User talk:EdJogg/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive of EdJogg's talk page

20 Jan 2010 – 30 Sept 2011

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

GWR GA

Having spent a month swotting up and writing up Great Western Railway ships, I hope that there will be no more major edits to Great Western Railway. I should have a clear watchlist sometime next week so I reckon it's about time to put in that GA nomination. Gulp! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a wikibreak over Christmas, and have only just caught up the backlog (apart from 50 or so pages that had significantly multiple edits, which I took 'off-watch' while I caught up -- GWR being among them!). I'll try to (start) re-reviewing the GWR page in the next few days -- watch for my edits and you'll see I'm under way. I haven't re-read it for a while, so it should be fairly 'fresh' to me. Thanks for the warning. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The review has started. Lots to do...! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I put a watch on the review page even before it was created! Unfortunately I have been extra busy at work, and our home PC hard disk has died, so I haven't had much quality WP time recently. I'll keep an eye and see if I can help out. Good luck! - EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

2-6-4

Re this edit summary: please note that 2-6-4 locomotives such as SECR K and SR K1 classes are not Pacific (those are 4-6-2), but are Adriatic. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, thank you. The GCR loco still deserves an article, even it it was the first Adriatic tank loco in Britain... I don't always pay a huge amount of attention to my edit summaries -- as is witnessed elsewhere on this page! That's the problem with trying to edit WP in between doing bits of real work... ...especially if you're feeling sleepy too! I've applied a later edit summary to address the matter. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the case - I have at least five printed sources, from such authors as Dow, Haresnape, Jackson, Nock - and the RCTS. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A framework now exists at GCR Class 1B; I found three sources all stating "first standard gauge 2-6-4T in Britain" or similar. O.S. Nock was strangely silent on the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is now a refd three-way mutual link between GCR Class 1B, 2-6-4 and Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway#Locomotives and rolling stock. SECR K and SR K1 classes points at two of these: I don't think that a link to the L&MVLR article would be useful. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think it needs a link either! That's very good for a 'scratch' article. I wish I were as efficient! -- EdJogg (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MAGIC RAILROAD

If his model wasn't finished in time, why couldn't they use Edward's model design from Season 5 of Thomas and Friends in 1998 for the movie? That would have actually saved them the trouble. Bob.--99.135.89.229 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. I had a look at the Sodor Island Forums site, where I found some other information recently. There's an interview with one of the production staff and they specifically ask about Edward. The response is that there were loads of models taken over to the US but never used, and that Edward was never mentioned as being part of the film.

I've now removed the incorrect information from Edward the Blue Engine.

-- EdJogg (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Top Gear Race to the North GA review

This is an interesting and attractive article with some decent research. The GA review has been put on hold for seven days to allow editors to deal with the issues raised at Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. Any questions please ping my talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Railway engines (Thomas and Friends)

How is it misleading?174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Some characters, such as Bill and Ben, Boco, etc, appeared first in the Railway Series books, but are not sufficiently significant to have their own WP article. These 'for' links go to an article that deals with the Railway Series side of their character -- matching this page which describes the TV series side of their character. Using 'main' implies that the other article covers everything. Using 'for' is not ideal, so I may have another look later.

EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of {{main}} is to point to the main article, and the word "main" does not mean that the article is bigger.174.3.98.236 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point. For these characters there is no single 'main' article: they are described in two articles of equal significance, and hence 'main' is incorrect.

Other characters, including Emily, correctly use 'main', as they have their own articles. Consequently the article uses more than one type of template -- I do not think this is a problem.

EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Having re-read the documentation for {{main}} myself, I discovered this note:

This template is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or as a "see also". (my italics)

...which suggests that your changes break a basic requirement for this template.

Fortunately I have discovered {{details}}, which should fulfil the original purpose without the apparent mis-use of the hatnote template {{For2}} to which you have taken exception. If you could restore the links using this other template it will save me some time later. Thank you.

EdJogg (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. 174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, {{details}}, as it is currently, will not suit our purpose. I have asked a question about the usage of {{for2}}, but if we cannot use that we may have to provide some mangled wording with {{seealso}} instead to achieve a similar effect. This, I would suggest, is a backward step.

EdJogg (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Following discussions at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Template:For2 only a hatnote? – (this link will need updating when that page is archived) – it has been confirmed that {{for2}} is appropriate for use within subsections, and hence is suitable for use in the character pages. It is also the subject of a deletion request, which is currently being opposed by a number of registered editors.

Consequently, Major characters in The Railway Series has been modified to re-instate the cross-page links using {{for2}}, and the opportunity has been taken to revise the link wording for brevity and to minimise repetition. The same still needs to be applied to the other character pages.

EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Steam roller

Now the steam roller issue:

• cf. wp:mos#Section headings174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• cf. {{overlinking}}. If you diagree, I will tag the article with this.174.3.98.236 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OH, so it's you here as well!

I genuinely didn't realise it was the same editor. I'm not making this up or trying to score a point -- honest -- it's much less obvious that IP edits are being done by the same person. If you had registered an account I could see that it was the same editor and not simply someone who was making a right mess of the article. I would be interested to know why you don't wish to register a WP account.

As for the article: steamroller is a type of road roller. The two articles are tightly linked. There is no harm in having multiple links between the same articles when this helps the user. 'Overlinking' applies when there are multiple links within the same paragraph or section. It is quite appropriate to repeat a link in adjacent sections if this will help the user.

Regarding the headings: these are used in numerous articles. Having a heading such as "Steam rollers in popular culture" would break the guidelines, so 'steam roller' is dropped, leaving the titles as used.

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a fresh look at the article and applied some changes to address your concerns.

Please bear in mind that your initial edits were applied with no edit summary, so other editors have no idea what your concerns were. Further, as an anon editor, you have no page at which we can ask you questions so that you can explain your motives. Uncommented deletions by anon editors are usually treated as vandalism and reverted on sight.

I tried applying {{Details}} to replace the {{For2}} template which you don't like, however this application requires a pipe-trick to hide an anchored link, and this is not immediately possible with the other template. (This does not bode well for the other issue!)

EdJogg (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Which other issue? No, {{details}} is simpler to use than {{for2}}. You simply can not use {{for2}} for your current applications because {{for2}} is a for disambiguation purposes, and it is to be appended at the top of an article.174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Nowhere does it say that {{for2}} is only for use at the top of an article. Before re-applying the changes I checked with other editors and my usage is perfectly correct. It IS being used for disambiguation purposes, just in a slightly unusual way.

Now please leave this template alone and tackle some other area of Wikipedia that is actually needing fixing. This crusade of yours is wasting an awful lot of time that editors could be spending making constructive edits, and also wasting your own editing abilities.

EdJogg (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which editors have you talked to. I am going to ask for a 30. On Steamroller, the sections headings are prepositional phrases, not nouns or noun phrases. Those pages you see having this style is incorrect. Which pages are those.174.3.99.176 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Look at the 3rd bullet: "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article." The article is violating wp:overlink.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You carefully avoided the qualifying phrase, the rest of the bullet point:

""Excessive" is usually more than one link for the same term in a line or a paragraph, since in this case one or more duplicate links will almost certainly then appear needlessly on the viewer's screen."

In steam roller I have already addressed the overlinking. If you took your blinkers off over the use of the template, you would have seen that I had actually agreed with you. Unfortunately, your obsession obscured the issue.

EdJogg (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I did see that there were some changes made, that's good. Still, my edit summary said that the 3 instances should be reduced to one.174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And that would have resulted in under-linking, since links should be provided wherever it would helpful to the reader. I reduced the over-linking (which I probably applied during my first few months of editing) to just those which were helpful to the reader. I have learned during my several years here. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I won.174.3.99.176 (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pathetic.EdJogg (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Using {{details}}

This is how you use the template:

{{details|topic=appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film|Road roller#Road rollers in popular culture}}

Retract your vote from the template for deletion.174.3.99.176 (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what, that produces the following result:

Further information on appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film: Road roller § Road rollers in popular culture

Whereas this:

For appearances of diesel-powered rollers on film, see Road rollers in popular culture.

avoids the repetition contained within the anchored link and is shorter and neater.

Now I would suggest that these two templates are equally easy to use, and the second is far more versatile.

EdJogg (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking Policy

Where did you see this: "it is accepted practice that every occurrence in a table (ie in each row) should be wikilinked"?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere in WP:MOS. Can't remember where. I pointed it out to someone once. The idea is that each row of a table should be able to stand in isolation. I suggest you look at the section in tables and you'll probably find it.

EdJogg (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it may be elsewhere too, but you'll find this at Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links among the exceptions, ie:

"In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

• long sortable tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own. (Rows which are near the top of the table when it is sorted according to one column can be far from it when it is sorted according to another one.)"

I think since I last read this it has been amended to include the word "sortable". So I would agree that this would not apply to a table which would never be sorted in any other way (such as the list of books in the Railway Series, which by default is already sorted numerically, chronologically, by author and by illustrator -- allowing the user to sort alphabetically by title is a bit excessive!)

I would suggest, however, that a table of (real) locomotives might well be made sortable in the future, so multiple linking is not unreasonable in this instance.

EdJogg (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Would this table of (real) locomotives be sortable or not?174.3.99.176 (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A table of locomotives on an article about locomotives may well be sortable. A number of such already exist. Some are sortable now. Some may be made sortable in the future. Which is what I said. EdJogg (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So then do you want the table that I edited to be sortable or not?174.3.99.176 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the table of books at The Railway Series, in which case the answer is "no". Because the books are listed in numerical order -- the order in which they were published -- they are already sorted chronologically. Also, since the authors and illustrators changed in a straightforward sequence, they are already 'sorted' by these categories. I don't think any user would really want to sort the list alphabetically, by author or illustrator, so the only possible sort left would be A-Z by book title, and frankly, I don't think it's worth the effort to provide this!

If you were suggesting that the table should be made sortable just so that we can provide links on every line according to policy, then I don't think it's a good reason to do so. If you weren't, then that's not a problem.

As for "a table of (real) locomotives", this was relating to a table that might be found in an article about a real locomotive -- nothing to do with the Railway Series. Apologies if this confused you.

EdJogg (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that very much confused me. Well then the issue is settled: if the table on the railway series is not going to be sortable, then only one bluelink required for identical instances.174.3.99.176 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I was right. Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated links WAS edited since the last time I looked, which was only last September. I spotted the link at the top of my talk page before I archived it just now. (See User talk:EdJogg/Archive 7#Tables in MOS)

EdJogg (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Awdry, Rev, and TRS

Hey,

When I was having a stab at TRS I tried to remove most of the "Wilbert"'s as they're not very encyclopaedic. Especially as the lead introduced him as "Rev. W. Awdry", followed shortly by "Wilbert did this".WP:SURNAME applies here. You're right that when we use "Rev." we need "the Rev." but where ever possible shouldn't we stick to a simple "Awdry"; certainly before Christopher gets mentioned, after that it gets a bit trickier. It should be fairly obvious in each section which Awdry is being referred, especially if it says "The Rev. W." or "Christopher" first. I don't think we should be using Wilbert/Christopher almost colloquially.

Can you have a look at WP:MOSBIO#Honorific prefixes

"Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty...should not be included in the text inline but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper"

Does this mean we can use "Rev." in the first mention, then not? There is probably a case for using the common name/published name, but I would have thought that "Awdry" should be enough.

Have I interpreted this correctly, does it sound reasonable?

Cheers, —MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, avoid Wilbert/Christopher as per WP:MOS. Otherwise I would suggest we use whatever feels right at the time. I had no problem with your changes, and using 'Awdry' is fine, provided we know which one. Of course, we are in an awkward position -- most articles probably don't have a father-and-son combination to worry about! In a very large number of the articles where they will appear, it will be one or other, and most likely as "the [[Wilbert Awdry|Rev. W. Awdry]]", and just the once.

As for "the Rev", the addendum for section 3 of the same reference will apply, I think:

"In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included."

As Wilbert's 'pen name' was effectively [the] Rev. W. Awdry, this is the name he is known by, so I see no reason why it cannot be used -- he's probably the most famous 'Rev' in the world! (How many people think it's his forename, do you think?)

Any help? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's cool. BTW, I see why you were thinking about jumping off a Bridge and began to find your position unreasonably untenable (!)....I'll keep an eye.—MDCollins (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Anchors?

