This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 21, 2005, February 21, 2006, February 21, 2007, February 21, 2008, February 21, 2009, and February 21, 2010. |
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
How hard could this be to turn into a GA?
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Penydarren" versus "Pen-Y-darren", as far as I know, the former is what is used now. The latter may have been used then, but if so I'd be willing to bet it was actually "Pen-y-darren", no capital 'y'. Varitek 02:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This article is rather overwhelmed with pictures at the moment, they certainly need organising better, if no-one else does this, then I might well do it. G-Man 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily focused on road and rail transport. However Trevithick was more important in the long run as the person who introduced for this introduction of steam engines that worked above atmossphereic pressure. The present article is incomplete in failing to say enough about the rest of life. Peterkingiron 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just added quite a bit of new material (eg. South American exploits, reaction engine etc) much of it from Richard's biography by James Hodge (from the Science Museum, bookshop London which will hopefully address the above comment in part. I have tried to merge it with the existing article and make it flow reasonably and I have not actually deleted much at all, just moved it around quite a bit. Further tidy-ups welcome. ChrisAngove 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Peter, my pleasure. I hope to contribute more in due course and I would like to see it as a class A article eventually. Its a good excuse to spend lots of holidays in Cornwall visiting the second hand bookshops! ChrisAngove 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes, and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.75.62 ( talk) Aug 5 2006
The above is simply untrue, as can be seen by simply following the link provided: there is no separate "ethnic code" for Cornish in any Census, including the latest 2011 one. It is not the job of Wikipedia to pander to people's fantasies. "A large number of Cornish people" are deeply embarrassed by the antics of a handful of very loud-mouthed delusional people with no grasp of history, migration patterns within Britain or, basically, anything real. 77.101.233.240 ( talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm genuinely 'gobsmacked' that we have people asserting that Richard Trevithick was "English" and not "Cornish" or even "British".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.68.177 ( talk) Mar 10 2008
I did a google seach for Trevithick "Torrington Square", and found 173 matches. I did another search for Trevithick "Euston Square" and found 294 matches. The majority opinion is that the 1808 circular railway was in Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Euston Square no longer exists, but there is a black plaque on Gower Street, close to the entrance on UCL, saying that Trevithick's engine was displayed near here. That plaque is quite a long was from Torrington Square. The illustration that is used in this article is held in a library called "Science and Society" http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?txtkeys1=Catch Their website refers to Euston Square. This poster http://www.fromheretohere.com/euston_sq/index.html also exists as a mosaic on the walls of Embankment station. It says that the site was Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Ogg 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that this person is Nick Tyler the head of the UCL Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, which is in the UCL Chadwick Building. Can you say what part or department of UCL is over the site so that the article's existing text can be corrected. 19 June 2007 Presumably he is referring to this paper by Nick Tyler: http://www.newcomen.com/abstracts/abstracts_2005to6.htm. As far as I can see, it doesn't dispute the idea that the site was Euston Square. Instead he is simply being more specific, since Euston Square was pretty huge. Ogg 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/euston_grove/euston_grove_wallis.htm Euston Square is bounded on the West side by Gordon street, the East side by Upper Woburn Place, the North side by Drummond Street, and the South side by Endsleigh Place (the last street is not named on any of the maps). Somewhat tantalisingly, it is just possible to make out the word "Carmar" on the second map from the top, along the bottom edge. The street seems extremely wide there, and the whole of that area is now under UCL. It is roughly a continuation of Mallet street, further north (Malet Place/ Foster Court) , roughly where the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archeology now stands. As for the Chadwick Building, it is precisely where the plaque is currently placed, by the main gate: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/images/map_mainsiteb&w.jpg# I found only one mention of Carmarthen Square, in this Old Bailey report of 1821: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_sessions/T18211024.html Ogg 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cruchley/cruch02.htm (note Caerm. Squ.r, also note how a "Grafton" is often found near a "Euston", this is because the Earl of Euston is/was the heir to the Duke of Grafton and so the buildings in the Euston Place block or square may have been the Euston's London residence) 1 July 2007 Here is Bowle's Plan of area in 1806: http://www.oldlondonmaps.com/Bowlespages/bowles02a.html 5 July 2007.
