User talk:Bahnfrend/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bahnfrend! I am Airplaneman and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Airplaneman ^talk 17:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

German railway articles

Hi Bahnfrend, a warm welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your help in tidying up German railway articles. You may wish to join our Rail transport in Germany task force as you are already a contributor. Please feel free to add your name to the list of contributors and any new articles you create to the "What's new?" section. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

German station templates

Hi. I created Template:Infobox Bahnhof mainly to aid translation. I also happen to like its appearance better than Template:Infobox DB station, but that is pretty subjective. I agree we need to bring the two together, combining the best attributes of both. I've been on hols, so haven't had a chance to look at how Template:Infobox Bundesstraße works now, but it seemed like a good compromise. To be honest, as a translator I have 2 requirements: first, I need a template that avoids repetitive translation of the same stuff every time we do an article and, second, I want the template to retain all the information from German Wikipedia. One of the neat things about Template:Infobox Bahnhof is that it not only translates the field names but, in some cases, also the data where possible. Let's not lose all that. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about tunnels and trains

I found List of tunnels in the Netherlands at random, and was looking to improve it. you created List of railway lines in the Netherlands, which appears to be a placeholder for a future article. I think your article should be rewritten to stand as it is now, and not just direct people to other locations. we normally dont link to other wikipedias within an article. however, that being said, im having trouble finding sources for the article i mentioned first. Is there any govt website that lists tunnels?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work on the new article. too bad about the tunnels. I think it would be a good resource. I wonder if governments read WP for ideas on what information to provide on their websites?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Biella San Paolo railway station

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Biella San Paolo railway station, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.frammenti.it/seminario_qualefuturo/english/How_togetBiella.asp.

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) 14:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Coren search bot tag added in error, and therefore deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

German railways

I see your point and I have made adjustments, but I must say Moselle route for de:Moselstrecke is not a normal way of naming railways in English.--Grahame (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Moselle railway line (since Moselle line seems to relate to a military installation) might be better than Moselle route, although it is not very different from Moselle Railway (and there must also be confusion in German between de:Moselstrecke and de:Moselbahn).--Grahame (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Koblenz–Trier railway is probably best.--Grahame (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, going with Koblenz–Trier railway, Saarbrücken–Trier railway, Eifel Railway and Thionville–Trier railway.--Grahame (talk) 13:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiumicino Aeroporto railway station

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fiumicino Aeroporto railway station, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.torreclementina.it/contact.html.

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) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Coren search bot tag added in error, and therefore deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Mantova railway station

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mantova railway station, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ai-jane.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=182861.

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) 05:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Coren search bot tag added in error, and therefore deleted. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Station building article

Hi, just to let you know, I boldly redirected the station building article to the main train station article. There's really no need for a separate article. I say this for three reasons.
Any material on the architecture in the station building article would have to be too brief and general to really stand on it's own, as listing numerous specific examples makes for a poor article. It would be better included at the main article, which isn't so long to need sub articles at this time.
Also, the distinction between the station as a whole and the station building isn't strong enough in English to require a separate article, so the existence of separate articles on other language Wikipedias isn't defining on the English one.
Lastly, I believe it also has the potential to cause confusion as to which is an appropriate link. I think of Grand Central Terminal, where there's no meaningful distinction between the building and the station as whole, as the tracks are inside the building. Linking to a station building article separate from the main train station article creates a false dichotomy, and an inaccurate description. Having a single, encompassing article to link to served the reader and editor better. In short, an expansion of train station is a better course of action than a separate article. I appreciate your efforts, but they would be better served improving the existing article than creating a new one. oknazevad (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trams in Perth, Western Australia and Trams in Fremantle, Western Australia

These slipped in under my radar. Nice work! –ǝuʎpuooW 01:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ascoli Piceno railway station

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Trythisonyourpiano (talk) 06:17, 23 January 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 18:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rail transport barnstar

		The Rail Star
		For your excellent work and constance in creating and translating hundreds of articles about train stations and related lists, categories, templates & co, I award you the Rail transport barnstar. Now, you are "singin' in the rail".