What exactly are anchor points, and why do they have to be at the top?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

An anchor is an HTML concept. Every heading that appears in the TOC is automatically an anchor. The anchor can be used to jump straight to the section, so [[#Anchors.3F|Anchors?]] would jump to this section on this page, and [[User talk:EdJogg#Anchors.3F|Anchors?]] can be used to jump to this section from anywhere else on Wikipedia. (Note that they are case-sensitive, and can only contain certain characters -- jump to the section from the TOC and look in the address bar for clues...)

They are especially useful for focussing redirects. Rather than simply redirecting to the top of an article, an anchored redirect will take the user directly to the relevant section. This is how the RWS/T&F character pages were created: a whole series of separate stub articles were combined into one, and the individual pages became links to the sections. Hence, when referring to a character such as Oliver the Western Engine, the user can follow the link to the correct section for the Railway Series character. When he gets there, he will immediately see there's a 'for' link that can take him onwards to the T&F character instead, if that's what he's looking for. That is why the link is at the top of the section.

Since there is the distinct possibility that some toe-rag editor who is not familiar with the article or the subject matter may come along and change the heading text, thereby breaking the redirect, it is possible to add an {{Anchor}} template, which ensures that the text used in the redirect will always find the correct target. This also alerts other editors to the fact that the headings shouldn't be altered without very good reason.

The structure of the character pages, and the redirects to them, was established by consensus and much hard work several years ago, and has remained stable ever since. Editors have thus been able to concentrate on improving the content rather than wasting time faffing about with template changes. (Ahem.)

I'm sure that anchors are mentioned in WP:MOS somewhere, but can't remember off-hand, and haven't tried looking.

EdJogg (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So then {{anchor}} provides the function you are seeking.174.3.99.176 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

{{anchor}} is perfect, for providing an anchor. {{for2}} does the job of a cross-link. EdJogg (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Cross-linking?174.3.99.176 (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Since your not replying, I've replied here.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's very helpful of you. You ask a question of EdJogg, give him 90 minutes, in which he was probably having a cup of tea or sleeping or something (it was 2.30am), then reply on my talk page. EdJogg will see this when he sees it. Posting on another user's talk page won't make him reply any quicker.—MDCollins (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hornsby

Hi Ed I've a feeling that all that the large track development section which is lacking inline refs and was added by one editor originally (who only edited 2 articles) may have been lifted from another source. I may be wrong but just way it reads to me. You know how most self written stuff often has grammar and spelling mistakes (like mine) & benefits from abit of tweeking. ? - BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not beyond improvement, and it's not obviously lifted from a website. I tried googling for "Lt-Col. R.E.B. Crompton" and "tractor and trailer with dummy gun", and both only returned this article and its wapedia mirror as hits. Ok, that's not conclusive, but the same technique has found copyvios in the past. Short of labelling it as unreferenced, there's not much you can do really. If you don't have a source to back up your suspicions it's rather unreasonable to label something as a copyvio just because it's been well written! :o)

EdJogg (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats Ok Ed I leave it as refimprove, I was just abit suspect and wanted a second opinion. I when to it as it had had a big block of tags added. Unreferenced is often misused because its easy to stick on (when really its ref improve or one of the others) woulden't add copy vio as some over zealous editors delete that sort of article completely instead of the section. I'll leave you to your search through guidance notes and policies that people like to cherry pick :; - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

template for2

Ok, here, you say that you are going to use {{details}}, and up there, you say you don't want to.

What is it. Are you going to use it, or are you going to persist to use something you are no supposed to?174.3.99.176 (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU are the ONLY person who says I am not supposed to use it. That does not constitute "consensus"! -- EdJogg (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to use {{details}} as it doesn't provide the necessary formatting. {{for2}} provides the correct wording and the correct formatting. Job done. I just haven't found the enthusiasm to change the links yet again. It will happen eventually, and no one will die if I don't do it tonight.

I'm waiting to find out if you get an answer to your question elsewhere regarding {{for2}}. There's no point me changing it just so you can change it again. As I've said repeatedly, there is no problem about using this template for the purpose we are using. The reader sees exactly what he needs to see, and worrying about the mechanics is just wasting time. (Remember Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.)

As you will discover, here at Wikipedia "there is no deadline", so I am getting on with my life rather than spending all the time changing stuff that doesn't need changing. It's bad enough that we have to contend with vandals and well-meaning kiddies adding stuff that is inappropriate in some way, without having futile internal arguments about stuff that wasn't broken in the first place.

EdJogg (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"The reader sees exactly what he needs to see, and worrying about the mechanics is just wasting time." - that's a good point. We could type a line of explanation and format it using wiki-markup if we want to; however a template is there that formats it automatically. A reader doesn't see it, doesn't know that "details" should be used instead of "for2" - who cares? It works.—MDCollins (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care which template you use, as long as it is the right one.

For other uses, see EdJogg/Archive 8 (disambiguation).

is hatnote, clear as day. You mentioned "I just haven't found the enthusiasm to change the links yet again. It will happen eventually, and no one will die if I don't do it tonight.". So currently, there is a problem with the issue we have? What exactly is this problem? Are the articles linked to this template somehow incorrectly connected? What, specifically, are the letters that are being used that is providing the obstacle you are describing?100110100 (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

What? I'm afraid I don't understand your questions. What letters? huh? You don't care which template we use as long as it is your one you would choose? Who cares if it is a "hat note, clear as day"? What is stopping anyone using it anyway, just not in a hat-note position? Think of it as a hatnote for a section.—MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excatly, why don't you ask yourself that question. Why is it in the 3 million articles, that this is the only one to use this hatnote on this article where it should not be used?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it is not being used as a hatnote; because it provides the right text for the right purpose; because it fulfils a need and is helpful to the user; because I've had it confirmed that there is no problem with using it in this way; and because it annoys the hell out of you! (Why don't you ask yourself the question: Why is there only one editor out of WP's 100,000's of contributors that gets upset by it?) -- EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What excatly do you want readers to read, if you don't want them to read "For the characters in Thomas & Friends, see Bill & Ben (TV Series)." or "For the character in Thomas & Friends, see Oliver (TV series)." or "For the character in Thomas & Friends, see Daisy (TV series)." ad nasuem?174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Give the readers some credit. If they are directed to a section of the article then they will see it for the first time and use or ignore it. If they are reading the article from top to bottom -- which, as a list, is less likely -- they will see the first link and likely as not ignore the subsequent links. This is not a problem. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not answered my question.174.3.99.176 (talk)

I've answered your question many times. You do not seem to be reading the answers. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my question. What is it that you want to replace this hatnote with.174.3.99.176 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no hatnote: there's a template at the beginning of the section. It's fine as it is. That's your answer. --EdJogg (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand the problem. He doesn't realise that a "hatnote" is a template used at the top of a page. It is the position on the page that makes it a hatnote, not the type of template -- although, granted, there are a number of templates whose normal position is 'hatnote'. I'm amazed someone can get so worked up about 87 bytes of mediawiki code! -- EdJogg (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with wp:hatnote, since I have already given you the link and you refuse to read it.174.3.99.176 (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article". This is not at the top of an article, ergo this template is not being used as a hatnote. Familiar yourself with the page, and tell me where it says that {{for2}} must be used exclusively as a hatnote, must not be used anywhere else, and because it is listed in a page containing examples of hatnotes why that precludes it from being used elsewhere as a normal template. As I said before, would you have a problem if we removed the template and replaced it with suitable (identical) wiki-markuped text? Oh, by the way, have you checked all 3 million articles that use this template as a hatnote to check their validity, or is it only this one page that bothers you. Good call on the RFC though - just remind me, hasn't EdJogg already requested clarification of this matter here?—MDCollins (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have checked all articles. No article uses this template {{for2}} the way you do. The superfluous text is unnecessary.174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if these are the only articles using it like this. I'm sure you could find other articles that had 'one-off solutions to one-off' problems.

"Superfluous text is unnecessary" -- well that is certainly a truism (!), but there isn't any superfluous text here. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Marine steam engine

Yes, thanks Ed, that was just what I was looking for!

I slightly altered the position of the template, it works on my screen, hopefully it works on yours too.

I really did want to get a link to that video into the section, but didn't want to use an external link as I don't think that is appropriate. The template is a very nice alternative :) Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

female locomotives

FYI, traditionally footplatemen will refer to locomotives as being female -- something to do with them being moody and unpredictable apparently... ;) Tony May (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that this stems from the nautical use of 'she' for ships/boats etc, which apparently stems from the C14 (one source suggesting this comes from the feminine gender of 'ship' in all the Romance languages. It is somewhat colloquial though...:

"She is also used instead of it for things to which feminine gender is conventionally attributed: a ship or boat (especially in colloquial and dialect use), often said of a carriage, a cannon or gun, a tool or utensil of any kind, and occasionally of other things." (She#Usage)—MDCollins (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, neither usage is particularly 'news' to me. I don't really have a problem with it, except that it doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Also, it seems rather incongruous that a loco called Oliver Cromwell or Samson would be referred to as 'she'. Would be interested to know if there's a WP:MOS section about this.

EdJogg (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't think it would be news to you EJ; hadn't thought about masculine named examples but I would imaging that nautically at least they would still be she. I wonder if WP:GENDER covers it.—MDCollins (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would seem so, but I've asked the question anyway.

Incidentally, off Wikipedia, I'm just as guilty as everyone else (see www.swrs.co.uk) !!

-- EdJogg (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This topic was recently discussed (at some length, and regarding ships) at WP:MOS (with several theories of the origins suggested).

The gist was that she/her or it/its are equally valid usage, but that (a) an article should be internally consistent, and (b) one form shouldn't normally be changed to the other, for the very reason that either is acceptable. Steam locos were not mentioned, but I guess that we can extend the same policy to individual locos. (Something for WP:TRAINS to consider, maybe?)

All the links may be found in my answer at Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language#Boats and Trains.

-- EdJogg (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see it was quite a debate (at MOS); well found. I agree with your points re: consistency and keeping the existing style, as is the case with many other guidelines. Also, apologies for taking over your talk-page yesterday, don't really know why I replied before you did...:-( On a separate matter, all seems quiet on the "Western front"....—MDCollins (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it -- it's natural to want to answer a question on a talk page on your watchlist -- did it myself elsewhere at lunchtime today! Western front will be tested when I get round to restoring links on the T&F page.

-- EdJogg (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Holt tractor model numbers

Are you sure about those Holt tractor model numbers being spelled out? All the sources I read specifically used numbers, not letters, to spell out the model number. As you no doubt know, the number originally referred to the horsepower of the engine, as in the Holt 75 having a 75hp engine -- not a seventy-five horsepower engine. Please recheck the model names and confirm you've got it right. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If I have changed any in any location other than image 'alt' text, please change it back. I think I read somewhere that screen readers would read digits individually, so changing '75' to 'seventy-five' should ensure that it says what we want, and not 'seven five' (or worse).

Having said that... After completing those changes, I was wondering about asking on the talk page of WP:ALT for someone to review my handiwork. There I stumbled across a raging argument going on. There are questions about all the guidelines concerning alt text, the basic purpose, and practically every other facet too, including removing the requirement for FAC article images to all have alt fields. Suffice it to say that I shall not be trying to add further 'alt' text for the foreseeable future. Once they have made their decisions, I may reconsider.

EdJogg (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki troubles

After you cleared all the interwikis out of pt:Southern San Paulo Railway, I was afraid that a 'bot would slap them all back in, because User:DrFrench had attempted the same removal earlier and been overturned by User:VolkovBot. I realised that it was being copied over from a non-English langauge page, but whether from French, German, etc. I could not know. So, I went to the SR (GB) article in each of the seven languages, and removed the pt interwiki out of each one. I think it's stable now. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at WP:BON. Mjroots (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

To which I have added my observations. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a comment (which I needn't repeat here). Thanks for fully resolving it ('fraid I was too sleepy to do much more than I did). EdJogg (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Time for another challenge?