Interesting new bit of research: [1] Frankie Roberto ( talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Note - The location was reassessed in a lecture at the Early Railways 4 Conference in mid-June 2008, which placed the location on the south side of Euston Road, slightly north of the lcoation indicated. The article will need to be amended when the confernece proceedings are publihsed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning in some fashion that the 500 guineas won in the wager would be worth in 'today's' terms around £35,000 (an online conversion calculator gave a 2006 figure of £34,030-odd). While direct comparisons are rendered problematical by changes in society - much we now buy didn't exixt then - the sum was far from trivial, and weakens the frequent argument that the Middleton locomotive was the first to be "commercially successful." 195.92.67.74 ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to British. He was Cornish but this is not his nationality, and this would actually mean little to a global readership. Let's not damage an article about such an important man by reverting to confusing information. Note also that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a well recognised reference for Wikipeida, he was English! (ref. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 ( talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what it says about changing a nationality:
Changing an exisiting UK nationality
It cannot be called "wrong" to change an existing nationality (e.g., Welsh to British, or British to Irish) provided a sufficient connection exists.
Before making a change:
Consider why the existing nationality was chosen.
Examine the article for details that support the existing label.
Look for existing consensus on the discussion page, and in any archives that may be present.
Conduct research to be certain your choice is preferable (you can consult the guide above).
Sometimes no single "correct" choice exists. Is your change actually for the better? An editor may query you, or revert your choice – so be prepared to explain your decision.
Above all, be civil, assume good faith and respect other people's points of view. It is of course OK to "be bold" and apply your choice, but remember that strong feelings surround UK identity, and firm disagreement may arise!
Do NOT enforce uniformity
It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels.
Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.
Do NOT "edit war"!
Be aware that "edit warring" with other editors by repeatedly changing the text of an article to suit your views is against Wikipedia policy, and may lead to action being taken against you by Wikipedia administrators.
If that helps at all. DuncanHill ( talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In the recent Census and as recommended by Cornwall Council I recorded my nationality and ethnicity as CORNISH. There is NO English nationality and I personally regard myself as Cornish, of the British Isles and European. Wiki is haunted by Anglo supremacists who feel the need to keep Britain united. Time are changing as the very public recommendations of Cornwall Council show. CornubianKernow ( talk) 10:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The above threads have become somewhat confused, so I suggest further discussion takes place in a fresh thread. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.
Trevithick was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when he died that realm had become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I would suggest that British would be an acceptable description of his nationality, avoiding the problems associated with either Cornish or English. DuncanHill ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have compiled a very rough survey of usage found on the internet, from encyclopædias, museums, newspapers, libraries etc at User:DuncanHill/Trevithick. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for prolonging this discussion, but:
Cornishman5040 ( talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I take it FairuseBot is a tad broken, seeing as the big red ! sighn did not appear. Celtic Muffin&Co. ( talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is copied from Talk:Steam engine#Richard Trevithick edits
An anon editor has applied this new text to the Richard Trevithick article. There are some bold claims, all without references of course, but lack of refs is not usually grounds for deletion, at least, not immediately.
Apart from the typos/punctuation, anyone care to comment? -- EdJogg ( talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to revise my view expressed above. The addition appears to be wrong, in that it has been added in the wrong place chronologically. There is an article Arthur Woolf, which deals with the subject of the addition, and also needs attention. That article cited what was a web-linked article (link now broken) from Eindhoven University, probably from the same authors (but misspelt), as an article just published: Alessandro Nuvolari and Bart Verspagen, 'Technical Choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800-1850' Economic History Review 62(3), 685-710. This is an important explanation of why engine development was quite different in Cornwall that period from the textile districts, such as Lancashire. It cites another article by the same authors, 'Lean's Engine Reporter and the development of the Cornish engine: a reappraisal' Trans. Newcomen Soc. 77 (2007), 167-89. I am beyond my area of expertise, but hope that one or other of you can get to grips with this, and update, this article, Arthur Woolf and History of the steam engine in the light of these articles. Some one commented that the 19th century history in the latter was sadly deficient. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To those of you who seem to think that it is acceptable to remove any mention of Cornish ethnicity (cultural identity) from these articles, why is it I don't see you removing UNREFERENCED Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnicity statements from other info boxes? Lets see you remove the Scottish references for James Watt, and change Scottish to British. Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not." - If you say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is absolutely absurd that this article specifies at the start "Richard Trevithick (13 April 1771 – 22 April 1833) was an English[1] inventor and mining engineer." and the reference [1] goes to a biography written by his son "Francis Trevithick, Life of Richard Trevithick,1872." which refers to him as a Cornishman throughout.