Well done :-) --Dэя-Бøяg 22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome :) . Reguarding Torino Porta Susa (old and new) my doubts were about that it, on it.wiki, it could be a "split" from the original article, also due to the fact that over there Torino P.S. is an Italy-related article. Sometimes, here, when a station changes position due to an upgrade or else, it is included in a single article. But, as I wrote, it happens sometimes. You're a good translator and creator of articles, feel free to create a second page, of course :) , it will be (i've no doubt) a good work. Also the titles you proposed seems to be the better choice (more standardized for en.wp... maybe it.wp has other standards). I'll help to improve if/when necessary... My ancestry is partly Italian and in my trips over there i've studied the argument, also with a collecition of timetables. Regards and good work. --Dэя-Бøяg 01:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Italy tram and trolleybus articles

Just a quick note to compliment you on the fine work you've been doing, in recent days, creating new articles on tram and trolleybus systems in Italy (as well as a new navbox), based on translations from the Italian Wikipedia. Eventually, the articles would benefit from receiving more inline citations, and citations from English-language publications — and that is something I'll be able to help with when I can find the time (it may be a few months!) — but for now they look very good already, for new articles. Your work has been to an impressively high standard, with regard to translation, formatting, infoboxes, navboxes, layout, categorization (or categorisation), MOS points (including article naming), etc. — all being done well. Please keep it up! SJ Morg (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Naming articles about classes of trams

In response to your question about naming of en.wiki articles about particular types of trams or trolleybuses in a given city: This is not something I've thought about until now, and I don't have any strong views either way, but for what it's worth: I agree that it's better to put the city first, but in the case of Melbourne there are so many articles about different classes of trams that I assume whoever wrote/organized them felt it would be preferable to have the class letter first, rather than have 10 different articles on closely related subjects all starting with "Melbourne". However, I would imagine that there are not going to be very many cities for which en.wiki would have separate articles on several different classes of trams. And, if many such cases already exist in de.wiki (I've not checked), I'm not sure I would even support translating them all into English as new articles on en.wiki – seems a little unencyclopedic to me. I'm a big fan of trams and trolleybuses, but that does not mean I believe any and all content related to them is worthy of inclusion (even if citations from reliable sources are included, and they seldom are, in articles by transit fans). That said, I wouldn't propose such articles for deletion if created. And, a few examples are very notable and well worthy of inclusion in en.wiki, such as Milan's Peter Witts (see further comment on this below!).

Returning to the question of article name format, I have to add that, in my experience, it is much more common to place the word "series" or "class" after the related letter or number (and, a hyphen is also called for, as this is a compound adjective): e.g. "1500-series tram", rather than "series 1500 tram". Referring to the example you used, I don't know whether common practice is different in Britain (I am American) or whether it was just the preference of the editor who created the first few articles about British locomotives and other editors then (appropriately) used the same word order for consistency within that subject area. The particular letter or number involves also seems to have some bearing. "Class 47 locomotive" seems better than "47-class locomotive", but if the number were multi-digit, or if the designation used a letter (such as W-class), I'd have a different view: "4700-series locomotive" looks much better to me than "series 4700 locomotive". But, as I said, it's not something I've thought much about until now.

As to the specific example you used, "Milan series 1500 tram": Is not the 1500 series (the literal range of numbers, not the series of trams using that range of nos.) just a small part of the Peter Witt number range? (I think many readers would interpret "1500 series" to mean within the range 1500-1599 only.) If you were thinking of creating an en.wiki article about Milan's famous Peter Witts, it seems to me that it might be better named as "Milan Peter Witt trams" or "Milan Peter Witt-type trams" (in the this instance, "type" is more appropriate than "class"), or similar, as that designation – rather than any numbered one – is by far the most common name by which English publications refer to that (very large) class of Milan trams. I see that even in Italian Wikipedia, the name of that article is Vettura a carrelli tipo 1928, not mentioning any series number. Cheers, SJ Morg (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Leeds Trolleybus appears to be solely about the proposed system of that name, rather than being a generic history of such systems in the city. Your move to Trolleybuses in Leeds, therefore, does not appear appropriate. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

At first, the same thought occurred to me, but I knew that this "problem" could very easily (and more appropriately) be fixed by simply adding some text on the former systems, and I see that Bahnfrend has now done that. So, this is no longer an issue. SJ Morg (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New trolleybus category

