User talk:EdJogg/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive of EdJogg's talk page

08 December 2007 - 30 August 2008

For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

Congratulations

The Merchant Navy Class article has also been promoted to FA status. Once again, excellent job. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LSWR N15 Class

Fancy having a bash at this one? I know I've done a lot on it already, but I think it needs cleaning up a bit. I'd be interested to know how you would set out the construction history... Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular UK locomotive builders (active or defunct)

Ello' EdJogg, I'm trying to add as many of the popular locomotive manufactures onto the new infobox. I'm familiar with most US builders but have no idea what the common builders are across the pond. If you can let me know I'll add as many as I can. That is unless if you lot have your own loco template you use that's fine too. I just didn't want anyone to assume I'm making it for the yanks and leaving everyone else out. Cheers on beers!--DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 10:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It did seem a bit US-centric at first. Have you seen Category:Locomotive manufacturers of the United Kingdom? I always use that as my starting point!

The problem is probably compounded in the UK as most railway companies built their own locos, and for these it is usual to specify the Works where they were built. Some were subcontracted-out to independent manufacturers, and, of course, industrial concerns usually purchased from these independents too. I can try to give you some ideas of the main ones in due course. Have you asked the UK Rail project for ideas?

Also, had you thought about having a sub-template for the loco manufacturer selection (eg using 'manuf = xxx' rather than 'GMCEMD=yes'). That way anyone can easily add-in missing manufacturers easily, without breaking the super-complicated infobox template. It also has the major benefit of reducing the number of infobox parameters!

EdJogg (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of modularizing it, I just don't know how (yet).. I've got most of the US/North America stuff done now. AAR Wheels, Etc. now I am going through the UIC Wheels. I've got most of the common AAR types that auto-add the UIC equiv. e.g. B-B = Bo'Bo', C-C = Co'Co', etc.. Next is to do the other way round so common UIC values auto-create AAR values as well. I fixed the builder issue. Now all you have to do is "| builder = emd" and its all set, auto wikilink to EMD article. (Including logo! check out EMD GP38-2 and GE AC4400CW two live examples.).. No more "builderemd = yes" anymore. The same goes with the AAR Wheels, its now "aarwheels = b-b", etc. I'll check into modularizing the builders section since that's the most likely to change section frequently. I'll check out the UK project discussions too and ask for suggestions. Thanks! DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at {{RoutemapRoute}} and its sub-templates, which is the most complex template I have written (with a little guidance from template-meister Slambo!). This uses a sub-template to select the icon graphic to be used. Essentially all you have to do is pass the parameter to the sub-template, and let it get on with it. For really complex templates this may be essential to preserve your sanity! EdJogg (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I just deleted stuff off my talk page when i added it to my archive page..what is wrong with that? -Brian Alexander (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in particular, except that I couldn't see that you had been here long enough to have an archive page yet. I was very surprised to look back immediately at your talk page and find my welcome message had already been deleted. Your comment on the CCM project page suggested you were new here, and my view of your talk page suggested that no-one had welcomed you yet. (I don't usually look at a user's front page, nor contribs, before commenting on their talk page.) So, I was mildly miffed! Nevertheless, you are welcome here (but I shall be removing your user page from my watchlist as you edit it far too often! A suggestion, try using the Preview button a little more...)

Have fun editing...

EdJogg (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Portable engine

I have created the article Portable engine. If you'd like to expand it and/or propose it for DYK, please do. Biscuittin (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like the rattle of a descending gauntlet.... I'll have to see what I can do.
More refs would be useful though. EdJogg (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Biscuittin (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Steam road vehicles

The Category:Steam road vehicles is a direct subcategory of Category:Trucks. That's why I asked the bot to include it in the bannerizing. Personally, I freely acknowledge that I know very little about the subject. If you believe that several of the articles in that category are not relevant to the Trucks project, I would acknowledge your own greater familiarity with the subject matter and have no reservations whatsoever about your removing the banner from those articles. Sorry for any confusion. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The category started off named 'Steam trucks', so 'Trucks' was an obvious parent. I hadn't created the cat, so I queried the name, as the term "steam truck" is relatively uncommon (see Talk:Truck). The category was hence renamed and expanded in scope.

