User talk:Lamberhurst

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

Spencer Road[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Lamberhurst. You have new messages at RHaworth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Waverley Line - substantial edit - seeking advice[edit]

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial [1] edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Borders Railway[edit]

You are an author on User:KlausFoehl/Borders Railway. When do you think would be a good time to move it from user into main name space? If your answer were 'earlier than September', then of course one would have to use future tense, not a big problem.--KlausFoehl (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Klaus, let's wait a bit longer. I have quite a lot of material to add. I have been going through my magazine articles and found some useful stuff. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Nor do I want to rush it. Good to hear you have paper sources. Following the link on ( Waverley Line > Page information > Page view statistics ) there are about 100 page views per day. Short peaks filtered, the visit level is reasonably constant during the last three months. If it started to rise, we should think to move soon. In the meantime we can also wait for announcements from Abellio, fresh photos, and more.--KlausFoehl (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Lamberhurst, you really have been productive on the Borders Railway article, quite substantial by now. So 19 weeks to go, hence another seven weeks until driver training is scheduled to start, advance tickets can be booked, and hence I presume ticket prices will be known. One could certainly wait until photos with a nice class 158 on the line emerge. But I am leaning towards moving the article into main space soon. How do you feel about that? Thoughts, considerations, comments?--KlausFoehl (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I've added nearly everything which I have; there is more pre-2011 but I can add it later. Apart from some copyediting, I'm finished and would have no objection to moving it to main space. My only remark would be with regard to tactics. Presuming there will be a request to merge Borders Railway into Waverley Line, is there anything else that should be done to ensure that the merger does not take place? My idea was to try and improve the Waverley Line article by adding references and reinstating the deleted text. However, this would take time (at least until after May) and I'm waiting for the new edition of David Spaven's book to be published. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This one vocal demand for one and only one and not more than one article, talk about throwing rattles out of the pram. Now in earnest. The Borders Railway article is already quite long, longer than most other railway line I was reading up. Waverley Line or Waverley Route currently has the problem of missing sections, I see some risk of a merge suggestion of that torso into Borders Railway. I personally see a good case for two separate but complimentary articles, and there are several precedents of similar articles pairs.
Let's not forget other aspects. Waverley Line is getting ~100 daily visits, Waverley Route and Borders Railway 5-10 each. On an uncontroversial existing line one has ~30 daily readers for the modern line, and ~15 for the historic line. Now Waverley Line is what is linked, but I read from these numbers that readers are not looking for steam engine on Shankend Viaduct. I think quite a few are actually looking for the new railway line, and I think these should be able to find something on wikipedia.
And since that massive deletion end of March things have gone very quiet on Waverley Line. Page watchers count 35. If there were to be a "merge" request, then I would like like to have this debate not immediately before the opening of the line.--KlausFoehl (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I have asked for some external advise. In the case of two articles one has the issue of doubling i.e. station descriptions. The main issue is thought to be the rather short(ened) Waverley Line article, in that state easily to be absorbed into Borders Railway. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
P.P.S. May I suggest to move circa 6/6? Later than 28/5 but earlier than 6/9 minus 12 weeks... -- KlausFoehl (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
OK for me. I will see what I can do to improve the Waverley article. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Your work on rebuilding the Waverley Line article with reliable sources has been excellent. Keep it up, and know that your editing is appreciated. RGloucester 17:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Lamberhurst (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Borders Railway about to go live[edit]