Before you add this new category to other articles, I recommend you consider using “Closed” instead of Defunct, as it is by far the most common term used in reference to former/abandoned tram and trolleybus systems in my experience (well, "abandoned" might be a bit more common in American English, but "closed" is also common in Am. Engl., and is certainly much more widely used in other varieties of English). It seems to me that "defunct" is more for manufacturers and other entities (and also companies that operated trolleybus systems, but the Wikipedia articles relevant to this cat are not named after the operators). What do you think? If you agree but don't know to how to redirect your original cat name to the new one, just follow this recent example by me. SJ Morg (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation left on my talk page. I don't have any strong opinion one way or the other, but I'm not sure I've ever heard the word "defunct" applied to this subject, former trolleybus systems, and I just Googled "defunct trolleybus system" and received zero hits. However, I then Googled "closed trolleybus system" and got only 53 hits, so that's not really conclusive. (The results were slightly different for the plural versions, but not much.) And your point about the meaning of "closed" is a good one. Some people use it in reference to temporary closures, which I dislike because of its ambiguity, preferring "suspended" or something else. Anyway, while I'm not convinced that 'because Wikipedia does it that way for other subjects' is a strong enough reason to do something (a lot of editors just copy what others have done, but that's not always the best practice) – and I realize you were not suggesting that that is always the case – I don't care much one way or the other, as I said. So, you'll get no more argument from me on this one. SJ Morg (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice Trolleybus article

Nice Trolleybus article, I'll see if it can go to the main page. Derby Museum have 100,000 items in their stores including trolleybus stuff (Ive seen it!) Have you seen this? ? The article is now up for Did You Know. Pity you are so far away.... I'm guessingh your interest is in Trolley Buses and not Derby. Victuallers (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC) You could try photo requests here - I'm fairly sure they have some maps and other stuff. To get to DYK you need 1500 characters of referenced text. There are other rules but that basically the one that stops people. I have looked at Flickr to see if I can find any Notts and Derby pix but none so far. cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

St Helens Trolleybus

Thanks for creating the new article. I thought you might like to know about this image that I have uploaded for use in the main St Helens article.

DYK for Trolleybuses in Derby

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

your message

hello there,

thank you for your message. I am not sure where your convention for naming railway stations is coming from, since you call it inofficial. What I can offer you is to move the name to "Brenner/Brennero railway station" if that is agreeable to you. sincerely Gryffindor (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Italian gauge

Hi Bahnfrend, I'm not sure if you noticed, but a certain banned user created a stubby Italian gauge article, noting 1445, 950 and 700, presumably from the Railroad Gauge Width reference.

• Someone has queried the 1,445 mm gauge on the talk page, and I notice that the Trams in Milan does give the gauge, but uncited.
• There also appears to be a 850 mm (2 ft 9.5 in) gauge used in Italy, as recently added to List of track gauges by size, and also mentioned in the external link (but not yet to {{RailGauge}}).

Can you help with more information (and preferably sources) for these, please? (I'll watch here, as well as the above mentioned articles). Tim PF (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim, the source for Trams in Milan is the Brignole/Schwandl book, and, in particular, page 48. There may well also be an article on it.wiki about Italian gauge. I will have a look over the next few days, and will also make some minor amendments to both the stubby article and the Trams in Milan article. Regards, Bahnfrend (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tim PF (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch Trolley Bus turntable

Thanks for the article. I remember the turntable well and how as a small boy I would often help the drivers turn their vehicles around. Not something that would be allowed in this day and age of course!--Ykraps (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Trams in wa

Please contact offline if you want an explanation - otherwise no further comment re the issues SatuSuro 11:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

bugger the football - there more holes in wp than there are atoms in a pinhead - I'll explain that at a meetup perhaps SatuSuro 11:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Switzerland station

Hi. Why does {{Infobox Switzerland station}} include this

[Name of station]
...
WikiProject Trains  {{Infobox Switzerland station}}

! colspan="2" bgcolor="#efefef" |[[File:Three rail tracks 350.jpg|20px]] [[WP:TWP|WikiProject Trains]]<br>{{flagicon|Switzerland}} {{tl|Infobox Switzerland station}}

, which displays as this →

It doesn't seem to me that either of those links should appear in an article.

