User talk:G-13114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, G-13114, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby railway station[edit]

Re this edit - please see the policies MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:YEARLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the 'railway station' bit is added as a disamiguator, it is not part of the title, actually we should probably have it at Rugby (railway station) the station appears on timetables and on signs as just Rugby. For consistency, are you suggesting that we should bold Birmingham New Street railway station on that article? And if not why not?
Secondly, the policy you refer to appears to support the linking of articles that are related to the subject matter, such as 'xxxx in science' in science related articles. The article I linked was 1885 in rail transport, not the bare year article. If it is logical and acceptable to link to 'xxxx in science' on science related articles, and 'xxxx in music' on music related articles example. Then it is surely logical to link to 'xxxx in rail transport' in an article related to rail transport. G-13114 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
First: the "railway station" bit is not added as a disambiguator - it is part of the title. The name of the article fits in with the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). We bold all three words because the topic of the article is neither the town nor the sport, which are the two primary meanings of the word "Rugby". If you look at most other articles on UK railway stations, you will see a consistency: the bolded part of the lede matches the article title in almost every case. See, for example, Euston railway station, Watford Junction railway station, Milton Keynes Central railway station, Northampton railway station, Coventry railway station, Birmingham International railway station, Sandwell and Dudley railway station and Wolverhampton railway station. Regarding Birmingham New Street railway station, this is one of the few exceptions, which I can't explain.
Second, I did note that you linked 1885 in rail transport, not plain 1885, but the opening of Rugby railway station was not one of the key events of rail transport that year. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kilsby and Crick railway station[edit]

Are you sure about your change to the coordinates in this article? This old OS map seems clearly to show the station as having been located to the east (not the west) of the overpass carrying what's now the A5 over the railway line. Deor (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to show that, but I know the area quite well. If you want to check for yourself, if you look at the closeup satelite image on google maps, you can clearly see part of the old up platform plus the old station master's house and approach road to the west of the A5. You can clearly see them from the road, and as you go past on a train, I know, I've been there. G-13114 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, just checking. Deor (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, having looked at this http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html?txtXCoord=456380&txtYCoord=272646 I think you might have been right the first time. Maybe that was a goods loading platform or something. G-13114 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To the right (east) of the A5. See here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exeter railway station[edit]

Hello, thanks for fixing a bit of a mess, can't understand why my move did't work, But?? Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Midland Main Line infobox width[edit]

Hi, I've adjusted the infobox width to 520px, which is the narrowest that it will render without linewrap (breakup) on this laptop, which is running at 1280 x 800. I still think it may be better to re-detach it from the infobox, but it is better collapsed (although it took me ages to find the one at West Coast Main Line). Tim PF (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Doh! The West Coast Main Line "just works" with "box_width = auto", so I've fixed the Midland Main Line to use that also. I'm much happier with that, although I'm still not 100% happy with such really wide infoboxen once "shown". (Please reply here if needed). Tim PF (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well it's certainly an improvement on what it was like before, the map totally dominated. IMO that whole article is a dog's dinner in need of a big revamp. G-13114 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't disagree with that. But then again, I'm not offering to do a cleanup, either. Tim PF (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford[edit]

I had seen the discussion and was going to stay out of it, but since you invited me I've offered my 2p on the subject here. --RFBailey (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh!? What's that all about? G-13114 (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wessely[edit]

Hello. I thought I'd inform you that Catherine Sanderson (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previous disruptive user. In view of my experiences in the past, it might be best if we suspend current discussions for a bit, because there is likely to be a backlash with other sockpuppets. I do not rule out including a mention of Margaret Mar, as I have already stated, but it requires scrupulous sourcing to secondary sources of impeccable quality. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. What sort of source would it require? G-13114 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"We don't need sideways pictures of randomn trams"[edit]

favorite. edit. comment. ever. Cramyourspam (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

InterCity 125[edit]

Hi, I'm currently in the process of a fairly radical overhaul on that article. Formatting etc is certainly helpful, but some of the paragraphs you're tweaking might be gone or heavily re-written in a few days or weeks. Just a heads up—I wouldn't want you to see a big chunk of the article rewritten and feel that your efforts had gone to waste. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I was just trying to rearrange it into a better order and add some more pictures, rather than add anything substantially new to it. G-13114 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
On an entirely different note, I notice you have seem to have an interest in Coventry and the surrounding area, so this event I've organised in Cov might be of interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, G-13114. You have new messages at ColinFine's talk page.
Message added 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

King's Cross[edit]

Please see Talk:London King's Cross railway station#Lead picture. The article should lead with a good picture of a great structure, not a poor picture of an ugly structure. There is actually no consistency with railway articles, and for good reason because the front of many railway stations (as with airports and other public transport buildings) is often rather ugly.

