User talk:Simply south/November 2006 to February 2007 archive

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Simply south. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is the archive of all my messages from the end of November 2006 to mid-February 2007. Please do not change any messages. If you want to reopen a case, please feel free to copy and paste the discussion to my main talk page.

Reply

I'd just leave it as "Talk page". If people want to give it for user talk pages, let them, but the focus (IMO) should be on the article talk pages. Jeffpw 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Proposal

I am mainly interested in the history of rail transport in Scotland - mainly the Central Belt (as I live near Glasgow, commuting into North Ayrshire - unfortunately by car!!) Stewart 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

New proposed project

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I can't help think that a simpler name might work better. Have you considered changing the name, possibly to Scottish Rapid Transit or something similar? I grant you that it might broaden the scope of the project a bit, but it would also be quite a bit less cumbersome. Badbilltucker 22:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea to get a shorter title. Stewart 06:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Had another look at the Temporary Project page. If we are looking at heavy rail that the GARL, Edinburgh Crossrail, etc would fit. Especially when you consider that Glasgow has one of the largest rail networks outside London. Possibly the suggestion for Scotland's Railways is the probably a solution. If you are considering light rail then it will cover Glasgow Subway and Edinburgh trams. Soory I have not given a straight answer to you question. Stewart 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Broadness of Transport Project

Have to say I'm in two minds about whether including all transport around Glasgow and Edinburgh is the way to go. Someone mentioned in the comments for your proposal that it could be included and just left to whoever wanted to do that particular area, which may be a good idea. Following commuter lines out of Glasgow to Ayrshire eventually leads to other forms of transport anyway, ie the harbours at Ardrossan, Troon etc. And then theres the future airport links and the existing one at Prestwick. I think I'm leaning towards the opinion of Canaen on the proposal page: make it a broad transport in Scotland project, but we can start in a relatively small area (i.e. the Central Belt and surrounding area) and expand from there. I'll be looking to see what the others think though. --Dreamer84 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Project Guide generally has better information regarding how to set up a new project than I myself will generally be able to supply. That is probably the best place to go for all matters relating to projects. Having said that, this is what I see from the Guide regarding the questions you asked. Gernally, I've heard about five members is the minimum necessary. One thing you might consider is whether there is already an existing project whose scope includes all the articles within your project, and see if they would be willing to take on your group a task force. If yes, most of your questions are answered, and that other project will be able to assist you in setup. If not, then you would have to go as an independent project. If this is the case, having looked at your project page, you would have to create a category whose name is more in line with existing categories, like for instance, Category:Transport in Glasgow and Edinburgh, to put your articles in, transfer the signatures from the proposed project page to your specific project page, create a banner and userbox, move the project page to regular wiki-space (Wikipedia:...), remove the project from the list of proposed projects and add it to the new projects section of the Wikipedia:Community Portal (not required but a good idea), inform all the individuals who expressed interest in the project that the project has now officially started, and then the project is ready to roll. I know that that sounds like a lot, but it actually isn't that much. Also, if you wished, you might wish to join the WikiProject Council, where there are a number of people with rather broader experience than I have in a number of fields who might be able to assist you in areas where I am less knowledgable. Like I said, it sounds like a lot, but isn't really that much (maybe 20 minutes work total). And remember you can always copy someone else's banner and userbox and just substitute in the picture and name for your own project, so that doesn't have to be very complicated. If you do have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Good luck with the new project!! Badbilltucker 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing the name of the project has no bearing on anything, except, maybe, pages that linked to the old page, which I don't think would be a problem in this instance. And, again, if you have reservations about setting up as an independent project, you might ask the Scotland project if they would want to take you on as a subproject. I know several of the broader projects, like Biography, are trying to create subprojects so that there can be greater focused attention paid to specific subjects. Scotland may like to do so as well. And becoming a part of an existing broader project eliminates the necessity of having to create a separate banner (and takes up less space on the talk page too) and other details. Even if they don't decide to take you on, they would probably be able to offer some support to a new related project. