User talk:Simply south/August 2006 to November 2006 archive

Templating

I don't believe i am asking a question on my own talk page

Anyway, i am just wondering if there is some sort of tool that other users use for centring, colouring, aligning etc to a template or do i have to type in code manually (i don't really understand what people mean by this). Yes i have created templates in the past and people have commented that they don't understand the coding. (For example, just survived Template:London railway stations). I suppose that makes my templates unique. I am always asking for other people to sort this out because i don't really understand how they do it. Simply south 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think what you might be looking for is User:MarkS/Extra edit buttons which adds all of those formatting things to the toolbar above the editbox. To install just read the instructions on the page. GeorgeMoney (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

UH

yes you are right. I am working on final year project and I dont have time to write about it. It would be my pleasure if you write about it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnaveed (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

CX

Someone came along and misread the RM from last year as being the current one and assumed that the 'oppose' votes were opposing a move back to Charing Cross railway station. It will need to be relisted. Mrsteviec 20:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The page has been moved back

Copied from Talk:Charing Cross railway station

I have moved the article back to Charing Cross railway station. Normally, I would have relisted the move request because the proper procedure given at Wikipedia:Requested moves was not followed. A move notice was not put at the top of the talk page and a clear place for discussion and voting was not made. However, I moved the article back because the move goes against naming conventions. When there are two articles with the same name and one is more notable than the other, the more notable one should have the name and there should be a link to the other article at the top of the page. I suggest that the mover read Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). -- Kjkolb 20:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Move

Don't worry about it. This type of mistake happens all the time. :-) Kjkolb 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR

If you read WP:3RR you will find that you are allowed 3 reverts, but really you shouldn't need that many. However reverting clear vandalism doesn't count, and adding spam links is vandalism. There are templates you can add to their talk page to tell them about this, I can't remember what they're called off the top of my head, but they will be listed in the grid of warnings at WP:UTM. If you need help with dealing with vandalism then the place a request for help at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) and/or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where you should get help much quicker than I'm able to do so as I'm not online all the time. Thryduulf 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

What exactly due you mean in your edit summaries by "attempting template"? Don't you just mean "adding template"? --RFBailey 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with it is that it's nonsense. According to a dictionary, "attempt" (verb) means (i) try, (ii) try to accomplish or conquer. This doesn't describe what you're doing. --RFBailey 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're unsure about inserting a template, then don't put it there at all. That said, the templates you've been adding to railway station articles don't seem to be causing any problems, so there's no reason why not to add them. --RFBailey 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

AFD

No problem - if you want to tag it with {{db-owner}} and withdraw the nom it can be closed without anybody getting upset. Yomangani^talk 13:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On the redirect page - just add it above the redirect code. Yomangani^talk 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

leave the AFD notice there for the moment. That can be removed once the afd is closed Yomangani^talk 13:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't even have to worry about that, NawlinWiki has acted swiftly to save you the trouble. Yomangani^talk 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Underground

Primarily the London Underground but we could also include other underground systems in the UK, including Glasgow Subway. Should we have a vote? Lenny 15:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the current piority of the project is to complete the article Docklands Light Railway rolling stock. It will combine two of my articles (P86 & P89 stock) into one and add more information about the newer stock. We definately need more members so if you want to join just add your name to the list, no need to ask. I am asking you because you have made significant contributions already. Lenny 11:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your already a member! Well you know the piority so lets get it started! Thanks for joining! Lenny 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Buses

Is it okay if i change the lead of the list? Even though Mrsteviec talked removal of non-TfL routes, many of the bus routes in London, not just those which cross the Greater London boundary, are non-tfl. What do you think? Simply south 15:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "change the lead of the list", but if you're thinking of changing the name of the list, I believe it's a bad idea.sonicKAI 17:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead of the list is the introduction to the list, not the name, sorry. Simply south 17:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to leave it the way that it is for now.--sonicKAI 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Your talk page is quite big. Have you considered archiving?sonicKAI 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Simply south 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Paddington

The tube station and railway station are each significant enough to deserve their own articles, and I felt having both on one page was cramping them. The text discussing each was already entirely separate, so it's not like anything's been lost.