Hi Ed! After a long time away (well it felt like it!) from Wikipedia to do some research for my MA, I also found the time to have a bash at the SECR N1 class article. As I hope you are able to see, the content has been expanded, but as usual, there's the not so small matter of the prose. As far as heavy research goes, there's not much more out there to add to the article (the N1 was one of the many little-known classes of the Southern that beavered away in the background without anyone paying particular notice) except maybe another picture to break the text up a bit. However, I'd like an outside opinion on it, and felt that you might like to have first refusal on it as a break from Thomas the Tank Engine subjects that seem to have invaded your talk page. Anyway, hope you are well! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much 'Thomas' as a particular anon editor with a bee in his bonnet and a legalistic streak. Poor Thomas just happened to be in the way. It was a bit of the 'irresistible force and the immovable object' -- he didn't like the fact that I objected to what he was up to and asked for my peers' opinions. Mixed with the good edits was an awful lot of anon sockpuppetry and disruptive editing -- he'd been blocked for this several years ago and has been blocked again now. Thank goodness. His take-no-prisoners style of editing annoyed an awful lot of Wikipedians. Normal service has been resumed...

Now, regarding SECR N1 class, I'll see what I can do. -- EdJogg (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to sort out the lead. I'll use the N class one as a template, then customise it to suit the N1. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Grrrr, gnash, gnash -- that's the only bit I'd had time to look at! Still, I'd run out of ideas for improvement anyway...

Having a weekend-off editing. Will catch up later. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've now hacked and burnt the introduction (I've had several other non-WP things to do, and they still haven't been finished yet!), but haven't had the chance to do any more editing of this article recently, so would appreciate an independent examination before putting it up for GA. Long-term will be the usual FA drive, but I'd like to know if the article makes sense as it currently stands. If you do have the time to take another peek, I'd be most grateful as always. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious minds

I wasn't aware, but I'm not really too concerned, seeing I haven't uses that page much. I should probably delete it. Thanx for noticing. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas and Payne

Hi EJ, I've got Reading Between the Lines! Will start using it to reference all I can. Can you check something in TtTEM for me? Thomas and Illustrators both suggest (unreferenced) that Awdry was unhappy with the illustrations for Thomas until it was pointed out by Payne that he was based on the E2 class. Christopher suggests the opposite in RBtL, "[Awdry] wanted authenticity and needed a genuine prototype for the illustrator to base his drawing on...choosing E2, perhaps simply because he had a photograph to hand" (p29). Which is correct? I'm editing Thomas with the Christopher reference, simply because at least it is referenced, but I'd be interested if Sibley suggests otherwise.

On a secondary matter, RBtL uses "the Railway Series", whereas our convention (only loosely applied) has been "The Railway Series". Thoughts?

Cheers mate,

—MDCollins (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sibley does indeed state otherwise:

Wilbert's first reaction was one of disappointment: 'When I first saw Reginald Payne's illustrations,' he says, 'I was annoyed at his version of Thomas, which was quite different from the drawings I had made, which had admittedly been based on Christopher's push-along toy.'
Wilbert's agents were also less than happy about the finished pictures:

We went to great trouble and no small expense to procure really accurate drawings for this second book; only to find that Messrs Ward have once more prettified and vulgarised them, and rendered them inaccurate. Despite repeated efforts, we cannot inculcate in them any respect for engineering accuracy.

Later, Wilbert discovered that Reginald Payne's pictures of Thomas were based on a real locomotive design, namely an E2 0-6-0 tank engine, with extended tanks, which was built for the London Brighton & South Coast Railway by their Locomotive Superintendent, Lawson Billington. Knowing this, Wilbert was then content for that design to be followed in subsequent books.

— Sibley, Brian (1995). The Thomas the Tank Engine Man. London: Heinemann. p. 123. ISBN 0 434 96909 5.

Note spelling mistake: "Billington" for "Billinton". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

These talk pages are full of surprises (...welcoming Redrose64 as an honorary member of WP:THOMAS!).

MDC, Glad to know you've got hold of a copy, I've seen you've already put it to good use (I must try to clear the other tasks and join in!) Be aware that there are some differences between descriptions in RBtL and IoS:PHR, and there are typos in the former too (Mavis is described as an 0-4-0 in one place). However it would be good to work-in the story-origin details where appropriate.

Frustratingly, even TTtTEM misses much detail we might want. Don't forget to look at "The Real Lives..." website, which additionally gathers information gleaned from the annuals and other sources; and also the Sodor Island Forums -- ignoring the actual forum pages, of course!

As for 'The R~ S~' vs 'the R~ S~', I'm not sure. Sometimes using 'The' looks right, other times it doesn't. I think I looked at one of the books and found that it was unhelpfully written in all upper-case!

-- EdJogg (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm not sure how we go about dealing with discrepancies, for the above, I'd be happy to report Sibley (as he gives a fully example/quote); there won't be any other reliable sources I doubt - Sibley the biographer vs Awdry the son [or author] (with memories and second hand reports no doubt). I wondered how reliable the Sodor Forums were (keeping in mind that most of the, sadly retired, WP:THOMAS stalwarts were very active there) and whether it would count as a WP:RS for our purposes. Obviously a good fact checker, but even then probably only working from sources we have access to anyway.

The or the - I always like consistency; not much point involving the rest of WP:THOMAS as it's probably only us and some TV series/fan-type members around at the moment. Not even our article titles are consistent if I remember rightly, so it gets very confusing! We could tally the various sources available? Or just choose one and try and stick to it. My convention has been for the uppercase T, but quite willing to be persuaded otherwise!

Given my current residence (White Rose), I am loathe to consult the enemy, but let's be fair to the newcomer to the squad...RedRose64, what do you think?!

—MDCollins (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's about time that I read Sibley cover to cover, and tally the/The as I go...

I have a full set of 40 "proper" books (none of yer modern stuff... my nephew can keep those), and can also check what they say. By way of example, "The Three Railway Engines" has on the front "THE RAILWAY SERIES NO. 1", and on the back '... the well known "Railway Series" by the Rev. W. Awdry'. The title page has "Railway Series, No. 1"; the absence of the definite article suggests that it's not part of the series name, and so when it is required for grammatical reasons, it should be lower case. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sibley is a very good read, but has the unfortunate side-effect of lengthening editing sessions considerably! I've only ever dipped into it, but often get absorbed. If you do start reading it from cover-to-cover, keep WP open on your laptop and you can top-up the articles as you go. :o)

(EC -- kept getting interrupted...)

In the most prominent position, top dead centre on the cover of the original books, the first line is: "THE RAILWAY SERIES NO.xx"

Yet, inside, in the same position on the title page is: Railway Series, No. xx (note the lack of 'the' and the added comma)

The former is probably why the books are known as "The Railway Series".

So, how did WVA refer to them? Looking at IoS:PHR, in the Foreword, Messrs Awdry refer to "the Engine Series" (yes, really); but in the following 'Notes and Abbreviations' they call them "the Engine Books"! For completeness, Sibley refers to "the Railway Series" or "the [adjective] Railway Series" (small 't'), and probably 'The R~ S~' too...

So, what, as far as WP is concerned, do we do? For a start, I strongly suggest we retain the main article title as-is. It looks 'right' and is clearly what is recognised by most users due to the prominent positioning on the book cover (which is the over-riding factor for naming). The accompanying character/location pages should also stay as they are -- again they 'look right' with 'The'. However, within the text I suggest we use lower-case 'the' -- the Wikilink mechanism can handle this without pipery (see edit summary). Also, regarding the article title, I think "Railway Series" is more ambiguous than "The Railway Series", but that may just be me.

EdJogg (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Reading your last post EdJ, I would go further and use your arguments for Uppercase. Principally because of the common name, and it is what looks 'right'; the prominence on the outer cover as you pointed out is the natural source for this. I assume (keeping in mind that "assume makes an ass out of u and me") that we what all refer to it as "The Railway Series", using the definite article, in which case, going against how RedRose interpreted it from the inside cover, we should use the uppercase in the prose as well. To have Fictional locations in The Railway Series and potentially having the lead saying "This article lists all of the locations in the Railway Series of books..." seems counter-intuitive.

While we're debating the style, should we use italics for t/The Railway Series or not? Usually for works of literature you do, but as it is a collection, maybe we shouldn't; we have of course got a Series of Books with individual Stories. I would suggest that maybe we have

• The Railway Series, The Three Railway Engines, "Edward's Day Out".

Obviously you would very rarely, if ever, have to use all three in one sentence, but the style should be there. Whatever we choose, we should rename List of Railway Series books to [[List of books in t/The Railway Series]] surely? A couple of problem examples (suggested fixes) from Thomas the Tank Engine as it is what I was working on (and using lowercase myself):

• "one of a number of characters in his Railway Series books, first published in the 1940s"
  • "one of a number of characters in The Railway Series, first published in the 1940s"
• "The accident, in Thomas Comes to Breakfast was partly devised as a means of correcting this" [note the Easter Egg to the wrong book (1985)]
  • "The accident in "Thomas Comes to Breakfast" was partly devised... ([[List of Railway Series books#Branch Line Engines|Thomas Comes to Breakfast]])

I'm sure there are others in lots of articles, but as I've got the bug for getting stuck in again, let's take the opportunity for clarifying the style guide.—MDCollins (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK. Definitive (?) answer!

I looked at a number of the original RWS books on my shelf, some of which date back to the 60's/70's (most of the older ones were originally jacketed, and obtained secondhand, and these were no help). I found one (c.1971) that did not have 'the' before Railway Series; however, the later books all included 'the'. So, it would be easy to argue that 'the' was not included in the original name.

Next I looked at some of the 'other' books. Two TtTE&F Ladybird books (out of two) included the following, in this form (wording, punctuation, emphasis and capitalisation), on the front cover:

Based on The Railway Series by The Rev W Awdry

This text is repeated on the title page.

Moving more up-to-date, the book 'BoCo' from My Thomas Story Library (pub. Egmont 2008) includes similar wording/formatting on the title page:

Based on The Railway Series by the Rev. W. Awdry

(Note different treatment of 'the Rev W'.) The copyright page is slightly different, in that they use lower-case 'the' with no formatting:

Based on the Railway Series by the Reverend W Awdry

Now to my mind, the Ladybird and Egmont usage is sufficient to define The Railway Series as 'common usage'. (The 60-strong My Story Library has now sold in excess of 10 million books worldwide!)

So, yes to 'The' in articles except where the wording would be brutally compromised by forcing the format. And 'Yes' to adjusting the article wording as needed.

List of The Railway Series books already exists as a redirect, but it was moved twice and the "non-trivial edit history" prevents us from moving it -- you'll need admin help for this. Fortunately, the edits are trivial and few.

Your formatting ideas seem fine.

Also, I need to consider the wording, as I have routinely written along these lines: "...x is a steam locomotive character from The Railway Series of children's books by the Rev. W. Awdry...". I think I can safely drop the 'of'.

EdJogg (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, looks good. 'The' it is then. You're right about "List of The Railway Series books" rather than "List of books in The Railway Series" as that seems to be common convention in the category pages at least. I wonder whether we should move others to "List of The Railway Series locations" (drop the fictional anyway. The two character pages probably have to stay for a while; can't think of any better wording.—MDCollins (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't really considered moving the 'grouped' pages, mainly because of the number of inbound links -- these have never been fully sorted from their first page move! (Some are still pointing to the wrong places following the character shuffle of all those years ago...)

Moving the 'locations' page would be less problematic, and if it moves it more towards WP naming conventions then I'd say 'go for it'. -- EdJogg (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GA approval for Holt Manufacturing Company

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Thanks for the big assist with getting Holt Manufacturing Company ready for GA review. It passed on the first attempt.-- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You are most kind. It was a fair bit of work but clearly worth it in the end. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Observer's Railway Locomotives

Re this edit; I'd suggest that instead of

|year=1955 (Revised ed. 1960)

you use

|origyear=1955 |edition=Revised |year=1960

This will show as

• Casserley, H. C. (1960) [1955]. The Observer's Book of Railway Locomotives of Britain (Revised ed.). Frederick Warne. p. 56.

I believe that the |year= is used to create COinS metadata, so should be a pure year without additional text. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will bow to your greater knowledge of the templates. These things evolve over time, and what was acceptable a couple of years ago may have moved on. I was pre-empting a bot changing 'date' to 'year', which I have seen done on many of my old references over the past few months.

I'll also note {{para}} and {{diff}} in my help page. They may come in handy...

EdJogg (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dart Valley Railway

Some time ago you asked me if I had any photos of the observation car. I do. I took some today, mainly internally because I was more interested in getting into it than seeing the outside! I would be happy to let you have some by email if you like. I know I did have your email address, but it has vanished in a computer crash. If you use the email user thingy to get in touch with me I'll do the deed.

