback version of the 1955 1st edition (Bodley Head, hardback), but I wouldn't like to say whether the page numbering didn't change between them; this does sometimes happen. That's not really a problem when listing the works of an author, however.

I don't actually like {{Rolt-Red}}, although I have amended it twice: both times were for cosmetic purposes. It's one of a group of templates intended to simplify citations to commonly-used books; unfortunately, when citing sources, you're supposed to indicate the specific edition that you used, and not every edition that exists. For example, my Red for Danger is a 4th Edition; now, if I were describing (say) the accident at Paisley Gilmour Street (16 April 1979), I could ref that from my copy of RfD (it's on pp. 301-2). However, going solely by the date of the accident, it cannot have been mentioned in any edition of RfD prior to 1979, so going by that book's publication history, won't be in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd editions (it's not in the current edition either), and I'm willing to bet it's not in your Pan edn.; if I were to use {{Rolt-Red}} in a citation for that particular accident, it would be misleading (as well as cluttering the article unnecessarily). At the moment, only four pages transclude this template. I ought to check them for edition compatibility.

As for other similar templates: by the same reasoning, if there is the slightest chance that any of these templates has been used for the purposes of citation, it must not contain more than one edition. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So what would be the answer for works which have several editions? Create a different template for each edition or, if possible, factor into the template a means to identify which edition is being cited? I have the same problem for Clinker's passenger stations and goods depots, for which several editions exist. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Either: so long as you don't end up with multiple editions shown for one citation, and existing citations are not compromised.

I don't use these templates, mainly because I can't be sure that the person who constructed the template has exactly the same edition as me. I don't remove them from articles when I encounter them: but if an article has a bare {{Butt-Stations}}, I'll add the relevant page info to that - it now takes the |page=, |pages= and |ref= parameters.

Instead I have an off-wiki database of my books, which is easy to query in such a way that a ready-built {{cite book}} is available to be cut-and-pasted (I began to keep static copies of these templates at User:Redrose64/Library but fell seriously behind). The same database can be queried to generate the relevant {{sfn}} instead of, or as well as, the {{cite book}} --Redrose64 (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Have to say I'm lost by this argument. If you want to refer to a page number in the 4th edition, why don't you do just that? How does it help to have a list of all the editions of a book? It just confuses the issue. Chris55 (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my point: if you use {{Rolt-Red}} in a citation, you get most (not all) of the editions, so it is indeed confusing. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As a direct response to Lamberhurst, if you are using the book citation template (Wikipedia:Citation_templates) then there is an "edition" attribute. That's what I normally use. Personally I think that Rolt-Red should be deleted but I haven't checked to see whether it's possible to locate all uses of a template. Chris55 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a cut-and-paste taken directly from my database, without modification:

{{cite book |last1=Rolt |first1=L.T.C. |authorlink1=L. T. C. Rolt |last2=Kichenside |first2=Geoffrey |title=Red for Danger |edition=4th |year=1982 |origyear=1955 |publisher=[[David & Charles]] |location=Newton Abbot |isbn=0 7153 8362 0 |page= |pages= |chapter= |quote= |ref=harv }}

which displays as:

Rolt, L.T.C.; Kichenside, Geoffrey (1982) [1955]. Red for Danger (4th ed.). Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 8362 0. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

As you can see, there are places for me to enter the page(s), chapter and short quote. As this example has them as blanks, they don't show in the final output.

To show where a template is used: go to the template's page, click "What links here" - this is in the left hand column, but might be hidden behind "Toolbox". The ones you're mainly interested in will be those showing "(transclusion)", so click "Hide links" - this produces a list like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked two different copies at my local model railway club last night. The battered one states "Revised and Enlarged Edition 1966 / First published 1955 by John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd. / This edition published 1960 by Pan Books Ltd ... 2nd printing (revised & reset) 1966 / 3rd printing 1967 © L.T.C. Rolt 1960, 1966"; the nice copy states "First published 1955 by John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd. / Reissued in 1960 by Pan Books Ltd / This edition published in 1998 by Sutton Books Ltd / © L.T.C. Rolt 1955, 1960, 1966". These I would place in a {{cite book}} as:

{{cite book |last=Rolt |first=L.T.C. |authorlink=L. T. C. Rolt |title=Red for Danger |edition=2nd |year=1967 |origyear=1955 |publisher=Pan Books |location=London |id=M168 }}

{{cite book |last=Rolt |first=L.T.C. |authorlink=L. T. C. Rolt |title=Red for Danger |edition=2nd |year=1998 |origyear=1955 |publisher=Sutton Publishing |location=Stroud |isbn=0 7509 2047 5 }}

which display as:

Rolt, L.T.C. (1967) [1955]. Red for Danger (2nd ed.). London: Pan Books. M168.

Rolt, L.T.C. (1998) [1955]. Red for Danger (2nd ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0 7509 2047 5.

Interestingly, the text content and pagination is pretty much identical; the text is somewhat enlarged. It would seem that chapters 1-10 are fairly constant; it's what happens after that that veries between editions. However, in the 2nd edition, chapter 10 runs from page 229 to 254; but in the 4th ed, it's 229-252. Two pages worth of text have presumably been moved to a later chapter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

LNER

I don't know why I need to tell you things which as an experienced editor you should already know. References cannot be to articles within wikipedia. References must be to external sources. Hence I removed the self-reference and added The Railway Magazine as a "see also" item. IF you need further guidance, please refer to the Manual of Style. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

UERL move

I did try to move the page rather than copy-paste, but because the target had an edit history, the move was prevented by the software. There was no indication of there being a {{db-histmerge}} option in the warning and as I don't do a lot of admin stuff I wasn't aware of its existence. My reading of the warning was that the transfer should be done as a copy-paste. I've left a tag on the page.--DavidCane (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: LBSCR

There's a bit more to requesting a peer review than popping |pr=yes into the talk page banner. This is merely step 1; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requesting a review for the remainder. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to follow the instructions given on Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review, but stages 2, 3, and 4 do not appear to work. This is possibly because there has been an earlier assessment outside the Trains Project in 2006? Can you help please? Many thanks Das48 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I see that you've done step 5 (which I had to fix, BTW).

If you go to Talk:London, Brighton and South Coast Railway you'll see a stack of banners. Locate the one titled

WikiProject Trains / in UK (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)

and click the "[show]" link at the right of that. The banner will expand. In there you should see a row

More information:

again, click the "[show]" link at the right of that. This should produce a row like this, containing a redlink:

This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Click that redlink to create the page. At the top of the new page, add a level 3 heading, wikilinked to your article:

=== [[London, Brighton and South Coast Railway]] ===

Below that, add your reason(s) for nominating the article, sign it in the usual way and save. Make sure that this page goes on your watchlist.

Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requests on WikiProject Trains, and you should find that "London, Brighton and South Coast Railway" appears as a bluelinked sub-heading, immediately followed by your review request. Then wait for the fun to start. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Colnbrook Estate Halt

You have just put this to be south of the A4 but http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/colnbrook_estate_halt/index.shtml shows it north of the A4 (and Colnbrook railway station south of that road). The text in that reference claims a visit to the site in May 1968 and has a photo of a crumbling station name board taken that month. Has the A4 been rerouted? Or is someone confused?--SilasW (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that page; but I always prefer printed sources to online. I based the position on my printed copy of OS one-inch seventh series sheet 160, edition B, "Crown Copyright 1963, Fully revised 1961, Major roads revised 1962" which has four stations in a mile; from south to north they are at grid reference TQ035754 (ie Poyle Halt), TQ036761 (ie Poyle Estate Halt), TQ036767 (ie Colnbrook), TQ038770 (ie Colnbrook Estate Halt). The last of these is definitely below the A4 Colnbrook Bypass. Since, according to Butt 1995 p. 66, the station was opened on 1 May 1961 (not 1991 which is what Wikipedia says), this map is a contemporary source.

The A4 was rerouted, but this occurred several years beforehand; its previous route is now best described as (from West to East) London Road/High Street/Bridge Street/Park Street/Bath Road. This rerouting was prior to 1945 (the date of my oldest OS map for the area), thus before the station was built.

The photo on disused-stations doesn't show enough of the surrounding area to place the station relative to the A4.

A photo in Mitchell & Smith shows the A4 in the background, but I can't tell if the photographer is looking north or south. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I too have found that online can err. 2) Sorry for hitting 9 for 6 and not noticing it.--SilasW (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But then what date is the map shown on Disused-stations.org? Seems to show the Halt lying to the north of the A4. An alternative source, the London Railway Atlas (2009 edition, Ian Allan), shows the Halt as lying alongside the goods yard lying north of the A4. The latter can be seen in a 1932 map at Old Maps. And also this 1948 map from NPEMAP.org clearly shows Colnbrook station, as well as Poyle Halt to the south. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disused-Stations map is indeed undated; it looks too "clean" to be a scan: I suspect it's drawn as a graphic file, thus is liable to error. I have a "London Railway Atlas", by Joe Brown; first published 2006, this impression 2007: it shows Colnbrook adjacent to a goods yard, but we're discussing Colnbrook Estate Halt (the next station north of Colnbrook); it is not drawn adjacent to anything. None of the other maps which you give links for are contemporaneous with the period that Colnbrook Estate Halt was open (1961-5, and less than four years). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the 2009 edition of Joe Brown is a lot more detailed! It shows the location of the halt as being next to a "logistics" yard built 2002, shown clearly north of the A4 in Google Earth. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't take anything disused-stations.org.uk says as reliable. They're a user-generated fansite, and are frequently wrong. Even the far more accurate SubBrit doesn't qualify as a RS by Wikipedia's standards. @Sunil, are you certain that halt you're looking at on the map above isn't the temporary halt built at Colnbrook during the construction of T5, rather than the actual Colnbrook Estate Halt station? – iridescent 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Temporary Halt? Not heard of that one! No, the one I'm talking about is clearly marked "Colnbrook Estate Halt (1961-1965)". And a further source - "London's Local Railways" by Alan Jackson (Capital Transport, 1999) clearly states that the Halt was built "about half a mile north of Colnbrook station". This would surely place it north of the A4, not south, for that would make it too close to Colnbrook station? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The clincher must be the massive atlas produced by Colonel Cobb - "The Railways of Great Britain. A Historical Atlas". This shows every line built in the UK (up until c. 10 years ago), superimposed on 1971 OS mapping. Although the scale is quite small, this shows Colnbrook Estate Halt as being north of the A4, backing up all other sources presented here. An expensive tome, if you can obtain it, but very much worth it IMV. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

LU Capitalisation

Noticed some edits you made very recently to Central line. I'm not sure whether you read this discussion from a while ago, but for what it's worth: Talk:Victoria_line#Requested_move.
best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your change: if you look at recent edits to Central line you'll see that it was not me who altered that (or any other) instance of "line" to "Line" - this alteration was carried out by an anon, with this edit.

My first three edits were partial reversions of that edit:

• (1) - the reader should not be given the impression that the term "Central Line" was used from the opening;
• (2) - the statement "In common with all of the Underground lines" has not been true since about 1905 when the District started to receive the "B" stock, and so long as the Edgware Road-Wimbledon section uses a different type from the rest of the District, the statement "In common with all of the Underground lines" remains untrue;
• (3) - as (1).

Since the article as it stood did not mention when the term "Central line" came into use, I checked an official LT publication from 1970, and added a paragraph: (4) - here, I used "Line", because that's what the source says. I am aware of the convention for small "l", and indeed the TfL editorial style guide (page 63) says to use "line"; but this relates to current TfL usage, and has no bearing on how pre-TfL events should be described, certainly not historical events from 70+ years ago - we cannot alter the past to suit current conventions. So, since we cannot pretend that the line was "Central line" at opening in 1900, we need to describe historical changes, with sources: far too much of Central line is unsourced. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for the misunderestimation! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 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 22:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Locator maps

Hi Redrose. Thanks for your reply to my comment on the Wales locator maps at Template talk:Infobox UK place. You mentioned the Scotland map appears to have changed also. I hadn't noticed a difference there (they were using a pretty awful pseudo physical map last time I looked). Have you any more details? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since 21 September 2007 Template:Location map Scotland had been reasonably stable with File:Scottish infobox template map.png; there were brief periods with File:Scotland location map.svg (12 December 2008, 8 August 2009 and 16 June 2010).