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know, and good luck. Badbilltucker 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the best way to ask the Scottish project would be to post a message on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland page saying that you have received sufficient interest in your project to create it, but that you personally think it might function better as a subproject of their existing project, and ask them whether they would be willing to formalize such an arrangement. I can't know what their response would be, but I think that it is more likely than not to be a yes. Anyway, once you receive their response, that would probably indicate which direction to follow. Badbilltucker 15:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I very much doubt your membership in the Scotland project would be an issue. Of course, it would probably be a good idea to join the project if your group does become an official subproject. Alternately, you could consider proposing the subproject arrangement to either Wikipedia:WikiProject Transportation or Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit, both of which would also seemingly qualify as parent organizations. And I doubt if existing membership there would be a factor, either. Badbilltucker 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I keep adding to the wrong heading, by the way. No, it really wouldn't matter if you just copied the names from the one list on to the other, as by adding their names to the list they indicated they would be members of the project. It might be a good idea to drop them a note that the project has been formally started now, though. Badbilltucker 17:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It takes a while to get any project off the ground. And seven members is still a good number to start out with. At this point, I would start adding the banner to the talk pages of all the articles involved, and work on developing the project page a little. The presence of all those stub markers could be a little off-putting. I can try to add a little myself, but I am much less sure of what the project intends to do, so please feel free to severaly edit and otherwise hack away at any mistakes I put on the page. Badbilltucker 17:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't saying it was. However, I got the impression that their manual of style is probably the most applicable of all the existing ones to this particular project. If someone wanted to, they could in effect copy it onto a subpage of the project and make any specific changes, if any, they saw fit. And, of course, it could always be removed later. And whoever adds the banners to the talk pages of the project's articles would probably be in the best position to note which are good or featured articles or candidates. Lastly, I'm not adding this to the new draft (which you are free to revise anyway) but you might consider the rather tedious task of creating a Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland/Articles page, listing all the articles within the scope of the project, which can then be used to help display recent changes in the articles which fall within the scope of the project. I don't have the exact code required to make that function happen in front of me now, but I know I could find it if you decided to implement it. And I just added rather a lot to the project page. I know some of it might be falt out wrong, so please feel free to make any changes you see fit. I also added a category at the bottom, Category:WikiProject Transport, which does not explicitly imply that your project is a sub-unit of their project, but is just more or less a category for projects dealing with transport. You probably should have some sort of WikiProject Category added to the page to make it easier for people to know how to reach it. Anyway, please feel free to correct any and all of my mistakes, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Good luck with the project. Badbilltucker 18:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They won't clash, because the typing has to be very specific and I have trouble seeing most people confusing an E and an I. However, if you wanted to change it to WPTiS (lower-case i) that would make it that much harder for people to mistakenly type the wrong banner's name in. Badbilltucker 18:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Elaborate