Now, I would say that 'Trucks' is still a sensible parent cat, as 'Steam road vehicles' includes a large number of articles relating to steam wagons/steam lorries. However, I will also do as you suggest and remove the banner from the articles that are outside the scope of your project. EdJogg (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK January 7

On 7 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article portable engine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 14:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Gosh, that's rather good, isn't it? And you (as well as John of Paris) deserve as much credit as I, as does anyone else who enabled the article to reach these dizzying heights. Once again, I thank you, and hope to continue our fruitful working relationship for many more articles. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

And thank you too. Glad you got the message, it would have been such a shame for you to miss this, it makes the effort and late nights all the more worthwhile.

I will try to assist you on other articles this year, as time permits. We shouldn't be doing this 'for the glory', but it doesn't half focus the mind!

(Message to other readers) OK, in the grand scheme of human existence it's "no big deal" to get a Featured Article to appear on the Main Page, but let's face it, there are only 365 Main Page featured articles each year, out of over 2 million created. And how many steam locomotives have you seen there? Be assured we'll be a bit more blasé about the second one...

EdJogg (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work chaps, the TWP should award you both a suitable barnstar, not just for getting an article to FA status, but for the huge advertisment that it gives the project. I trust that Slambo will recognise your achievements. Well done again. Olana North (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Selective and Unacceptable Edit

Without attempting to be rude, I believe your last edit to Roller (disambiguation) is rather selective and unacceptable. Please view what I have posted on the discussion page, and feel free to revert your last edit voluntarily. Thank you, and have yourself a pleasant day. ~ 142.68.44.31 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It was selective, in that I selected to remove just that text, which appeared to relate to a non-notable song. I have suggested a suitable course of action on the discussion page mentioned. EdJogg (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern City line

no problem ;-P I've taken it as part of my self-declared remit that as I update and maintain the icons that exist I go in search of articles that may have been seeking the right icon but couldn't find it at the time. --AlisonW (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slough to Windsor & Eton Line

Thanks for adding detail to the routemap for Windsor Goods Yard. I thought it should be on the routemap as the incline remnants are still visible. As you say, however, it has made getting the end-of-line curve difficult to render. Perhaps I'll see whether it's possible to reinstate it by rotating the map; or it might be a case of remembering this is a schematic and need not be too concerned about geography? Bazza (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Where possible I believe these maps should follow the geography as closely as possible, within the constraints of the templates. In this case, I think we have to resign ourselves to not showing the curve into Windsor. Unless, of course, the map is split in two, one showing the simpler routemap 'as it was' (with the curve and a blob for Windsor), and another showing the detailed layout at Windsor (with goods yard, headshunt, and even the gas works on the other side of the line!) This latter map could be copied to the Windsor Central Station article too.

Or, as you say, we just recognise it as a schematic and leave 'as-is'...

EdJogg (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried out a detailed layout (although the exact location for the gas works eludes me): User:Bazza 7/sandbox. Unless there's objection, I will implement your suggestion of splitting the map in the next week or so. Bazza (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. It might be best putting it on the Windsor station page though, maybe? Will try to look for info on Gas Works link... EdJogg (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

London stations

No problem, don't worry about it! I'd be grateful if you'd join in the discussion, though..... --RFBailey (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input...

I was expecting something in my talk, so I didn't see your response on the Trains project discussion. I did start renaming pages on my own and made some mistakes. RAHaworth set me straight and I think its pretty good now.

My problem with the trains list was that it was all one long page with a separate set of pages for North America. Take a look at what I've done with the data now. It starts at Passenger train.

Thank you! Lownen (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome - Hymers2

Thankyou for the welcome. My interests seem to overlap with yours to a considerable extent. I will try to remember to sign my contributions; at present i am at the bottom of what is obviously a long learning curve.--Hymers2 (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as it says in that welcome message, if you do need help, feel free to ask and I will see what I can do...if only to point you to someone else who can help. EdJogg (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Distances on railways

I see the debate argument is still going on. My thoughs are these:- UK railways should be measured in miles and chains, and converted to km as appropriate, unless they were built in km, in which case the conversion should be in reverse. This would also apply to railways built in other countries that were using imperial units at the time they were built (India, South Africa etc. etc.}. US lines should be in miles and feet if that is what they were built in. European lines were generally built in km, so should have distances quoted in km and converted as necessary (See Réseau des Bains de Mer). It's a pity that consensus can't be reached and the matter closed. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for help with image upload

Hi EdJogg! I am trying to improve the North Downs Line article and have uploaded a photo copied from [[1]]. I think that I've registered all of the copyright permissions correctly, but was wondering whether you could look over the relevant pages to check that everything is legal and above board. Thanks in advance. Mertbiol (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Strictly the licence is '2.0' rather than '3.0', but that may not be a problem. Someone might comment that the pic is black & white (colour pics are preferred here), especially since it is not an archive shot (colour film was readily available in 1979!) but I like it too, so until someone produces a better one...