Never got tyhe drink in Bracknell. My apologies. But I am now in Dartmouth permanently. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Clapham Jct rail crash

Nice catch - Snow storm has been putting his pics on many articles regardless of relevance or quality, often with POV or irrelevant captions. He occasionally contributes as an IP (I know this because the pictures, editing style and spelling errors are consistent). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That picture is particularly bad. It doesn't look much as a thumbnail, but if you enlarge it you'll see it's blurred as well. He has added it as an example of Mk 1 coaching stock in several places, almost all inappropriately! I have my eyes on another couple of articles too, where the picture choice is poor... (eg section concerning BR modernisation Plan, photo = Class 47 in BR Blue with (barely visible) 1980's vintage 'Stratford' roof; elsewhere, section on BR standard steam locos, photo = Duke of Gloucester!! Discussing Standard locomotives and someone picks the only class of one! Argh

This has a positive side though. I discovered that Commons has a collection of over 200 pictures of Mk 1 carriages. Admittedly many are in preservation ownership, but there are loads of superb photos. Best of all there is nestling a perfect shot of a BR Blue GUV, which will do the infobox of that article nicely...

I digress. I wanted to replace that bad picture with a representative of the stock involved in the Clapham Jct crash. A quick peek at the report did not reveal which trains were involved (it must say somewhere, but it's a 200-page report!) From the pictures, a guess at a 4-VEP or 4-CIG would do, but there are none of either in blue/grey livery -- hence I just had to remove the pic.

EdJogg (talk) 23:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Appendix G, if memory serves me right. One train was a 4-REP/TC/TC; one was 3x4-VEP; forget the third. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Have added pic of 4-VEP unit to article; it's in NSE "toothpaste" livery, not blue & grey; but check the right-hand train on the front cover of the Hidden report - it's all 4-VEP stock, and although the coach closest to the camera is blue/grey, the next is NSE "toothpaste".

I have since examined the text of the Hidden report; App. G (p.191) describes the damage to the trains; I can't find the set or coach numbers (nor liveries), except for coach 62146 which is mentioned on pp. viii and 229, but I'm sure I've seen at least two others previously. However Chapter 3 (pages 23-24) describes the actual trains. The Poole train was a 4-REP/4-TC/4-TC (sections 3.2 & 3.3); the Basingstoke train was 3x4-VEP; the ECS to Haslemere was 2x4-VEP.

Thus, between 1 and 4 (out of 8) units can be represented by the picture which I chose. The one which sustained the most damage was a 4-REP, so ideally we need a pic of one of those; but commons:Category:British Rail Class 432 is empty. A 4-CIG is not really suitable; comparing its driving trailer to the motor coach of a 4-REP shows that the front three-quarters of the body is similar, but the rear quarter and the underframe are very different. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good move. I hadn't spotted the NSE livery until you added the photo -- it can just be made out in the report cover photo. (Incidentally, I thought that "Hidden Report" meant something entirely different until I saw who had written it! Had me baffled for a while. Some kind of Government cover-up maybe? :o) )

Reason for suggesting a 4-CIG is that they were used with the 4-VEPs on the Portsmouth--Waterloo services (via Guildford, where I live) for many years (and between them were largely responsible for my disinterest in Southern EMU stock!). It's rather surprising the lack of blue-grey photos though.

EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Toby

Hi EdJ,

Thanks for pitching in with Toby; it looks good now! I've had another whack at it, rearranging the prototype/backstory bit again, so that the first section deals solely with real life, and any actual TRS details about "Toby" is moved into the Toby in TRS section. I think it works now. I think it's best to reference TRS from the original books wherever possible. I've only got the Complete Collection to hand, so have left some references in needing page numbers (noted xx-xy-yy etc). If you, or RedRose, get time, can you fill in the blanks please? (look in the notes for "Awdry 1952 p-xx) etc.

There are also a couple of "cn"s. One in particular is my own addition regarding the closure of steam etc, and the fact that final workings were always full; along the lines of people complaining when something is gone/going, even if they don't use it when it is there. I don't have a reference to point to; any ideas? We could always link to another article; there doesn't seem to be much under Beeching Axe, where I would expect. There is "In the UK, there was a big public reaction against tramway abandonment, on a par with the similarly unsuccessful reaction against the Beeching Rail closures in the 1960s." in Tram; but that isn't actually referenced either.

—MDCollins (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly looking good. Haven't looked at your latest go yet, but the changes sound reasonable. I've found numerous times here that you can end up with all the information you need in an article, but it doesn't always flow logically, until you start moving whole paragraphs around and the picture becomes clearer. Takes a bit of courage, and sometimes a few goes to get right, but can produce startling improvements.

Page numbers from the original books aren't a problem, but must wait for when I'm editing at home. I'd get some funny looks from my colleagues if I had a row of 41 Awdry books on my desk!

Not sure I can help with the cn's you mention, but it sounds like you've found a bit of a hole in WP coverage. If necessary, while we wait, in a comment you could mention that WVA based the stories on fact, so the run-down and last days of the tramway are certainly based on real events, even if not specific ones...

EdJogg (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

41? I'm missing one: mine go up to 40. What is the 41st?

I've filled in the xx/xy/etc. page numbers. Since they're all even numbers, I've been unsure how to handle multiple pages. Two consecutive pages come out something like |pp=8,10; three consecutive as |pp=8-12. If that's wrong, please change.

Re Beeching: he gets far more blame than he's due, with many railway closures being given the "Beeching Axe" tag, whether warranted or not. IMHO, any railway closure that occurred prior to 1 June 1961 (when he became Chairman of the BTC) cannot be blamed on Beeching; further, any closure before 27 March 1963 (publication of first Beeching Report) shouldn't be blamed on him either; and nor should any freight closures, whatever the date. The Upwell Tramway closed to passengers on 31 December 1927, and the last steam working on the Tramway was in March 1953, when Beeching was still at ICI. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Book 41 = Thomas and Victoria

Once announced, we had nearly a year of speculative edits to cope with! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to attribute the W+UT closure to Beeching (that's why I didn't link or comment to Beeching Axe); merely drawing a correlation with the public opinion to the closure of lines in general; they don't use them, but require them to still 'be there'. As the real-life behind the closure of Toby's line was drawn from multiple sources (i.e. the implication that the passenger services were still in operation), it isn't so easy to reference to the closure of the W+U Tramway; in fact the tramway was open until the Beeching closures, just run by diesel power. I wonder if there are sources to other closures around 1950-2 we could mention or comment on/reference as sources of parallel closures...I'll have a look at some other books regarding the end of steam and see if anything there can help as it seems a valid point to be making.—MDCollins (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Excellent work guys! We're going to be hard-pressed to match this standard on many of the other characters!

Can we work in a link to Mavis, as you've mentioned the special W+U Class 04 diesels?

I haven't checked the references (I'm at work, remember!), so are there any that still need any clarification, ISBNs, page nos etc?

EdJogg (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and get Mavis in somewhere. It is looking good, if only we didn't have to worry about the TV series bit! RedRose has filled in the references but using the 1994 reprint. Have a look at the "reference" section, I think we need to make the reprints clear by using origyear= 1957 (and reference the original publisher, presumably Edmund Ward?); is it necessary for completeness?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reprints were just that weren't they - same layout etc? Of course if we have original/first editions to work from it looks even more impressive!

I was going to be really stupid and ask whether the ISBN the same in 1957 as it was in 1994;ISBN was created in 1966 it came to mind because I clicked on the link provided by RedRose's ISBN and the wiki book look-up things were suggesting that 8 Famous Engines was 1955. I'm assuming that's just an error on whoever did the ISBN cataloguing.—MDCollins (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Ward will have allotted ISBNs (or the older style SBN - a SBN is merely an ISBN without the first zero) as and when they did reprints from the 1960s onward, so Ward's ISBN will be valid for the original, even though about half the books were published before SBNs were introduced. Mine says "First published in Great Britain 1957" and "This edition first published 1994 by William Heinemann Ltd". If Heinemann purchased Edmund Ward outright, then any ISBNs allocated by Ward would be retained; however, if Heinemann bought the publishing rights to Awdry's books from Ward, with Ward remaining a separate firm, then new ISBNs would be allotted by Heinemann. I suspect the latter, since my "Gordon the Big Engine" (Edmund Ward 1953, eighth impression Kaye & Ward 1977) is ISBN 0 7182 0007 1 - a completely different series of numbers. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re second point from MDC's last post - the early 1990s reprints (cover size 144x108 mm) were of similar size and layout to the originals, although the paper quality changed as did the legal stuff on page 2 and on the back cover. The late 1990s reprints (cover size 167x125 mm) are a different beast since they cut up the pictures into little bits, spread them out over the two pages and made the text flow around them. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of my copies are 'old', but none first editions. With the exception of the endpapers (different length book lists, different publishing details, etc) I have never noticed any differences (the text change within Henry's book being a notable exception) -- I think they are just reprints. So, when quoting from the books I always quote the original publication date, but use the publisher and ISBN of the copy I am using. I have a few duplicates, but I don't think cross-publisher.

Comparing covers is interesting. The fonts, sizing and positioning adjusted slightly over the years. Also, initially 'the' was omitted from 'The Railway Series'.

The larger, 'chopped up picture' reprints don't count, as far as I am concerned. I have none from this range, which was nowhere near a complete set anyway. Customers didn't like them, and it wasn't until 2007 (? - when was 41 published?) that the entire range (including Christopher's books) was reprinted (by which time, books such as "Wilbert" were reaching £40+ on eBay!). These latest ones may be subtly different (have a look at the spine widths?).

I'll make a note to check the Heinemann refs and put older ISBNs if I can.

EdJogg (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Coincidence?

Have you seen this: Talk:List of Railway Series books#Wisbech and Upwell Tramway ? May have been triggered by the recent activity.

Interesting couple of links, which we could well use to broaden the scope of the refs -- particularly with regard to what happens in the books. I don't think they are based on a WP source (a problem which is gradually growing!) so we should be OK to use them. (One's already in the article.) Could also mention that there is a pic of Toby there!

Looking at the "Toby the Tram Engine" entry in the book list article, it would benefit from an updated reference. Currently it just points to 'Sibley', without giving a page number. This probably indicates sensible policy: update the related book entries as the character pages are updated. The list page is currently referenced rather sparsely -- probably just by me in reaction to fact tags!

EdJogg (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was using the LNER Encyclopaedia (www.lner.org...) for the background information. It's quite reliable, and provides quite a lot of information in general. It will certainly be good value for some of the other project material too. Reading it again, it doesn't actually back up the "erroneous claim" for the Toby inspiration (as was quoted in the article before I rehashed it). What it actually says is

The line also enjoys a degree of fame due to the unusual steam trams that it operated for much of its life, and have now been immortalised in the Rev. W. Awdry "Railway Stories" (aka. Thomas the Tank Engine)...W. Awdry's "Railway Stories" (aka "Thomas the Tank Engine") are probably responsible for much of the fame that the Wisbech & Upwell enjoys today. Awdry lived near the tramway, and incorporated both a J70 and a Drewry Shunter into his stories...The latter years of the Wisbech & Upwell are also depicted including the interest amongst railway enthusiasts ("People come to see Toby, but they come by bus."), and a final enthusiasts special.

— (history+toby and mavis pages)

.

It doesn't actually specify inspiration; but obviously the legacy drawn by the line is a valid one. Incidentally, "enthusiasts special" was probably the term I was looking for early when talking about line closures.

The book reference could be updated too, good plan. Also the cross-references in Wisbech and Upwell Tramway etc, with whatever RS material we can find.—MDCollins (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Toby and MOSDASH

Hey-up-chuck, Lots of reading for you to catch up on, (at work), in the morning! I noticed you changed my em dashes to spaced en dashes. I don't have real problems with it, is it just the difference in our personal preferences? I was checking up on WP:MOSDASH which does the great thing of explaining the differences, before saying, "but hey! some publishers use spaced en dashes instead of unspaced em dashes, it's up to you, just be consistent". Personally whatever is used, I much prefer using the code rather than the symbol, because when you're looking in the edit box, a hyphen and an ndash appear the same (and to the majority of editors, they are—incorrectly) unless you use the code.

Regardless of whether we differ slightly here (a major problem!!!), shouldn't the Whyte notation use en dashes 0–4–0 ? There is obviously precedence to be happy with the hyphen (do you know if this is standard practice off-wiki?), I'm just wondering if it falls foul of MOS:ENDASH point 1 (disjunction).—MDCollins (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If you use the – form, you'll find that a 'bot changes them to the – form. Trying to change them back is beating your head against the wall.