On 26 June 2010 it became File:Scotland relief location map.jpg with this edit; and almost immediately it had to fight it out with File:Scotland location map.svg; and although resolved quickly, there was a brief period of similar change/revert again today. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cull

Whoops.... that's fault of Firefox randomly crashing (and me not double checking). Oh well...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I upgraded to 3.6.8 yesterday... is that one buggy? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No its not FF itself, rather its my system (which does stupid things sometimes and is due for an overhaul really). Sigh :/--Nilfanion (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have had the same problem several months ago, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for info, I'll have a look and see if it helps (either way I'll take more care not to do that again(!)).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cuckoo Line

Would you cast your eyes over the Cuckoo Line article. It's had some recent attention from an IP whose edits could be described as unproductive at best. I've done a rollback, and since tweaked some header levels. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a well-intentioned campaigner for reopening, with poss COI. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He complained "Please do not delete information that is obviously correct thanks" so I've given him a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} --Redrose64 (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've also posted on the IPs talk page. Suggested he propose additions on the talk page with links to the source. I'm sure we can improve the article between us. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems I've made a balls-up. The IP was reverting the addition of non-relevant material and my reversion re-added it. I've apologised to the IP and struck your warning as it was clearly incorrect. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

TƒL Colours

The basis was the TƒL corporate style manual for the Pantone values. I then used information from Pantone and Adobe to determine the appropriate RGB values that would display correctly. Over a period of several months these were checked against TƒL's own web site, and on a variety of browsers and monitors. Of course, transmitive colours will never exactly match reflective ones. but these are as close as I feel can reasonably reached. (TƒL's 'web-safe' values are nowhere near close, and not really required -- as they may have been years ago -- with today's monitors & computers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 July 2010

OK then; what is the URL for the TfL document that you obtained the values from? What is the page number within that doc? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TƒL Colour Standard Issue 3, pp.4-41: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/tfl-colour-standard-issue03.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Useddenim (talk • contribs) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. However, to give others the option of commenting, I've raised a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Colours.2C again.

Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~ which shows thus: Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. Useddenim (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

This morning Gemma at Pulse Creative informed me that the colour specified for Tramlink routes 1/2 is Pantone 382. (Closest web-safe equivalent is #CCCC00.) A quick search through five different Pantone/RGB conversion tables/sites/tools gives three different "correct" RGB values. Do what you want with this information. Useddenim (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A link to some page on the official TfL website - whether a PDF doc or otherwise - which explicitly gives an RGB value would be be best. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Book or journal?

"Book" in question is A4 or thereabouts, and runs to a grand total of 32 pages including covers. It does state that it is a journal of SIAS, No 18 / 1988. There's not much to choose between the two templates though, is there? Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

{{cite journal}} handles a greater variety of doc identifiers, such as ISSN, PMID, PMC. They also differ in several other aspects, mainly how book/journal, article/chapter titles are displayed, what to do when various URLs are provided, page numbering. There are also some funny little quirks to do with punctuation, one of which is a real oddity: {{cite book}} recognises |lastauthoramp=, where {{cite journal}} doesn't - but instead has |use ampersand before last author=. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your image layout formula

Well done, if you did that. I have no time to learn it all properly yet, but I will, soon. I happen to think that image placement is shambolic in many articles. We need gnomes to go around fixing them. In fact, we need a template that creates a list of articles that experts can go through from time to time improving image layout. Tony (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The last one sounds like a bot task... so is outside my capabilities. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lyme Regis branch line

Thanks for picking up the error: I changed the Commons file, but forgot to do the encyclopaedia page itself. I think that edition of the map is using minutes of arc. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against the current edition shows the gridlines to be at intervals of approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi); it would be worth verifying if they are exactly two miles apart. The best way of checking would be with an original: if you have one, do the gridline intervals measure exactly 2 in (50.8 mm)?

I did wonder about minutes of arc: but the current 1:50 000 edition has minutes marked along the outer borders, and they don't correspond - 1 min longitude is approx. 1.2 km east-west, and 1 min latitude is about 1.9 km north-south, so one "square minute" would appear rectangular (or nearly so, given the transverse Mercator projection). Taking the measurements from the gridlines on your map, the vertical gridlines are at approximate intervals of 2'45" east-west, and the horizontal gridlines at approximate intervals of 1'45", a curious pairing if they are angular intervals. I'd go with two miles, pending verification. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No, my own copy is much later: the "New Popular" dated 1946 (see here). I did File:Map BWHA Railway.jpg first, where the grid lines aren't parallel with the edges, which is what you'd expect for "minutes of arc". Coupled with an undated, but probably slightly earlier, example of a "New One Inch" (special Stanford's edition), which has these, I thought I'd hit on the answer, but I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The New Popular Edition (aka the 6th Edition) definitely did have 1km squares from the outset (circa 1945). I don't know exactly when the use of 1km squares began, but it was possibly with the New Pop, since I've seen sheets from the immediate pre-war period where the squares are not 1km.

I have now dug out a "Popular Edition" sheet 113 (Reading and Newbury), which at bottom right states, among other things,

... Surveyed in 1870-83 and Published in 1880-9. ... Revised (3rd Revision) in 1913-4. ... Printed ... 1919. Minor corrections 1926. Reprint 1000/21. 3000/27.

so it's a 1927 printing, and almost certainly prepared on the same basis as the 1919 Axminster/Lyme Regis map. Apart from the dates, the significant thing about the Reading map is that the grid squares are exactly two inches both horizontally and vertically (the columns are numbered 1-14 left-right, and the rows A-H plus J, top to bottom). Since the scale is 1:63360, the lines are at intervals of exactly two miles. Minutes of arc are also shown in the inner border, and there is no correspondence between these and the grid lines.

I see no reason to suspect that the grid lines on the Axminster/Lyme Regis map are not also at 2 mi (3.2 km) intervals, which if true, means that the grey bar labelled "One kilometre" is too long; since its length is about half the grid line spacing, that makes it more like one mile. 1 km would be approx. 0.3 times the grid line spacing. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As you have established the size of the grid squares (which can be confirmed from Ordnance Survey, Owen and Pilbeam 1992, ISBN 0-319-00498-8, p 96, which reproduces a portion of a "Popular" edition map") I'm going to remove the misleading scale from the image, and while there fix the crooked scan on File:Map BWHA Railway.jpg. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your edit "(avoid that "(1st Edition ed.)" nonsense)"

Ref you recent recent edit. Please be aware that far from being nonsense, this is a legacy issue following a revision to Cite book. The word ed. suffix did not used to be present in the template and when the editor concerned made the change to the template, (s)he was not probably aware that what is probably a good idea had such an effect. Prior to that editors added the word edition (or other appropriate abbreviation) to clarify what an otherwise random digit in the citation meant. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "(1st Edition ed.)" still looks poor, so I stand by my edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean it to be a criticism or your edit, more an observation on your actions, and an indication that there are probably many others instances of this elsewhere following the change to the template. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was only the second of the railway book templates that I'd amended in this fashion; the first was here, which produced this reaction. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops - it was me last time as well. I have no idea how many templates are similarly affected. No doubt we will find more in time. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback VIII

{{Talkback|Raywil|Wirral Line colour}} {{Talkback|Raywil|Wirral Line colour}} {{Talkback|Raywil|Wirral Line colour}}

Bexhill West branch line

Would you say that this branch deserves a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and title it Crowhurst, Sidley and Bexhill Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, that should be a redirect - similar to Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made a start. Further sources, which I don't have are Peter Harding's book on the line, Mitchell & Smith's book on the Tonbridge to Hastings line, and possibly Brian Jewell's book "Down the line to Hastings". Any assistance you can give in expanding the article would be appreciated. Would we be able to use this photo of Combe Haven viaduct under a NFU? Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have those. However, I do have:

• Dendy Marshall, C.F.; Kidner, R.W. (1963) [1937]. History of the Southern Railway (2nd ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0059 X.
• Nock, O.S. (1971) [1961]. The South Eastern and Chatham Railway. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0268 1.
• White, H.P. (1992) [1961]. Thomas, David St John; Patmore, J. Allan (eds.). Volume 2: Southern England. A Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain (5th ed.). Nairn: David St John Thomas. ISBN 0 946537 77 1.

Also please note the publisher's name is Ian Allan, not Allen. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've raided my father's bookshelf and expanded the article a little. Now heading back home. Mjroots2 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on image use criteria. If I want to add an image (which I didn't create myself) to an article, I hunt around on commons:, where non-free images are prohibited - mostly they're Creative Commons, some are Public Domain; either way there's no need for fair-use rationale. You could have a look at recent FAC noms raised by iridescent (talk · contribs), to see who usually shouts about image copyrights, and ask one of those users directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The best two to ask are User:Elcobbola and User:Jappalang. There are lots of people who shout about image copyrights, but those two are the only two whose opinions I trust. – iridescent 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Elcobbola re the image. The three books I mention have been added as a "further reading" section for the moment. Tunbridge Wells library currently has two of them on the shelf. Harding's book is not in Kent Library Service stock. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit - have you really found a page number in a Mitchell & Smith book (they're usually omitted entirely), or is is a typo for |loc=figure 89? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed those, I was misinterpreting illustration numbers at start of book as page numbers. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback IX

{{Talkback|Raywil|Wirral Line colour}}

GWR 5600 Class weights

Hi. The dimensions section is rather confusing now, with two references for five different weights. Could you take a look please? I've dropped the (edited) discussion I had originally prepared for you on the article talk page (see Talk:GWR 5600 Class#Weight?).

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Arlesey Railway Station

Re: references. Which sections of info in particular would you liked referenced, I'll see if I can find anything them, thanks Sgreen93 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. Basically, anything not already referenced. More specifically (and this list is by no means exhaustive): the last three sentences of the section "Original station" (ie from This was due to declining receipts on); the first two paragraphs of the subsection "Present station"; and the last paragraph of the section "Facilities".

Have a look at Wotton railway station to see the level of referencing that is considered desirable for a railway station article; this is one of the qualities that helped that particular article attain FA-class. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DNSR

I see that you're already on the case! So is it to be Chesil or Cheesehill? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went down there just 3 weeks ago. There's a huge multi-storey car park right on top of the station site, named "Chesil car park". I bagged a photo of the tunnel mouth while I was there. It's blocked off with wooden boarding.