Geograph is a great resource, although finding unclassified images can be tricky. I have captured several for use here -- see my gallery at Commons. (It is also preferred that photos are uploaded to Commons rather than WP -- the process is very similar -- as they are then available to more wikis.)

EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EdJogg! Thanks also for adding the image to British Rail Class 206 and Guildford (Surrey) railway station, (something that I'd intended to do on receiving your reply). I'm now on the hunt for a decent image to go at the top of the North Downs Line article (preferably one with the Downs in the background) to cheer the page up a bit, so if you see anything suitable, let me know... Thanks again Mertbiol (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Steam engine article

The more I look at this article, the more confused it gets. My latest edits have been more in the nature of patch-ups, but I don't see any way out other than a total rewrite and the breaking up into several articles, incorporating the boiler article which is really no better. As I pointed out some months ago I have started some sandboxes on my user page. They are: Sandbox 5, 1 and 2 in that order. I would very much appreciate it if you had a look at how they are going. They are nowhere near ready yet and I know it's a lot to ask, but at least things are moving and it may be more encouraging to work on a new approach than the WP articles in their present state.--John of Paris (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

John Urpeth Rastrick

Don't know about being scholarly, but I have just Googled this: — [2]. I imagine it is the same family name - dunno.--John of Paris (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prod in the right direction. I've just found this at the Science Museum. But can we even trust the spelling on the casting? (Somewhere in the depths of my photo colection I have a picture of a water crane (column), I think on the NYMR (?), where 'LNER' has been cast with the 'E' backwards!)

(Following lengthy delay while doing further research and realising I should finish this off...)

I've just realised that your reference, which I might have happily taken at face value, actually mis-quotes the artefact it is describing! (see the Science Museum photo) Aaargh!!

This is turning into a nightmare task! (Confirming Edward Akroyd 's spelling was easy by comparison!)

Thanks for your help, anyway...

EdJogg (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[UPDATE] - The casting is right...found a biography! (A Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers in Great Britain and Ireland + book details (£95!!)) (also refs, though not citable, via a2a) - more later... EdJogg (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the mixup goes back a long way. I have just been and had a look at [3] which dates back to the time Francis Webb had just discovered and restored the engine. You get the two spellings in this 1885 article!--John of Paris (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LNER A1/A3

Nice work Pete. The fiction section is just right in length. I really don't know how we can reach out further towards the non mechanically minded. If we explain every slightly challenging word, it will make for very tedious reading, so the blue link is a good way out of this, the problem being as I see it is the quality of the articles you often land in, but that simply shows that the editors' work is never done. Another thing we should not forget is, I suspect that a large number of readers will come to this article from the Flying Scotsman page which I think will better to keep accessible to the general reader. So with this article we can surely take them a little further and assume them to have a minimum of very basic notions (boiler; firebox, smokebox, cylinders, valve gear - even a vague idea of what superheating is...). All these aspects can be dealt with in the Steam Locomotive article provided it is well thought out. And the extraordinary thing is how over a period of 40 years these engines were constantly upgraded to adapt to changing conditions; at each stage they gained benefit from state of the art American, British and French improvements (German if you include superheating) right down to the end of steam. What I think it is important to get over here is a general picture of the high importance of these locomotives in the history of British steam technology (the present WP importance rating is aberrant IMO), which the Flying Scotsman cult has tended to mask with endless really silly confrontation of fans and detractors. Yes we could go now for GA status but personally I wouldn't aim higher. If we can get one or two similar key articles to this pitch, I'll be quite satisfied.--John of Paris (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the dot

What would we do without you, Pete? Don't ever hesitate.--John of Paris (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at your incremental changes, I had a suspicion that a bigger edit was on the way (and I was right). I was hesitant purely because you might have been working on another. (Edit conflicts are so annoying, aren't they?)

EdJogg (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Verbiest DYK

On 23 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferdinand Verbiest, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• ...that in 1669, the Jesuit missionary and astronomer Ferdinand Verbiest persuaded the Kangxi Emperor to remove a month from the Chinese calendar?

(This was top of the Main Page DYK list on Easter Sunday afternoon!)