Regarding the message you placed on my talk page, please jog my poor memory and give me some extra context. I don't really remember what your comment relates to. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Major UK railway stations

{{Major UK railway stations}} Talk page

In a nutshell, the criteria for inclusion for non-London stations is either:

The station is the top 40 for passenger numbers (see here); or
A consensus is achieved on the talk page that a station is a major interchange (the passenger numbers indicate those starting/ending their journey at the station, so interchanges appear underused). Currently Crewe, Derby and Glasgow Queen Street have been included under this criteria.

Given Norwich doesn't fit under (1), please discuss it on the talk page. Tompw 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Major" as in it's also not just a transport hub, but an interchange betwene major routes, not between just between minor lines or commuter ruotes. Places like Norwich, Exeter, Hull, or Didcot don't cut it. The bar is set high, because the number of stations was getting too large to make the template useful.

I also note that you added Manchster Victoria, Hull and Doncaster without any discussion on the template's talk page.

Usage figures.... yes these aren't 100% accurate, and only show journeys starting/ending at the station, not chnages... and also issues when you get group tickets. This is precisely why option (2) exsists... please, if you want to add a station, propose it on the talk page. The we can (hopefully) achieve a Consensus. Tompw 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration

It was a nomination by mself to have The Tube Tv series as the collaboration but because it wasn't supported I scrapped it as it wasn't physically about the tube. You also cannot expand it as much as the new collaboration. The 1992 stock needs a lot more expanding. Unisouth 16:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

About those assessments I just did

I know some of them will be a bit off - I think I'll try to get them across the entire Tube station network over the weekend, depending on work. Thanks for those corrections, RHB 20:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Comment

Yes, I am very pleased to have admin abilities, and I wish to put them to good use, so if you ever need me, just let me know. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Proposals page

I was finalizing the Fauna Barnstar :P, I accidently added an improper heading which I corrected now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: tube stations

Agreed; I've found a few other instances today of inappropriate template parameters. I must've missed a couple while working through Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles (which still has over 5,000 articles that need an importance rating) today. Thanks for keeping up and catching them. Slambo (Speak) 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Function

Would this effect PockBot's function if i have just changed the name of one of the stations it is yet to classify? Simply south 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, go ahead - PocklingtonDan 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Barnstar

Funny you messaged me, since I was just thinking about it. Last time I checked, it was 6 supports to 1 oppose. If it's been more than two weeks, you can summarize the voting and move it to the Barnstar section if you want. If you're not comfortable with the idea of doing it, I can do it for you. That's assuming, of course, that there hasn't been a significant change since I last checked.Jeffpw 22:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good. That way, if there are any objections they can be discussed beforehand. This is the way it went when the LGBT Barnstar was nominated and moved. I'll give you support when you post. Jeffpw 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I just posted in support of your summary and moving the Barnstar. I think it's very conscientious of you to alert everyone who has voted. Jeffpw 22:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
perfect. Jeffpw 23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Proposal

We would definitely want to know the details of what you are talking about here. Which project are we talking about here? Badbilltucker 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The first award you did"?

I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to here. Badbilltucker 19:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's probably primarily in the hands of evrik and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards. Personally, I have no official standing with that group, so it might be seen as interference if I were to do something. You might want to leave a message on the project talk page to that effect, though. I get the feeling someone will respond, particularly if you mention evrik is away for awhile. Badbilltucker 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Mottos

Does it not matter if mottos are approved or not? Or do people bring in those ones from the discussion? Simply south 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean, 'Do mottos have to be marked as 'Approved' by an overseer before they are put on the Nominations page?'. If that's what you do mean, the answer is yes. I've been massively reorganizing the various WP:MOTTO pages, so if I've missed anything, please tell me. :) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 17:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

so then if i have been adding random nominations i have thought of as i was interpreting the instructions that way, that does not count anymore? Simply south 17:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the Approved page, Schedule page, or Nominations page? If you've been adding them to Approved or Scheduled yourself, you're not allowed to do that (only overseers are). If you were adding them to Nominations, that's what you're meant to do - go ahead. I've made the instructions a bit clearer now anyway. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

what will happen to the other nominations that were still in review? They have not been either approved or rejected. Simply south 18:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I approved or rejected them. ;) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 18:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So it seems that despite votes it is only the moderator which counts? I think that is slightly unfair. Simply south 13:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the moderators all have a veto if they think the motto is really inappropriate, but that's not normally the way we do things - because of the major reorganization I had to finish them off quickly, because with the page move style of archiving, I either had to archive everything or nothing, and I wasn't going to settle for nothing. The conversations were pretty dead anyway. If you want to, you can re-nominate a motto that you particularly like, no problem. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus highlighting again

Although to be expanded i went ahead and decided to highlight what i know to be limited services in the 600s in Papaya whip. If this is okay, maybe it should be applied to all limited bus services. Simply south 19:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. If you could make the colour on 24-hour routes, it would be great.--sonicKAI 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page talk edit

You have linked to the colours on the tecnical page, should I make a note on there about the same thing on the talk page?

Simply south 14:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, it is only an encyclopaedia.

Sure, Simply south, if you want. Calm down ? I'm indeed calm.... I'm just trying to "direct traffic" and point people to the page with the related information. Hope this helps. -- PFHLai 14:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, and May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg ^{(drop me a line)} 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

worley-d

Thanks for those spreadsheets - they're EXTREMELY helpful.

A very merry Christmas to you!