Butt says that Chesil was final name; unfortunately most of my DN&S books are currently on loan to somebody building a 2mm scale model of Highclere and she claims to still require them. However I do have a copy of

• Judge, C.W. (1984). An Historical Survey of the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. pp. 121–130. ISBN 0 86093 149 8.

who plumps for Winchester (Chesil) throughout, except in the reproductions of pre-1950 timetables, and a short note concerning the 1950 renaming on p. 123. So: create Winchester (Chesil), and then amend existing redirs Winchester Cheesehill railway station and Winchester Cheeshill railway station to point to that. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Lamberhurst (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Should Litchfield move to Litchfield (Hants)? Ditto Whitchurch (DN&S) to Whitchurch Town, Barton Stacey to Barton Stacey Halt, and Worthy Down to Worthy Down Platform or Worthy Down Halt? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No to Litchfield (Hants) - final name was Litchfield; Worthy Down Halt, because this was final name; yes to others (again, final name rule). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hampshire stations

I've created {{Closed stations Hampshire}}. I'm not sure whether I have all the pre-1974 Hampshire stations which are now in Dorset, possibly it should also include Bournemouth West but not sure. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes to Bournemouth West; also missing are the following in Category:Disused railway stations in Hampshire: Breamore; Fordingbridge; Woodcroft Halt. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:FOOTERS, the navbox template should be before the categories. I've not gone around moving them, except in a few cases where I was editing for the primary purpose of adding a category. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted with thanks, I'll go back and check them. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes the junctions at Branksome (or part of the triangle) were in Dorset but trains going down to West crossed the border back into Hampshire. Britmax (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

... for reverting the vandalism on my user page while I was out. Alarics (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a side-effect of my habit of watching any page I edit. I leave somebody a message - then days/weeks later a third party does something, so I check it out. Watching a talk page watches the associated non-talk page and vice versa. If users edit their own user pages, I usually ignore; but if somebody else does so, I look closer. Usually it's a housekeeping task like cleaning up after a TfD or unlinking a nonfree file, so again, ignore. In this case: clear vandalism, so went for my nice shiny (rarely used) rollback privilege. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A dangerous habit, isn't it? So how big's your watchlist now? Mine's approaching 2000 articles (although there are likely hundreds of redirect pages in there) so it's probably time for a clear-out. I tend to monitor (steam-related) articles that are likely to be edited rarely -- the backwaters of WP if you like -- and leave the highly-edited pages to others. -- EdJogg (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Over 5000 pages. 20% of this is because I recently racked up 1000 edits in 6 days, mostly to pages that I'd never visited before, when doing some non-railway stub sorting. Basically: find a stub category which has several more specific sub-cats, and see if articles may sensibly be moved down a level or more. One that usually provides a crop is Category:Rail stubs. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your watch list must be very busy!

I try hard to avoid such edit-fests now, as I spend too long on WP as it is, although I sometimes get sucked-in to similar wide-scale tidy-up sessions at Commons.

Here I have created a set of user pages to monitor articles with high edit frequency, or of minor interest (such as a small mention of steam engine -related history), and then use 'Recent Changes' on these user pages once a week to check for any vandalism missed by other editors. Seems to keep my edit time to sane proportions, although my ToDo list is ever-growing...

EdJogg (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the best way to handle it is to operate two watchlists—a minimal one of those pages I consider significant, and a bloated "everything I've ever touched" one. (Easiest to do with an empty-shell sock account, although you can cut-and-paste from "edit raw watchlist".) Once a month or so I check the extended one for changes, but the rest of the time I only watch the "important stuff" one—otherwise, it's way too easy to spend an hour each day just looking at diffs. – iridescent 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Future admin?

You always seem to give very insightful and helpful comments around here and I think you would make a great admin (so long as you don't have any dark skeletons in the closet). Let me know if you ever consider throwing your name in at WP:RFA and I would be happy to potentially be a nominator or co-nominator. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence; my block log is clean (never even been templated above level 1), and I have admitted all socking on my user page. However, I have seen (without contributing to) some of the interrogations that go on at WP:RFA and I don't think I could give satisfactory answers. For example, they seem to be keen for potential admins to have edited in Portal space. I have made exactly one edit there - and that was a dab. I have also seen the abuse that admins receive on their talk pages when they have dealt with vandalism. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if you want to boost your count in Portal space, just go to something like Portal:London Transport/Vote (most portals have an equivalent page) and work your way through commenting on each item. Anyone who opposes on grounds like that will be ignored by the 'crats anyway; the only "editcount" opposes that are taken seriously are those based on policy concerns ("no experience with deletion discussions", and the like). I concur that you'd probably make quite a good admin, you seem to have more common sense than most and a willingness to listen to others but not to be pushed around. – iridescent 14:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:AFD and the related WP:CFD/WP:MFD/WP:TFD/etc. I think I've contributed to a few (but no more than about ten in total, spread across those), but my experiences of counter-comments were not encouraging. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My only Portal-space edit just got zapped! --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

diffs

Hi. I don't understand your edit or the summary here [7]

Template:diff doesn't give a clue to me - the url has both version numbers in it - I don't see how what server is used makes a difference, can you explain? Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Secure server.

The {{diff}} template is server independent and allows the link to be built without full URLs cluttering up the place. For example, this:

{{diff|Template talk:Infobox locomotive|380574816|380564141|my edit}}

is equivalent to this:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_locomotive&action=historysubmit&diff=380574816&oldid=380564141 my edit]

but is shorter and neater, and server independent. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ok thanks. never heard of the secure server before.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: District Line Route Map

from talk:WikiProject London Transport — … similar thread at Talk:District line#Route Map … I had posted there first, but go no reaction, so re-posted in a more noticeable spot. Useddenim (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You could have placed a short notice at WT:LT linking to the existing thread at Talk:District line#Route Map. That would have brought people's attention to it, and saved the bother of duplicated prototypes. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback X

{{Talkback|Help talk:Substitution|Substituting only the template output}} /HeyMid (contributions) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My RFC

In answer to your question, AFAIK, all editors may comment. Please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 05:10, 6 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. Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, spotted it: initially on WT:RAIL at 18:54 yesterday, then on several user talk pages (Mjroots, EdJogg, DavidCane, Slambo). Thanks. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Armstrongs

Just to say that there are two messages awaiting you on my talk page. I've been busy today!

Best wishes

8474tim (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

SD40-2 Merge

Can you take a look at my merge of the articles, EMD SD40-2(main article), EMD SD40-2W, EMD SD40-2S. The merged article is in here. Thanks (Copied from the Locomotive task force)--intelati^(Call) 17:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really my area. Have informed WP:TWP. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, kind of new in editing Locomotives.--intelati^(Call) 17:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

0-3-0

Hey! Look at the date! I was just learning then. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite so; hence the . --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

GWR 378 Class

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of GWR 378 Class, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.reachinformation.com/define/GWR_378_Class.aspx.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotta love that bot sometimes... – iridescent 13:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's utter b*ll*cks that I'd rip off another website. It's them ripping us off, and not giving due credit to WikiMedia Foundation, Wikipedia or even me. Somebody's removed the {{csb-pageincludes}} though; if it hadn't gone by 21:05 (UST) tonight I'd have removed it myself and to heck with the quincequonces. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Phew!

Right now, I never want to hear the words "Duke of Buckingham" again. Hopefully, that's the set complete. To think, this originally only started as a side-track from St. Mary's Church, Chesham… – iridescent 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "and Chandos"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I could do without "also known as Earl Temple of Stowe", too. – iridescent 20:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Gooch standard gauge locomotives

After our previous correspondence re GWR locomotives, I have drafted a new article with the above title, as a survey of a number of classes which may or may not in time merit individual articles.

I would be glad for your feedback on may work, and on the remarks I have added to the article's discussion page.

Best wishes, 8474tim (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

PS

I found the info I needed about Redirects, so ignore my request about that. 8474tim (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Second 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 – but given that you started most of these, your opinion obviously counts for a lot. 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. – iridescent 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Class 33

There were also links coming from KA and KB ? Maybe you have the answer to this mystery for me also?

Also could you put some explanation somewhere about the D15 thing (on the main page, or maybe British Rail locomotive and multiple unit numbering and classification) - I didn't find anything there? (ok a very small mention well hidden).

Maybe dates for the years the locos carried the numbers could be added?

As for Class 34, my opinion is that if reliably referencable then it's valid to mention it, but if no locomotive ever carried the number then it doesn't really fit in the template.. An extension to List of British Rail unbuilt locomotive classes or similar would seem to be the place to mention it ("List of BR unused TOPS numbers" as a title?) . Up to you.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

KA & KB are Southern Region pre-TOPS classifications for what latterly became Classes 33/0 and 33/1, just as HA, JA & JB were the SR classifications for what latterly became Classes 71, 73/0 and 73/1 - see Southern Electric Group - SR/BR(S) & TOPS Classes Conversion Tables. Like the E&NER codes, they were never borne by the actual locomotives, but were used on internal documentation; and also like the E&NER codes they crept into common usage because it was easier to say "We need a KB" than to say "We need a Birmingham RCW Type 3 with narrow body". Many SR people still use these codes in preference to TOPS.

Again, don't confuse TOPS classification with TOPS numbering. TOPS classifications (such as 33 and 34) were first drafted in 1967, and formally introduced round about the end of steam (circa August 1968), and, as with the existing regional systems, were mainly used on documents. TOPS numbers (such as 33 001 etc.) were allocated in late 1972 and began to be applied to the actual locos from early 1973. Since by August 1969, the erstwhile Class 34 had become Class 33/2, and the numbers allotted in late 1972 were linked to the classification by the first two digits, no locomotive would ever have been numbered 34 001 or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Spot the Hush Hush

That's excellent to know, but how can we tell?

The source (gradually onto Commons) is a book of broad social history - about 300 pages (unnumbered, which is annoying) and 1000 photos from 1914-1938. There's some really obscure and useful stuff in here, even though the quality isn't great. I'm still searching for representative pictures of 10,000 that are copyright acceptable though. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Deduction. The right hand loco clearly has no nameplate, and no. 10000 was never named. Even after enlarging the photo, it's difficult to tell whether the left-hand loco has a nameplate or not, but enlargement shows that the middle three have partial names GOLDEN SHU, EMPIRE O and DEN EAG in that order. The description on the Commons page says "Dominion of New Zealand, Golden Shuttle, Empire of India, Golden Eagle and Nº 10,000" - the second to fourth names clearly correspond to the visible lettering on the middle three locos. Since these are in the same order, it's reasonable to assume that the left-hand loco is the first one listed, Dominion of New Zealand, so by elimination, the right-hand one must be 10000. Coming back to the r/h loco having no nameplate: only four A4s ran without nameplates - these were nos. 2509-12 from new (1935) until repainted in blue livery (Nov 1937-Aug 1938), but none of these were Dominion of New Zealand - they all had "Silver" in their names. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'd rather suspected the caption might simply be in their order, but I was wondering if you knew something subtle about the shape of 10,000's chimney or somesuch. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There are subtle differences, but are difficult to spot without actually standing alongside with a measuring tape. The bogie wheelbase of the W1 (6'6") is 3 inches longer than the A4 bogie (6'3"). Like the A4, the cylinders are not central between the bogie wheels, but slightly to the rear; it seems that the distance from cylinder to rear bogie wheel is the same in both classes, so on the W1 the front bogie wheel is 3" further forward relative to the cyls, with the combined result that: the buffers are correspondingly further from the cylinders; the access panel forward of the cyls is similarly 3" longer; and the hole in that panel in which to put the crank for opening the smokebox door cover is also 3" further from the cyls.

Also, see

• Boddy, M.G.; Brown, W.A.; Hennigan, W.; Hoole, Ken; Neve, E.; Yeadon, W.B.; Fry, E.V.; Jackson, D.; Manners, F. (1984). Fry, E.V. (ed.). Locomotives of the L.N.E.R., part 6C: Tender Engines - Classes Q1 to Y10. Kenilworth: RCTS. p.155 & fig. 132. ISBN 0 901115 55 X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

where we find that there is a subtle bulge on the side of the cylinders (no more than +21⁄32 of an inch), which is not found with the A4. However, if you know exactly what to look for, it does reflect light slightly differently, provided that the angle of incident light is right, which in this case it fortunately is. On the right-hand loco on the photo, locate the cylinder side panelling. At front and rear edges of this there is a vertical double row of rivet heads; look at the one at the rear of the cylinders. Counting the ones which form part of the top edge of the valance as the first pair, then between the seventh and eighth pairs down the cylinder side is lighter in colour. This is the upper surface of the bulge concerned. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but are you sure? 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sue Perkins link

Hi. The original link (http://www.lgso.org.uk/index.htm) gives a 404 error, but the amended URL (http://www.lgso.org.uk/) works for me, so why do you say it's still dead? Charivari (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Because when I tried it, it threw an error (but not a 404). However, I see that it now goes through, so I now observe a different problem: it does not back up any part of the statement "Perkins guest-conducted the London Symphony Orchestra on 11 October 2009, at St Anne's Church Garden in Soho, London, UK. She conducted two pieces, the Simpsons Theme by Danny Elfman, and the William Tell Overture by Rossini, the latter for the first time." Accordingly, I've changed the tag to a {{Failed verification|date=September 2010}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:WPBiography#Redirect-Class. Funandtrvl (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

The Enemy Of The World - Doctor Who

You queried a contribution made to this page by an unsigned editor, adding the note that their contribution was only "largely true". I am curious as to what part of their edit is untrue. Could you clarify?