—WWoods (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar

Just so you know, I and others are extremely appreciative of your translation of articles from German wikipedia. Possibly one of the most important things we can do to improve en wikipedia is to translate articles from the major wikipedias and break the Anglo-centric problem. We need several thousand Bahnfrends if this project is ever going to really improve. I look forward to seeing many more articles translated from de wiki from you as they are invaluable. Thankyou! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I just noticed your Bulgarian articles. Nice work. Yes I use google translate a lot myself, although I've found German translator is much worse than French/Spanish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi! Just a short message to let you know that I have changed an old image of mine for a newer one on the Station building article and converted the older wording 'Image' to the newer commons usage of 'File'. A commons link shows you have a copy of the article on your subpage 4, so I just thought I would let you know the article page had changed. :) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Trolleybuses in Dayton

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Double DYK possibility

Hi, Bahnfrend. Just after I (more or less) completed expanding the Trolleybuses in Philadelphia article, yesterday, it occurred to me that a double DYK would be possible with only a modest expansion of the new Trolleybuses in Shanghai article (and I imagine you may have had the same thought and were hoping I'd do it). So, I did that today, and both articles are now DYK-worthy. The editors who are regular contributors and reviewers at DYK like hooks that combine multiple new or 5x-expanded articles, and they definitely would prefer that these two articles be in a combined nomination, not two separate ones (particularly given how recently Trolleybuses in Dayton was featured at DYK). I'm hoping you are again planning to place the nomination yourself, as with Dayton. Assuming you agree about combining these into one nomination, there are several possible hook wordings, but in case it might be helpful to you, here's one I like that meets the requirements (it's 185 characters; max. is 200, but there's some flexibility in the case of double-new-article hooks):

• ... that of more than 300 trolleybus systems currently serving cities worldwide, the trolleybus systems in Shanghai, China, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are the oldest and second-oldest?
  

If this were a sentence within an article, I'd say that it needs to include "respectively" at the end, but I would argue (to any DYK reviewer who questioned it) that it's sufficiently implied here that Shanghai is the older of the two, and the individual articles also make it clear, and DYK hooks are supposed to be concise. I really like including the "more than 300" figure, as it helps to put the major distinction held by these two systems into perspective, especially for WP readers who live in countries with only a few (or no) trolleybus systems (such as mine and yours). The "serving cities" wording occurred to me after I noted a last-minute change one editor made to the Dayton hook just before it moved into the queue for the Main Page, and I suppose it is a bit better and maybe more clear to the layman. As I mentioned, I can think of several minor variations in the phrasing that would be OK, but I don't want to fill your talk page with all those, so am just giving you this one, to let you know what I was thinking. What do you think? (OK to post your reply here on your page.) SJ Morg (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone might argue that, if it's going to say "Shanghai, China", then it ought to say "Philadelphia, United States", or "Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S." I would not object to that. SJ Morg (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I would probably leave out both "China" and "Pennsylvania" as superfluous (both cities are much better known than Dayton), but otherwise I agree. I'm told that the editors also like articles about non Anglophone country topics. I will nominate both articles shortly. I believe another double DYK possibility is articles about the systems in Moscow (biggest(?)) and Saint Petersburg (second biggest(?)). The two systems are covered in ru.wiki here and here (respectively), and these articles can be translated with assistance from Google Translator. I'd been planning to create en.wiki articles about both systems in the next week or so, but I'll now wait a little longer. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I think both of the changes you made to the draft hook were improvements. :) SJ Morg (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have time to respond to the second part of your last message until now. I've been spending too much time on WP lately and need to cut back for awhile. There's also a long list of non-trolleybus-related editing I'd like to do on WP, some of which has been waiting for months or longer. Although you are right that the Moscow and St. Petersburg trolleybus systems would make for a good double-new-article DYK, I don't think I'll want to take time to help, and unless you can get help with references from someone else, it seems unlikely you'll be able to make them DYK-eligible, given that enthusiast websites appear to be the only trolleybus info. sources at your disposal. I've never seen you cite (inline) a book, magazine or newspaper in any trolleybus article, except maybe in a few of the British ones. (Btw, I think you should take out a subscription to Trolleybus Magazine; you seem to have enough interest in the subject.) With the Dayton, Philadelphia and Shanghai articles, they started out with very little prose content, so "all" I had to do to make them DYK-worthy was add info. and references, which took enough time already (but I'm not complaining; it was my choice to spend the time, and it was satisifying). By contrast, for Moscow and St. Petersburg I'd also have to go over all of the translated text to check its accuracy and add some (English) references for it, to make the overall articles good enough for DYK, which likely would take even more time than starting from nothing (and I simply had more interest in doing this for Dayton and Philadelphia than for most non-North American systems, even though I am very interested in foreign systems). In my opinion, no article that relies entirely on enthusiast websites as sources is good enough for DYK (and I wouldn't have approved the Derby nomination, had I been the reviewer), and I wouldn't nominate such an article, because I couldn't defend the nomination in good conscience.
I wish I had more time to spend on this. You should probably go ahead and create the Moscow and St. Petersburg articles but without the expectation that I'll contribute to them. Maybe you can even still get DYKs from them. In case you were wondering, yes, at least at one time (lasting many years) – and probably still today – those two trolleybus systems were the largest and second-largest in the world (and I think Minsk was third), but I simply don't know whether they still hold those positions, and right now I have too much else on my "plate" to want to take time to go through my books and magazines to try to find out. SJ Morg (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Trolleybuses in Philadelphia

