Talk:British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company
 | British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 11, 2019. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph Company appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 February 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Woodhouse edit
The redlinked William Henry Woodhouse mentioned in this article may be notable enough for his own article. See Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, p. 18, 1865. SpinningSpark 22:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Cattle ship edit
@Davidships: I've restored the claim that Britannia was a cattle ship. This does not just come from Haigh, it is also in the Willoughby Smith source. Smith worked for the Gutta Percha Company and was actively involved in this project so I would consider him reliable on this. Also, it may be coincidence, but Smith comes from Great Yarmouth, which conceivably has something to do with the confusion in Haigh. SpinningSpark 09:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's good, re cattle ship (as I said in the earlier discussion, it seems credible, but I did not find any new sources to support it). Davidships (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No batteries edit
An IP tagged the claim that the system works electromagnetically without batteries with {{how?}} on 27 Feb. In outline, it's pretty plain how this is done – permanent magnet, coils, and armature moved by the operator. There is a description in this Nature article. I'm not sure I fully understand all the details so can't write a better description. Happy if someone else wants to have a go based on the Nature description. SpinningSpark 13:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Another description in Shaffner, which is TLDR. SpinningSpark 15:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Bibliography section edit
I would like to use the {{cite book}} template (and similar ones if needed) throughout this section, as the style currently used is not consistent enough for GA. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:19, 08 September 2019 (UTC)
- The cite templates are the worst thing ever conceived on Wikipedia. What exactly is supposed not to be consistent? And where exactly does it say in the GA criteria that the bibliography needs to be consistent? I don't dispute that consistency is a good idea, but you cannot justify a change to your preferred style by invoking GA requirements. SpinningSpark 16:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK looking at WP:CITECONSENSUS, you are clearly quite right, and I'm looking at it merely from a reviewer's angle. Happy not to add the templates! However, I will need the section to be copy-edited where needed, and I can help improve the section by adding information if I find it (e.g. links to authors), providing urls and access templates. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:06, 08 September 2019 (UTC)
"Sand battery" listed at Redirects for discussion edit
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Sand battery and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 5#Sand battery until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)