Throughout the quoted biography countless references and an extremely clear distinction are made between Cornish engineers and English engineers, in the field of mining technology. Richard Trevithick falls clearly into the former camp. It is available online here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RTTOd1zMLrIC and you can check yourself by doing a search for "Cornish" and "English" through the book.
Locking this article and leaving it so that it shows Richard Trevithick as an Englishman is a traversty, and on this important day when the article will be reached by millions due to the Google "doodle" it is particularly unfortunate. It should be immediately corrected and locked as the correct version. It has taken decades to achieve the proper historical recognition for Trevithick that he deserves, due to the false but formerly ubiquitous teaching that Stephenson invented the steam locomotive - and now this. Cornishmen all over the world would turn in their graves if they heard this great Cornishman and mining icon is being falsely labelled as an "English engineer".
Kind Regards, Southwesterner. Southwesterner ( talk) 04:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This man is Cornish and should be described as such. This has been changed again to 'from the English county of Cornwall'. On today of all days when millions of people will see this article. This is racist and outrageous to have changed this today! Why don't you go an delete the article on 'Cornish People' while you're there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 ( talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please can we remove the "English county" reference in the first sentence. Cornwall is a nation in its own right, why can't the English state just recognise that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.158.39 ( talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Because Cornwall is an English county! The no such thing as the english state which ceased to exist in 1707! Everyone from the the island of Great Britain is British! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.165 ( talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You've stated that Cornwall is an English county, and then stated that the English state doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't make any sense. The Cornish state doesn't exist anymore, but that doesn't mean people from Cornwall arn't Cornish. You clearly have no understanding of this matter - try a forum if you want to regurgitate the UK government’s version of celtic history - this is an encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 ( talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This is accounting for the increased traffic today (celebrating Trevithick's 240th birthday). I suspect we cannot add the graphic itself, as it is bound to be copyrighted, but I have archived the page so we can mention it and allow visitors to view it in the future. This archiving service captures the whole page, including the graphic, so we won't lose it. (Incidentally, it is REALLY easy -- takes less time to archive a webpage than it does to complete the cite template! Thoroughly recommended to prevent link-rot.)
Presumably selection for a Google doodle counts as a recognition of notability? (although earlier in the week Google did celebrate the 117th anniversary of the first ice cream sundae...)
EdJogg ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to edit warring, I've protected this page for 24 hours. Please resolve your differences on this talk page. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed... The current version states: "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" This clearly meets a fair minded compromise IMHO. It omits any mention of Trevithick being English and clearly states his origin is Cornish with in-line links to the Cornish People Wiki page. This SHOULD satisfy any fair minded Cornish separatist because "British" Trevithick unquestionably was, by virtue of his birth and residence with the British Islands. Simply wanting to remove the word "British" from the sentence for purely separatist political reasons is entirely puerile and goes against the grain of our attempts to make Wikipedia a resource for unbiased information, rather than a place to air political views... I put it forward for debate that the current "Trevithick ...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" remains as it is. It is fair and informative, without mentioning England for those who feel that Cornwall should not be part of England. Comments? -- M R G WIKI999 ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please restore the word Cornish as supported by the reference in the lead, or remove the reference as it is dishonest to misuse a ref in this way. Pleas also restore the word england to the infobox as this represents the compromise wording adopted by WP:Cornwall. Please would everyone read the previous debats on this talk page too. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
[[Cornwall|Cornish]]<!-- Do not change link to [[Cornish people]] since this implies more than is covered by the reference.-->
). Consequently it may be simpler to say "...British inventor...from Cornwall.", since that avoids any ethnic implications.Not done. Come back when there's consensus. Even better, find something better to do with your time than bicker over which adjective to use to describe someone's birthright. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Just a little point of interest here, Richard Trevithick's mother Anne Teagues, although living with her family in Cornwall, was from an Irish family (gleaned from the book Richard Trevithick Giant of Steam), so I guess that makes Richard, at best, only half 'Cornish' given that other ancestors might have been non-cornish too. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 16:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
editrequest}}
Could we create a redlink for
Tregajorran in the first sentence of the Childhood and early life section?©
Geni 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Richard Trevithick has been tagged for deletion. Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Category:Richard Trevithick Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead is currently pretty thin on the ground and tagged appropriately for it, so I'll make a suggestion - is it possibly widely acknowledged that Trevithick is someone who hasn't gotten as much credit as he deserved? His legacy is an untarnished one but like so many notable inventors, he doesn't get much credit. SURE this has been mentioned allot. Would this kind of thing be good for further research? -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This addition describes the modern Swansea replica as "inaccurate", on the grounds of major working parts being reversed. However this is not an inaccuracy, rather a confusion as to which locomotive was being reproduced.