Re Whyte notation: different publishers/authors use different styles. Some use the M-dash and it just looks way too long: 0—6—0T; but both the N-dash form and hyphen form look OK: 0–6–0T, 0-6-0T.

The RCTS can be considered a highly WP:RELIABLE source, so I've checked some of their books, such as Locomotives of the LNER, part 8A; they use just two dash-type characters, long and short. The long one is a definite M-dash; the short one is much less than "half the width of an em dash", it's noticeably narrower than the letter "N" and is more like the width of a letter "i" (in serif font), so these are hyphens to my mind: it is this shorter one which the RCTS use in Whyte notation. However, they seem to use this "hyphen" in N-dash situations (such as number and date ranges) as well as hyphen situations ("two-thirds"), so which of the two they intended to be used for Whyte notation is debatable.

I would take as guidance the title of the Wikipedia article for the wheel arrangement, since if you're consistent with that, you can wikilink for the uninitiated: 0-6-0T uses hyphens and links normally; 0–6–0T uses en-dashes and is a redlink. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed all of the articles used hyphens; however MOSDASH says that if you use the en dash in titles, redirect from the hyphen version (which is a lot of work for someone!). Leave it for now.—MDCollins (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Crikey, talk about trying to make work for yourself!

It's never occurred to me that the dashes might be wrong. It seems natural enough to use simple hyphens (as it does, frankly, when entering date or page ranges). I would keep well quiet about this, and let some other poor mug come up with a bot script to change the thousands, nay probably tens of thousands of occurrences within WP.

Regarding mdash vs ndash. Personally I detest mdashes, especially without spaces, they just look wrong -- like an over-extended hyphen! Wherever I can I will change them to ndashes with spaces ("for consistency" :o) ) as I think it is much clearer and easier on the eye. (This is acceptable MOSDASH usage, if not editing behaviour!)

Regarding text vs symbols... In the past I used text, but have found that bots can go round changing them, so now I tend to use the character (copied from the 'insert' line below the edit box) and be done with it -- unless of course I'm changing an article where there is widespread use of the text form. Within talk pages -- such as here -- I can't be bothered to faff about, and just use two hyphens!

Going back to Whyte notation, why don't you suggest an extension to the convention?

 

You could use  0-6-0T,  0–6–0T, and 0—6—0T to indicate short, medium and long wheelbase, respectively!

EdJogg (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you detest em dashes, I don't mind them but can cope with spaced en dashes, so I'll go with them! Nice find on the Toby model photo by the way.—MDCollins (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Undercarriage image

Replied at my user page KVDP (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded new version of the image: File:Tram and train undercarriage.png

Seems to be getting somewhere now, perhaps it can be readded to the articles soon. KVDP (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway line#Merger

You are invited to join the discussion here. Fayenatic (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Have replied there. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Reciprocating motion

Thanks for adding the very nice, and "sorely need[ed]", animated graphic to Reciprocating motion. The various articles related to reciprocation and oscillation (including some in the See also section of Reciprocating motion) could use some work, and possibly some consolidation or harmonization, if you are interested.—Finell 04:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation, although even if I had the time I don't think I'd be able to add much value. My interest in this article is essentially limited to its relevance to steam engines, rather than as part of the coverage of physics/mechanics. Moreover, it is one of many hundreds of steam-related articles from the backwaters of WP that are on my Watchlist to ensure that any "random article" vandalism doesn't go uncorrected. (Current watchlist count: 1887 articles!) Of course, like many other editors who use the watchlist in this way, after a 'good edit' I'll spot something else that needs improving and do it, as in this case.

EdJogg (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thanks again for the animated graphic.—Finell 10:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

scoop wheel

I started a work page Talk:Rotary direct lift devices/workpage but then dropped the ball. There is some talk at chain pump. It was to be a merger of noria, sakia,scoop wheel, chain pump, and rope pump. I didn't get very far have a look if you've got time.J8079s (talk) 06:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really my area of interest/expertise. The page is only on my watch list on account of the scoop wheel in question being driven by a steam engine!

Your workpage looks comprehensive and well-referenced. I would make two points though. Firstly, the subheadings are way too long. Second, I would suggest that this should be a parent page discussing all of the sub-types of water-lifting mechanism in summary and linking to them using {{main}}. I don't see any reason to merge these pages together, since all describe distinct types of mechanism -- this is most obvious by the addition of 'excavator' at the end of the article, which is clearly out-of-place. You would then be able to link to (or compare) pump as well.

Just because a page is short is not a reason to seek to merge it.

EdJogg (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

William McNaught (Rochdale)

Agreed. I just thought we needed the three McNaught articles so I provided a stub. I started to work up both William articles in parallel, as you can separate them on a Google search- Stanley Graham is always reliable, so I was folllowing his leads- but then other reliable secondary sources- authoritatively told me they were the same man. Stanley suggests they were cousins- and working through the published texts it looks as if the well respected authors- added 2+2 and made 5. Dates of birth converged- and both claimed the same date of death. If cousin Willy came down from Scotland, he worked first for his father,he certainly landed in Manchester and maybe went up to Rochdale, before dying in Chorlton-upon-Medlock. However, Cousin Bill from Manchester has an employment History, but that involves Manchester- Bury- Rochdale. It looks if theis Bill was the McNaught of J&W McNaught. Certainly, in the pdf, 1wattmcnaughtchapter.indd (chapterone.pdf) the author gives a alternative time line. Parkinson-Bailey & p26 refers to a McNaught of Bury as the inventor of Cousin Willy's compound technique.

So I am ploughing through the mire, please feel free to join in- as I know my limitations.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, Clem, are you sure you've added this to the right talk page? I'll help out where I can, but won't reckon to join in the research. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just fishing! There was an outside chance that you had encountered this before. Oh well, Back to the nineteenth century.--ClemRutter (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame you for trying. I think my only knowledge has been gleaned from the articles within Wikipedia, but I'll try to look at the monograph I have about Beam Engines to see if they are mentioned there -- I may be out of luck, though, as it specifically excludes all rotative engines. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you gather the musings from the several User talk pages onto Talk:William McNaught (Glasgow) (that being the one with the ONDB ref). This will help highlight the problems you are having identifying the different McNaughts. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Weight

Yes, my regexes confused the parameter "Weight" with the template "Weight" (which is a redirect to "unbalanced"), something I have been aware was a possibility and meaning to fix. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rich Farmbrough, 16:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for fixing it so promptly. -- EdJogg (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Joining UK waterways project

I followed the instructions on [1] to add my name, but they appear to be out of date as the list is generated by a template. Can you do the necessary please. Chris55 (talk) 12:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed. By "this page" it didn't literally mean "this page" (Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways/Participants), it meant that you should follow the link which takes you to Template:WPUKW Participants and paste your new entry into that. Have fixed both pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

glad to be of help, Chris. -- :o) EdJogg (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

silly old me! Didn't notice the link. An interesting misleading locative phrase! Thanks Chris55 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

BRUTEs

The two images on Geograph can be uploaded to Commons as they are CC-by-SA 2.0 licenced. Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, I did know that. ALL images on Geograph are so licensed and I frequently go there first hunting for photos I can't find on Commons! My understanding is that 'they' are in the process of copying the entire Geograph database across to Commons, so I didn't want to spend time doing something that will happen anyway. (There are millions of images involved, so it's going to take a little while.) I only tend to do this where there is an immediate need, say, a missing photo in a locomotive infobox. Having found these two images, I thought I'd put them somewhere that they wouldn't be forgotten, but they are not so significant that there's an urgency to upload them.

What's much more important is for me to upload the close-up pictures of the preserved BRUTE I found in the Storeroom at the STEAM museum in Swindon! (I shouldn't think many people take pictures of it in preference to the other railwayana in the room!)

EdJogg (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I might have some... none will be specifically of BRUTEs, but will be random occurrences in photos primarily of locos. They are all colour prints which will need scanning (trip to the public library). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think there's any hurry. I've added a cat at Commons so if you spot any lurking in other photos there you can add them to the cat.

My pictures are close-ups of the BRUTE itself. I think there were some variations on the design, which other photos might help identify. Also, the article text indicates that there were brakes on the non-castor wheels -- I didn't grovel on the floor to look for any brakes (I didn't know it was that article I needed to read before I went to the museum!), but I did see that the lever on the front operates the coupling pin. It may operate the brakes too.

Interestingly, the non-swivel end had rectangular slots in the chassis cross-member, suggesting they were intended for fork-lift handling too.

EdJogg (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The mention of brakes on the non-castor wheels is, I'm afraid, my WP:OR, which might be faulty.

On the "front" there's a recessed panel for chalking the destination. To one end of that there is a handle which can be turned through 180°; it rotates a horizontal bar which is connected to a central chain extending down to the coupling pin. When the handle in the downwards position the chain is slack and the coupling engaged. When lifted, the chain is pulled up by about two inches; this tightens it and lifts the coupling pin. That much is certain (although unsourced: idle hours on platform ends waiting for the next train, nearest convenient seat is a BRUTE); but I seem to recall that there was some mechanism connecting the coupling to brake blocks. It's logical for there to be a brake, because a loaded BRUTE presents a substantial area for the wind to catch, but I never saw one drift off unaided. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur about the connecting pin mechanism, and now have the photos to prove it (although I didn't try playing with the lever) -- incidentally, this one was parked with the pin/lever 'up', which would presumably be when the brakes would be applied too. It looks like there is another (perpendicular) spring near the pin that could potentially link to the brakes. Also, the lever is much more substantial than you would expect necessary to lift/lower a coupling pin, and is painted bright yellow -- presumably for its position to be seen from a distance as I don't think even the most myopic porter would need help finding it on the truck! Once connected together, only the front BRUTE would have its brakes applied, but the fixed+castor arrangement would prevent any of the others from moving sideways.

We really could do with some official documentation about these. I wonder if any has been the cause of an accident investigated by HMRI....?

EdJogg (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hornby models

Re this and this- I know that what the anon added is true, but it's unsourced. This anon (who seems to be able to change IP addresses every few minutes) has been adding similar sections to several locomotive articles, which focussing on current products, are borderline WP:NOTADVERTISING. The reason I asked for "not a Hornby catalogue" is because catalogues are very much a WP:PRIMARY source, and being written by the marketing dept, may not respect WP:NPOV. Sometimes, the models advertised never reach the shops, or do so after much delay, so I don't consider catalogues WP:RS. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute your view in the slightest. My reaction was 'why highlight the current models?' which is much more like advertising, hence my (equally unsourced :o) ) but much wider scope revisions. Given enough time I could add references from Model Rail, no doubt with information sourced from Pat Hammond, who seems to be the guru on such matters, but this won't happen in the forseeable future.

EdJogg (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

I should do the same. I have Hammond's three books on Tri-ang/Hornby up to 1996, plus Michael Foster's Hornby-Dublo book. Somewhere I also have a stack of Model Rail back to about issue 40. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The breadth of your knowledge, and the extent of your library never cease to surprise me! I have Model Rail from issue 1 (and before, when it was a supplement to rail!) but not the time to trawl it for WP purposes. EdJogg (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Incidents at the Mid-Hants Railway article.

Hi again, Ed. Just a couple of concerns on a recent article started by another editor specifically concerning incidents that have occurred on the Mid-Hants Railway. I am in no way connected to the Mid-Hants, but as a volunteer on another railway, I can understand that such publications have the potential to cause distress. This situation was not helped by the timing of publication, as investigations into the cause of the recent fire are ongoing. I am also unsure about the necessity for a separate article when the material could easily be condensed and placed in an impartially-written section on the main article page. The fact that an entire page has been created to deal with such a sensitive subject has also rung a few alarm bells in that there may even be malicious intent behind the publication. However, I am interested in other editor's opinions, and want to see whether its worth pursuing deletion of the article in question before things get out of hand. Regards,

Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just back from a week's wikibreak (hence the delayed response).

I am familiar with the MHR article (check the editing history!) although other editors do much of the work. I share your concern over the separation of that article. It was completely unnecessary to split it off like that. It was on my ToDo list to propose a merge back, but I didn't have time before my break.