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Trolleybuses in Shanghai

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

List of tunnels in Germany

Hi, can you translate parts of this.clean it up?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Trams in Melbourne

Thanks for helping me to improve Trams in Melbourne, I've readded the cite you removed, as at least it was in English and it's a supporting citation to the one you added. The into is now almost cited, except for "Trams are a distinctive part of Melbourne's character and feature heavily in tourism and travel advertising." the closest article I've found is: In 1990, the National Trust classified the entire remaining W-class tram fleet in its first ever mass classification of moveable cultural heritage artefacts, in recognition of the W-class trams' contribution to Melbourne's social and cultural heritage. but that's really only about the W class, not the system as a whole. I'll keep looking for more, but do you think we could use that? And being in Melbourne we don't get much Melbourne tourism advertising, do trams feature in our advertising campaigns? And would you have a source for them? Also... what do you think about me idea from the talk page of just merging a few sections in a section such as recent developments, and cutting the nonsense out of the article? Regards, Liamdavies (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've found a few more possible links 1 2 3 4, do you think any of these are suitable to back up the statement "Trams are a distinctive part of Melbourne's character and feature heavily in tourism and travel advertising." I'm still not too sure, so wouldn't mind a second opinion. Liamdavies (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've put forward what I'd like to do to the Trams in Melbourne#Proposals for Network expansion on the talk page, what do you think?

Re the "typical" Melbourne tram, you raise an interesting point, the W would be the iconic tram, but they now only run on 3 routes on two streets: route 30 on La Trobe and route 78(daytime)79(night and weekend) on Church St/Chapel St, and even then they aren't the primary tramcar on route 79.

In terms of absolute numbers we have: 49 Ws (I've included all sub classes, as most wouldn't know the difference), 148 Zs (the only visual differences between a Z1/2 and Z3 are the headlights and number of doors), 70 As (A1's and A2's are pretty much the same, just a little difference in running gear/brakes), 132 Bs (there are 2 B1 prototypes, visually the same as the 130 B2's), 36 Cs (three section), 38 D1s (three section), 21 D2s (same as D1 but five section) and 5 C2s (five section, on loan from France).

Sorry for the info overload, but the typical Melbourne tram, in terms of numbers would be either the Z class or B class, the question however is, should the main photo be of the typical or iconic Melbourne tram? Of this I'm unsure. Maybe a shot of a W passing a Z or B would be best? Liamdavies (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, like the photo, good choice! Have you had a chance to look at what I'd like to do to Trams in Melbourne#Proposals for Network expansion on the talk page yet? I wouldn't mind some feedback from you, as you seem to be the only one who's said anything, and wiki is meant to be a consensus (can you have a consensus of two?). Liamdavies (talk) 08:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been doing a fair bit of work on Trams in Melbourne and wouldn't mind a little feedback on how I'm doing, this is the first large project I've taken on, the largest articles I've helped improve before this are Melbourne tram route pages such as Melbourne tram route 1, Melbourne tram route 75 and Melbourne tram route 96 (to name a few). I realise that there's still a lot of work to do but wouldn't mind a second opinion on how I'm going. Thanks in advanced. Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Bahnfrend/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of Eurostazioni for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eurostazioni is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurostazioni until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Trolleybuses in Lyon