Chemin de Fer du Finistère

What was the problem with the layout? Now I get acres of white space between the intro and the map! When the map was at left, it fitted in nicely below the intro and above the text! Mjroots (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am viewing on a 1024x768 laptop screen using IE6, and the intro and TOC were squeezed between the map and the routemap -- a column of very short words -- which looked ridiculous. Compare the version before my change, where the map was positioned before the intro.

Bizarrely, now it seems to be tolerable -- OK, the TOC is still squeezed between the map and routemap, but it doesn't seem quite so bad. If I expand to full screen, the History section is just sucked into this space too. Maybe just moving the map would have been sufficient? Evidently I tried to make the TOC look more normal too....

EdJogg (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

LSWR N15 class

Hello again, long time no hear! It's my Easter break from Uni, my Dissertation is almost finished, and so I have time for a bit of Wikipedia-ing! Would you like to do a peer review of this article? There's been a tadge more work done since you've last been there, mostly in the references department. I hope you are well, anyway, and still keeping up with the good work! Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put it at the top of my todo list, so I won't forget. May not be able to do it justice for a few days though... EdJogg (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've started an article on Sir Lamiel, but there really isn't much to say, as he is so obscure. It has been linked to the list page, and a brief addition in the preservation section gives a bit more detail on the origins of the name. I've aslo tried to address your 'Western Section' issue. Hope it's better. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you've now written the world's definitive article about Sir Lamiel (:-p)!

Now no-one can argue that we don't do the best we can to explain who he is! EdJogg (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you and I alone are now the world's foremost authorities on the subject. Makes you want to beat your chest with pride... or maybe not!!!--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there's anything else to do in this article? Otherwise its just a case of waiting until someone shuts the review... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't proof-read the 'Operational' bit yet, and I guess I should take a 'step back' view and see if there's anything missing from the article. Unfortunately, I have been doing it too piecemeal really -- keep getting side-tracked (see adjacent comments!). Have you checked against the page "How to get an article to Featured status"? (That's not the correct title, but we found it while looking at the WC/BB article, probably listed at its talkpage.) That page gives good pointers for other aspects to look at. You could also try doing the 'step back' read-through, seeing if it would make sense to a non-rail enthusiast...

Will see if I can give it some attention later today. EdJogg (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In terms of quality, I don't think it's too dissimilar to the others that have gone through to FA, and as far as I can see, all technical bits have been suitably simplified. The operational bit should be fine, but I'll have a look now. I've re-read the rest of the article a couple of times, and all I come up with is minor adjustments. I also took some time to do a bit of detective work on the fate of the Merchant Navy companies. The only one I couldn't get a current link for was 'Belgian Marine'. Also (I suppose you've noticed), the A1/A3 article is being reviewed for GA. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Morning! I've put this article up for FA, so hopefully we'll get it developed into something good. Hope you are well, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, Morning!. Am I well? Hmmm. Yes, but sleepy, owing to the late hour...

Will keep an eye on FAC progress. Must dig out my recent-ish copy of Model Rail that had a feature about them....

'Night, 'night. EdJogg (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Heck, you've been busy! Good point about the Grouping bit. I wouldn't have really thought twice about it, but you've made it clearer. I'll have a read through later today for further improvements. One issue rests with the WC article, which is the table listing the preserved locos. What do you think about it? Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WC/BB -- the article got FA status without the list. Would it still get FA with it? I very nearly just reverted the change, but wanted you to make the decision (as it's more your 'baby'!) and then forgot about it. I don't think the list adds to the article and regardless simply duplicates what is in the main list. Some editors would no doubt question the merit of having much preservation-related material at all... I'd support deleting it (the table, that is, not the list article), though if you're anxious you could mention the proposal on the talk page and wait a bit...

EdJogg (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

On that little matter, I've taken matters into my own hands and diplomatically told the chap that the table was rather superflous to requirements. I've also undertaken the suggested improvements from the review, as well as some more glaring errors, so could you have another little read through in case I've missed something? Some of the other issues regarding copyright have now been addressed. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and have a read-through in due course, but I don't have much time at present. Please assume that you'll need to field any further change requests, and don't wait for me. Watch out for my edits and you'll see if I've managed a further proof-read....

If you haven't already done so, mention on the FAC review page that you have attended to all the comments raised thus far.