As far as bunching of pictures is concerned, remember that not everyone is using the same monitor size as you. The problem here is lack of text. I think the layout of the article would be greatly improved by the abbreviation of the "National Rail annual entry and exit" table. We shouldn't lead with statistics that are of little interest to anyone: the current figures would do, and if at all notable, then a small graph of growing/shrinking numbers might be worth including somewhere. Colin°Talk 20:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Postal clerks on the Titanic[edit]

A few days ago, I made an edit to sinking of the RMS Titanic in which I removed the sentence "They [the five mail clerks] were caught by the rising water somewhere on D deck." on the grounds that that sentence was false because the mail clerks probably weren't caught below decks. You reverted my removal, because you thought that statement was cited.

The reason I consider the claim that the mail clerks were caught on D Deck to be false are the following reasons:

  • Reports of them being on deck (ie the boat deck) during the sinking do exist. For example, Violet Jessop, in her memoirs writes the following: "One of the mail clerks from our sorting office joined us. His work was finished, he remarked unemotionally. 'The mail is floating up to F Deck in the water,' he told us." This site, by someone who has cowritten Titanic books, says "several [mail clerks] were reportedly seen on deck before the end." and "It has been suggested that the Postal workers died inside the ship in the early stages of sinking. In addition to little evidence to support this, the Postal workers also have a high recovery rate. If they had been trapped below in the bow, which did not break open during the sinking, I do not see how their bodies could have been recovered at all." Since Jessop specifically refers to one postal worker, if "several" (as in more than one) than other people must have seen them two, which corroborates Jessop's claim.
  • Of the five mail clerks who died in the sinking, two of their bodies were recovered. It seems clear to me that if their bodies were recovered after the sinking, they weren't on D deck.

I therefore conclude that the source for the statement you removed is wrong, as it is contrary to the actual evidence. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but that perhaps strays into WP:OR territory. If one credible source says they were trapped, and another disagrees, then that should probably be noted that there is uncertainty over what happened, but I'm not sure removing the sentence was the right thing to do. G-13114 (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey G-13114; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]

Peacedove.svg

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Merseyrail, Tyne and Wear Metro".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RDTs[edit]

I think your problem with RDTs is a lack of confidence, not skill. You did great work on the Snow Hill Lines template. You can always create a sandbox and build up a RDT there. WP:RDT/C has all the icons you need. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It's putting the things together that I struggle with, lots of trial, and mostly error. it's like learning a foreign language! G-13114 (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, G-13114. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starr Gate tram stop (Blackpool Tram).
Message added 17:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Green Party of England and Wales membership figures[edit]

Hi, G-13114. There are few times that Twitter can be considered a reliable source. However, this instance is one of them. May I suggest that you read WP:SELFSOURCE. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tamworth rail crash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Points (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Midland Metro stops[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Midland Metro stops has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Bromsgrove Station[edit]

I don't quite understand why you chose to remove the picture of the tombstones of the two dead railwaymen with the comment "random picture with no context. Wikipedia not a place for random pictures". If you actually look at the image, you will see that the inscription on the left tombstone actually mentions Bromsgrove station by name. PicturePrince (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Please see County of the City of Coventry talk. SovalValtos (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

West Coast Main Line service map[edit]

Hi G-13114, do you know the WCML service pattern diagram route map I'm trying to update it to the current service pattern but I'm not sure how to change the service pattern via the map, would you know how to do it by any chance please? Ron4563 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi this was discussed here. G-13114 (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete usage stats![edit]

Don't delete usage stats, just comment them out using <!--- Stuff --> -mattbuck (Talk) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but they're all still in the revision archive if anyone wants to retrieve them. G-13114 (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Please note that comment markers <!--...--> must have exactly two hyphens, not three. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Altrincham Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Single track (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ashton-under-Lyne may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Line]] between Manchester ([[Manchester Victoria station|Victoria]]) and [[Huddersfield]])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit Summaries[edit]

Please please please use edit summaries, the rest of us have no idea of the logic behind what you do without them. Jeni (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Try setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Bazj (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

South Manchester Line[edit]

Just patrolled your new article. Nice job! Bazj (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. G-13114 (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oldham and Rochdale Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middleton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Your reverts[edit]

Please see WP:NAMB "it is preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous". Neither British Rail Class 41 (HST) nor British Rail Class 41 (Warship Class) are ambiguous, since both have a parenthetical disambiguator, and neither of them is redirected to by British Rail Class 41. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but it says that it's preferable, not essential. I would think the fact that there are two different British Rail classes 41, is something potentially of interest to readers? G-13114 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
That is why we have the disambiguation page British Rail Class 41. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Now commons[edit]

Hi, please don't do this. Instead, paste the {{now commons}} template at the top of the file description page, without a section heading, and removing the {{move to commons}} if there is one. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birmingham Snow Hill station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snow Hill tunnel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Curzon Street Station[edit]

Suggest it be made clearer in the article that there were two separate buildings - was the GJR building demolished; is there a period illustration? The caption on the pic states 'Railway Terminus'. Could that be applied to both railways? Many thanks80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the only image I could find of the GJR station. http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrcs2103.htm Apparently it was demolished in the 1960s or 70s I remember reading. I'll try and find where I read it. G-13114 (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Eccles via MediaCityUK[edit]

Hi G-13114. During offpeak times, Eccles to Ashton trams do not call at MediaCityUK. The map is misleading/incorrect.