Thanks for creating Trolleybuses in Lyon so quickly after I mentioned it in the new Vétra article. I had figured it was on your list of planned translations (which is why I made it a red link – instead of unlinked, as I did with Marseille and others), but I didn't imagine you'd jump on it so soon, and that was nice. I guessed you'd get to it within a few weeks, which would have been fine. If you'd like to nominate Vétra for DYK and receive a DYK credit, note that you would not be required to review another nomination, under the exemption very subtly mentioned under point 5 of the selection criteria, that "the nomination of another editor's article" is exempt. (If I'm not mistaken, you also have still have fewer than 5 DYK credits thus far, which is a second reason you are exempt from the review requirement.) However, otherwise I am planning to nominate it myself in a day or two. And I realize you may not feel comfortable nominating it when it's almost exclusively based on sources not available online. (Of course, they are better sources than what is available online [researched to a much higher standard], but I'm referring to the fact that you wouldn't be able to check them directly yourself.)

You probably noticed that I added several details (and made a few corrections) to the "Retired fleet" section of the Trolleybuses in St. Gallen article. I wish I were able to do that for more of the many new such articles you've created, but I never have nearly enough free time to do all of the WP editing I'd like to do, and I'm trying not to spend too much of my WP editing time on trolleybus-related articles (even though it's a strong interest of mine), because I already spend a lot of non-WP time on that! Cheers. SJ Morg (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Vétra nomination

Thanks for the Vétra DYK nomination. I tip my hat to you for helping out the DYK feature by reviewing another nomination even though you were not required to do so in this case. You may have been lucky to find another nom that didn't require much time to review – or maybe the situation has improved a lot since the last time I reviewed one (I hope so). I've had to review other nominations about half a dozen times since the QPQ rule (rule 5) was adopted, last year, and I always looked for a nom that looked like it potentially met all criteria already, but I only found one once. In all the other times, the initial checking of the nomination and multiple follow-up discussions with the nominators required me to spend about 3 to 6 hours per nomination, and was also very stressful in some cases, as arguments with nominators could not always be avoided.

Although I understand why the Quid Pro Quo rule was put into place, it has definitely has made me much less inclined to nominate my articles, even though personally just about every new article I create for WP is DYK-eligible (just because I generally prefer to create articles that are at least C-class quality from the start; of course, that preference has greatly limited my output of new articles, but I accept that trade-off). Two months ago, I created the article Crown-Ikarus 286, which was easily DYK-eligible, and the only reason I didn't nominate it for DYK was the QPQ rule, which I knew could potentially cost me two evenings of time that I otherwise could spend on articles. I noticed that, just days ago, they bumped up the number of DYK entries per Main Page appearance from 6 to 7, due to an increase in the number of nominations, and of approved ones waiting to be used, which is encouraging. SJ Morg (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vétra

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Montreux–Vevey trolleybus line

While I appreciate your contributions on trolleybuses, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. This kind of detail (template showing all stops on the line) is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. In my opinion, among urban transit lines, diagrams like that are only justified for major rail lines, not tram/streetcar or bus (incl. trolleybus) lines; major transit lines are also more likely to have separate WP articles about some (or all) of the individual stations, whereas very few of the stops on a tram or bus line will have their own articles (and that is because they don't warrant their own articles). SJ Morg (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing more than a template for a schematic map or diagram that will be included in a detailed trolleybus system article I will be translating from de.wikipedia within the next week or so. The relevant trolleybus system is unusual, in that it is an interurban system, not an urban or suburban one. Although the system might not seem to someone resident in a large English speaking country to be a major piece of public transport infrastructure, it is located in Switzerland, where there are lots of quite small public transport lines and networks that are significant enough, and well enough known, in many cases worldwide, to warrant their own articles. A good example is Bergbahn Lauterbrunnen–Mürren, which, although fewer than 5 km long, is covered by wikipedia articles in five languages. In any case, this particular trolleybus system is said by the de.wikipedia article to carry more than 5 million passengers each year, being 74% of the traffic on the eight line bus network of which it forms part.