As for the incidents themselves, it is not unreasonable for any heritage railway article to contain such a section. The text is largely copied verbatim from the orignal article -- only the recent fire text has been edited to reflect updated information, since the fire and the article re-write happened at much the same time. All the incidents listed have received coverage in 3rd-party media, although the 5MT cylinder blow may have only been covered by the railway press.

Hence, all the incidents are properly referenced (I have paid close attention to this) and I hope have been described in an NPOV manner -- while the MHR is not my favourite railway (that's the NYMR by a LONG way) it is the closest standard gauge line, and we have ridden the Santa Special annually for most of the past 15 years, or so, so I wish them no harm. The incident of the DMU derailment is of particular interest -- the HMRI report contains a HUGE amount of information describing the railway that can be used as reference source material for the article! (NB -- apparently any broken refs should be available from the MHR website in archive form in the near future, so I am holding back on tackling these just yet).

So, I would propose that we apply merge tags 'now' (and if necessary take it to review elsewhere) then restore the Incidents section to its rightful place in the original article where it fits in a much more balanced way. And, if you think any of the individual incidents are inappropriate then please note this on the talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply (and sorry for my extremely belated response- its been non-stop since then!). As I said, I was only thinking about taking issue with this, as a few people have construed this to be over-emphaising the failures of the railway in question by creating a separate article. I think that the request for a merger may be the more tactful response for now. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Haytor Granite Railway

Thanks for your help with fixing the problem. Odd. I wasn't aware of doing anything to those photographs. I see you are interested in railways! Have you read the Laigh Milton Viaduct article? 92.11.16.165 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now! That is a very comprehensive article, and has the potential to reach GA status without too much difficulty. You might need to re-order the sections and/or move some of the content about -- the 'micro history' is perilously close to being a 'trivia' section. Also, you may have problems with your hand-drawn map. I may be being stupid, but I can't see the viaduct marked on it (note that you can now use scans of OS maps prior to 1948, since they are now out of copyright.)

And don't forget to log-in! -- EdJogg (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oasis Academy

On there website it says "In September 2010 we're celebrating a new time in our history, with a new building and a new name. As a tribute to our founding Principal, the state-of-the-art school will be re-named, 'Oasis Academy John Williams'." http://www.oasisacademybristol.org/academy-life/news/view/item12449/ Mark999 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the ref. I didn't think the page move was actually the work of a vandal, but without the supporting text you have to assume the worst. I have expanded the reasoning slightly. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Somerset Space Walk

Hi, I wondered if you have any plans for your draft about the Somerset Space Walk to go live at any point? I took the kids for a walk today along part of it & have added some more pics to Commons Category:Somerset Space Walk & would be happy to help.— Rod ^talk 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling me up about this one. I had been waiting for (a) some pictures from my Mum and (b) to double-check the sources of some of the text...but life intervened! With your photos we can think of including a gallery, in planetary order (rather than by filename, as at Commons).

MUST get and finish it off soon! (Just back from a week's holiday, so I have a watchlist backlog to process first...)

EdJogg (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you spot the edits to Bridgwater and Taunton Canal where another editor has started to add a section about the space walk?— Rod ^talk 11:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ho-hum -- that'll teach me!

Yes, thank you for the alert, I did spot it first thing this morning (having been off-wiki over the weekend) and resolved to make mine go live 'NOW!'

Will do it this lunchtime....

Regards - EdJogg (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I've made a few minor tweaks as you will have seen. Can I assume you will be doing a DYK nomination?— Rod ^talk 12:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. You will see I have simplified the text in the canal article, although I have left most of Suzy's wording in place. I guess I must say 'feel free to make other changes as appropriate'!

A DYK nomination was always on my mind, and part of the delay was occasionally thinking that I could time the article going live so that the DYK could be chosen on the anniversary of its opening. But mainly I just kept putting it off!

I'll pop a couple of suggestions on the article talk page. If you want to nominate it for DYK, please go ahead -- I'm very busy at work this week and might miss the deadline.

(In the mean time, almost all of the links seem to have gone dead. Grrr )

EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for choosing me, but I think there are editors more actively involved in the project work than I. May have a second look at the interview page at the weekend, if time permits. EdJogg (talk) 13:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Strap rails

Fixed punctuation.

"Strap rails" - plates of cast or rolled iron attached to the top of wooden rails. see [2]

Also a description at Rail_profile#History, and another description here [3].

There's a drawing here [4] second image right. If there's another name for them, or the section is still confusing let me know.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Very belatedly updated! (Refs added) The Google Books find is excellent: its coverage of strap rails shows there is sufficient information to support their own article!. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Somerset Space Walk

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Need to check this again, as it's presumably still 1st October in some parts of the world, but currently it's at 6500 views! I think that can be called a 'result'! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

6504 to be precise. Just re-checked. And no-one's looked at it since :o( -- EdJogg (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a glitch with the monitoring tool. Page is picking up views daily. Have added to DYKSTATS, as it qualifies. EdJogg (talk) 09:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Time for a new joint effort on the N1 class article?

Hello again, Pete! I can't believe that its been two months since I have last edited on here, and even longer since I've done some serious work on an article. That is mostly because I had an MA dissertation to write-up. However, now that's over, I am now at a bit of an intellectual loose-end, so I thought I might restart my effort to help develop the articles on R. E. L. Maunsell's locomotives. I seem to remember sitting on the SECR N1 class prior to submitting it fo GA review. It would be great if we could restart the editorial partnership again at some point, and this article seems as good as any to take forward. Anyway, its up to you entirely, and I realise you continue to have 1001 things to do in here and life in general. Just a thought... Will speak again soon once I submit the article for GA. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

To say life is hectic at present is an understatement. At work we are reaching a critical project milestone and doing overtime in abundance! (I'm just going home now...) Away from work I am spending weekends demolishing/re-fitting the kitchen -- almost everything needs changing (floor and walls stripped back to plaster, new ceiling, wiring, window....) Shifted close on a cubic metre of tiles from the walls! Yet amazingly, here at WP my watchlist backlog is just about under control -- although haven't had much time to tackle the ToDo items yet...

May be able to help you a bit, but don't assume lots of hours in the short term... EdJogg (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Heck, and I thought I had problems! Well, I'll get the ball rolling on the weekend, and will see where it takes us. I should think it will get through GA without too many problems (that's complacency for you!). Anyway, good night! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJogg. You have new messages at Talk:SS Great Western.
Message added 23:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Query was about proposed article name change. Comment left (some time ago!) Proposal has since been abandoned. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue about sources in wikipedia

Dear Pete
Thank you for your kind help at Talk:Great Western Railway. I have not noticed there is a template for done.

In the same context I am wondering about the following issue:
The chart I provided at Great Western Railway is based on ms excel. The wikipedia community is currently only in the posession of a picture of the chart. It would be hard to make changes to the chart as the source is not available. Currently the source is located on my computer only.
This must be a common problem in wiki systems. Is there a clever solution for this?

Best regards, Marcel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcel.kummer (talk • contribs) 06:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Marcel

There are a large number of useful templates hiding around Wikipedia, and people are making more all the time. I maintain a user 'help' page to keep track of the ones I find most useful.

As for the Excel source file, that is a very interesting point. I must be honest that I don't know the answer. I would suggest that you check out the Help pages and processes available. (Select Interaction->Help from the sidebar. Sorry I can't be more specific as to where you might best find your answer.)

I have also answered on your talk page, as I suspect that you are not yet using a watchlist to monitor page edits.

EdJogg (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. Thank you

Marcel.kummer (talk) 05:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Savery and Papin

You've added an image of one of Savery's engines to the Savery and [history of the steam engine] pages. The caption states that the engine was based on Papin's designs. However, Savery's engine was much different than Papin's designs, and in many ways more primitive. Do you have a source for this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now we're talking 'industrial archaeology' here -- I edited those pages back in June 2009!

I did indeed add the image, but I copied the caption that was already at Industrial Revolution and History of thermodynamics. It was probably a hit-and-run edit -- my delight at finding such a good image suppressing any consideration of checking the caption... Having re-read the text, the caption is clearly erroneous.

I'll adjust them to suit...

EdJogg (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah ha! I was blaming the messenger.... great. Thanks for the edit! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for your help regarding the redirect What Wikipedia thinks it is. The entire thing works much better now and makes sense. Have marked the Helpdesk noticeboard and other threads as "resolved." Thanks again! It was one of those little nagging things that was bugging me. Saebvn (talk) 23:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the PROD on Sudric

Wasn't thinking straight there :P----occono (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, it's unlikely to grow as an article, so the PROD was not unreasonable, and it did force me into action.

Initially I was just going to let it go, but then thought it better as a redirect, so modified the destination article to suit. I can't remember how much more Awdry wrote about Sudric, but I'm sure we can extend it to at least a paragraph in due course. (Must add to ToDo list!) -- EdJogg (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

UK rail glossary

Thread was in response to EdJogg adding the qualifier 'steam' to a loco nickname entry in Glossary of UK railway terminology, Mjroots removing it again (on the basis that '2-6-0' is enough to identify it as a steam loco), and EdJogg querying this on Mjroots talk page, as follows:

Regarding reliance on Whyte notation to indicate loco type...

I agree that, for someone familiar with railways, '2-6-0' would immediately imply a steam locomotive; however, consider that BR TOPS classes 01 - 14 cover a series of 0-4-0 and 0-6-0 shunters, and that we should be careful what we assume about a user's knowledge or interests, and I didn't think it was unreasonable to add the qualifier 'steam'. I don't think it is particularly redundant, considering the environment we are writing in. (Also, there are several other entries that already mention 'steam locomotive', one of which you edited today!)

EdJogg (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point well made, but for consistency all locomotives should really have their type given. We should not assume that a reader will know what the motive power of any locomotive is. Can I ask you to go through the list and make the necessary edits as I'm just off out. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- EdJogg (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

John Musgrave & Sons

I notice that, for some reason, you have been undertaking some minor 'modifications' to the article John Musgrave & Sons. Do you have some special interest in Bolton firms, or some particular knowledge on this firm? Weiterbewegung (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

'No' to both. Article was on my watch list because the company made steam engines (my area of interest) and because it's the sort of 'backwater' article that's unlikely to be monitored by many editors and hence needs someone to keep an eye out for those vandals who use the 'random article' button to find their victims.

As for 'for some reason', and "minor 'modifications' "...it's Wikipedia...it's what we do here!

EdJogg (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

‘The thesis from which the text was copied makes interesting reading, and includes several references to Musgrave's. The copied paragraphs are all provided with references, some of which were later applied to the WP article too. I don't have time to do it myself, but what do you reckon the ethics are of using the same text (but edited to avoid copyvio) and quoting the same refs? Is it appropriate to quote indirectly from a reference (ie without actually seeing it)?’

Thanks for this unambiguous declaration of intent to commit blatant copyright fraud and plagiarism. Weiterbewegung (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't (see WP:PLAG and WP:CV) but I can't be bothered to argue; I've got better things to do with my time (like improving WP articles), even if you haven't. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Waterways in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject UK Waterways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Churchill Machine Tool Company

Hi, thanks for pointing out where I should look regarding an ANI discussion to do with a certain user. That user is now annoying me and quoting AGF at me etc. Do you have any suggestions as to what I can do about it? It doesn't look as if the ANI discussion reached any particular conclusion and thus I am confused, "fairly newbie". I've never been in this situation before and I do not like it! Sitush (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a healthy dose of ignoring this user. Although they've added useful content in the past and would clearly be an asset to the project, their recent contributions have instead focussed on trying to delete their past contributions and attacking other editors. This is far from useful. I hope they see sense and decide to participate as they clearly could do, but otherwise I'm sure we'll muddle on just fine without them. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite. We managed before he appeared, and there will be other editors along later. Somehow we'll muddle through...

It is a great shame that this clearly intelligent contributor has recently been acting more like a vandal.

EdJogg (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Re your Reflist tip left on my talk page - genius, pure genius. That will cut out a lot of the errors I'm having with the Churchill article since it was split into sections. The alternative was to edit "from the top". Thanks. Sitush (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Simple, but effective. Just remember to remove it after use or you'll 'give the game away'! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Book citation - cite multiple pages

Sorry, mithering you again. I've now got one book referenced umpteen times in the Churchill article. It didn't matter at first because although spread about, the refs were all to the same page (p.116). But now I'm trying to refer to something on p.141 and the footnote is grouping it with the other refs from that book rather than showing p.141. I've taken a look at the citations help but short of completely rewriting the entire article's citations cannot figure out how to do this. It must be possible. I'm obviously thick - any ideas? Sitush (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Found an example Sitush (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EdJogg. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

British diesel and electric multiple units

Can I ask you to PLEASE NOT stop in copy-editing and expanding upon my additions? If had wanted it not to be edited by other contributor, I would not have started trying to work on it.