They wrote:

"The four key production roles for this story were all taken by men heavily involved in the development of Doctor Who." This is true.

"Author David Whitaker had been the show's first Script Editor;" This is true.

"Director Barry Letts later became the show's Producer (for the majority of the Jon Pertwee era), Executive Producer and occasional script writer;" This is true.

"Script Editor Peter Bryant became the show's producer from the next story;" This is true.

"Innes Lloyd was the show's current producer, this marking his final contribution to the series." This is true.

What part is untrue? I followed all the links the editor included and easily verified the text. Surely it is not necessary to class something as original work when by following the links provided it is substantiated? The information is also available on the page itself. For example, if you click on the next story link, you will immediately see that the roles of Bryant & Lloyd changed from the next production.

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic and harsh with this editor.

TVArchivistUK (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor added all of the paragraph, except for most of the Barry Letts info, which was already there although differently worded. As you say, each separate fact is true. But that works best when the second to fifth items are taken in isolation. Putting them together to produce the first is WP:SYN - particularly since at the time, Letts was something of a newcomer to the programme. If a source can be found that specifically calls attention to this four-way coincidence, then fine; but I don't know of one. All this is quite apart from the issue that no citation has been given for any of these facts.

Doctor Who-related pages attract more than their fair share of unsourced info, trivia and original research, and there is already far too much of this - WP:NOTFANSITE. When I notice an IP editor adding unrefd claims to DW articles - such as his assertion that Derek Francis played The Abbot in The Abominable Snowmen - then I go through their recent edits and check them more carefully. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this editor made invalid contributions, particularly regarding Derek Francis, so I reversed them. But I believe you are being overly pedantic and harsh regarding their contribution to the Enemy of the World page. As I pointed out above, I believe it is not necessary to reference something when links are provided that validate the contribution. I believe this is an interesting addition to the page and not fancruft. By linking all of the pages regarding the subjects, I am assured that the statements are true and verified. TVArchivistUK (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Bacon !

Oh won't you please consider joining WP:WikiProject Bacon? :)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Bacon has been created, and you are cordially invited to join, and list yourself as a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Participants!
• You may also feel free to add the userbox - {{User Bacon}} - to your userpage, to indicate your participation in the WikiProject.
• The Wikipedia:Bacon WikiCup is also ongoing, more info about that at User:SuperHamster/Bacon Challenge 2011, and User:SuperHamster/Bacon WikiCup 2011.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but must decline - now being in sort-of full-time employment (if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys) means that I don't have as much time to spare. However, don't worry: during my last shift, my lunchtime sandwich was Bacon, Sausage and Mushrooms. Mmmm! --Redrose64 (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:South Wales Railway

Hello Redrose64, I recently switched all or the CONTl's and CONTr's on a number of railway maps (including Template:South Wales Railway) as the icons seemed to have seemed to around (originally CONTl pointed right and CONTr pointed left) and I assumed they had been corrected as they were pointing the wrong way. So now it seemed that 'CONTl' stood for CONTleft and CONTr right. I switched them and on several of the maps but my edits were reverted by several editors (namely you and Britmax). I don't why this is, are the arrows appearing to point in the correct direction now on your computer? On my computer they appear to pointing in the wrong direction. Is it a problem with my computer, the servers or did you and Britmax just happen to make a mistake at the same time?

Thanks, WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary files for the BS icons are held on Commons. Two of them were exchanged by Axpde (talk · contribs) on 9 October 2010, see here and here.

The two concerned are  (CONTr) and  (CONTl). If you see these pointing right and left respectively (ie towards each other), your browser is probably holding cached copies of the old versions - these are now out of date, so you need to WP:REFRESH them. If they are pointing left and right respectively (ie away from each other), you have the current versions. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, I have bypassed the cache and can now see the current version, but what confuses me is CONTr (which I presumed stood for right or something similar as it comes from German) points left and the same for CONTl. Do you know why this is? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:BS-header

Template:BS-table

Template:BS2

Template:BS2

Template:BS2

|}

You are correct - r stands for rechts (German for "right"); l stands for links ("left").

It's probably best to think in terms of the route which is to be followed by a train driver who starts at A in the small RDT at right. RDTs are usually constructed so that the start of the line is at the top. The driver proceeds forwards along the line (ie down the page) towards B; on the way he passes the branch off to C. This is to the left of the line, and so is shown on the right of the RDT, in order to avoid a mirror image.

The junction symbol here is  (ABZlf), and the arrow is  (CONTl) - both contain the letter "l". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Abbeys etc

You still stalking my talk page? - I think the problem is that JohnArmargh doesn't understand about redlinks, rather than a limit to the amount of refs that can appear in an article - I've seen articles with over 300 refs. Mjroots (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Western Railway

Hello again, Should not the many references to MacDermot 1927 and MacDermot 1931 be "harvardified" so that they link back to the first mention in the footnotes? I remember a previous exchange in which you tried to explain to me about this sort of thing, and I see that you have recently contributed to this article, so I thought you might be the person to ask. I didn't want to wade in to such a major article without checking. -- Alarics (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've modified {{Infobox GWR}} so that the full MacDermot citations are Harvard-linkable. As for the article, it should be a simple case of altering refs like <ref>MacDermot (1927), chapter 1.</ref> to <ref>{{harvnb|MacDermot|1927|loc=chapter 1}}</ref>, like this. Page numbers would be better than simple chapters (vol. 1 chap. 1 has 28 pages); but we can add those another time. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. -- Alarics (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done should be none left unlinked. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ashford Steam Centre

What do you think of the idea of an article on this subject. I remember one visit c1973/4 where I footplated a French pacific, hauling the 4DD coaches if I recall correctly. From what I can find on the 'net, it was open late 60s to c1975. Any ideas on written sources? Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I never went there. Afraid the only info I have is the "Preserved Locomotives" section which appeared at the back of the Ian Allan abc Combined Volumes; for example

• British Railways Locomotives and Other Motive Power: Combined Volume. London: Ian Allan. 1970. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In this one, p.194 has against O1 class 0-6-0 no. 65 "Privately preserved at Ashford"; on p.196 we find that H class 0-4-4T no. 263 is "Preserved by H Class Trust at Ashford", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Ian Jack

Ian Jack is a short stub of an article which has 5 cites from reliable third party sources. Is this not enough? best Mick gold (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a biography of a living person. It therefore needs to be 100% referenced, to reliable third-party sources. At the time that I placed the {{BLP sources}} notice, it wasn't. Since then, two refs have been added: one of which (the Granta one) may fall within the area of self-published sources; but although the Observer one is fine as a reference source, it still doesn't back up everything that it's been placed against: it says nothing about him living in London with his wife and two children.

Several statements remain unrefd; of these, the ones which have the strongest need for a ref are those concerning his date and place of birth, wife and children. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian Jack is listed in Who's Who 2010, A&C Black, which I believe would be considered WP:RS. His entry reads:

‘JACK, Ian Grant’, Who's Who 2010, A & C Black, 2010; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2009 ; online edn, Nov 2009 :::accessed 2 Nov 2010

JACK, Ian Grant

Born 7 Feb. 1945; s of Henry Jack and Isabella Jack (née Gillespie); m 1st, 1979, Aparna Bagchi (marr. diss. 1992); 2nd, 1998, Rosalind Sharpe; one s one d

writer and editor; Editor, Granta, 1995–2007

EDUCATION

Dunfermline High School, Fife

CAREER

Trainee journalist, Glasgow Herald, 1965; reporter, Cambuslang Advertiser and East Kilbride News, 1966; journalist, Scottish Daily Express, 1966–70; Sunday Times, 1970–86; Observer and Vanity Fair (NY), 1986–88; Dep. Editor, 1989–91, Exec. Editor, 1991–92, Editor, 1992–95, Independent on Sunday. Journalist of the Year, Granada TV What The Papers Say award, 1985; Colour Magazine Writer of the Year, 1985, Reporter of the Year, 1988, British Press Awards; Nat. Newspaper Editor of the Year, Newspaper Focus Awards, 1992.

So I have added some details to the WP article. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Brunswick hatnote

Your edit summary [8], "repair hatnote", suggests that the hatnote was broken. It wasn't--it linked to the disambiguation page I had created as I thought the previous hatnote needed simplifying. (I had come across the article while adding categories, saw the hatnote, and decided it was rather clumsy and a disambiguation page would do a better job.) --RFBailey (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Undone see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback XI: Template:Citation needed

{{Talkback|Template talk:Citation needed|Reinserting_Merge_discussion_template|20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)}} — SpikeToronto 20:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback XII

{{talkback|WVRMad}}

SECR Diag. 960 PMV

Do you have any books on SECR Non-passenger coaching stock? Particularly the Diag. 960 PMVs. Infobox and pending article need expansion with dimensions see - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/cavell van, which I hope will be promoted soon. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gould 1992, see Wikipedia:Article Incubator/SE&CR Diagram 960 PMV

nb: why was that not moved to create Cavell Van? See WP:CUTPASTE. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that! The Cavell Van article was created via AfC by a new editor. I came across it when he added wikilinks to some articles I keep an eye on. On giving him a welcome and checking his contribs, I discovered the article at AfC and polished it up a bit. That article is solely about No. 132, not the Diag.960 vans in general. I think we can justify an article on an individual PMV here due to its connections with three Wikinotable people. Mjroots (talk) 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail images

Hi Redrose, I am drnsreedhar. Your post on how to do thumbnails was really of immense help to me since I am totally ignorant of computer programing. I followed your instructions and you can see a few more of images of Sultans and Emperors of India. Please follow my work and do corrections whenever necessary. I have about 700 images of which I could publish only a few for the simple reason my incapability to program.Anyway, thank you very much. I belong to Kerala,India and is working in Government service as Additional Director of the Health Services of Kerala.Coin collecting is my hobby and I wish to share knowledge with those having same interests. So I thank you once again for your timely help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnsreedhar1959 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Pellon railway station

Hi, I see you removed the postgroup entry for Pellon railway station. The station is shown as reopening again after the war and then passenger services being withdrawn on 1 January 1927 at "Disused Stations". Subterranea Britannica. Scillystuff (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Butt does not give a reopening, however; and neither does H.C. Casserley in Britain's Joint Lines (Ian Allan 1968). The other source I have, Marshall's The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, vol. 2 (David & Charles 1970), does state (p. 123) that the HHL line was reopened "after the war", and that it was closed again on 1 Jan 1927: but no specific reopening date is given. I have detected errors in subbrit before: but that said, I have also detected errors in Butt too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings of the season to you and yours!