I have previously created quite a few similar templates, eg this one, which is used to illustrate this article, and this one, which illustrates this article. All of these templates are translations of the corresponding map or diagram from de.wikipedia. In the case of the latest template, the map or diagram is part of de:Trolleybus Vevey–Villeneuve. The only links in the latest template are to existing articles about the place where the relevant stop is located, eg Montreux railway station and Vevey railway station, both of which I also translated from de.wikipedia. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I understood what the template was for; you mentioned it in an edit summary, and I would have inferred it anyway. I was not making any comment on whether the system deserves an article, but only on this template, which I believe is not worthy of inclusion in the forthcoming article. Diagrams that are simply lists of all stops are too trivial for Wikipedia in the case of transit lines where the stops are relatively closely spaced (bus and tram routes, as opposed to metro and light rail lines) and are therefore 'much less major' activity points (the individual stops), not justifying a WP article of their own. I don't believe this template's equivalent should be included in the other-language WP articles about the Montreux–Vevey trolleybus system either. A lot of the transit-related articles I've seen on German Wikipedia appear to be written by and for transit enthusiasts, and they often contain too much trivial detail and (worse:) with very few (or no) references to reliable sources. I don't want to see those low standards copied in English Wikipedia; I concede that it's happening anyway and will continue to happen, but it's bad for Wikipedia.

By contrast, true maps – particularly if they are to scale – are very worthwhile, much more so than stop lists or straight-line route templates. Maps can (if done well) show the relative physical orientation of places (relative to a compass-orientation) and approx. distances between them, as well as the geographical locations of points along the route relative to other major features or landmarks (such as Lake Geneva, in the case of the Montreux–Vevey line), to scale and with compass orientation. I realize that maps are more difficult to make, maybe impossible for contributors who (like me) don't have any map-making software and can use only the software available on WP, but they are still better in most respects. "Route templates" can be helpful when all or most of a route's stations are also linked to their own WP pages, but overall they are not as informative as a well-labelled, scale map. The fact that no one has created a map of the Montreux–Vevey trolleybus line for WP does not, in my opinion, make the inclusion of a route template worthwhile (especially not one listing every stop). The main points served by the route can be simply mentioned (and wikilinked) in the article's text. SJ Morg (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Winterthur Wülflingen railway station - To hyphenate or not to hyphenate

Hi. You might like to take look at my comments at Talk:Winterthur Wülflingen railway station#To hyphenate or not to hyphenate, that is the question. Do you have any thoughts on this?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Rio loco's

Hi Bahnfrend, I've noticed the photo you've added to the Goldsworthy railway article and wondered if you could identify and categorise some of Rio Tinto's loco's for me. To me they look impressive but unfortunatley all the same. You seem to be a bit of an expert. The pictures in question are File:Brockman 4 train.jpg, File:Brockman 4 train 2.JPG and File:Brockman 4 train 1.JPG. Thanks, Calistemon (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I will try to get some more photos and possibly even a video of a train being loaded once I'm back on site in a couple of weeks.

I'm back on site in early June, currnetly I'm on annual leave and actually back in Germany. As the Rio locos goes, its a bit of a mix. Its very common to see three locos on a train and one will say Hamersley Iron, one Rio Tinto and one Pilbabra Iron! Calistemon (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Holzmann

It'd be nice if you could have another look at this discussion.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Silver Star Cafe (Port Hedland)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Christ Church

Hi there, I made the revisions and gave fair reason for them in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is unfortunate that you feel the need to make threats and insinuations. I am a new wiki editor and appreciate fair comment. I have had a look at your page and there are several changes that I would make, but I guess you wouldn't like that?Weefreehans (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Locomotives of the Western Australian Government Railways

Is a horrible article, so much wrong with it - also 'Cape Gauge' is not australian usage - any idea about how best to try to fix it? (the article?) SatuSuro 14:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

well if you have oberg and gunzburg that part is good! also the parallel list needs to be made into a dynamic list...SatuSuro 23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lausanne station / Lausanne railway station

Hello! It's a topic probably best discussed on Talk: Lausanne railway station, but as you're the one who moved the article there I thought I should let you know. I realise it's been a while since the move, partly as I've been fairly inactive on WP for a couple of years, but I wanted to let you know what my position is. The reason I created the article at Lausanne station rather than railway station is because, uniquely in Switzerland, it is a combined railway and métro station.

Both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations) (plus its associated talk page - which is more up-to-date) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), which I am more familiar with, advocate the dropping of 'railway' where two different system types share a station. I haven't been able to find any documentation about the naming of Swiss stations in particular, but given Lausanne (the place) is unique in having a métro, it might not shed much light. That said, if you know of any such guidance about the naming of Swiss stations, please let me know. Hence the nearby Lausanne-Flon station rather than Lausanne-Flon railway station - same rationale applies.