I've reached the limits of my knowledge anyway, and had started to work from stuff in other articles :(

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you're saying (too many 'not's), but I've answered on your talk page. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your Edits to What Engineers Know

Many thanks for the help to a wiki rookie! --pjm (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway

Thanks for your numerous recent tweaks/edits to W & J Galloway & Sons. I'm afraid that my grammar and spelling has gone awry this last couple of days, and I am ashamed of it. I am currently taking some rather strong meds. Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it! Sitush (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's a fascinating story. I'm happy to keep reviewing/correcting, as that's mostly what I do here. It's very much easier (and requires less time) to edit someone else's work rather than create your own. Besides, you have little to be ashamed of, I've seen far, far worse writing here!

Be warned though. My editing of articles like these often uncovers holes in the narrative as I am always (subconsciously) asking 'Why?' to all the facts. Where I am expecting you to have the answer I'll often leave a comment within the text, as I know that you will be looking to see what corrections I've made. It's a method that seems to work well, when I know the article is being watched. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean comments such as that about what happens between 1899 and 1926. The answer, as Dickens realised early in his career, is to always leave your readers in suspense <g> The issue of holes in the narrative is one that I am aware of, although I probably wouldn't pick them all up and your input is invaluable. Perhaps wrongly, I'm treating these big article edits almost in a notepad style, adding stuff as I find it, in the knowledge that there are bits which need expanding/tying together etc. It probably would be better from the POV of everyone else if I used a special page, set it all up and copied it over, but somehow I don't ever seem to get round to it. Although I am currently building a large table of Galloway patent applications etc in that manner. Sitush (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

W & J Galloway & Sons

I've done nowt on the Galloway article for a few days as I am collating info. If you want to give it a once-over then now is maybe a good time. Stuff will be added, perhaps at the weekend, but it could probably do with a review now before things spiral. I'm still working on sources for post-1900, BTW. There must be info out there somewhere but I've only got a couple of small bits so far which are not yet included. No pressure, but I'd appreciate it if you do have the time and inclination for a look-see. - Sitush (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Review under way. Any corrections I cannot make immediately will be noted on the talk page. (Suggest you let me finish (tomorrow lunchtime) before responding there).

-- EdJogg (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. No rush. Dealing with medieval Wales at the moment. Oddly, no factories there! - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes there were! Tintern and the monks' brass wire manufactory. Fair bit of mining too. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I misread that at first - thought it said "brass monkeys". Starting to think that I may suddenly be developing dyslexia ... Sitush (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Review  Done. Please see article talk page and check history/diffs for inline comments left. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for doing that. I'll take a look. Currently involved in a spat about racism and a US birth control organisation's history. I should know better. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. The longer I stay at WP, the more I actively avoid getting into discussions I think can manage without my input..."someone else's problem"! -- EdJogg (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Have responded to your review points on the article talk page. Not actually done the inline notes but I've read them and they're pretty much exactly the same issues/concerns which I have. I've got to dig out info from somewhere to resolve those points. I'm pleased that you unearthed so few issues, apart from the obvious gaps in info. Makes me a bit more confident that I am on the right track with this convoluted history - Sitush (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading to Plymouth Line

After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork *^YES! 15:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Although I may well have voiced opinions about a proposed merge/split at some time in the past, I am no expert on the subject matter, and others are better qualified to review your work, so I'll have to decline this time.,. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway)

Hi, A couple of weeks ago when the copyvio problem was dealt with at Strawberry Line (Miniature Railway) you suggested the article was worth keeping. I am minded to put it up at AfD but thought I would get your thoughts first.— Rod ^talk 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rod

I tend to be anti-deletionist by nature, and look to retain articles where practical. I don't see a particular problem with this article being kept -- it's not like it's someone's private garden railway, it's a commercially-operated ride-on line, and a substantial installation at that. What's the difference between this and other railways/tourist attractions? Having it as a separate article means that the categorisation is more refined, the alternative being that the host country park is listed in the 'miniature railways' category, for example, which it need not be if the two articles exist in isolation.

That said, I am in no position to defend (nor expand) the article, so I cannot really contribute significantly to an AfD discussion.

EdJogg (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My concern is the lack of reliable sources, however User:Scillystuff has since added a bit of history with a reference - so maybe there are suitable citations which can be used. I spend too much of my time trying to deal with identified issues at the Somerset cleanup listing and this article has 2 banners (refimprove & wikify) which means it appears on that list.— Rod ^talk 13:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have done some wikifying, which has halved the banner count ( :o) ). Incidentally, all the staff are volunteers, so it is even less of a commercial venture than I had first thought, albeit that access is only available once you have paid to get in to the country park. Would be interesting to know more about this line. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I will go with the kids in the summer.— Rod ^talk 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It felt like summer today so I took the kids. So take a look at the pics on Commons. I also have the contact email for the guy who set the railway up (he wasn't there today) if you want to make contact.— Rod ^talk 19:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks beautifully manicured, although they could do with using a scale tamper/liner to straighten some of their track!

Was it not very busy on your visit? -- EdJogg (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I will not claim to have any idea what a "scale tamper/liner" is, but you could suggest it at their site (which gives an email but I also have the email for Mike Bass who set it up if you want). It wasn't very busy - my kids weren't interested in the train (which cost £1.50 per ride extra after the entry fee) - more into animals, boating lake & slides & I only saw the train go around the track a few times. The guys on duty were very welcoming & willing to talk as I think they had been sitting around most of the afternoon.— Rod ^talk 12:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

One of these! (I was being mischievous -- it would be a heck of an achievement to build a scale one that worked.)

I wonder about their business model now that the economic climate has changed. Having to pay entrance to the park AND extra for the railway may make families consider the 'free' stuff more rewarding. We found a similar (larger -- 2'-gauge?) line near the New Forest, but didn't ride as we needed to pay £8+ each to get into the gardens on top of the ticket for the train ride. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback - Galloways

Hello, EdJogg. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weird goings on at Galloways

I notice you have just found a REDIRECT statement in the article. Earlier today I found a "big text" metacommand. I'm at a loss here because I've never used either of these directives but I'm the only editor! Your comment was "temporary insanity?" - no-one has ever challenged my right to be called insane before, but I really am stumped as regards what exactly has gone on here. Anyway, thanks for fixing. I was going to go back for WP links, so you have saved me that chore.

You may want to look at User:Sitush/Draft-article_on_The_Lancashire_Steel_Company - something is brewing, although I realise that there are inconsistencies at present. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's the sort of edit summary you can only use between friends! (Sometimes I use the summary 'IDIOT! on re-editing having forgotten to preview -- I'm just waiting for someone to pull me up for being rude to 'another' editor!)

Usually, seeing that kind of code is an indication of mild vandalism -- a 'test edit' I've seen it called -- as it only requires a single click to insert. Since you were the only editor it was likely you simply hadn't noticed it.

Are you familiar with the shortcut box just below the edit summary box? It would only take an absent-minded click to insert something in the wrong place. My usual mistake is to move the mouse but not click, hence not moving the cursor.

Have you tried using the 'Show changes' button? This can reveal unintended edits. It also shows how other editors will see your changes using 'diff'. Sometimes I will split an edit in two if I am going to both modify the text and change the paragraph layout, since the latter may otherwise hide the former. (I accompany this with 'no text changed' in the edit summary.)

Regarding the draft, which is starting to diverge from my main areas of interest:

(i) you'll need to do something about the lede, but I guess you realise that.

(ii) Make sure you have healthy links to articles on making and sharpening files (dunno if they exist yet, but they are the obvious questions that spring to mind -- also, you might need to qualify what 'files' are, since a non-engineering person is more likely thinking of computer storage.)

(iii) open a sweepstake on how long the term 'terminological inexactitude' will survive in the article!

EdJogg (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the Change button and, yes, I've come to the conclusion since writing above that it simply has to be a fingers and fumbs thing on my part. Oxbridge language will not survive long, but then I'm expecting the info to change when I check out stuff at the Newcomen site. Francis Preston is actually a quite interesting guy - he did quite a bit in the guns 'n bullets etc field - and probably is another who deserves an article in its own right. But I'm waiting for a GAR on Churchill, have somehow got to fill the latter years of Galloways and have taken on the Lancs Steel Co in part so I can reduce the size of Galloways a tad ... anything more is too much in one go, esp since I'm also trying to clean up a right old mess at Patrick Lynch (economist), Carlos Slim & Patna. Got a great lead on Galloways but can't get to read the source due to a broken hip: 1500 page PhD thesis on the company etc in the library at Manchester Uni. I've been in touch with the guy who wrote it but it was finished in 1985 & he hasn't kept a copy for himself (wird, that).

Thanks, again, for your help & advice. - Sitush (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Churchill has been pasted

Churchill Machine Tool Company has just gone from GA to C-class in about 90 minutes of heavy criticism. Is it really that bad? - Sitush (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding before.

I've got to be honest that I haven't read it recently, and haven't attempted to wade through the recent edit storm. But if it was rated as GA (and there are only a few people who do it, so they must know what they are doing) then it's a GA, and I would be surprised if it was then put up for GA review at all, unless and until the GA policies change (which they can do over time) or someone had edited it substantially.

You'll see that I have commented on the talk page there. I wasn't going to comment on you personally, but in view of the edit conflict, it seemed appropriate.

I don't intend to get any more involved than that. There are plenty of others rallying to your side, so you should not have need for worry. I have been learning over recent months that it is wise to avoid getting drawn into arguments over anything here, or at least, anything that is not in your own core interest. It makes for a more peaceful experience, and gives you more productive editing time.

One thing I must say, having seen some of your responses on your talk page, is that you must be careful of what you type. Talk pages have a habit of changing honest comments and criticism into what appears hostile and antagonistic, as you do not have the benefit of vocal feedback or body language to assess mood. Same applies to text and email, of course. I've seen worse from editors, but I have also seen such matters escalate out of control, resulting in the blocking and departure of previously valued editors, which I find rather sad.

Take a deep breath and a step back. You have the support of your peers and should win through. Unless you're unlucky (or wade in too deep) this should blow over in a matter of days and you can resume your normal editing. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair points. I'm trying to hold back but one of my failings is that I express things in a way which is sometimes too precise and ppl see a bigger picture than was actually stated. Precision is very handy in courts of law, but less so in real life! I'm also aware that things developed quickly after my message to you, which surprised me. I was not aware that this page was of any great import to more than 2 or 3 editors (although notable, nonetheless). I've also learned about WP:Canvass, although I think that I have managed not to transgress on that score - luck or judgement? Who knows.

I'm keeping out of it now. Have had my say. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW [off-topic] -- just in case you're watching, I'm taking your talk page 'off-watch' as there's rather too much activity there -- too distracting.

Choose your battles wisely... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs. It is what comes of dealing with Indian articles. Still waiting on any advance to Churchill - peer review is stuck until it happens. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found I've become more productive at Wikipedia by becoming 'involved' less. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I have access to all the Newcomen Society past papers now ... should you ever require anything. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, I have made a note elsewhere. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove an edit? - List of steam fairs

18:00, 8 July 2010 I added a reference entry - a link to more information about the Soule' Live Steam Festival - which you immediately rm as "advertising"... How is that determined?

Glimpses of Meridian is a non-commercial site, has no advertising of any sort - and has the broadest coverage of the subject on the internet -- specifically the Soule' Live Steam Festival. So how is that "advertising"? What would be an "acceptable" way to list a link to the several hundred pictures at that site? Thank you for you insight. Randy Guttery Comcents (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how it was about 9 months ago, it's taken some working out. :o)

There was nothing personal about my edit or edit summary, and it was 2 hours after your edit, so not 'immediate'. You will also notice that I retained, and correctly formatted, the wikilink and the main external link you provided. The 'policy' (unwritten!) is that such lists only really need a single external link per entry, and that once the item in question has its own page, the external link should be moved to that page.

I must be honest and say I cannot now see why I put 'advertising' in my summary. However, I would guess that the extra link was removed as 'surplus' as it didn't obviously relate to the steam festival -- External Links entries must be focussed on the article subject.