Incidentally... How do I join the project? Worley-d 00:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy new year to Simply south. --Homer slips. 04:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Glasgow Central Railway

Thanks for correcting my error - probably too much Christmas cheer :-) --Stewart 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bath

Yep, looks good to me. >Radiant< 13:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

An unnecessary redirect

I read your message, so I checked the page and found out it was already deleted and protected to prevent any more re-creations. So no worries. --Gh87 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: A few things

Simply south wrote:

Where did you get the stats from?

I compiled them a couple of months ago, using a sample of about 180,000 edits (so they should be reasonably accurate). See User:Gurch/Reports/Statistics – Gurch 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WA

Ill tone it down a bit. Ill admit to creating the 4 brancher, and a couple of other branches, but im only doing that once ever couple of days or so. Just trying to create a few extra options though. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bath RfC

Your recent comment at Talk:Bath, Somerset (unsigned by the way) seems like a non-sequitor. Are you calling for an RfC, asking if we should have one, or what? --Serge 01:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Jan 7

On which desk/desks is the problem? Mart inp23 13:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - I've sorted the date header on the computeing desk, and all the others are probably going to be OK-ish (though slightly off time). In future, the bot should add the date headers at midnight UTC automatically. Thanks, Mart inp23 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Main Page archiving

Simply south wrote: Anyway, do you think it was okay that i moved the WP:RM manually and also created archive 88? Did i do the right thing to get Werdnabot to go to the new archive, by changing the code?; Its wierd. Even though stats say that <1% are Admins, i still think half i know are admins.

Yes, that looks fine. 0.03% of registered accounts are administrators, however the number of registered accounts includes tens of thousands of indefinitely blocked users, many of which are sockpuppets or have inappropriate usernames, and hundreds of thousands of accounts that were registered, made a couple of edits (sometimes not even that) and then forgotten about. Also a handful of bots and things like that, but that's a relatively small number. Half the people you know are administrators because half the edits you see are made by administrators :) – Gurch 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:2007 rainbow.jpg

You should convert it to PNG format instead. JPEG makes the image look bad. --75.26.13.88 01:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re Motto

I'm not surprised you didn't find it. It had, actually, just been rejected when I discovered MOTD myself. At that time, the overseers sere pretty much the only ones who nominated mottos, so very few people voted. Now there's a better chance of it passing than before and I sure hope it does. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Council, etc.

One, you didn't specify what it was that you tried on the Scotland page, so I can't really answer that part without further information. Regarding joining the Council, there really isn't at this point anything specifically to do there, except maybe keep up with some of the new developments and maybe offer some input where appropriate. It's more intended as a kind of project manager/coordinator message board, although there are occasional times when it does involve itself a bit more directly. Badbilltucker 17:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the mistake there. Good luck with the break, by the way. The places I might consider indicating your project would be the Wikipedia:Community portal, Wikipedia:WikiProject Transportation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, as I think that they would be the most related in terms of scope. Beyond that, just tagging the articles is generally the best way to go. I did just add your project to the list of related projects on the Scotland Project, by the way. You could probably add it to the lists on the pages mentioned above, as well. I wish I could think of more right off, but I really can't right now. Badbilltucker 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on how you have the banner set up. Generally, I'd say categories and templates should count as "NA" pages. Lists probably should be counted as regular articles. Luckily, considering the comparatively small number of items you're likely to encounter in your lists (as opposed to, say, List of people from New York City, which is a nice idea that'll never be even close to complete) you should probably be able to more easily determine the comparative completeness of the list. Those would be my best guesses, anyway. And good luck with the exams! They're more important right now than this is. If you want any help in setting up the banner for assessments, by the way, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Badbilltucker 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

LU

Thanks, I hope so. A bit funny doing this from Canberra, but I know and love the system.Grahamec 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Haywire Bot

Lol, it was a copy and pasting error on my part. (Actually not a WP:BOT, just a sped-up manual WP:SBOTS). It's fixed now. Thanks, APR _t 01:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

infoboxes

The best way to create an infobox is to find an existing one that is similar to the one you want to make, copy the code for that and make the necessary alterations. See Help:Infobox and Help:Template. Do your testing in your userspace, you'll need one page with the code (you need to save after each change you want to test) and one or more to transclude it onto ({{user:Simply south/infobox|param1=red|param2=green}}). When you have it working, then move the page with the code into the template namespace (if you can't do this, put a request at WP:RM).