Happy Holidays, Redrose64! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a very Merry Christmas and happy editing in the year ahead! MarnetteD | Talk 20:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal Wookey railway station & Wookey Station

Hope you had a good holiday. A few weeks ago you proposed the merger of Wookey railway station and Wookey Station. I have supported this on the talk page, but added a question about the title & infobox. When you are back could you respond so that we can get this one sorted & remove it from Sopmerset cleanup listing?— Rod ^talk 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

L&Y ships

Not good, not bad, but ugly! I created the tables with the titles per WP:MOSSHIP, so that they displayed correctly with the name in italics. It looks like the editor in question has created some articles (which is good) but they need a little guidance. The disambiguating year may be fine, as it is quite likely that more than one ship had a particular name. I'll drop him a note on his talk page and see where we go. Mjroots (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Electric train staff H&BR

Thanks. The phrase "staffed working" is meant to refer to "tokenised working" (does that need clarifying?)- I'm not sure but I think there was something unusual (possibly an old fashion method of working) (possibly that it used a staff used on this line -is that unusual?) - I'd need to re-check the source again - but I don't remember anything specifically mentioning the electric train staff type. I'm not sure but I think it wasn't. which usually means I'm wrong Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(It made sense after you explained it, but too late to withdraw my edit summary).Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The Twin Dilemma

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the DW fans had limited cast notes to appearances in the series. However, the information is correct.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be relevant to the article, and must also be sourced - there is too much unsourced trivia in Wikipedia as it is, but the DW pages are a real magnet for it. Look at The Twin Dilemma#Cast notes: there are presently four entries there - all of them are unsourced, admittedly, but three have direct DW relevance - they are previous and/or future appearances in other DW serials. If we did put such "also appeared in" stuff into the DW serial articles, we could get something like "... appeared as Joshamee Gibbs in the Pirates of the Caribbean films; he also appeared in Not Quite Paradise, The Berlin Affair, Cry Freedom, Spice World, Sliding Doors ..." - it would just get silly. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair up to a point, but Joshamee Gibbs in the Pirates of the Caribbean films is by far the role for which Kevin McNally is best known. I do try not to add unsourced trivia to articles, but thought that this was worth mentioning. Anyway, not worth an edit war over this minor issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Inset maps

See Template talk:Location map#Inset Maps. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Have watched the page. I unwatched it around October when real-life got busy. Not sure what I can contribute at this stage; I did once ask at WP:VPT if there was a parser function (or similar) that would return the dimensions of an image, but didn't get a usable answer. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Fibreglass Mk 1s

Was the BRUTE van a Mk 1 too? If so, it seems that a paragraph on that van would fit nicely in the section I added to the BR Mk 1 page. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was built to Lot no. 30826 Derby 1970 on the u/f of CK Sc15170. It's dealt with in the definitive work on Mark 1 coaches:

• Parkin, Keith (1991). British Railways Mark 1 Coaches. Penryn: Pendragon. p. 198. ISBN 0 906899 49 4.

so if Parkin says it's Mk 1, I guess it must be. He also implies that the original body ends were retained. I often saw that van at Banbury in the early 1980s, on a daily parcels working to Coventry, and noted the passenger-coach style bow ends and Buckeye couplers. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've retitled that section, pending the addition of info on this vehicle. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

KT5720 sub categories.

Hi there, thanks for you message. I wasn't aware at all. So for this article KT5720, your saying not to add Category:Biochemistry stubs but to add {{Biochem-stub}}? Does this apply to most articles or what is already listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types. --Visik (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Generally, any category ending in " stubs" should have at least one member which is a template ending in "-stub"; such templates should be listed at the top of the category (but after any subcategories). These stub templates should also be listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, and if not listed, it's not been formally approved by WP:WPSS.

So, at Category:Biochemistry stubs, under 'Pages in category "Biochemistry stubs"', we find:

The following 196 pages are in this category, out of 1,365 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

• Template:Biochem-stub
• Template:Metabolism-stub

If you click on one of these you'll get the stub template page and its documentation, which includes something like {{Biochem-stub}} so that you can copy&paste it. An examination of the text of the stub template should show its relevance; where more than one stub template is listed, try each one. In some cases (as here) there are subcategory pages, where you might find a stub template which is even more relevant. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Old OS maps

Hi, wonder if you know this one? On some railway station articles there are links to a website showing old OS maps dating from the 1930s/40s which are scrollable. You can add postcodes to the maps. Typically, when I need to find the website I can't, nor can I find an article which has such a link despite knowing it exists somewhere. Can you help, as I am hoping to find an old map showing Penshurst Airfield with a runway marked. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two sorts that I know of.

First, those on the GeoHack page - click on either the lat/long or the infobox "Grid reference" entry, then under "Great Britain" there is a row "Old OS maps", click on "Map". This one doesn't have the postcodes thing that you mention, but it does have links to other old maps, of which the most useful are under "View at old-maps.co.uk(~1900)"; centre the main map on your feature of interest before clicking this. There are often several maps dating from anywhere between 1850 and 1960 here, depending upon what they've got access to. They are large scale, including 1:2500; 1:10,000; 1:10560 (6 inches to 1 mile); 1:25,000.

Second, most articles on old stations that I create (or expand from a single-paragraph stub) have a link in the ELs section like the one on Darcy Lever railway station; this is the one with the little postcode markers. I also mention this site on my user page in the checklist under Railway Stations. A peculiarity of this site is that it centres the map on the right-hand edge of the 1km square, so that the feature of interest is shown left of centre.

Constructing a link for this is a little involved, and you do need to know the OS grid ref of the feature, or its site, to 1 km accuracy (or better, but there's no point being overprecise). The basic format is

[http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#xxx,yyy,1 zzz on navigable qqqq O.S. map]

where xxx is the eastings to 1 km accuracy; yyy is the northings (also to 1 km); zzz is the name of the feature; and qqqq is the year of the map. Straight away, we can replace the "zzz" to give

[http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#xxx,yyy,1 Penshurst Airfield on navigable qqqq O.S. map]

Next, xxx and yyy. I note that Penshurst Airfield is at TQ525468, which since it has six digits, is to 100 m accuracy. We break that into three components - the grid square letters (TQ), and two equal-size groups for the eastings (525) and northings (468) respectively. Of the latter two, these could have from two to six digits each, for varying degrees of accuracy from 1 km to 10 mm. However many there are, we only need the first two digits of each set, so we now have eastings 52 and northings 46. We now need to adjust those so that they also denote grid square TQ. Refer to this diagram; locate TQ and count along and up from the bottom left corner - it's 5 along, 1 up.

There's another way of getting these figures if you have the relevant OS map in paper form. On my old 1:63360 (One inch Sixth Edition) sheet 171 (London S.E.) and also on my current 1:50 000 (Landranger) sheet 188 (Maidstone and The Weald of Kent), in the bottom left corner, the grid line numbers have extra (small) digits - one digit before and three zeroes after. It's the first small digit that is of interest for both eastings (5) and northings (1).

These should be placed in front of the eastings and northings which we already have - this gives eastings 552 and northings 146, so we can now insert those in place of the "xxx" and "yyy" to give

[http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#552,146,1 Penshurst Airfield on navigable qqqq O.S. map]

which is now clickable:

• Penshurst Airfield on navigable qqqq O.S. map

Observe the box upper right, headed "Sheets" and with the sheet number 171 shown four times. Each is followed by the year 1940, which is our value for "qqqq":

[http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#552,146,1 Penshurst Airfield on navigable 1940 O.S. map]

• Penshurst Airfield on navigable 1940 O.S. map

Since the airfield is not actually marked, I would modify the description to read

• Position of Penshurst Airfield on navigable 1940 O.S. map

The reason that the airfield is not marked is almost certainly because it's a military facility. I think however that your grid ref is a little off - there are too many woods, roads and civilian buildings, and that the likely position is that blankish space between Leigh Park Farm and Price's Farm, which would be TQ5347, or

[http://www.npemap.org.uk/tiles/map.html#553,147,1 Position of Penshurst Airfield on navigable 1940 O.S. map]

• Position of Penshurst Airfield on navigable 1940 O.S. map

--Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW I don't know why the grid ref is given as "#553,147,1" - that's the way I've always seen it elsewhere. Leaving off the ",1" seems to make no difference, but it doesn't work if you try other numbers. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It was the npemap.org website which I meant. Position of airfield is correct. Taken from the coordinates published in Flight, 2 February 1928, and converted to Grid Ref using the toolserver link, but rounded up to 100m accuracy instead of 1m accuracy. The actual coords of TQ 525 468 are 52° 12' 1.81" N, 0° 10' 55.57" E. I think the OS Coord as given is near enough. You mention earlier maps and larger scales, perhaps a 1920s or 1930s 6" map may have some info? Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't personally have any older than the OS One-Inch 6th Edn (rev 1931, pub 1940), which doesn't show any runway, poss because of the military aspect. To find those larger scale maps, see the paragraph above beginning "First, those on the GeoHack page" alternatively, go here.

Once you've got to the old-maps page, you should see that upper right there is a scrolly list with slidy tab, the list has small maps also green and orange buttons. Slide it down and you should find one titled "1937 Pre-WWII 1:2500 - KENT" also "1937-1938 Pre-WWII 1:10,560 - KENT". Pick one and click the green "Enlarge Map" button. It takes a while to come through; once it's arrived, click the orange "Enhanced Zoom" button so that you can zoom in/out and recentre. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look, and no runways marked. Probably because it was grass, and not a tarmac/concrete surface. Thanks for your help. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Station Links

Hm, does this make you more of an 'anorak' than moi ? ! Anoraker (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a convention that is written down somewhere, but I just can't find anymore...

Basically, in articles primarily dealing with railway topics, we link to either the station or to the place, depending on context. We would link to the station articles in such circumstances as:

• the railway line was opened from x to y
• the town of X is served by two railway stations, y and z.
• the service runs between x and y

However we do link to the town/city/etc. articles in circumstances like these:

• A railway line between x and y was proposed but not built
• X railway station is situated in x, although it primarily serves the neighbouring town of y

--Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Puzzled

at someone from Lancashire not knowing the Wirral - even though it was in Cheshire. The book is still there (in the Class 40 article at least) in Further Reading. Looks like a useful book, even though self-published. (Many specialised books are - a classic on Jowett Cars advertising was self-published by a friend of mine.) Peridon (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, what I mean is, there is no such town as Wirral - there is a Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. A publisher's location is a town or city, not some local government conglomeration. So, if the publisher were based on the Wirral, we should really put Birkenhead, Wallasey, Hoylake or wherever. I happen to know that there is a publisher named Wirral (Wirral Publications Ltd, 3rd floor, 2A Price Street, Birkenhead CH41 6JN), so we need to be clear which is meant: the name of the publisher, or the publisher's location. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No web site - only ghits are those bloody useless directories that clutter the place up. The Wirral has always been a fairly Wirral oriented area, from long before the borough was thought of, so he probably just means Wirral. He gives his name as the publisher, but it doesn't look like spam to me, or there'd be an more specific address or a site. Peridon (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi redrose64

I am Mike McManus, I have added the Ultimate Allocations information following a fellow enthusiast recommending that I do so. As other books as shown for information and sources etc I thought it would be ok to do so, if this is against the rules I can remove them as mentioned or what can I do to make it official? Any help would be appreciated. To view information on the books please visit www.ultimate-allocations.co.uk Regards Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike61680 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Many thanks for your input and putting me straight, I looked at the other titles and considered the possibility of an advertising issue so I left out any direct method of contact e.g. e-mail etc. Anyway, would it be in the best interest for me to delete all the entries and enquire further about authorised inclusion? The books are the complete record of all locomotive movements, steam, diesel and electric on Briish Railways stock lists from 1950-1968 with additional information from 1948-1950 as available. I have had no negative response from anyone who has purchased them since 1995 when they were first advertised on Steam World, then Railway Magazine and Model Rail. The website gives a good overall coverage of what you can expect from the individual volumes (6off). This is my first attempt at adding anything on Wikipedia and perhaps in hindsight I should have known better than to take it for granted that you can add information without any issues. Thanks again, please advise on deletion Mike61680 (talk) 18:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)mike61680

Penshurst Airfield

The image problem was easy to fix, I just moved all images into the "From 1940" section, which I am informed has fixed the problem. Another alternative would have been to reduce the number of images in the 1940s section - probably to the two black and white images. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Changes to my early low quality work

Over the last few days I've noticed that you are correcting administrative areas on railway station articles. I must come clean and admit that a lot of these were mine, created ( or in some cases adapted from existing articles) several years ago when my experience and quality standards were not the same as (I hope) they are now. Sorry for the extra work but you seem to be doing a good job! Britmax (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A recent change to {{Infobox UK disused station}} meant that |line=, which previously showed as Original company, instead showed as Line, which was not very good for those cases where |line= had genuinely been used as a synonym for |original=. A subsequent change means that |line= once again shows as Original company, unless |original= is also given. So I've tasked myself with (i) finding where both |line= and |original= have been used, and checking that both are valid (see, for example, Abercynon North railway station where the original company was British Rail, which is an extremely vague term: so |line= can sensibly be used to give better context); and (ii) finding where |line= has been used as a synonym for |original=, and switch it over (but only when sensible to do so), thus releasing the parameter. Whilst making such changes, I am also amending the ambiguous parameters |manager= and |owner= to their more meaningful synonyms |pregroup= and |postgroup=, fixing up where necessary.