The earlier 1802 Coalbrookdale locomotive had the furnace beneath the crosshead. It was also drawn in a surviving drawing that has been widely reproduced - three versions on this page alone.
The 1804 Pen-y-darren locomotive corrected the obvious drawback and placed the furnace and crosshead at opposite ends. No drawing survives, but text descriptions do, sufficient to verify this.
So the Swansea replica (furnace and crosshead apart) is not "inaccurate" as such, but rather is based (as it is described) on a best-guess appearance for the Pen-y-darren locomotive. Our description should reflect that, although the details listed are brooadly those affected. We should also lose the incorrect illustration for the "Pen-y-darren locomotive", as we know this is unrealistic and is actually the Coalbrookdale locomotive.
I thought this error had been fixed years ago? No doubt someone found another coffee table book and "fixed" it for us. 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Should the banner complaining of insufficient inline citations be removed? I see plenty of inline citations which were, presumaby, add after the banner was added. Roly ( talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759395
Just added, I've just removed it. It's a fascinating read and puts forward many interesting ideas. However it's also full of holes. This should be read by anyone who is already familiar with Trevithick and the engineering of this period in detail. However I don't like the idea of any new readers dropping into it - it's just too flakey.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Chris Barrie documentary says that Trevithick hung a patent lawyer (serving Watt injunctions) upside down over a mineshaft. Also, that the important power to weight ratio of the London Steam Train *engine* is 3 hp to 300 kg (compare with Watt and Wright Brothers engines). There might be sources for that somewhere on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.208.8 ( talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone made this article worse by saying Cornwall is in England as opposed to the UK GB. Considering the laws in the UK state specifically Cornwall, as seperate from England then it should be Britian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.16.43 ( talk) 16:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The first two sentences sound repetitive and don't read terribly well. It effectively says that he's British from the UK. And that he's from Cornwall, born in Cornwall. I can see there's been some disagreement over the opening text previously, but I think it could still do with some minor tweaking Obscurasky ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Surname Trevithick is definitelly NOT germanic, british in origin, but Slavic. Travichik more preciselly means "grass-er". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.96.75 ( talk) 08:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to discuss these recent edits:
My first issue is that User:Andy Dingley has made two reverts without giving reasons in the edit summary or in the talk page.
The second issue is whether "firedoor" or "fire door" is the correct spelling for "The door of a furnace offering access to the fire inside". I have looked in four dictionaries all of which give "fire door" but not firedoor.
The third issue is whether and how we should link the term: to the fire door article, or give a red link (possibly to fire door (furnace)), or leave the term unlinked. The fire door article only discusses doors used for fire safety, whereas we are referring to the door of a furnace. We could expand the existing fire door article, but the two meanings are too remote to comfortably share an article. I do not favour giving a red link. According to Wikipedia:Red link we should give a red link "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable", such as for "a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition".
Fire door in the sense of door the of a furnace is insufficiently notable for an article. If we did have an article it would contain little more than a dictionary definition of the term. There is no mention of the technicalities of fire doors in the steam engine, Steam locomotive, Steam locomotive components and furnace articles. A quick web search gave no useful material.
On this basis I will change the spelling to "fire door", and leave it unlinked. Verbcatcher ( talk) 14:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
fire door, n.
[...]
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 21, 2005, February 21, 2006, February 21, 2007, February 21, 2008, February 21, 2009, and February 21, 2010. |
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
How hard could this be to turn into a GA?