As for registering the box, see Wikipedia:List of infoboxes. Also you will want to let editors in the subject area concerned know about the box, e.g. on Wikiproject and/or portal talk pages. Thryduulf 21:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

ps. Don't forget to categorise your new infobox when you move it to the template namespace, but not before. Thryduulf 21:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as that is what the instructions say (I've not created a new box myself). It will allow those people interested to comment from the start, offer help, suggestions, advice, etc. Thryduulf 22:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: TWP archiving

The links seemed to point to the right place, I just moved a few more discussions that ended in December into it. There are editors who prefer top-posting, so sometimes a more current comment gets stuck in the middle of older discussion. Slambo (Speak) 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius deletion proposals

User:Ohconfucius has nominated a large number of Scottish Railway stations for deletion. Many of these are being developed as part of WP:TIS. I have removed the {{prod}}. However reading the user page he may contest this. Thoughts? I suggest replies are consolidated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Stewart 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Overlengthened test

I agree that it's too long, but I don't think it should be protected. Maybe questions should be removed instead? You're right, its going to take a few hours in the near future; then we might protect it, and have a "suggested questions" list. Just an idea, but I don't think it's needed now... | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Message on User Page

Easy answer to your question - I was not paying attention when I added the response to your comments. Sorry!! Stewart 17:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Original message: I have had a quick look at it. I would like to use the revised usage statistics that are now available on the main template. Thoughts?? Stewart 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SPT stations

Trialled in (in preview mode only) on Glasgow Central, Exhibition Centre, Motherwell and Partick station. There appears to be a problem with the Usage stats at Partick, the other three appear to work. Will have a look as the Partick code in comparison to the Template to see if I can identify the issue. Stewart 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I will carry out a review of the code in case there are any duplicate fields. If time allows, I will also expand the notes on the Talk page.

One thought about the subway stats. I would be inclined to revert the 05 suffix, to differentiate form the stats that may be available in future years. Thoughts? Stewart 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry did not get a chance to look at this today, may get a chance during the coming week. Stewart 22:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you try it out on three stations in the first instance, a Subway station (i.e. St Enoch); a mainline station (i.e. Langside); and the station which has both - Partick. Let me know when you have accomplished this, and I will then change several myself. If this is successful, then it should be all systems go. Two points however:-

How do we handle the closed Subway station (Merkland Street).

Then there is Kelvinbridge which has closed standard gauge platforms, and open subway platforms. If the Maryhill line had survived to the time of Subway refurbishment I guess it would have also become a combined station.

--Stewart 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Now try a station with the new style Annual Usage (i.e. Stobcross or Langside and Newlands. Stewart 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The syntax requires the first histry item to be by years and events. Stewart 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Partick Central

Partick Central buildings were demolished over the weekend. I had meant to get some pictures, to add to those already shown. --Stewart 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

del rev

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Assburger Syndrome. Since you originally nominated this article for deletion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Random8322007-01-25 17:10 UT C (01/25 12:10 EST)

I'd like to note that the pronunciation that this redirect is based on is how I, my parents, and my doctors have always pronounced it, and while obviously we know how to spell it, that doesn't apply to anyone who hears about it secondhand —Random8322007-01-25 17:27 UT C (01/25 12:27 EST)

Proposed v Awaiting Approval

I do apologise for leaving you hanging over this question. I understand that you may well have been on tenterhooks waiting for an answer :-P. The way I see it, WSMR is "awaiting approval" because it is all ready to start (with the possible exception of obtaining its rolling stock) and just needs regulatory approval, whereas Grand Union is a set of initial proposals that have been put forward for consultation. Does that answer it sufficently? Hammersfan, 28/01/07, 02.00 GMT

Sheffield Midland station

Hi there, thanks for your comments with regards to my proposal that the article should be moved. Could you please explain why it is you decided to oppose the move? Thanks. Adambro 18:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tandridge

Well, on Tandridge click "move this page" and then move it to Tandridge (district), then create a Tandridge, Surrey article for the village, I guess. Then fix all the incoming links! Particularly the one at Template:SE England. Somehow missed that one back when we did the splits. Morwen - Talk 21:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:!