EdJogg (talk) 11:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my enforced absence, but as there were no comments on the article for a couple of weeks, it took a bit of a back-burner, compounded by the fact that I have to use the university internet service in the week leading up to my return home. I have undertaken several edits, and have explained the rationale for not doing some of the others suggested. Thanks for continuing in my absence, cheers and regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Evans

Noticed your edits in the article. Just a suggestion that the article needs some more references. Some sentences like "As Evans designed a refrigeration machine which ran on vapor in 1805, he is often called the inventor of the refrigerator, although he never built one", "Oliver Evans wrote up proposals to mechanize road vehicles, but failed to get backing from investors, who saw the scheme as impractical", the "Death" and the "Tributes" section should be sourced. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree! I am working on History of steam road vehicles, but it's going to be a very long project. So far I have tackled debunking some of the myths and mis-statements about Verbiest's 'car' and Cugnot's fardier. This has got me to 1771. Ahem!

I'll get to Evans in due course. My current interest is because I have just bought a model of the Oruktor (made by Brumm) through eBay, and wanted to know how accurate it was. You may see a photo of it appear in the article in due course. (Brumm were not too fussed about getting their historical facts right!! Their model of Verbiest's vehicle is of another machine entirely!)

Unfortunately I will be heavily reliant on web sources, although the AmericanHeritage article I have highlighted gives a very thorough account of the topic.

EdJogg (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Image:17AHuntingdon 60059TraceryR.jpg

As usual thanks for your support, Pete. What riles me here is the madness of the deletion as if I had half-inched it. Of course I don't mind the Commons having a copy; what I strongly object to is the deletion. I now have to go through all the hassle of downloading it to get it back again and reincorporate it in the article. Why couldn't they just leave a copy where it was? - I am absolutely fuming over this as you can see, and would appreciate any help in lodging a very strong complaint in high WP instances. This sort of mindless bureaucratic crap should JUST NEVER HAPPEN!!! We've got more important things to do.--John of Paris (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

E. R. Boston

Just a note to draw your attention to this article I started today - you may have more to add to it. Xn4 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was alerted by the edit to Cadeby Light Railway. I have the two reference books on my shelf, and a couple of other articles besides, so I should be able to expand it a little. Expect some input in the next couple of days, as I mean to put it forward for Main Page DYK... EdJogg (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hero's steam engine

you wrote: Hero's 'engine' could not have been developed for useful work.

Why not? --Mikiemike (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of the generally-accepted view of the Aeolipile is that it could not be developed for practical uses. This is also the view of Encyclopedia Britannica: "The [Aeolipile] was little more than a toy, since no useful work was produced.". (Also see here.)

I am also suspicious of its claimed use for temple-door opening, which is unreferenced here, having read Fred Dibnah's book which gives a diagram of temple-door opening using steam, but NOT using a steam 'engine' of any kind. That is a matter to be addressed in due course.

As for the edit comment, it may not have been as carefully worded as text on the article page itself. What I was doing was removing unsourced speculation from the article -- it is not uncommon to find POV statements within edit summaries.

EdJogg (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Opening a door is work, therefore by definition such a device is a steam engine. I think the language could be more neutral than "toy" or "curiosity". Better choices would be "non power producing" or "the device was not harnessed to provide useful work" or "was not applied to a load".

Be careful about what you delete and be careful about using deletion as the default action. You would not want someone to completely remove your writing, so it's not what Jesus would do. The default is to tag it with {{cn}} or {{fact}}. --Mikiemike (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have marked similar references on other pages with a 'fact' tag. Hero's writings in 'Pneumatica' (or, at least, the bits I read) mentioned temple-door opening using steam (NOT using an engine) and aeolipiles (on separate pages) but did not link the two together. If you study my contributions you will see that delete is not the 'default action' in most cases, although sometimes I get things wrong.

However, in the case of this edit, you wrote: "Apparently this source of motive power was not applied for practical use, and its importance was overlooked. Had Hero's engine been further developed, an industrial revolution might have occurred sixteen centuries earlier." The italics formatting, added by me, indicates what is probably POV wording, and that is what I 'objected to'. While your sentiments may well be correct, such speculation does not belong here. I suspect that it was not my deleting, but the edit summary which was at fault. If you can find sources to support your suggestions, then obviously they can stay in the article.