The H&C platforms are problematic. I'd actually a suggest a third article for them. --Dtcdthingy 16:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Buses

I need your help. All references to Stagecoach London need to be changed to either East London (bus company) or Selkent. Also, all references to London United and London Sovereign need to be changed to Transdev London. A list of what goes where can be obtained here.

Thanks a lot.--sonicKAI 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Shortcuts

Well, I don't see any problems with them, and I haven't seen any complaints either. I guessed that was the reasoning behind TWP, and if I can figure it out, then I'm sure others can too. My first thought for Streetcars is WP:Street, but that isn't as obvious. Maybe something like WP:Trams? Slambo (Speak) 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned WP:LUL

There hasn't been much activity going on in WikiProject Underground, please add ACT next to your name in the list if you are still active in the project. Lenny 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Glasgow stations

Thanks for correcting my mistake in the formatting -- Stewart 16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Why LOL?

LUL combined with LOL = LOL. Unisouth 12:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of railway viaducts in the United Kingdom

I think I have done all the viaducts in Cornwall and South Devon, plus the couple on the Great Western main line - HTH.

I think we are likely to hit the question of

"when is a viaduct not a viaduct? when it is the Royal Albert Bridge!"

A couple of the viaducts in Cornwall are smaller than the mmulti-arch bridges on the Thames, such as Maidenhead.Geof Sheppard 12:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:London metros

I'd have no objection to that. The use of the possesive form ('s) is rarely used in cats, that was my only objection before. If you are not quite sure what the best name would be, you can get a larger audience at WP:CFD instead of in speedy. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edgware Road, Taxes and Rice Pudding

I'll sort out the Edgware Road split shortly.

What have taxes got to do with rice pudding? In The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Deep Thought is "a computer that was created by a pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings to come up with the ultimate answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything." In the original radio series it is said that when it was constructed, Deep Thought managed to "deduce the existence of income tax and rice pudding" before anyone worked out how to turn it off.

Yes, this is a very very complicated explanation for a simple word association, but my mind is so full of HHGTTG trivia that it was genuinely what first came to mind! Thryduulf 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Railway electrification in Great Britain

Quite how i managed to think LNER were electrifying railway line in 1334 is beyond me - they should revoke my history degree immediately !!! LOL!!! Thanks for the help Pickle 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: A template

Doh! Fingers are moving a little too fast for me today. B-) Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

?

Can I ask why you put [[ballerina]] on the project page? Unisouth 16:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Either you have edited the template or its next to a table of contents which leaves a large white gap unless its hiden, hope thats solved the 'problem'. Unisouth 17:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That article is now fixed. Unisouth 18:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Inverness railway station

Yes, I've got no problems at all with that. Stewart 00:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ironbridge

Do you have any reasoning with the new merger? Simply south 20:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The why part or the how part or which title should be the principal? Leonard G. 17:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Simply south 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why: Two articles covering the same subject should be merged, and if then overlong should be split into sub-topic articles.

How: The best of content and prose should be selected from each article, without loss of significant information, with rewriting as needed to ensure consistant style. Resultant article should be properly wikified.

Which Title: The most likely search term should be used for the article title, with other titles being redirects.

- Leonard G. 17:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

May 4

Hi, I had to look back over the history. Looks like when I saw the entry, I just did a news search to confirm it and added this note:

• 2006 - One of the worst thunderstorms in decades hits Glasgow, Scotland and the surrounding area. <!-- This should be removed if there's no Wikipedia article -->

I don't see any indication from this BBC report that there were any fatalities. We don't have a cut-and-dried rule, but the general policy is that weather events (hurricane, tornado, tsunami, earthquake) are only notable on those pages if there is significant loss of life and/or economic damage. Also, nobody has seen fit to create a Wikipedia article about this event, which is another indication of limited notability.