I'm taking the opportunity to fix up |locale= and |borough= at the same time. I had found a lot of inconsistency; in the places where {{Infobox UK disused station}} is used, I had seen that |locale= could cover anything from England [sic] right down to a ten-house hamlet; |borough= also showed variations, possibly not as broad in size - although broad in time. The documentation for {{Infobox UK disused station}} doesn't go into specifics but implies that |locale= and |borough= have similar meanings to the same parameters in {{Infobox GB station}}, for which an examination of a large number of articles (a few hundred) shows the general convention is |locale= being the actual town/village, and |borough= being the relevant unitary authority, London/Metropolitan borough, or district council.

With the |borough= parameter in {{Infobox UK disused station}}, I noticed a variation in time: some showed the modern local authority, some a traditional one; and of those, some were a county, some a smaller division. I can't remember where, but there is a guideline stating that we should use modern terms for places, and when dealing with historic events, old names/borders may be mentioned but only to give context (by which I assume that such mentions go in the text, not the infobox). Personally I'm a fan of the traditional county, so for me, I would rather put Abingdon railway station as Berkshire, not Vale of White Horse, but am willing to go with the latter in the interests of the project. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

St. Catharines/Niagara District Airport

I just noticed this. There are probably more of those around, created before {{DEFAULTSORT}} was available. The only way to get the stub to sort properly was to do it like that. I'll see if there are any others. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire 1

Please could you stop taking my edits about Bolton being in Lancashire off,because Bolton is in Lancashire and always has been,i am not saying you are always taking my edits off,but Wikipedia needs to realise that Towns such as Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire user: Lancashirelad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.212.45 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2011

Bolton has not been in Lancashire since 1974. I ought to know: I used to live there. Wikipedia uses current geographical boundaries, not historic boundaries. Whilst irritating to a historian like you or I, that's what's been agreed on. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Steam technology

see Russian_locomotive_class_Ye#Design_2 "design" section

I've got the impression you known something about steam technology (I definately don't) - I was wondering if anything here makes or does not make sense " Because of the possibility of the motion locking-up, Zyablova valves were replaced with valves of the Celler type. These valves allowed saturated steam directly into the cylinders while preventing combustion gases from the firebox to enter."

It sounded odd to me (seems to say combustion gases will get mixed with the steam?) so I marked it with dubious/clarify - I have no idea if this makes sense or what Celler or Zyablova valves are or do... If you can help please mention it on Talk:Russian locomotive class Ye (the editor is translating from russian - the rest of it seems generally pretty good - so it might be my ignorance). Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of these two types of valves. Saturated steam is steam direct from the boiler, and therefore hasn't passed through the superheater. In most types of steam loco, if steam is shut off and the engine put into reverse whilst still moving forwards, the pistons could certainly suck gases from the smokebox into the cylinders. The gases themselves wouldn't matter much but they would carry a proportion of ash which would cause wear to the pistons, cylinders, valves and valve chests. This can also happen when an engine fitted with piston valves (not slide valves) is coasting in mid-gear, and for this reason drivers were usually instructed to keep the regulator slightly open, only shutting it completely when the train had stopped. It sounds as if the valves in question were a means of passing steam to the cylinders in these circumstances but still allow the driver to close the regulator. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a Snifting valve? Biscuittin (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. In

• Semmens, P.W.B.; Goldfinch, A.J. (2003) [2000]. How Steam Locomotives Really Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 84. ISBN 0 19 860782 2.

we find that "a 'snifting' or anti-vacuum valve has to be fitted somewhere between the saturated steam header and the cylinders, to enable air to be drawn through the elements and the cylinders when the engine is coasting, and to remove the risk of char being drawn into the blastpipe." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire 2

Why can i not edit,the Bolton page now,bolton is historically part of lancashire,i have done as wikipedia says about historical counties and still you take my edits off as i live in bolton i know where i live why has wikipedia got such biased views about historical counties bolton and bury are in the historical county boundaries of lancashire not until 1974 they still are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.161.105 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(i) The stated reason for protection of Metropolitan Borough of Bolton is "Persistent vandalism: over the past onth or so IPs have been ignoring consensus at WP:UCC"; (ii) I refer you to the reply that I gave on 6 February 2011; (iii) When starting new threads, please post them at the bottom of talk pages (see WP:TPG) - the "New section" tab is a good way of doing this; (iv) please sign your posts on talk pages (see WP:SIGN). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: 204.174.87.29

Hello, Redrose64. You have new messages at 204.174.87.29's talk page.
Message added 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it...

I left a response at Template talk:Cite journal. Please respond there. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tone

Your tone in this comment was completely uncalled for. The IP was completely correct in his/her reply, they had done nothing wrong whatsoever and even pointed out that there is not RS yet. But who am I talking to. You established Wikipedians are immune to any criticism anyway. --87.78.131.12 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

These was absolutely nothing wrong with Redrose"s post. The post did not attack any editor - which cannot be said for this IP's post here. Redrose simply linked to the relevant Wikipedia's policies in an attempt to explain why the posts made on NC's page to that point could not be allowed to stay. Redrose you should feel free to remove this entire section because the accusations in it are entirely baseless. MarnetteD | Talk 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Children, children... RedRose64 was right, just forgot to say thank you, that's all. I was once a newbie too :-)) --Skol fir (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sophie Webster

Hey. I cannot believe the edits the user is making. It's total fancruft and it's not even formatted right, a favourite seems to putting BR> section breaks every where. I've just been cleaning a storyline section for Jackson Walsh, the gay following these articles get is quite nice, but annoying for editors like me who edit in the correct MOS and so on. Parkinson's article was just too much, had to remove anything unsourced, cut down all the character info which is not exclusive to her. Sophie's article is a state, they just don't undertand the policy or difference with in universe content and out. If you could keep an eye on what the editor is doing as a whole on Wiki, we can curb it getting so big a problem again. :)RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are lots of <BR> this may suggest that content is being copy&pasted from other web sites. I've not really looked at the rest of the user's contribs, I only really noticed him because he started making dozens of edits to Sacha Parkinson just over two weeks ago. That page has been on my watchlist since I did this edit on 6 November 2010; that edit was done because I was fixing up bad edits made by Mollymileysacha (talk · contribs) (are the last five letters coincidental?), which I spotted because of a bad edit made to Brooke Vincent which in turn I had watchlisted since I made this edit on 21 October 2010 when I was fixing up edits of Bradleybranning (talk · contribs) ... what a tangled web. I must admit that I de-watchlisted Sacha Parkinson because I couldn't keep up and had other commitments.

I'm not much good for Coronation Street fact-checking: I don't have any books. It's bad enough trying to control Doctor Who-related pages, which certainly pull in the WP:FANCRUFT but at least for checking those I have a heap of books going back to 1973. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I could revert the character articles to before the editor made any contrib to them, but that may undo any good contribs in the intervening periods. So I'm not sure, I'll just have to edit them when I have time. TBH, I added the refs that are on Sophie's page a long time ago, so it's due a big update. It's just I've been concentrating on Hollyoaks, Neighbours and Home and Away character articles the past year, So I let them slip into this. But yeah, it's mainly LGBT characters that have these fan followings, that are writing these articles like fanzines. Perhaps they are copying the info from some where. I'll condense Sian's storylines now actually.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 09:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reign of Terror Tweet

The "classicDW" feed is run by Dan Hall - the man in charge of all the Classic Doctor Who DVD releases. [[Wikipedia::RS]] clearly states if the blog (Twitter in this case) is run by a professional in the field then it can be deemed an acceptable source. Dan more than meets this category. --Connorthomha (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Grace Mugabe

Hi Redrose64, just to let you know: passages like the one you wikified there should be removed, not promoted to lead position. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving Metropolis

See reply. Simply south...... 16:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Re the revision comment, '(why do people misspell Ian Allan's name so often?)' I was much amused. I must have a chinese knock-off of the pre-grouping atlas, for I copied the spelling off the cover. Best of luck...--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at some old books published by this firm, and I see that the company name is, in some cases, written in cursive script (sometimes across a pictorial background such as a row of buildings or a rosette), and close inspection shows that the small "a" can look a bit like a small "e". But three points suggest that "Allan" is correct: (i) the fourth letter of the second word has a vertical stroke on its right-hand side; (ii) comparing this letter with the second letter of the first word, they appear similar (apart from the way the line comes in from the previous letter), and since the first word is unlikely to be "Ien", the second must be "Allan"; (iii) adverts either inside the covers or on the dustjacket flyleaves plainly state "IAN ALLAN LTD.". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great North Eastern Railway

Hello again, The problem with citing the Ian McMillan poem is that the page referred to hasn't disappeared. The page still exists, but the relevant poem is not included in the current version of it. Might it not confuse readers to give them a non-dead URL which does not contain the required text? -- Alarics (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually check whether the original URL was still valid or not: I assumed that you'd noticed it was invalid, and were adding the archive parameters, and in doing so fouled up the {{cite web}} template. I decided that because you removed the crucial characters url= (leaving {{cite web |http:) so that there was no link at all - {{cite web}} uses only named parameters, no positional parameters. So, I fixed it up, according to what I believed was the correct form. Going by Gadget850 (talk · contribs)'s reply at 16:48, 4 March 2011 here, it's a good idea to retain the original URL "If an archive site ever goes dead, we still have the original URL to work with." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry, I hadn't noticed that I mucked up the template. Thanks for fixing it. On the substantive point, "still having the URL to work with" doesn't seem particularly useful when the text in question has disappeared even though the web page is still there. But, there we are. -- Alarics (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Darcy Lever

Thanks for the link back to the main station article, forgot all about it.... regards Phil aka Geotek (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unknown question

just separating it from my comment Geotek (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

how do a delete messages on wikipedia when im not logged in and i didn't make any edits on a page and it says i did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.62.118 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

According to your contributions, you have made edits to nine different pages, this one included. The ones that I am concerned about are not deletions, but those where you have added unsourced information to Brooke Vincent and to Daniel Rowe (footballer) about their personal lives. Without sources, we have no way of knowing if this information is true or not, hence both you and I must follow the policy on living persons, which states (among other things):

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.
• any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

It is therefore imperative that you provide reliable sources for the information which you wish to add to these pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on date formats

Hi, in Pixie Geldof you recently used the justification of MOS:TIES to systematically change dates to dmy format from mdy format including accessdate. TIES does not over-rule the guideline of WP:DATERET as it is intended to apply to the language used rather than date formats and accessdate in particular is frequently a source of contention as there is no consensus to change these to one format over another. Do you have an alternative rationale or existing consensus to point to? I am not looking for a reversion on this occasion as this is a fine point of style rather than disruptive if, as is likely, no other article contributors object. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:STRONGNAT. I also note that WP:DATERET twice states "... unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic", or near equivalent. I consider British birth of one British and one Irish parent to be "strong national ties". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I believe that there is no consensus that this applies to the accessdate parameter on citations. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DATEUNIFY --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great shortcut to quote and nicely supports your changes. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) STRONGNAT and TIES basically reiterate each other. WP:ENGVAR is another one that many US editors ignore. --Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Redrose64. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 10:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Help on edit reverts

Hi again...wondered if you can help? I haven't really a clue how to stop people doing edit reverts, i've been accused of it in the past mind, but anyway i refer to the information on Scouser, someone keeps reversing a paragraph relating to the Wirral. I have edited it but the point is Wirral is both different and similar to Scouse and someone keeps removing this; can you help me with it? thanks Babydoll9799 (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't stop somebody reverting edits without actually blocking them. You can, however, apply the three-revert rule, but before even threatening that, it's best to discuss it with them.