EdJogg (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Butting into the discussion on the use of the the Aeolipile for opening and closing temple doors, I am dumbfounded that Mikiemike could imagine such a device being applied to such uses. I suggest that he accesses this reference, reads the drawings Hero gives, and exercises his engineering judgement as to what's going on. The door-opening device consists of communicating vases filling and emptying buckets in order to counterbalance weights, so it's not an aeolipile. He will see that the reference I have just reverted in the article is simply wrong; it doesn't come from the gods. Whilst I agree with him that we are not talking about "toys", for reverts, I am with EdJogg on all the way on this.--John of Paris (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether we think it is true. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." --Mikiemike (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well why won't you go and verify this source at this link I have just given you instead of relying on a library scraping? Thurston is accessible to all discerning Wikipedia readers.--John of Paris (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Steam Wagon/Waggon

Hi Ed, I had fixed the redirect links for Steam Waggon as you mentioned on the page. I hope you didn't mind the edit, but I believe that Sentinel was the only manufacturer to commonly use the spelling "waggon". Mann's, Garretts, Yorkshires, and Foden used the spelling "wagon", and it is the generally accepted spelling. EddieWalters (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you're quite right. I based my spelling on usage statistics I gathered a year or so back using Google (See Talk:Truck#Steam Lorry Naming). However, having just re-looked at them to check this link, I clearly mis-remembered! (Phooey!)

BTW - feel free to add to the traction engine article. Having started looking at the 'history' section, I realised a need for "History of steam road vehicles", but found so many inaccuracies in the predecessor information (Verbiest, Cugnot, Evans, so far) that it will be a while before I get to the first traction engine!

EdJogg (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

help with phatfish article(s)

could you give me a hand? i think ive seen you work on the article before. ive been trying to tidy it up, add photos and stuff and organise it better. i also added a few extra pages like the guaranteed album page and phatfish and lou fellingham tour page but im really uncertain on how to cite properly. i dont know where to start, or what to cite or even how to do it? thanks mate. stuff keeps getting banners like wikify ones but noone seems to be helping!. DJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.235.165 (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have edited the page in the past, and was trying to keep an eye on changes made. However, there were so many edits, and there was so much tour/appearance information being added, that I got fed up and went to work on other pages.

However, I know you have been putting a lot of work into the article, so it's only fair that I try to help you pull it into shape.

First, 'what to cite'?

Well, the simple answer is "everything". First thing you need to do is track down as many references from reliable sources as you can. I added the BBC refs which prove that Lou (and the band) have appeared on Songs of Praise. You need to be able to do much the same for the rest of the information.

Second, tidy it up.

A few times in the past I have cut out sections referring to appearances (past or future), and I still think there is too much of this kind of information in the article. I'm not really sure how best to move forward. However, you could do worse than to look at some other group articles (for example Delirious?) to see how these are structured and what information they contain.

I hope this gets you started. If you have other specific questions then feel free to ask. Once we've got lots of good references we can consider pushing the article further.

EdJogg (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Heron's works

Try here. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the one! Not sure it'll prove that the aeolipile did or didn't drive anything else, but at least it gives access to the (near-) original documentation. Thanks. EdJogg (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Howzat!! Nice move there... EdJogg (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't have found it without your suggestion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Patents

They were in my my other sandbox2 and refer to the nature of the the drive unit. These eminent men did not think they were designing external combustion engines. As Ted Pritchard put it, (who did think so in fact), "We never show the engine what we are burning."--John of Paris (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That looks complicated. Yes I too had thought of taking a step back, especially as Mickiemike has done some quite good edits to Newcomen. Cyclone boiler looks like a hydronic affair. Sorry if I am copping out on this and leaving it to you. Not got round to removing old article either yet, but don't know how to do it.--John of Paris (talk) 09:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good of you, Pete!--John of Paris (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

V2 downloads

This is just driving me mad. Help--John of Paris (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I took both pictures - one has gone straight to Commons.--John of Paris (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC Other download= V2 9A jpg.--John of Paris (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Going mad again with wickimedia downloads.--John of Paris (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help, but I need a bit more to go on... EdJogg (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is finding what I've uploaded and getting them into the articles--John of Paris (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting them into the articles should be straightforward once you've found them. You've edited/uploaded about 14 images to WP, according to this list. Have you uploaded anything to Commons? If so, what is your username there? (I presume they do not allow anonymous uploads.)

EdJogg (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

John of Paris (Maillezais) --John of Paris (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked here, at every page of names, and I can't see this username. Are we looking at the same thing?
EdJogg (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

God only knows.--John of Paris (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the screams, the steam engine article is holding its own - back to back from now on.--John of Paris (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Windmills in the Isle of Man

I've tried to get a html version of that pdf doc without success. It is entirely possible that the slate cutting use was in conjunction with, or later than powering the incline. I did see that claimed on Geograph, but apparently Geograph doesn't qualify as a reliable source. That is why I didn't put it it the article. Feel free to add to the article. Don't worry if you don't get the terminology exactly right, I can sort that later. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleting project banners from redirects

Original query posted on MZMcbride's talk page...