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Penydarren" versus "Pen-Y-darren", as far as I know, the former is what is used now. The latter may have been used then, but if so I'd be willing to bet it was actually "Pen-y-darren", no capital 'y'. Varitek 02:27, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This article is rather overwhelmed with pictures at the moment, they certainly need organising better, if no-one else does this, then I might well do it. G-Man 00:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be heavily focused on road and rail transport. However Trevithick was more important in the long run as the person who introduced for this introduction of steam engines that worked above atmossphereic pressure. The present article is incomplete in failing to say enough about the rest of life. Peterkingiron 08:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just added quite a bit of new material (eg. South American exploits, reaction engine etc) much of it from Richard's biography by James Hodge (from the Science Museum, bookshop London which will hopefully address the above comment in part. I have tried to merge it with the existing article and make it flow reasonably and I have not actually deleted much at all, just moved it around quite a bit. Further tidy-ups welcome. ChrisAngove 17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Peter, my pleasure. I hope to contribute more in due course and I would like to see it as a class A article eventually. Its a good excuse to spend lots of holidays in Cornwall visiting the second hand bookshops! ChrisAngove 13:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A large number of Cornish people do not identify as English or see themselves as from Cornwall, 'England' for reasons relating to the ongoing debate about the past, present and future constitutional status of Cornwall, together with many people's sense of a distinct Cornish cultural identity - see Constitutional status of Cornwall and Revert warring over England/English vs United Kingdom/British. Since 2001 the Cornish have had their own unique ethnic UK Census code '06' similar to the Irish, Scots, Welsh and English, 2001 Ethnic Codes, and on many official forms it is now possible to register as Cornish as opposed to English.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.75.62 ( talk) Aug 5 2006
The above is simply untrue, as can be seen by simply following the link provided: there is no separate "ethnic code" for Cornish in any Census, including the latest 2011 one. It is not the job of Wikipedia to pander to people's fantasies. "A large number of Cornish people" are deeply embarrassed by the antics of a handful of very loud-mouthed delusional people with no grasp of history, migration patterns within Britain or, basically, anything real. 77.101.233.240 ( talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm genuinely 'gobsmacked' that we have people asserting that Richard Trevithick was "English" and not "Cornish" or even "British".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.68.177 ( talk) Mar 10 2008
I did a google seach for Trevithick "Torrington Square", and found 173 matches. I did another search for Trevithick "Euston Square" and found 294 matches. The majority opinion is that the 1808 circular railway was in Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Euston Square no longer exists, but there is a black plaque on Gower Street, close to the entrance on UCL, saying that Trevithick's engine was displayed near here. That plaque is quite a long was from Torrington Square. The illustration that is used in this article is held in a library called "Science and Society" http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?txtkeys1=Catch Their website refers to Euston Square. This poster http://www.fromheretohere.com/euston_sq/index.html also exists as a mosaic on the walls of Embankment station. It says that the site was Euston Square, not Torrington Square. Ogg 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that this person is Nick Tyler the head of the UCL Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, which is in the UCL Chadwick Building. Can you say what part or department of UCL is over the site so that the article's existing text can be corrected. 19 June 2007 Presumably he is referring to this paper by Nick Tyler: http://www.newcomen.com/abstracts/abstracts_2005to6.htm. As far as I can see, it doesn't dispute the idea that the site was Euston Square. Instead he is simply being more specific, since Euston Square was pretty huge. Ogg 18:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/cain/projects/euston_grove/euston_grove_wallis.htm Euston Square is bounded on the West side by Gordon street, the East side by Upper Woburn Place, the North side by Drummond Street, and the South side by Endsleigh Place (the last street is not named on any of the maps). Somewhat tantalisingly, it is just possible to make out the word "Carmar" on the second map from the top, along the bottom edge. The street seems extremely wide there, and the whole of that area is now under UCL. It is roughly a continuation of Mallet street, further north (Malet Place/ Foster Court) , roughly where the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archeology now stands. As for the Chadwick Building, it is precisely where the plaque is currently placed, by the main gate: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/images/map_mainsiteb&w.jpg# I found only one mention of Carmarthen Square, in this Old Bailey report of 1821: http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/html_sessions/T18211024.html Ogg 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
http://archivemaps.com/mapco/cruchley/cruch02.htm (note Caerm. Squ.r, also note how a "Grafton" is often found near a "Euston", this is because the Earl of Euston is/was the heir to the Duke of Grafton and so the buildings in the Euston Place block or square may have been the Euston's London residence) 1 July 2007 Here is Bowle's Plan of area in 1806: http://www.oldlondonmaps.com/Bowlespages/bowles02a.html 5 July 2007.