Seems like this might be a fair thing to note on the 2006 page (I see that nobody has added it), but it probably isn't notable enough for the May 4 page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 00:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Member Profile Template

What do you think of my profile template on WP:LUL? Unisouth 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All members are allowed to use it. The template can be found here. Look on the talk page for information on how to use it. Unisouth 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

St Albans

Depends. Do you think it should move? I just wanted to open up some general discussion first to test opinion. Mrsteviec 16:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. That would be disambiguating for the sake of it. Mrsteviec 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The redirect (target) page is deleted. Then the move can take place. Mrsteviec 06:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

platforms on Marston Vale line stations

No, I'm sure there is only one. I've already been back to correct. --Concrete Cowboy 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link)

Well, it's definitely not Low importance, and I don't think it counts as Top importance since it's not one of the topics in {{Train topics}}. Being across the ocean from it, the topic didn't seem to me to be vital to understanding how trains work or what happened in rail transport history to build the industry that we have today, but it does appear to be one that will prove more important as time goes on. This is really one of those topics that could be either in Mid or High, especially depending on which continent you're on. I would easily agree that Channel Tunnel should be High importance, I just wasn't so sure on this one. I've added some more notes on importance ratings to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment that may shed further insight on the methods behind the madness. And by all means, if you think CTRL should be High importance, feel free to change it. Slambo (Speak) 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

":("

I don't get it, although I suspect I should remember it. I just can't call it to mind right now... 68.39.174.238 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I've suspected that wouldn't work for a while... Not like it makes a major difference. 68.39.174.238 20:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Railway Bridges etc

Dear Simply South

The Suspension Bridge article is more attractive than the Railway Bridges list which is why I added a few pictures. The table works well with a list of the longest or shortest of anything. I am not sure it will work as well with a comprehensive list which will be added to regularly when editors find a new bridge, as I did. An interim solution which I think may improve the look, is to provide an example picture for each letter.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 11:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

automated peer review suggestions

Exactly what they sound like: Suggestions for peer reviews that were generated via a computer program instead of manually created suggestions. They aren't intended to replace advice from other editors, but as a supplement by providing an example of formatting and stylistic issues that often appear when articles undergo featured article candidacy. AZ _t 21:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can if you feel like it (about the striking); there's no obligation to do it, nor are there any reasons why you can't. AZ _t 21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Really, you can do whatever you feel like doing with them :) - strike them, copy them onto the talk page, or ignore them completely. Hopefully the goal is to simply improve Wikipedia and the quality of its articles. AZ _t 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Train stations: annual entry/exit

I was just wondering - where do you get the stats for the annual entry/exit (in the railway station templates) from? Is it publically available? Thanks! PiffPuffPickle 21:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WSMR

I'm making sure that I put proposed with the company name - it's right that the proposed route should be displayed I think, so as long as it's clear that it isn't running yet, that should (hopefully) be OK. If not, then we'll have another edit conflict, just like with the UK rail companies template ;-) Hammersfan 17.10 BST, 25/10/06

You can use the Grand Central example - that is operating, and is ready (practically) to run its services, it has agreed its timetable, and has its slots allocated. Therefore, Grand Central is "Not Yet Operational". WSMR on the other hand has simply proposed its services to Network Rail, the ORR and the Government; it is still negotiating, so therefore "Proposed" on its route is clearer. In my opinion anyway. Hammersfan 17.20 BST, 25/10/06

Actually, I would recommend not including this information in the "service" boxes until WMSR's proposed services have been finalised and approved. Their proposals are still speculative to a certain extent. --RFBailey 23:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Association

It's cool. hey it's the sandbox afterall. Deathawk 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:TWP talk

Yeah, a bit of pruning could be helpful. The last archive covered up through Dec 05, so maybe the new archive should go from there to the end of July 06? I don't think you'll find too many arguments against it. Slambo (Speak) 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it's a talk page with established archives already; editors posting there should expect that old discussions would be archived. Taking a quick look through what's there right now, it looks like a few older discussions still have recent comments, so they should stay on the main talk page, but sections older than whatever cutoff date is chosen should go into the archive. Slambo (Speak) 20:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

London Sta

I didn't like the split in the first place and can't see the point of it. To my mind the complexity of the operations should be in the London railway station article. The split by operators in the template serves no function and just makes it needlessly too big. What do you think?