Hi Lamberhurst, just to let you know that the page move into main name space is imminent. I've asked for the redirect to be deleted ahead of the move, and I presume that an administrator will do that quite soon. Now regarding the sister Waverley Route article, it does still have some gaps, but they are identified and the roadmap is established and pretty clear. And it already looks reasonably healthy as it stands. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note: here I write about "non electrified", and here (which google found 33 minutes ago) "Written by Keith Barrow" one finds "non-electrified". Coincidence? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
These lazy journalists profiting from our hard work! Lamberhurst (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
But the photo would nicely fit our wikipedia article. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
We'll have to see what comes up on Geograph or if any editors in the area upload images. I'm a lousy photographer and won't unfortunately be able to get there for the opening. Lamberhurst (talk) 10:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Borders Railway Logo.svg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Borders Railway Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just looked at that image... it's just a blank rectangle. The image source is
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 20010904//EN"
<svg version="1.0" xmlns=""
 width="512.000000pt" height="470.000000pt" viewBox="0 0 512.000000 470.000000"
 preserveAspectRatio="xMidYMid meet">
Created by potrace 1.12, written by Peter Selinger 2001-2015
<g transform="translate(0.000000,470.000000) scale(0.100000,-0.100000)"
fill="#000000" stroke="none">
I know quite a bit about SVG, and the first thing I notice is that there are no elements that actually draw something. There are in fact just three elements here - the <svg>...</svg> element is an enclosure for the whole drawing, and also defines its dimensions and coordinate system; the <metadata>...</metadata> element is an enclosure for some non-displaying documentation; and the <g>...</g> element is an enclosure which does nothing alone, but sets certain characteristics for the graphics elements which it encloses - except that there's nothing inside it.
I think that this image meets WP:CSD#G2. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I'm trying to convert a JPG file to SVG format and used one of those online conversion tools but it's failed miserably. I'm having a go at doing it in CorelDraw and hopefully will succeed in uploading a new version before this file gets deleted. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't attempt to convert JPG to SVG - the principles are so vastly different. Quite apart from the fact that JPEG is raster graphics and SVG is vector, JPEG is also lossy, so the result of converting all the JPEG artefacts into separate dots using some automated tool makes the result look an utter mess. Personally I would redraw it from scratch: if you use a tool like Inkscape, you can use the JPEG as a background, and draw the SVG over it - rather like a tracing. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've just had time to have a look at your third version - there's an <image /> element in there, containing a huge amount of binary data - this single element is 96% of the 571 KB file. There are some <polygon /> and <path /> elements later on, but I'm not sure whether these represent the whole drawing or not. This suggests that the tool that you used - apparently CorelDRAW X5 - hasn't fully converted to vector graphics, but has embedded a raster version of the JPEG, which is a bad idea (see c:Help:SVG#Bitmaps). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to have a fourth attempt without the JPG embedded. I'm afraid that redrawing it manually is going to be too time-consuming. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If we'd wanted to get an SVG-Version of the logo, I'd turn the raster image into black-and-white and have that one traced by the routine inside Inkscape. Use these paths then to cut out the visible parts from an underlying colour gradient. Monochrome parts can be coloured directly.--KlausFoehl (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Borders Railway has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Borders Railway Logo.svg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Borders Railway Logo.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RGloucester 19:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

please check[edit]

Someone made the A701 cross the Borders Railway. I corrected that to A720. Could you please check my edit against Spaven-223 given as reference. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It says in Spaven "the A701 Edinburgh City Bypass". However, this could be an error on Spaven's part. Btw, it also talks about it being "longer" not "wider". Lamberhurst (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, A701 and new Borders Railway have a few miles at least in between them. The only dual carriageway crossing the line is the A720 aka Edinburgh City Bypass. I wonder whether "longer" refers to the rail underpass length. Aerial photos i.e. show that a few more road lanes can indeed be accomodated on either side. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Borders Railway[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Borders Railway at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Lamberhurst, if this 6 weeks rule is genuine (section above Yoninah) then it is placed obscurely enough that I did not come across it yet. Hence I am tempted to ignore it tacitly. If that does not work, then I'd state that obscurity point explicitely. Do you have an opinion? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think this 6 week rule is genuine. In any event, there are now 5 weeks and 5 days until the opening. I will fix the issue raised by Yoninah concerning the hook. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Please see new note on DYK nomination template.
BTW articles can stay on the nominations page for weeks/months before they are reviewed, and even more time as issues are resolved. Once we resolve this nomination's issues, I'll be happy to move it to the Special Occasions holding area for September 6. Yoninah (talk) 11:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)