I'm putting most of this discussion on Talk: Lausanne railway station and I suggest we continue there, but I felt you should know.--Peeky44 _{What's on your mind?} 07:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Trolleybuses in Montreux/Vevey article, and for your efforts to improve the the encyclopedia's coverage of transportation-related topics. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Punctuating "no"

Nice work on the new articles about trolleybuses in Swiss cities. I've no doubt that Schaffhausen's entry will be appearing soon, as it now the only existing Swiss system you haven't done. You may have noticed that I've been adding periods (you may call them "full stops") whenever you've abbreviated the word number as "no" (or plural "nos"), and I'm going to continue to do so, and figured you might welcome an explanation. The reason is not that I am American and that this abbreviation always requires a period in my language (even within a sentence). The reason is that also many of the British publications I've seen (books, magazines) include a period whenever using that abbreviation. Even ones (such as Tramways & Urban Transit) that routinely write "St" (for Saint or Street) or "Ave" without a period (in contrast to American practice) include a period whenever using the abbreviation "no." for number. (Trolleybus Magazine and the World Trolleybus Encyclopaedia are among the others.) I suppose they do so to avoid confusion with the word "no", a very common word indeed, but I don't really know, and I'm not well equipped to guess, as the period is required in my native form of English. I have no objection to use of British English within Wikipedia articles – at least ones not primarily about a U.S. subject – and I do not change spellings such as "organise" to "organize", or "centre" to "center" (or change US to U.S., though the latter is the more common form in American English). But in the case of "no.", there is plenty of evidence that both American English and British English abbreviate it as "no.", not "no". I don't know what is common practice in professional publications that use your native version of English (Australian English, if I am not mistaken), but there are far more speakers and writers of American and British English than Australian English (sorry). Use of a period in "no." is far from universal in British publications (unlike U.S. ones), but if American English always writes "no." and British English sometimes (or often) writes "no." (in publications, not casual writing), then the balance is clearly tipped in favor of Wikipedia's doing so – even irrespective of the fact that "no" reads like "no" (not "number") to many Wikipedia readers. I hope this sounds reasonable to you. SJ Morg (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

wow

you sure catch the intractibles at various locations... dont let em get to you! - there are so few solid contributors left... SatuSuro 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion

Having just adjusted a few ways that some of the CBH class and CBH group are linked to the Wheatbelt railway lines of Western Australia article, and localities of the names of the new locos are tied in (hope you agree with the linking...) - I would really appreciate your opinion about the wheatbelt article... on wiki or off is fine... cheers SatuSuro 13:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

thank you very much for your response - I was at rail heritage research night last night and ran past one of the oldies the main part of the argument and they seemed to agree - there are many points thought - like the actual boundaries of the region as you mention that need tweaking. Thanks again and cheers for the mo... SatuSuro 14:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In the archive that I am working at the moment - there is a scattered collection of old cbh reports - I might (by christmas or later) have a dynamic list of bins that have been bins in the cbh system - there were at various stages different grades and types of bins - forgot to mention that earlier... SatuSuro 15:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Clock-face timetable" versus "Clock-face scheduling"

I have just read your comments in Talk:Clock-face scheduling.

I am a native British-English speaker who now lives in German-speaking Switzerland. "timetable" is the British term corresponding to the German term "Fahrplan". "schedule" is the US term. Note the first reference (this article) is a British newspaper and uses "timetable". This is analoguous to the difference between Fahrschein and Billet. DB ticket machines are marked "Fahrschein", SBB machines are marked "Billet".

There is a subtle difference between "Clock-face timetable" and "regular interval timetable". I know of one line in the UK with a 40-minute interval. It is the branch line from Watford to St. Albans. It is single track, with no passing places and is operated by one train. It approximately 20 minutes from end-to-end, so the maximum frequency is one train every 45 minutes. This is a "regular interval timetable" but not a "clock-face timetable". TiffaF (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. YSSYguy (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "Operated by"

Hi, a discussion has been started here over whether wet-leasing and the like count as "operating" an aircraft. You have recently been engaged in a difference of opinion about this in editing the List of aircraft operated by Virgin Australia, so I thought you might like to contribute. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)