DLR

Quick question, should years be linked? So 1991 not just 1991? Thanks RHB 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

DLR

It doesn't matter in the least whether you're a "significant contributor" or not. (Judging from your talk page, you've made as many significant contributions as I have, in fact!). I'm sure that you can add a lot to the article. Let me know if there's anything more specific that you'd like comments on. I'm not much of an expert on trains/subway systems but I do edit some history of technology articles. Good luck editing. MLilburne 18:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

HP7 ref

Doubt i would be any good at fixing it. However, your recent edits to the Haary Potter book 7 article has mucked up the reference section. Simply south 14:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry about that. I've reverted the article back to a previous version, so it should now be fixed. 0L1 Talk Contribs 14:34 29 10 2006 (UTC)

South Western

Erm, it's a continuation of the status quo, with the minor addition of the Island line. There's absolutely no basis for a separate article. --Dtcdthingy 16:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some links to back up the claim that there's going to be a new company called South Western, or any new company whatsoever? You seem to be confusing franchise names with TOC names. --Dtcdthingy 16:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

One of serveral things could happen:

• If the model of Great Western is followed, then the new franchise will be operated by a company that is legally a completely different entity from either of the present ones.
• It could be that Island Line will just be merged into South West Trains (or vice versa but this would be very odd).
• One of the existing companies (i.e. Island Line in all probability) will cease to exist and the other will take on the new franchise.

From a legal point of view these are very different things, but they don't matter a bit when it comes to the location of Wikipedia articles. What matters is how the service will be branded - which could be any of:

• The services continue to be branded separately. In this case leave the articles where they are, make the South Western article a short description of the franchise but direct people to both.
• The services of both the present SWT and Island Line are rebranded to "Southwestern" or "Southwestern Trains" or some other name not used at present. If this happens, there should be three articles - one about each of the old franchises and one at the new name about the new operation. There will inevitably be some duplication of stock, routes, etc but the old ones will remain static and the new one will evolve - e.g. Wessex Trains shares a lot of info with First Great Western.
• SWT services continue to be branded as now and Island Line services are rebranded to South West Trains. Island Line would become an defunct TOC article, while South West Trains will have sections for before and after the new franchise - like First Great Western does. Southwestern will be either a short article about the franchise, or a redirect to South West Trains.

I am behind the news, but I am not aware that anything has been announced regarding how the services will be branded. It would be worth writing to/emailing South West Trains and Island Line and asking what is going to happen if this is the case. Until we get an answer, both South West Trains and Island Line should remain as articles for current TOCs and Southwestern should be an article about the franchise, inlcuding who will operate it (i.e. Stagecoach) and what the routes and franchise commitments are. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't be guessing what will happen.

The legal status of the company that runs the franchise should be noted briefly in the intro to the article(s) about it, like First Great Western does. Stagecoach is a plc, and as I understand these things (i.e. not very well) they will need to announce stuff to the stock exchange about legal changes. However I think both existing TOCs are private limited companies (ltd), which don't have to make any announcements, so they may not have done. Thryduulf 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to me like a pretty clear situation where Wikipedia should just not say anything, and leave things as is until nearer the date. I've removed Southwestern from the TOCs template, as there's no evidence there is or will be a TOC of that name. --88.111.41.106 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The companies on that DfT link are very clearly holding companies that were managing the bids. Please provide some evidence that trains will be operated by anyone other than the current South West Trains before you start inventing TOCs. --Dtcdthingy 11:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ditto the other links. All of them are quite clearly referencing the name of the franchise, not the company --Dtcdthingy 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Association

Can you please stop mucking up the word count i.e. making it higher than it actually is. This will not go unnoticed.
I know how to play this game. If I made the word count higher than I should of it was a mistake. It's a game if your taking it this seriously maybe you should take a break for a while. Whispering 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: :)