(At this point, I would normally advise "The best place would be on the article's talk page, and once you've started a thread there, put a short note on the other user's own talk page directing them to the discussion.", but I see that you've done both those things.)

WP:3RR does not apply here, because the user concerned has not recently made more than two edits (revert or otherwise) to the same article within any given 24-hour period. I may be wrong, but I think that this users edits are mainly removal of unsourced content, which is not exactly prohibited; indeed the removal might be considered to be a valid application of WP:NPOV. Although the user has normally left no edit summary, in one edit he does give a fair comment, so it might be best for you to obtain sources which support the passage in question, per WP:V.

Once you have done this, and this user persists, it counts as removal of sourced content, which is a different matter. If this happens, you may consider the use of one or another of the following: {{subst:uw-delete1}} {{subst:uw-disruptive1}} {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} (the "1" on the template names can be replaced by 2, 3 or 4 for progressively stronger warnings). To be fair, this user would have been within his rights if he had given you a {{subst:uw-unsourced1}} - see WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref names

You should know that the change to the ref name was made by AutoWikiBrowser as part of its "General Fixes" code. I don't have much involvement with that part of the tool. Is the addition of unnecessary quotes something that is worth reporting as a bug to the AWB developers? If so, do you need my help, or do you want to take it up with them? Chris the speller (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the best place to start is by asking a question on WT:AWB. Chris the speller (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't use AWB myself (because I prefer to be fully aware of the edits I'm making), but I do know that it shouldn't make unnecessary edits. So yes, please raise a ticket; but it's not really a "bug", because it doesn't cause any issues with the rendered page; that is, <ref name=Smith123> is identical to <ref name="Smith123"> in its visible effect. A policy link to mention is WP:REFNAME. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, boss, I'll do it. Chris the speller (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

94.0.216.221

Hi. You didn't appear to pick up on this. There's no point in starting again from L1 or L2 warnings when I've already issued a final warning only 24 hours ago. Just let me know when he does it again and I will block, because I will get a CU done for his sockmaster at the same time. --Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Because his last vandalism edit was over 24 hours earlier, I didn't want to issue another level 4; but wasn't sure whether to pick 2 or 3 so played safe (I knew not to go back to level 1 though). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Windsor Link

Thankyou for the clarification of the Windsor Link. I knew it allowed trains from Picadilly, such as TransPennine Express, to get to Scotland more directly, but for some reason I had got it into my head that it was needed for other Victoria routes, such as to Liverpool. I think I was also confused by the missing "to Bolton" label on Template:Liverpool to Manchester Lines. Well, I think it does mean that I got the Ordsall Chord position correct after all. Tim PF (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember it being built - I lived in Bolton at the time, and all our Manchester services had been to/from Victoria. As an experiment in the mid-1980s, they extended one train an hour to Hazel Grove - from Victoria it ran via Miles Platting, Ashton Moss South Junction, and Denton, calling only at Stockport. This gave passengers from the south the ability to change at Stockport for Bolton, Chorley etc. The route between Ordsall Lane Junction and Castlefield Junction (near Deansgate) was at that time used only for freight trains, the passenger services along the old L&M (Newton-le-Willows, Eccles etc.) running to/from Victoria just as they had done since the closure of Exchange in 1969.

With the construction of the Windsor Link (between Windsor Bridge Junction and Ordsall Lane Junction), the section between Ordsall Lane Junction and Castlefield Junction was brought back into use for passenger trains, and the Blackpool-Hazel Grove service was rerouted over these lines, calling at Oxford Road, Piccadilly and Stockport. Curiously, it was not for some years that L&M trains began to run to Oxford Road, instead of Victoria, although in theory they could have done so previously. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I only travelled on it once (or it could have been twice) from Birmingham to Glasgow via Manchester and Bolton soon after the link opened. I seem to remember that it was a Class 47 up front, because I expected an electric loco, having not noted the route beforehand, but noting the lack of wires after Manchester. It was only recently that I realised the route, and that it could have been electrified through to Preston at the time (which would have saved the sight of Class 57s dragging diverted Pendolinos from Crewe in 2007. Then again, the presence of wires all the way doesn't seem to stop Virgin running Super Voyagers from Birmingham to Scotland.

By the way, I noted at Liverpool to Manchester Lines#Electrification that it says that TPE will use Class 350s via Golborne Junction, but I thought that the Manchester-Bolton-Preston-Blackpool electrification was also going ahead (so TPE could run 350s via Bolton). Is that not so? Tim PF (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Manchester-Bolton-Preston electrification is, I believe, a current proposal: but as to which types of stock they'll use, I relly couldn't say. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag bomber

I think we must have hit the undo button at British Rail Class 73 at the same time, as it came back ok for me, and I only noticed it had your name against the edit later on. Tim PF (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does that. I'm working through the list e'en now, and have about 5 more edits to check - that's unless you get there first! --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you, today; I did a batch a couple of days ago :-/

What annoys me more than anything about the tag bombing is that, although Yh00157 (talk · contribs) has added a few useful references, he doesn't seem to do anything else to actually improve the articles. I added a big comment about improving the British Rail Class 73 back in January, and apart from your own encouraging but fairly thin reply, there have been no other comments, and practically nothing has been done. I suppose I could carry on and change the article as planned, but I'd have to add {{expand section}} tags to at least 3 sections, and I don't like spreading too many tags about. Tim PF (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:Liverpool to Manchester Lines spurious rows

Thanks for removing the Hough Green area duplicates. As you probably realise it was a simple cut and paste quality follow up failure. Sorry and well spotted! Britmax (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Vale of Rheidol categories

In a break from my normal principles, I've replied at my talk page, and thanks for pointing out my mistake here. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge railway station

Hi Redrose64,

I was just wondering is there any reason all the details of where the trains stop had to be deleted? I was also in the process of creating a new S-line format template for the last and next stations, which is why there were still two. I just feel like that it is a good idea to show all the points where the train stops as then people will know where they can go from Cambridge. Let me know what you think.

Chris0693 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

All that I removed was the s-line stuff; there were two reasons for this: first, it duplicated information which was already present later on, at the end of the same section; second, it was left in a far from complete state for over twelve hours.

It was somebody else who reverted the rest of your changes. As to whether the action of 74.15.65.62 was valid: this is a controversial subject. There are those who hold that since Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it should not have that level of detail. Railway timetables typically change at least twice a year, and it's a real maintenance headache trying to keep all that detail up to date. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

OK and I can't contact that other person. Would it be worth re-doing it then? I personally don't think that is it acting as a travel guide, It's just showing the information of where it goes, to see what places one could get to. I know it is common practice in The Netherlands and also in Germany and France. I just think even if its for those 2 times in the year it changes, it is worth it. Currently I'm working on the Great Eastern Main Line and have done between Norwich and Kelvedon so far. What do you think? Chris0693 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not one for adding the finely-detailed service information, but if it's there already, or is added by you (or anybody else), I won't remove it: but I won't check or maintain it either.

You may have noticed that some articles which you've recently amended have been subsequently amended again by me. Apart from Cambridge (above), consider for example Beccles railway station. Previously this had one routebox (see here); you split the routebox (see here) and I have since recombined them (see here). I recombined them because I don't see why it's necessary to split them - many other stations have one routebox for current services, historic services and disused lines.

I also don't see the point of changing a perfectly valid routebox which uses the {{rail line}} style into one which is built in the {{s-line}} style, if either exactly the same information, or worse, less information is presented. The only additional information - "towards Ipswich", etc. - is something we don't normally put in routeboxes; meanwhile the link "East Suffolk Line" has been lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

cached pages

hi. i saw this update [9]. can you please tell me if there is somewhere on wikipedia that confirms this? its not that i dont believe you i just want to see where its stated and the reasons why. thanks!MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See meta:Cache strategy which is rather technical, but also see WP:PURGE#How it works. Partly it's a speed issue. The cached copies should be updated fairly quickly after a page change, ideally in minutes or even seconds, but it can sometimes take longer. In early-mid March 2011 the lag for some pages was as bad as three weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thanks!!! maybe im missing something but i dont see anything about anonymous users vs users with accounts anywhere in there?MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph 1:

... The next time a non-logged in user views the page, a copy of that page is made to a "server cache" on a set of secondary servers. Until the page is changed again, all non-logged in users who try to view that page will be shown the copy from the server cache. That way, users who are viewing but not editing do not put a drain on the main database server, and still see the most recent version of the page. (Logged-in users have a choice in their Special:Preferences under "Appearance" whether to see cached or live versions.)

Logged-in users are those whose edits are recorded against their user name; by contrast, non-logged in users are those whose edits are recorded against an IP address. Note that a user with an account may still be treated as if they were anonymous should they fail to log in. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you!! so what its saying is that they think not logged in users wont be editing the page as much as logged in users? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more a case of the need to avoid slowing down the servers unduly. Since logged-in users have the ability to set personal preferences, the pages that they view need to be tailored to a greater or lesser degree, so each page needs to be freshly prepared. For example, I have an option which causes some pages to show extra categories (Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories) - so when I view Didcot Parkway railway station, it shows in 13 categories, not 6. The extra seven cats are mostly to do with maintenance: ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles needing additional references from January 2010, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:All articles needing additional references, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles with OS grid coordinates, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:All articles with unsourced statements, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2009, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2009 - some are more useful than others. This, together with any other preferences which I might have set, means that when viewing this page it's been freshly prepared specifically for me, which obviously takes up time which benefits nobody else (it's possible that somebody else has exactly the same preferences as me, but they're not likely to be looking at exactly the same pages as me). Since the majority of users are not logged in, the fact that non-logged in users cannot set preferences means that just one copy of the page can be given to all non-logged in users, which clearly saves time.

I have friends and relations who use Wikipedia every month, week or even day, but who do not have accounts, and never edit. I think it's safe to say that users not logged in outnumber those who are logged in, but a check of articles (not talk pages, templates etc.) listed at Special:RecentChanges shows that edits by logged-in users outnumber those by non-logged in users by about 7:3. For talk pages, templates and other non-article pages, the proportions are much higher in favour of logged-in users (12:1); overall it comes out at about 4:1. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

oh thanks!!MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bentley Church railway station & Hadleigh Railway

Hi Redrose64,

The co-ordinates that I put in the Bentley Church article are based on the map in Tony Dewick's book (ref 2) and dates from Butt (ref 1). Butt gives an opening date of 15 June 1846 for Ipswich Stoke Hill, Bentley Church, Bentley, Manningtree & Ardleigh, all with the Eastern Union Railway. The Hadleigh Railway article states that construction started in September 1846, and Butt gives opening dates in 1847 for the stations on that branch, with the Eastern Union & Hadleigh Junction Railway.

I have not seen any map showing Bentley Church station other than in Dewick's book, but it seems most likely to me that Dewick is correct and it is on the main line and not on the branch.

This leaves me wondering why you added Bentley Church station to the Hadleigh Railway route template. Do you have some more definitive source data for the station's location?