  • "Hi. Sorry - they don't stop at MediaCity, so you'll need to go to one of the nearby stations." [1]
  • "The Eccles trams no longer stop at MediaCity, as there is a dedicated service from Piccadilly." - [2]
  • "Hi. Sorry - they don't call into MediaCity during peak hours when we have a direct service from Piccadilly." - [3]
  • "Morning, sorry for the confusion. The Eccles to Ashton does not call at MediaCityUK between peak times (7:15 and 20:00)." - [4]

These are directly tweeted from the Metrolink control room. Delsion23 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Their own timetable directly contradicts that. It says Ashton to Eccles via MediaCity runs all day. So one must be wrong. G-13114 (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm afraid their own timetable is misleading. It should have a note saying the trams don't stop at MediaCityUK during peak hours. This is one of the reasons why their Twitter feed is apologising to people (as seen above). I think it would be best to use WP:Common Sense here, the route E trams are not going via MediaCity while route D is running. Cheers, Delsion23 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WCML[edit]

Please explain why many routes of Virgin trains are shown on the WCML RDT and not the actual route of the line? The branches to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh etc are not part of the line and are other lines (Crewe to Liverpool Line, Chester to Manchester Line, Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line, Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line are branches off of the line), so why include them on the diagram? They are not part of the line and are services. Nathan A RF (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That is one rather limited definition of the WCML. It has been discussed a number of times in the past at Talk:West Coast Main Line what the definition of the WCML is. And the consensus seems to be that the branches to Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh etc, are part of the definition. If you want to argue about whether that definition is correct or not, than I suggest you raise it there. The current diagram only shows a basic overview of the route, showing only the major stations, whereas the more detailed articles on the branches show all the minor/historic stations and details, so I think there is room for both, I don't see it as an either/or. G-13114 (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, G-13114. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

This edit summary was out of line. I have never vandalised Wikipedia ever and would never do so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you can seriously believe that the BR era ended in 1982. So you must be being deliberately disruptive. Hence the edit summary. If you continue with you disruptive editing I will have no choice but to take action. G-13114 (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I am in the middle of rearranging prose, and the section, which predates the one marked "1983", is obviously going to end in 1982 - it does not mean it is for the entire BR era; indeed, the fate of the station towards the end of that era in the early 1990s was wildly different and would warrant another section. Fundamentally though, ask yourself which is more important - adding factual information that is not readily available online from a book source, or fiddling around with section headings. If you really want to complain about admin abuse, you are free to file a report on WP:ANI and see where it leads you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The 1983 bit is in a subheading. G-13114 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Shudehill Interchange, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what I wrote before you reverted it. Please stop wasting my time with completely baseless reversions and accusations! G-13114 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added citation needed tags to this article, there is a lot of information which is unsourced. I will remove it if you cannot find a reliable source for it. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016[edit]

Hi G-13114, you said at Urban rail in the United Kingdom that plans are now being pursued again for the Camp Hill line. Would you mind adding a source for that? In the meantime, I have added a citation needed tag. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already cited. G-13114 (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Image galleries[edit]

Please do not move all the images into a gallery, as you are doing at Manchester Metrolink articles; this goes against WP:IG. If there are too many images for the amount of text, just remove some of them. If all the images are categorised appropriately at Commons, then the {{commonscat}} suffices to provide access to those that are not displayed directly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't putting them into a gallery, I was using the gallery format as a way to display the images, which isn't quite the same thing, it's quite a handy way to display images on short articles. I seem to remember that a similar issue was discussed some time ago at Talk:Buxton railway station. Also the policy you quote seems to be ambiguous, it appears to be against using galleries for indiscriminately for lots of random images, which is fair enough, but it does say "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." So it seems, from my reading of that as long as the images are relevant and appropriate and not excessive or random, that a gallery can be appropriate. G-13114 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we move on?[edit]

G, I see you've been getting more familiar, gradually, with WP naming and style conventions, policies, guidelines, etc. I think you can see that a number of other editors in the UK trains project have come around to accepting that moving toward compliance with WP:NCCAPS is the way to resolve things there. Will you be continuing to be the one making it hard, or can you be part of the solution? Dicklyon (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)