In my review just now I scrolled down and found that the steam festival section had its own page, so I have added a link to that to the article for Soulé Steam Feed Works, which is where it belongs. (I acknowledge that the Soulé Steam Feed Works article did not exist at the time of your edit, so this course of action was not then an option.)

Just a warning -- I am usually quite lenient on this type of link, but other editors may decide that it doesn't add to the article and hence may remove it. Sites containing only photos are generally discouraged, but in this case, many of the photos are beneficial: Soulé products, interior views of foundry, workshop, line-shafting and machinery. Nevertheless, the official line is that such photos should be uploaded to Commons so that they may be freely used in the article or elsewhere, rather than linking to a photo site.

EdJogg (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, and for correcting the link. best regards, Randy Comcents (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent introduction of Collier thesis to numerous NW engineering articles

Hi, I've just had the unfortunate task of reverting a series of edits on various articles about NW engineering businesses, and I know that you nipped in to fix some typos on the one that I left alone.

Just thought I should let you know that I am pretty sure the IP user was the author of the thesis, Dave Collier. I have been aware of the thesis for some time & it has been on my "to do" list. Doing things the way he did was, I feel, unfortunate. However, I already had his email address & had spoken in a round-robin with him, so I've just dropped him another line to see if things can be progressed in a way that runs absolutely no risk of someone being accused of OR or COI. In other words, if I move it to near the top of my list & then incorporate the relevant info, everything is in the clear. This is one of those instances where WP policies s/b ignored! I have probably been tendentious here as it was only after reverting that I made the connection. I have tried to smooth the waters over in my email. - Sitush (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of his thesis- or an url where we could read it -it sounds if it could be useful if only for the references. It certainly would be helpful if Dave would join us and log in so we can talk to him.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him for a copy if he has one but suspect that the only copy is in the Manchester Uni library, as this is where he pointed me to in the first instance. 1985 makes it unlikely to exist in electronic form, although I live in hope. As I said, I have his email address from a conversation unconnected with WP a few weeks ago. I intend to go to the library anyway and this thesis was on my to do list for that reason. - Sitush (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave has just got back to me. He can sort out a photocopy of the thesis for me, although at 1,500 pages long it will not be cheap! I'll go for it, probably. I'll also try to encourage him to get involved here as we need people like this. - Sitush (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I cases of need, I have just set up my digital camera on a tripod, set to macro and photographed each page. I may be cheaper to buy a new scanner for him then we will able to email (with permission) each other the interesting pages and I am semi serious about that. Great news that we have located a copy.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already mentioned scanning & it seems that he is already trying that route as a prelude to conversion to Word. I've offered to help/advise as that sort of thing is right up my street. He seems also to be suggesting that at least some of the original was on floppies but that it is irretrievable, so I've asked him to let me know if he still has those floppies. If he has then I'll try to retrieve for him as, again, it is my sort of thing. I'll let you know what develops. He has also written some articles for NMES, ISSES and an item for a book which, he feels, has been used here without attribution. I've offered to sort out that issue if he lets me know the details.

We're taking over EdJogg's talk page here. Hope he doesn't mind, but take it to my page if there is a prob. If Dave comes back here then life will be simpler. Cross everything. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello!

I think this is the longest talk thread interaction I've seen which hasn't involved the owner of the talk page!

Can't add anything to the discussion, which is why I've kept quiet. Feel free to continue here if appropriate, but you may wish to copy the lot to one of your own pages so that it can be archived with your discussions rather than mine. (And I won't mind if you delete this bit when you copy it.)

BTW, scanning is a much better bet, especially if you can find one with a document feeder, but an electronic original would be even better. Is there any scope for the university web-hosting the finished product?

EdJogg (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, he is alive! <g> My page is messy to watch due to my involvement in Indian articles etc, but Clem's might be ok. I have contacts who should have access to doc-feeding scanners. No idea about hosting at the university but I do know that they have a backlog of history-related documents/publications/projects that they've expressed interest in hosting. A six year backlog, so I don't hold out much hope. Sitush (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

It's OK, remember there's no deadline!

Incidentally, one look at my contributions would have made you realise I was choosing to not respond...63 edits to about 50 articles since you started it :p -- EdJogg (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colne_Valley_Waterworks_railway&oldid=425417884

By the way, I know Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive list of most of the British Narrow Gauge industrial railways, Does it have an equivalent list of Standard Gauge industrial systems ( i.e industrial railway systems of standard gauge which were not in the ownership of the main-line railway companies..)?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

My watchlist is populated with many 'obscure' railway- and steam-related topics -- those that might otherwise have few watchers -- such as this article. The reason we have such good coverage of British industrial narrow gauge is that one editor (Gwernol, creator of this article and since, sadly, retired from WP) made a concerted effort to make it so. For the standard gauge lines, WP needs someone enthusiastic about them to do the groundwork... -- EdJogg (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, you may be interested in this webpage about the railways at Austin's Longbridge plant that I just found... -- EdJogg (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TC

TC has been blocked as a suspected sock of Tobias Conradi. See new proposal for a category tree at WT:TWP#Track gauge categories, part 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Railway gauges

Hi. Many thanks for your useful edit to Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway. I had considered this same edit myself, but instead thought a change to the 'railgauge|15' template (and others under 2 feet) would be sensible. Read my comment at Template talk:RailGauge#Gauges between 1 ft and 2 ft. What do you think? Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have answered there. My edit produced a clunky result, but that was deliberate (in lieu of modifying the template). The article was referred to in the gauge category discussions, hence the edit. (It's not usually on my watchlist.) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Railways in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject UK Railways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

K&A Article

Thanks for your help with it so far. There are still a few bits I want to add & sort before it is ready for FAC, including missing page numbers. Give me the weekend & then I hope most of it will be done. Any copyedit (or other edits) then would be great. I intend putting a note on the talk pages of interested projects & always ask someone like User:Malleus Fatuorum to look at the prose etc before nominating. Where I would still appreciate your input is the discussion on the talk page about where the section breaks should be (in both text and templates).— Rod ^talk 09:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Further to this I am nervous about editing the route templates (due to lack of experience) - are you comfortable with editing them? If so could you move the last 7 items (including the A4 overpass which should be the A36) from the "Bristol to Bath" template to the "Bath to Devizes" template?— Rod ^talk 10:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done

These templates aren't too complicated. It's the railway ones that get really hairy, when you have 4,5,6 parallel routes interweaving!

-- EdJogg (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Any more thoughts on what else is needed, as I've done everything I can think of (apart from a couple more page numbers which I hope to get this week)?— Rod ^talk 13:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the next stage is to start the pre-FA checks on the text etc. I'll try to read through it lunchtimes this week, although I'm rather busy off-Wiki at present, so I can't promise anything. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflicts. I'm going to stop fiddling with it now. Still trying to find how much water Caen Hill takes per boat, but otherwise I hope I've addressed your current comments.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Occupational hazard! I should have waited until you had finished :o)

I have answered a couple of queries at the peer review, but otherwise I should be leaving it alone for now. I have much more important stuff I'm putting off doing off-wiki! The article's looking really good now.

Regarding Caen Hill water usage, you might get away with working it out yourself, provided you can quote the dimensions of one of the locks -- I've done a calculation in a different article and shown the basis for it in a footnote, although that one isn't even approaching C-class yet, so I don't know how acceptable this approach would be for a FAC.

EdJogg (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer found! See Caen Hill Locks, reference 3. It's one lockful every eleven minutes. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

At the FAC a reviewer has highlighted the lack of information about Bristol Harbour (although it is included in the route map diag). As you took this out could you join in the discussion?— Rod ^talk 07:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed the problem and answered there. I think the detail on the routemap was causing a distraction, so I have reduced the detail and added 'Floating Harbour' to the map, to match the text. EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - works for me. We will have to see what the reviewer says.— Rod ^talk 17:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this FAC so far. It currently has 4 "supports", however I have a potential problem coming up. I'm going to be on holiday with no internet access from Fri 29 July for at least a week. I have asked if there is any action I should take, but would you be willing to keep an eye on it and deal with any reviewers comments which arise while I'm away?— Rod ^talk 08:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I would gladly, but I will be on holiday the same week. Sorry. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Corliss steam engine

I added to the "See also" section of Corliss steam engine the link to Armington & Sims Engine Company, since, per the Manual of Style: "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible..." My intent was to link to other Providence Steam Engine builders as I create them (Harris, Greene, etc.). Armington & Sims may not directly be related to Corliss, but they were contemporary builders in the same city. Any thoughts? --Marcbela (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing about the Corliss engine is that it was a distinct type, or at least, its valve gear was, and it was copied/replicated by other manufacturers. Whereas, as far as I can tell from the article, the A&S Engine Company 'just made steam engines'. The 'see also' section in the Corliss article contains links to articles about other steam engine components, and your link doesn't obviously fit -- if A&S made Corliss engines, then it might make sense, but a purely geographical association is a bit weak.

What was the significance of the three engine manufacturers being co-located in Providence? That might make an interesting article/section, unless of course they just happened to be sited near one another, in which case a new sub-category of 'Steam engine manufacturers of Providence' might be appropriate instead? -- EdJogg (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Typically, a "See also" section should not include links to items that are already in the body of the article. It is typically reserved for items that generally don't fit well in other sections. While this article contains a lot of technical information about the "Corliss-type" engine, the section on the "Corliss Steam Engine Company" or other business info is a bit brief. The Corliss story does indeed relate to the other engine makers of the day, especially in Providence, which had several. While I didn't create the A&S article, I do plan to create articles for other makers, as I get to them. Somehow we can find a way to link them. --Marcbela (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It could be argued that the company information should be separated out. However, if you are creating articles for several such companies in the same region, these could be linked in several ways. As there's only a handful, a category or list would be overkill. However, I am not averse to providing sub-headings in a See Also, so we could list them all here under a suitable title. OR, you could create a navi-template for "Steam engine manufacturers of Providence", and this would provide consistent treatment on all pages. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Steam locomotive

Many thanks for providing the references! Cheers. Ground Zero | t 20:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. Sometimes you need to be stung into action... -- EdJogg (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thames and Severn Canal

Thanks for the tidying up of some of my edits, and the inline comments, where it was not as clear as it might have been. I think I have addressed most of them, apart from why the railway paid £7,500 after they opposed the bill. The sources are really not very clear on this. Bob1960evens (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite all right. I'm glad you took the hints :o) I've found inline comments to be a very efficient way of highlighting issues when proof-reading where there is clearly a 'lead editor' who I am sure will be watching (and diffing) my edits.

Your additions are too absorbing! I should really be finishing my copy-editing of the K&A article, as that's at FAC right now... -- EdJogg (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Humble request...

Revision and updating of the Tip-of-the-day collection is underway.

Out-of-date or obsolete tips have been making it through to the Community Portal and main Help page! We must prevent this from happening again.

Please place the following template code on your user or talk page, and check the tip for accuracy. It's displayed one day early, to give us time to fix it.

{{totd-tomorrow}}

Please make the corrections yourself if you can. And report the tip at Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day, especially if you don't know what to write.

There's a tip schedule at WP:TOTD in case you feel like proofreading further ahead. If you come across any obsolete tips, please let me know!

Thank you.

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've updated my template as requested. Haven't paid huge attention to them in the past, as I know most of the tips already, but I'll keep an eye on them in passing.

-- EdJogg (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Also please keep in mind that we are always looking for better tips and tricks. As tips go obsolete, we need more to replace them. I'm guessing there are between ten and twenty tips that no longer apply. So don't be shy about sharing your know-how. I look forward to learning your best methods of operation. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

	Thanks
	Thank you for your help with the review of the Kennet and Avon Canal at FAC, which has just been promoted. — Rod talk 14:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Nederland Museum Link

not sure why i was having so much trouble with it :) Grey3k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The first time round you had written it as a Wikilink ( [[ ]] with a pipe '|' separator) -- correct syntax for an internal link. You then tried writing it as an external link (single brackets: [xxx]) but you didn't remove the pipe character, so this was assumed to be part of the URL. All I did was to replace the pipe with a space, to separate the display text from the URL. (And I did some wikignoming while I was there!)

Well-spotted with the photo. I was in backlog-clearing mode and only really looking at the new bit of text. I think I was so pleased to find a picture of the same machine that I didn't think to check it might be there already!

EdJogg (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)