Recently you modified Talk:Penmanshiel Tunnel collapse and the other redirects present in Category:NA-importance UK Railways articles with the edit summary: 'fix redirect'. Now I had already alerted the project to the fact that these redirects were not working, and my understanding was that a fellow project member had resolved the others. I had already modified the one mentioned to 'fix' it, by the simple expedient of exchanging the project banner template and the redirect statement. You then removed the banner, so that the redirect no longer appeared within the project's scope.

It is worthwhile for a project to monitor related redirect pages in case any are re-created as stand-alone articles.

Can you explain your actions, please?

EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything included below a redirect does not render. I don't know of many WikiProjects that are tagging redirects, and in fact, it seems like a pretty silly idea. But the real issue is that the redirects come up as broken when running queries for broken redirects. Thus my "fixing" of them. If the subject-space page is a redirect, there's really no need to add a WikiProject banner that doesn't render and that no one will see. When pages are moved, you essentially say that the old title is no longer desired and that the new title is; keeping with that, including old page titles seems redundant and unnecessary. Though, if that's truly the desire of the WikiProject, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be found. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do delete ...

Please do delete implausible typo Leaviest trains. My spelling is fair, but my typing while quick is not. Tabletop (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This was in response to talk page notification that EdJogg had marked the redirect for speedy deletion.
It was -- just over an hour later! All done now. EdJogg (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are the links I put in Prestongrange Industrial Heritage Museum not relevant? Please respond on my talk page. Renata (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Listed

The Great Western Railway project continues... List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway is no longer a red link – I hope that's what you had in mind – and I have filled in all the blanks (I think) for List of constituents of the Great Western Railway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My, you have been busy! Yes, I think this was what I was anticipating. Although I hadn't anticipated including those of the constituent companies (or if I did, I've since forgotten!) that is an eminently sensible solution. To make the list more accessible, would it make sense to convert the constituent names (etc) to headings, so they may be accessed from a TOC box?

EdJogg (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My first draft did have them as sub-headings, but then the list got so long I thought I would try it as bullets, which got too complicated so became this version. I won't say a thing if I log in one day to find they have been converted. Mind you, several of the 1922 grouped companies should also be on the list but I haven't found complete lists of names. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class

Hello, we are in need of someone to help "take over" the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class since the nominator has not been seen in over two weeks. Would you be willing to help field the remaining feedback and see if we can get the article promoted? Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do. I had intended to apply the most recently-found comments by now, but have not found the time recently.

As for the original nominator... He is currently studying at University and his time on Wikipedia tends to be in bursts of activity. I can only presume that he is currently taking some exams at the moment.

EdJogg (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See comments in above dialogue... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Railway barnstar

For your ceaseless efforts to improve the railway-related articles on Wikipedia. Best, Gwernol 13:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done on FA!

I know it was a bit hairy at times, but congratulations! I now have internet again, and wish to convey to you the good news that I have been awarded First Class Honours in my History Degree at Swansea University. Once again, thank you for defending my case during this time of upheaval as I leave my educational career behind... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. You deserve several awards for your sterling work! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...and congratulations on your degree in return. You realise you'll have no excuse for inaccuracy now!

EdJogg (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Thomastrain_cropped.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thomastrain_cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Any projects I can help you with?

As I am currently looking for some meaningful work, I need something to keep my mind ticking over. When you return, are there any projects that you would like some input on? Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Nothing currently springs to mind, to help me personally -- most of my WP time recently has been checking others' work, and this is starting to lose its appeal. (Need to write some new stuff of my own!)

If you're looking for something useful to do, how about tackling Southern Railway (Great Britain), which would seem to be right up your street. I mentioned on the WikiProject UK Railways talk page that the articles on the "Big Four" companies and British Rail were probably the most important that the project was responsible for, yet none had gone far beyond Start class. Geoff Sheppard has taken up the challenge with Great Western Railway, and his work is beginning to establish the topics that these articles should cover and the format to use. (Failing that, you could look at other 'top-level articles' that could do with some attention, like Rail transport, Train, etc, which are woefully inadequate yet much more important than many of the detail articles we all prefer to work on!)

Hope this helps. EdJogg (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas characters, revisited

Hi there!