I never got fooled since I had the joke. Kamope · talk · contributions 13:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Island Line

A question, that I thought I'd put to a few people who have taken an interest in the {{British TOCs}} template in the past, regarding the status of Island Line. We all know that it was amalgamated with South West Trains as the new South Western franchise, but has it actually stopped running? To the best of my knowledge, the service on the Isle of Wight is still operated as Island Line, and has not and will not (in the foreseeable future anyway) be rebranded as South Western Trains. Not to mention that there has been no alteration to the existing SWT article to include Island Line. The question is therefore, given that other "services" are included as train operators on the template (yes, at my insistence I'll admit), shouldn't Island Line be put back? Hammersfan, 07/02/07, 18.20 GMT.

In which case, do you reckon it would be valid to put Island Line back on the template, with a similar note to Stansted Express, Caledonian Sleeper etc? Hammersfan, 08/02/07, 12.30 GMT.

I think though that where it says the South Western Trains franchise', it simply means the amalgamated SWT/Island Line franchise that started on 4th Feb - rather than bringing the lot under one name, like FGW or 'one' did, it looks like the two seperate parts will keep their old names; it's just they're both being run by a single organisation. Hammersfan 08/02/07, 15.35 GMT

I think it would be a good idea to get some other people involved as regards South Western - I suppose what we could do is create pages for the integrated franchises which link to the franchise holders. Then we could keep the South Western page as it is. Alternatively, we could simply incorporate the information into the SWT and Island Line articles and just dump the South Western page. Discussion needed I think. Hammersfan 08/02/07, 16.20 GMT

More on SPT Infobox

User:Doc glasgow has decided he does not like the info box on Rutherglen railway station. Not only has he removed the detail, but he has not delete the whole box. As I have changed it to the SPT version this evening, I am currently reluctant to re-instate it. ==Stewart 21:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My general feeling on this is that mainline stations should use the UK station infobox. Only stations such as London Underground or Glasgow Subway should have specialised boxes. This allows for a common standard to be maintained across railway station articles which makes it easier for both the reader and the editor. I would suggest that including the 1997 and 2004 dates about the operators are perhaps not appropriate for an article about an individual station. Regarding the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport info which is the main difference between the SPT infobox and the standard UK station infobox, I think this would be better as a template at the bottom of the page like template, West Yorkshire railway stations. Whilst believing that User:Doc glasgow shouldn't have made such a drastic change; from an SPT infobox, to the UK station infobox, to no infobox. I do think that Stewart is wise to discuss this before reinstating anything. Maybe this discussion would be better continued out on the page, Template talk:Infobox SPT station Adambro 21:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport in Scotland#Use of infoboxes and will copy to above text there. ==Stewart 21:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: WA

I'm sorry, but I don't remember taking out any links. I'm not saying that you're lying, but some evidence would be really nice, and if it turns out I did, then I'm sorry. Blueflashlight07 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank You,
Simply south/November 2006 to February 2007 archive for your Support! Thank you for your support in my RfA, which closed at 111 / 1 / 2. I am humbled and rather shocked to see such kind comments and for it to reach WP:100. Please feel free to leave a note if I have made a mistake or if you need anything, I will start out slow and tackle the harder work once I get accustomed to the tools. Thank you once more, I simply cannot express in words my gratitude.

...fly on littlewing. ~ Arjun 19:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mottos

They were just examples. If you really like them you can leave them there, although I don't feel they have much of a chance. --Tewy 20:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Do what you will, but again, I don't think they'll pass. Feel free the change the example links in an edit. --Tewy 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Met studio

Why did you create an article with the sole content of {{db-copyvio}}? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that was the talk page, sorry. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tom Brown's Schooldays

I have no doubt of it. Dismas|^(talk) 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your Help Desk request on sockpuppets

Hello, Simply south.

I've just replied to your request on the help desk about the sockpuppets. It looks like an admin has already indefinitely blocked all three of those accounts. In the future, though, this page has instructions on how to correctly report sock puppet accounts.

If you have any more questions, please feel free to let me know! Hersfold ^(talk|work) 01:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)