Regards Efficacy (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• McCarthy, Colin; McCarthy, David (2007). Waller, Peter (ed.). Railways of Britain: Norfolk and Suffolk. Hersham: Ian Allan. ISBN 978 0 7110 3223 1. 0708/c1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This book is divided into three main sections: text, maps and gazetteer. In the text, the Eastern Union Railway is shown as incorporated 19 July 1844, opened (freight) 1 June 1846 (pass) 15 June (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 19); and the Eastern Union & Hadleigh Junction Railway is shown as authorised 18 June 1846, formally opened 20 August 1847, public opening (freight) 21 August (pass) 2 September (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 24) and absorbed by the EUR 1847 (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 19). In the maps, the Hadleigh branch is shown as starting at a triangular junction, with Bentley Church station close to the western corner (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, map 42 section B2). In the gazetteer, dates given are opened 15 June 1846, closed (pass) December 1853, closed (freight) n/a (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 108), which agrees with Butt. There is indeed a discrepancy between the map position and the opening dates. The maps in McCarthy & McCarthy are "based upon the original work undertaken by Col Michael Cobb for his atlas". I don't personally have a copy of Cobb: I know that Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) does, but he's not edited for several months. On non-railway maps, the shape of the triangular junction is clearly revealed by the wooded area known as "The Island". The church at grid reference TM118381 seems to be somewhat closer to the western corner of the triangle than to the northern. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Open Library

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

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle and St Pancras

Hello, I have responded to your suggestion and added my comment about the naming of Newcastle station, which is that I agree with you on the basis of the platform signage. This is the same argument as mine for renaming St Pancras as "St Pancras International". Since there seems to be no consensus for that, I am now suggesting we should at least make clear in the first sentence of the article that St Pancras International is the official name. One editor is disputing this but the case seems to me overwhelming on the basis of all the evidence put forward. -- Alarics (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OK; my main concern was always that of consistency: I didn't want to find that the rule used for one was different from the rule used for the other. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree with you about the need for consistency. Unless I have misunderstood, your view (which is also my view) on the Newcastle naming case has prevailed, and the vociferous opponent appears to be in a minority of one. Unfortunately, it seems there is no consensus for applying exactly the same rule (i.e. use the official name based on what the platform signs say) in the St Pancras International case. Now, on top of that, I cannot even get agreement for making it clear in the opening sentence of the article that "St Pancras International" is the official name. Don't you agree that this is quite unsatisfactory? -- Alarics (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Could we at least find something which notes the general change of name in an article (or even a note in a sidebar of a news page) in one of the publications like The Railway Magazine, Modern Railways, Today's Railways or similar? I recall that this was done for Ashford (Kent) → Ashford International. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Muirend railway station

Please see my comment at Talk:Muirend railway station regarding DfT Category E Stations. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

platform information

The National Rail search gives platform information. It shows that under the new timetable platform 3 at Shrewsbury will be used by Cardiff-Holyhead trains and the later of the two HoW trains on Sundays. Not sure how that can be referenced, but it can be quickly checked by searching the National Rail (search engined) timetables. David (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your note

Hello Redrose64. Thanks for your note. IMO the fact that the book cover has the words "Bumper Edition" (I have no idea what that means either!) printed on it should cover its mention in that section. However, I can sure understand if your disagree with that opinion. To be honest I came within an inch of removing the whole thing as non notable. I mean what the heck is special about a bumper edition compared to a regular one? Also my copy of that book does not have that wording on the cover. If you want to look into it further I might suggest asking at the Dr Who wikiproject whether anyone can clarify what that is and why it deserves a mention. One other option is to leave it for awhile and if no one adds a clarification after a couple a months we could remove the thing. Any suggestions that you have would also be welcome. Have a great week and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 13:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

EditCounterOptIn.js - opt out

Hey there, thanks for your suggestion on X!'s talk page. I put a {{db-userreq}} on the page but the coding didn't take. Any thoughts? - Haymaker (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, that seems to have done the trick. Thanks for your help. - Haymaker (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The page User:Haymaker/EditCounterOptIn.js no longer exists, and instead there is a notice containing the text

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

• 12:02, 22 April 2011 Iridescent (talk · contribs) deleted "User:Haymaker/EditCounterOptIn.js" ‎ (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace)

Thus, it occurred three mins after your first post above, but I can't tell when you placed the {{db-userreq}}, so I don't know how long you needed to wait. There's always a delay between placing a speedy-delete tag and it being actioned; it all depends on which admins are watching either ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and/or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am familiar with the template and when I placed the code the template did not appear, just the raw letters and symbols. - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that all .js pages on Wikipedia look like raw code, whatever you put in them: the main thing is that the sppedy template categorises the page somewhere that it'll be spotted by an admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Layton railway station

Here's one I need your help on. An existing station with an hourly service seven days a week, about which seemingly nothing is known of its early history. No information about its construction, date of opening, when its name changed from Bispham to Layton, etc. All I could find online is that it definitely existed by 1912 [10], a bridge was built over a level crossing there in 1930 [11] and that the name change occurred after 1950 [12]. With the line due to be electrified soon, it would be nice to have something more to say about it. Could you look it up in Butt for me please? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when I'm back off hols. Besides Butt, a good source should be John Marshall's books on the L&YR, but whether it'll be volume 1 or 2 I don't know. Definitely not vol. 3. Possibly try also "Britain's Joint Lines" by H.C. Casserley (chapter on Preston & Wyre Jt). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't own either of those, but Google Books was able to help out a bit: its preview for Marshall volume 1 gives May 1857 as Bispham's opening date, which is a start. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Station categories

Your marking closed stations with the Dft category. --WatcherZero (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I am; I'm also marking proposed stations. This is deliberate, and is because the information is verifiable, see this document. When a newer edition of that doc becomes available, we can make amendments as necessary.

BTW the general talk page for this is Talk:United Kingdom railway station categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So your ignoring two years in between because at the time that document was produced the station was open? Its like saying that when you last looked there were apples on the tree but 4 months later they must still be there because you havent looked at the tree to see otherwise even though you know the apples will have fallen with the change of the seasons. WatcherZero (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:V states "verifiability, not truth". If a more recent DfT doc can be found which omits Oldham Werneth, fine. Failing that, the most recent doc which we do have places it in category F1. The same doc categorises Armadale as F2, a station which reopened on 4 March 2011 having closed in 1956. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sig help

Thanks, changed! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Liverpool and Bury Railway

Thanks for the edit summary re the above diagram. I adjusted it and changed it to BS5-2 but don't know the history of the area so any changes you make are more likely to be right than mine. What do you think of my changes to the central Liverpool area? Britmax (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For most areas I would generally consult

• Conolly, W. Philip (1976). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0320 3. EX/0176. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

which is currently available as a reprint (but of lower quality than the 1976 printings). If the area was one where two different companies met, I would also consult

• Railway Clearing House Atlas of London 1935. Hersham: Ian Allan. 2001 [1935]. ISBN 0 7110 2789 7. 0106/B2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

the pages of which are on commons, each being in three or more subcategories of commons:Category:Railways Junctions Diagram 1914. Of the 158 RCH diagrams, the Wigan area is shown on diagram 77 of 1907; the Upholland-Kirkby stretch is on the bottom portion of diagram 92 of 1908 and the Liverpool area is on diagram 42 of 1909. In each case the L&YR routes are in blue, LNWR in red.

A good set of books for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway is John Marshall's trilogy:

• Marshall, John (1969). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 1. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 4352 1.
• Marshall, John (1970). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 2. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 4906 6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help)
• Marshall, John (1972). The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, volume 3. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0 7153 5320 9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help) - vol. 3 primarily concerns locomotives and rolling stock.

Regarding Liverpool: since the template primarily concerns a historic company, I don't think that too much prominence should be given to routes built after the general closure of significant portions of the line under discussion. Thus, a simple arrow and "to Moorfields, Central and Hunts Cross" should be adequate. I'd also have this as the curve off to the side, with Liverpool Exchange in the vertical line, to emphasise that Exch was the terminus of the L&BR route. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference names

Looks like all sorts of characters can be used in ref names; see User:Gadget850/t7. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your trial is incomplete: you should really have each different case twice so as to ascertain whether the name is treated as similar or not. For example, instead of having

<ref name=©>©</ref>

just once, put it twice. If you try that, you'll find that they're not merged: whereas those limited to 64 particular characters (A-Z a-z 0-9 hyphen and period) are treated as similar.

--Redrose64 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It does that since you are defining the same ref twice. Interesting— it works the first time, but if you invoke the named ref again, then it gives an error. I don't think that using these characters used to work at all. I know that not all of those characters work, but I haven't dug into it fully.

<ref name=©>©</ref><ref name=©/><ref name=c>c</ref><ref name=c/>

You won't see the error since it is suppressed on user pages— see {{broken ref}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch on the reuse issue. I updated the test and added User:Gadget850/t7#Works. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 13:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've found the W3C recommendation on quoting attribute values - note the phrase "In certain cases, authors may specify the value of an attribute without any quotation marks. The attribute value may only contain letters (a-z and A-Z), digits (0-9), hyphens (ASCII decimal 45), periods (ASCII decimal 46), underscores (ASCII decimal 95), and colons (ASCII decimal 58). We recommend using quotation marks even when it is possible to eliminate them."

Elsewhere, I have seen books on HTML which also forbid the use of underscores and colons in unquoted attribute values. I find that it's better to be safe than sorry. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Railways in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject UK Railways for a Signpost article. 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. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Autogyros

You could try searching the Flight / Flight International archives. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

Hi again. Thanks for your note about the info that website. I still feel that the "standard release" DVDs designation is a bit non notable for our articles as a) it did not last very long and b) it might need a better description of what makes them different from other releases at the time. Having said all of that if you feel like the info should go back in then please feel free to restore it. Thanks again and have a good week editing and offline too. MarnetteD | Talk 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Avonmouth railway station

Hi, thanks for letting me know about joint ownership, I may have to check out whether other stations on the Severn Beach Line were joint. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

All those between Montpelier and Avonmouth inclusive - ie anything shown in red on this map or in dotted green/yellow on this map, plus everything in between including the Hotwells branch - were joint GWR/Midland pregroup, and joint GWR/LMS postgroup. Generally speaking: if a railway was not explicitly mentioned in the Railways Act 1921, it wasn't grouped; but if such unmentioned railway was already partially or wholly owned by one or more railways which were grouped, it became the joint property of the relevant postgroup companies. So although neither the Bristol Port, Railway & Pier nor the Clifton Extension Railway were named in the Act, both became joint GWR/LMS because pre-grouping they had both been joint GWR/Midland; and the GWR was explicitly named as a constituent of the Western Group (p. 485), and the Midland was explicitly named as a constituent of the North Western, Midland, and West Scottish Group (p. 486). --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Brown

See reply. Simply south...... unintentionally misspelling fr 5 years 20:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank lines on talk pages

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

Icons

And after all that I got it wrong!. See The 1948 OS map. The junction immediately north of Darington is what I'm trying to reproduce. The lines marked in a solid black line are still open, the others marked -|-|-|- are now closed. I cant seem to find any combination of two icons that would allow an overlapped combination to produce the desired result. Looking at the map, it is more likely that the line went over the ECML than under it. So, it's eKRZu with branches at NE, SE and SW, the eastern branches being closed (as is the line over). Once this icon has been created, the East Coast Main Line diagram can be reduced in length by a line. Mjroots (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It didn't go either over or under: it was a flat crossing where the Newcastle & Darlington Junction crossed the Stockton & Darlington on the level; the signal box there was named "S&D Crossing". For a period, there were curves on all four corners, so the shape you need is   (KRZ Arg) but with a pink horizontal bar. Try overlaying  (ABZlg) onto   (exKRZ4d). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking closely at the diagram, the NW link is there. Diagram redrawn to reflect this info. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ISBN on Wikipedia

Many thanks for useful tip.

Duncan7670