Interesting new bit of research: [1] Frankie Roberto ( talk) 10:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Note - The location was reassessed in a lecture at the Early Railways 4 Conference in mid-June 2008, which placed the location on the south side of Euston Road, slightly north of the lcoation indicated. The article will need to be amended when the confernece proceedings are publihsed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be worth mentioning in some fashion that the 500 guineas won in the wager would be worth in 'today's' terms around £35,000 (an online conversion calculator gave a 2006 figure of £34,030-odd). While direct comparisons are rendered problematical by changes in society - much we now buy didn't exixt then - the sum was far from trivial, and weakens the frequent argument that the Middleton locomotive was the first to be "commercially successful." 195.92.67.74 ( talk) 23:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to British. He was Cornish but this is not his nationality, and this would actually mean little to a global readership. Let's not damage an article about such an important man by reverting to confusing information. Note also that according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, which is a well recognised reference for Wikipeida, he was English! (ref. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9073323/Richard-Trevithick) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.151 ( talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This is what it says about changing a nationality:
Changing an exisiting UK nationality
It cannot be called "wrong" to change an existing nationality (e.g., Welsh to British, or British to Irish) provided a sufficient connection exists.
Before making a change:
Consider why the existing nationality was chosen.
Examine the article for details that support the existing label.
Look for existing consensus on the discussion page, and in any archives that may be present.
Conduct research to be certain your choice is preferable (you can consult the guide above).
Sometimes no single "correct" choice exists. Is your change actually for the better? An editor may query you, or revert your choice – so be prepared to explain your decision.
Above all, be civil, assume good faith and respect other people's points of view. It is of course OK to "be bold" and apply your choice, but remember that strong feelings surround UK identity, and firm disagreement may arise!
Do NOT enforce uniformity
It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels.
Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency – making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities – is strongly discouraged. Such imposed uniformity cannot, in any case, be sustained.
Do NOT "edit war"!
Be aware that "edit warring" with other editors by repeatedly changing the text of an article to suit your views is against Wikipedia policy, and may lead to action being taken against you by Wikipedia administrators.
If that helps at all. DuncanHill ( talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
In the recent Census and as recommended by Cornwall Council I recorded my nationality and ethnicity as CORNISH. There is NO English nationality and I personally regard myself as Cornish, of the British Isles and European. Wiki is haunted by Anglo supremacists who feel the need to keep Britain united. Time are changing as the very public recommendations of Cornwall Council show. CornubianKernow ( talk) 10:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The above threads have become somewhat confused, so I suggest further discussion takes place in a fresh thread. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.
Trevithick was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and when he died that realm had become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I would suggest that British would be an acceptable description of his nationality, avoiding the problems associated with either Cornish or English. DuncanHill ( talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I have compiled a very rough survey of usage found on the internet, from encyclopædias, museums, newspapers, libraries etc at User:DuncanHill/Trevithick. DuncanHill ( talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for prolonging this discussion, but:
Cornishman5040 ( talk) 20:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:GBP2coinTrevithick.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I take it FairuseBot is a tad broken, seeing as the big red ! sighn did not appear. Celtic Muffin&Co. ( talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion is copied from Talk:Steam engine#Richard Trevithick edits
An anon editor has applied this new text to the Richard Trevithick article. There are some bold claims, all without references of course, but lack of refs is not usually grounds for deletion, at least, not immediately.
Apart from the typos/punctuation, anyone care to comment? -- EdJogg ( talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to revise my view expressed above. The addition appears to be wrong, in that it has been added in the wrong place chronologically. There is an article Arthur Woolf, which deals with the subject of the addition, and also needs attention. That article cited what was a web-linked article (link now broken) from Eindhoven University, probably from the same authors (but misspelt), as an article just published: Alessandro Nuvolari and Bart Verspagen, 'Technical Choice, innovation, and British steam engineering, 1800-1850' Economic History Review 62(3), 685-710. This is an important explanation of why engine development was quite different in Cornwall that period from the textile districts, such as Lancashire. It cites another article by the same authors, 'Lean's Engine Reporter and the development of the Cornish engine: a reappraisal' Trans. Newcomen Soc. 77 (2007), 167-89. I am beyond my area of expertise, but hope that one or other of you can get to grips with this, and update, this article, Arthur Woolf and History of the steam engine in the light of these articles. Some one commented that the 19th century history in the latter was sadly deficient. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
To those of you who seem to think that it is acceptable to remove any mention of Cornish ethnicity (cultural identity) from these articles, why is it I don't see you removing UNREFERENCED Welsh, Scottish and Irish ethnicity statements from other info boxes? Lets see you remove the Scottish references for James Watt, and change Scottish to British. Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 ( talk) 14:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
"And what might or might not be in the James Watt article - or on any other page - is irrelevant of course, as is whether anyone is planning to make equivalent changes on those pages or not." - If you say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.211.98 ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It is absolutely absurd that this article specifies at the start "Richard Trevithick (13 April 1771 – 22 April 1833) was an English[1] inventor and mining engineer." and the reference [1] goes to a biography written by his son "Francis Trevithick, Life of Richard Trevithick,1872." which refers to him as a Cornishman throughout.