Lol, which edit counter are you using? --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 16:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When I last checked, wannabe kate said I had almost 5000 edits! --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 16:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the link to wannabe kate. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 17:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for humourously pointing out the out-of-date edit counter! :) Gray PorpoiseWhat have I done‽ 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GOBLIN

Probably my interpretation of the WP:MOS for article naming. As long as it is consistent with others, the move is ok with me. MRSC • Talk 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnet Spires

I'll see what I can do with it, but I'm more of a Finchley man myself :P RHB 15:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

DLR

How about putting it up for GA status? I think its a pretty decent article, 13 references, covering the history of the DLR, its current status and future developments. What do you think? RHB 17:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stirling to Alloa Line

My thoughts are that for the passenger services it will become an extension of the Croy Line if that is how Scotrail (I cannot bring myself to call them First Scotrail) decide to operate the line. There would then be the Historic Rail page for the line from Stirling to Dumfermline, which I suppose could be kicked off now.

If you look at some of the South West Scotland lines - (for example Ayrshire Coast Line as the current service; and Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway as the historical background) - you will see how myself and Dreamer84 have been working on these lines.

There is still a long way to go in this area, so help in other areas of Scotland would be great. Stewart 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put a message on Dreamer84's Talk Page to let him know about your interest in compiling a article (or articles) to cover this area. Stewart 16:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Ideas for starters:-

The Operating Line (when it opens)

If ScotRail do what is expected of them, then it is simply an extension of the Croy Line. Scottish Railways Template may need amendment as it will not be purely a Glasgow Communter Line.

The Historical Line

The formation is part of the Stirling and Dunfermline Railway which opened from Dumfermline to Alloa in 1850 (boat connection to Stirling); the branch to Tillcoutry in 1851; to a station in Stirling north of the Forth in 1852; and then to the joint station with the Scottish Central Railway in 1853. Not sure when it was absorbed into the North British Railway (or was it always a wholly own subsidary??). There was then the closure in the 1960s (a Beeching Closure??), in stages - passengers then freight. The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway could as a useful guide. Connections to other lines will provide the links to the other railway in the area.

Stirling Station

Will have a combination box similar to that at Dalry that indicates both disused lines and historical lines. An possible solution below:

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Falkirk Grahamston		GNER East Coast Main Line		Gleneagles
Larbert		First ScotRail  Edinburgh–Dunblane Line		Bridge of Allan
Falkirk Grahamston		First ScotRail Highland Caledonian Sleeper		Dunblane
Larbert		First ScotRail Croy Line		Alloa
	Historical railways
Terminus		North British Railway  Stirling and Dunfermline Railway		Causewayhead Line open; station closed
Terminus		North British Railway  Stirling and Balloch Railway		Gargunnock Line and station closed

Alloa Station

The station box here will be interesting. This is my starter:-

Preceding station	National Rail			Following station
Stirling		First ScotRail Croy Line		Terminus
	Historical railways
Cambus		North British Railway  Stirling and Dunfermline Railway		Clackmannan Road Line and station closed
		North British Railway  Stirling and Dunfermline Railway Tillicoutry Branch		Sauchie Line and station closed
Terminus		North British Railway  Kincardine Line		Clackmannan & Kennett Line open; station closed
Throsk Platform		Caledonian Railway  Alloa Railway		Terminus Line and station closed

Sources of information I have used so far is Jowett's Rail atlas; and Forgotten Railways: Scotland (John Thomas). There is also the RAILSCOT web site. There must be other sources that can be used.

Hope this is of help. Stewart 17:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Some Articles Created

I have spent some time providing the initial pages for the Stirling and Dunfermline Railway and Alloa railway station. As track is now being laid, I have added reference to it on the Croy Line and Stirling railway station pages. I have also reversed your redirect to recognise the two separate lines Stirling and Dunfermline Railway and Kincardine Line that are affected by the rebuilding project. Stewart 23:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kincardine Line is now added. Needs expanding and all the stations (on both lines) will need articles. Stewart 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

British TOCs Template

I'd be grateful if you could give a yea or nay to my idea for updating the {{British TOCs}} template, which can be found here. Ta muchly. Hammersfan 19/11/06, 19.20 GMT

DLR

I've gone and nominated it for GA review. The references verify the content, and arent all DLR/alwaystouchout.com. I've gone through the prose, so it should be tightened up. Thanks RHB 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. You did some great work on it :) RHB 18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: DLR rating

I'd probably put it as Mid importance. I don't think the topic is vital to understanding rail transport history or technology worldwide, but it is a topic that is fairly well known. If a stronger case can be made for its cultural or historical significance, then we can look at High importance.