Have a look at the WP:THOMAS talk page, somebody is suggesting the re-merger of all of the character articles (again) and has placed merge templates on a lot of articles (suggesting merge with the TV series articles). I'm having trouble constructing a meaningful reply - could you take a look?

Best wishes,

–MDCollins (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have requested details of what they are proposing, as I haven't looked at any affected articles yet.

Thanks for the heads-up. EdJogg (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see my later update, having looked at a couple of character pages.

They have no idea what they are suggesting!! EdJogg (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've now managed to formulate my reply too - hopefully they'll be put off, rather than happy-slapping merge suggestions everywhere. Let's keep an eye on it. –MDCollins (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to relax a bit and present yourself more civilly. SLJ didn't just go changing pages around without asking, he had an idea, made a few notes on certain pages, and presented his thoughts clearly and calmly. I thought his ideas were reasonable - I added a bit myself, even went out and did a little testing to see if certain ideas would be feasible.

You won't get us to see your way by treating us as ignoramuses. We may be ignorant, we may not even be able to quote Wikipedia's regulations word for word, but you have to have patience and tolerance when dealing with others less knowledgeable than yourself. You won't earn respect or create more constructive members of the community this way - you'll create the image of a ruling elite which bullies dissidents rather than a community in which the smaller people learn to better themselves from those with more experience. Starkiller (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope I have 'made peace' on the project talk page. It is out-of-character for me to be aggressive here, but that may well have been the impression given due to my somewhat knee-jerk reaction. When I realised what was being proposed (which was not initially described on the project talk page, remember) I was concerned that someone might start hacking the articles about before gaining consensus that this was an appropriate thing to do. I wanted to avoid the need to revert a huge stack of changes. Just because one person comes along with a bundle of editing energy, and has an idea, and then wants to implement it, doesn't mean that the idea is all that great or actually needs to be applied at all.

I cannot quote WP guidelines word-for-word, but it is every editors' responsibility to be aware of the guidelines, and to follow them, or risk someone else applying them in place of his work. As I now have over 10000 edits to my name, across nearly 3000 distinct articles, I have learned that following the guidelines generally makes for a happier editing experience (through reduced conflict, if nothing else!)

If I can help to improve your editing skills in any way, then I will be glad to do so. If I have treated you as 'ignoramuses', I apologise, but some of that is a self-defence reaction to the (many) very junior 'Thomas' editors whose contributions are not always helpful, nor, in many cases, of particulalry high quality. (Badly-written text requires someone else to copy-edit it. I know that's how WP operates, but it does create unnecessary work for those of us who can spell and punctuate!)

EdJogg (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Southern Railway

Well, I read what you said and thought "What a good idea!", so here I am, battling with the article. I'll let you know when I feel its improved enough for proof-reading (it'll be a while, though, as The Railway Magazine is due to release a special issue on the Southern around Christmas!). Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ho-hum. It might be an idea to do staged proof-reads then! (We need to maintain the article quality as much as we can.) I may jump-in occasionally, when I notice a lull (and I have some time - bearing in mind I am watching the GWR page too!), but please let me know when you have finished editing bursts and I can do a check then. This will be basic proof-reading, most of the time, although I'll try to use FA standards where appropriate! EdJogg (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A little aside from the above, what do you think about the copyright status of the image used in the SR N15X class article? Personally, I think its ok with the fair use rationale and licensing that takes into account that the author remains anonymous, and that the image is over 70 years old. The article is currently up for GA (so no pressure, then!!!), but any assistance you can give the reviewer would, I'm sure, be appreciated. As far as I'm concerned, I've done all I can to get AN image onto the article (its a shame that this would otherwise be the only SR named class of locomotive without an image), and have other projects to do (ie. the Southern Railway, which is going to be a HUGE task). I'll pop back intermittently, but I think if there was anything wrong, some bright spark would have deleted it by now. Anyway, what do you think about the issue? Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm no expert on the matter! I'll see if there's something I can do to support it. EdJogg (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is in a much more acceptable condition than how I found it. There's still a fair amount of work (I'm no real expert on Southern freight) left to do, and I need to gather my references together for phase two (referencing and a general clear-up with fleshing out of basic content). If you want to have a look over phase one (an all-out assault on the article!), then be my guest! There are a few interesting snippets of information that I have uncovered in my research, especially surrounding carriage design. Anyway, onward and upward! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bulldog180

Your right there is no hornby Rex it was a homeade model on youtube that was put together to be Rex so im sorry.Bulldog180 (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) I would like it if you did it on my talk page.Bulldog180 (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)