Throughout the quoted biography countless references and an extremely clear distinction are made between Cornish engineers and English engineers, in the field of mining technology. Richard Trevithick falls clearly into the former camp. It is available online here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RTTOd1zMLrIC and you can check yourself by doing a search for "Cornish" and "English" through the book.
Locking this article and leaving it so that it shows Richard Trevithick as an Englishman is a traversty, and on this important day when the article will be reached by millions due to the Google "doodle" it is particularly unfortunate. It should be immediately corrected and locked as the correct version. It has taken decades to achieve the proper historical recognition for Trevithick that he deserves, due to the false but formerly ubiquitous teaching that Stephenson invented the steam locomotive - and now this. Cornishmen all over the world would turn in their graves if they heard this great Cornishman and mining icon is being falsely labelled as an "English engineer".
Kind Regards, Southwesterner. Southwesterner ( talk) 04:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This man is Cornish and should be described as such. This has been changed again to 'from the English county of Cornwall'. On today of all days when millions of people will see this article. This is racist and outrageous to have changed this today! Why don't you go an delete the article on 'Cornish People' while you're there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 ( talk) 10:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Please can we remove the "English county" reference in the first sentence. Cornwall is a nation in its own right, why can't the English state just recognise that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.158.39 ( talk) 11:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Because Cornwall is an English county! The no such thing as the english state which ceased to exist in 1707! Everyone from the the island of Great Britain is British! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.165 ( talk) 13:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You've stated that Cornwall is an English county, and then stated that the English state doesn't exist anymore. This doesn't make any sense. The Cornish state doesn't exist anymore, but that doesn't mean people from Cornwall arn't Cornish. You clearly have no understanding of this matter - try a forum if you want to regurgitate the UK government’s version of celtic history - this is an encylopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.128.127 ( talk) 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This is accounting for the increased traffic today (celebrating Trevithick's 240th birthday). I suspect we cannot add the graphic itself, as it is bound to be copyrighted, but I have archived the page so we can mention it and allow visitors to view it in the future. This archiving service captures the whole page, including the graphic, so we won't lose it. (Incidentally, it is REALLY easy -- takes less time to archive a webpage than it does to complete the cite template! Thoroughly recommended to prevent link-rot.)
Presumably selection for a Google doodle counts as a recognition of notability? (although earlier in the week Google did celebrate the 117th anniversary of the first ice cream sundae...)
EdJogg ( talk) 13:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to edit warring, I've protected this page for 24 hours. Please resolve your differences on this talk page. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 16:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Agreed... The current version states: "Trevithick...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" This clearly meets a fair minded compromise IMHO. It omits any mention of Trevithick being English and clearly states his origin is Cornish with in-line links to the Cornish People Wiki page. This SHOULD satisfy any fair minded Cornish separatist because "British" Trevithick unquestionably was, by virtue of his birth and residence with the British Islands. Simply wanting to remove the word "British" from the sentence for purely separatist political reasons is entirely puerile and goes against the grain of our attempts to make Wikipedia a resource for unbiased information, rather than a place to air political views... I put it forward for debate that the current "Trevithick ...was a British inventor and mining engineer from Cornwall" remains as it is. It is fair and informative, without mentioning England for those who feel that Cornwall should not be part of England. Comments? -- M R G WIKI999 ( talk) 17:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please restore the word Cornish as supported by the reference in the lead, or remove the reference as it is dishonest to misuse a ref in this way. Pleas also restore the word england to the infobox as this represents the compromise wording adopted by WP:Cornwall. Please would everyone read the previous debats on this talk page too. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
[[Cornwall|Cornish]]<!-- Do not change link to [[Cornish people]] since this implies more than is covered by the reference.-->
). Consequently it may be simpler to say "...British inventor...from Cornwall.", since that avoids any ethnic implications.Not done. Come back when there's consensus. Even better, find something better to do with your time than bicker over which adjective to use to describe someone's birthright. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
References
Just a little point of interest here, Richard Trevithick's mother Anne Teagues, although living with her family in Cornwall, was from an Irish family (gleaned from the book Richard Trevithick Giant of Steam), so I guess that makes Richard, at best, only half 'Cornish' given that other ancestors might have been non-cornish too. FreeFlow99 ( talk) 16:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
{{
editrequest}}
Could we create a redlink for
Tregajorran in the first sentence of the Childhood and early life section?©
Geni 17:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Category:Richard Trevithick has been tagged for deletion. Discussion is here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011 May 2#Category:Richard Trevithick Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The lead is currently pretty thin on the ground and tagged appropriately for it, so I'll make a suggestion - is it possibly widely acknowledged that Trevithick is someone who hasn't gotten as much credit as he deserved? His legacy is an untarnished one but like so many notable inventors, he doesn't get much credit. SURE this has been mentioned allot. Would this kind of thing be good for further research? -- Τασουλα (Shalom!) ( talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This addition describes the modern Swansea replica as "inaccurate", on the grounds of major working parts being reversed. However this is not an inaccuracy, rather a confusion as to which locomotive was being reproduced.