As far as listing candidates for higher quality status goes, there's a section on the main WP:TWP page for FA candidates. I haven't added one for GA nominations because I was hoping to see quite a few more of them than there have been. However, on Portal:Trains I maintain a list of relevant peer reviews and include links to FA discussions as well (this section should probably be updated soon since all three articles listed there now have gone through their reviews). Slambo (Speak) 16:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion award

You're probably just like me, ticked off at all the editors who simply ignore the opportunity to discuss an issue and embark directly upon edit wars. It's a really good idea for an award, whether or not you're the best person to judge who should get it. KP Botany 21:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't designed any, ask Persian Poet Gal, who proposed and designed the Wildlife Barnstar on the Barnstar proposals page. She's a rather polite Wikipedian in general, so should be able to help. KP Botany 22:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jubilee Line Extension

Why did you edit 'Platform Edge Doors' back to 'Platform Screen Doors' when the ones installed on the JLE aren't actually screen doors? The different types are explained on the page it links to.

RE: Designing a Barnstar

I personally am a big fan of good old Adobe Photoshop. I use Adobe Photoshop Creative Suite however, any standard version of the program should give you enough to work with. Unfortunately there is no official program built for designing barnstars :P and lack of a good photoeditor hinders some of the freedom you can create with the design. If you type photoshop tutorials on Google you can get some pretty good advice on certain techniques that can make a constructive design. Try to construct a good concept first. Once you have a good idea you have more to work from. For example with the Wildlife Barnstar I first thought up various animal prints to use. Then from there I made the star look less "cut and paste" by making the prints beveled and added a transparent beveled spoke in the middle. Mixing and matching these techniques adds a bit more realism to your star. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think its a start, but rather than a phone representing Wikipedia discussion how about a talk bubble or a head that's speaking next to the star?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes the first one is still a better design. Why not go a bit more simplistic if you are going to use the talking head idea, such as a silhouette?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, that design looks way better than your second try. I think the only thing that needs work is maybe changing some of the colors around. However at this point I think its safe to post that design yourself on the proposal page and begin to get the opinions of others. Its always better to design it to cohere with more than one opinion ;).¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Awards

I'll leave my comments here, Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals. --evrik ^(talk) 16:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Once something has been archived ... it's there as a reference if someone wants to use it again. Any award can be placed on the PUA's. --evrik ^(talk) 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstars

You know, I don't think Evrik has ever gotten over his Scouting Barnstar being demoted to a project award. I have never seen him support any nominated Barnstar. Some people become depressing in their predictability. Jeffpw 22:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC),

• Too bad you didn't have the courage to say that to my face. --evrik ^(talk) 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I really wonder if there would be any purpose to adding comments to userpage discussion to the barnstar, considering those are allegedly kind of personal anyway. However, if it were to include regularly informing page contributors about the possible deletion or merger of pages they've worked on, that would be I think be possibly valuable. I know a lot of editors fail to notify contributors about such discussions, which I can't fault, but I wouldn't mind seeing maybe the award including people who notify others of discussions started by third parties. By doing so, we would ensure that the relevant parties are notified in any event. So maybe adding something about editors who go the extra step to ensure page contributors are informed of discussions already begun by someone else might not be a bad idea. Badbilltucker 15:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on controversial pages would probably be a bad idea. There are already several groups and awards for trying to stifle controversy. And the idea above was simply put forward as it does deal with matters relating to talk pages. The major problem with barnstars right now is like you more or less stated, trying not to make so many that if becomes an effort to determine which barnstar is appropriate. Badbilltucker 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)