The earlier 1802 Coalbrookdale locomotive had the furnace beneath the crosshead. It was also drawn in a surviving drawing that has been widely reproduced - three versions on this page alone.
The 1804 Pen-y-darren locomotive corrected the obvious drawback and placed the furnace and crosshead at opposite ends. No drawing survives, but text descriptions do, sufficient to verify this.
So the Swansea replica (furnace and crosshead apart) is not "inaccurate" as such, but rather is based (as it is described) on a best-guess appearance for the Pen-y-darren locomotive. Our description should reflect that, although the details listed are brooadly those affected. We should also lose the incorrect illustration for the "Pen-y-darren locomotive", as we know this is unrealistic and is actually the Coalbrookdale locomotive.
I thought this error had been fixed years ago? No doubt someone found another coffee table book and "fixed" it for us. 8-( Andy Dingley ( talk) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Should the banner complaining of insufficient inline citations be removed? I see plenty of inline citations which were, presumaby, add after the banner was added. Roly ( talk) 13:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=759395
Just added, I've just removed it. It's a fascinating read and puts forward many interesting ideas. However it's also full of holes. This should be read by anyone who is already familiar with Trevithick and the engineering of this period in detail. However I don't like the idea of any new readers dropping into it - it's just too flakey.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The Chris Barrie documentary says that Trevithick hung a patent lawyer (serving Watt injunctions) upside down over a mineshaft. Also, that the important power to weight ratio of the London Steam Train *engine* is 3 hp to 300 kg (compare with Watt and Wright Brothers engines). There might be sources for that somewhere on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.208.8 ( talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone made this article worse by saying Cornwall is in England as opposed to the UK GB. Considering the laws in the UK state specifically Cornwall, as seperate from England then it should be Britian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.16.43 ( talk) 16:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
The first two sentences sound repetitive and don't read terribly well. It effectively says that he's British from the UK. And that he's from Cornwall, born in Cornwall. I can see there's been some disagreement over the opening text previously, but I think it could still do with some minor tweaking Obscurasky ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Surname Trevithick is definitelly NOT germanic, british in origin, but Slavic. Travichik more preciselly means "grass-er". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.96.75 ( talk) 08:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to discuss these recent edits:
My first issue is that User:Andy Dingley has made two reverts without giving reasons in the edit summary or in the talk page.
The second issue is whether "firedoor" or "fire door" is the correct spelling for "The door of a furnace offering access to the fire inside". I have looked in four dictionaries all of which give "fire door" but not firedoor.
The third issue is whether and how we should link the term: to the fire door article, or give a red link (possibly to fire door (furnace)), or leave the term unlinked. The fire door article only discusses doors used for fire safety, whereas we are referring to the door of a furnace. We could expand the existing fire door article, but the two meanings are too remote to comfortably share an article. I do not favour giving a red link. According to Wikipedia:Red link we should give a red link "to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable", such as for "a technical term that merits a treatment beyond its dictionary definition".
Fire door in the sense of door the of a furnace is insufficiently notable for an article. If we did have an article it would contain little more than a dictionary definition of the term. There is no mention of the technicalities of fire doors in the steam engine, Steam locomotive, Steam locomotive components and furnace articles. A quick web search gave no useful material.
On this basis I will change the spelling to "fire door", and leave it unlinked. Verbcatcher ( talk) 14:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
fire door, n.
[...]
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Trevithick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)