A discussion whose topic is

LoPbN

appears on User talk:Jerzy/LoPbN; the following points describe the discussion:

• 9 msgs, 19:30, 1 thru 12:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• 4 participants (counting an article's talk page): Jerzy· t· c· *; Slambo· t· c· *; readership of Talk:List of people by name· *; Aecis· t· c· *.
• general topic(s): Links to non-bio articles; lengthy description of bio's subject; purpose of LoPbN

I encountered these pages while working on Special:Uncategorizedpages and it took me some time to realize that these were being used as templates and not standalone articles. In general slashes and subpages are not encouraged in the main namespace. If these do become independent articles, which seems like a decent idea, the "MONTH 2005 in rail transport" format would probably be best. If they are to remain in use as templates the current names are fine, but they should perhaps be moved into the template namespace.

As a second issue if you do decide to pursue the standalone articles approach are you certain that a division by months is the best option? The "year in music" and "year in television" series ran into similar length problems. They have both decided that a division by country would be most useful for the reader. Thus pages like 1976 in Canadian television and 2005 in British music now exist. Perhaps such a division would also work for the rail transport series. The references could then also be divided among the subpages. - SimonP 22:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I rather like the by month, but would not object to by country or by region in addition. That's not greedy, is it? :) Much kudos for your work - the YYYY in rail transport articles have come a long way in a very short time, and the more contemporary dates are outstanding. -- Tagishsimon (talk)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article William Barstow Strong, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I just wanted to thank you, both for your support and your quibble. I've never put an article up for FAC before, and I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so it took me a while to figure out how to institute your suggestion. I'll be sure to use infobox in future biographical articles. -- Scimitar 23:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice touch adding the "gallery view" to this page; it really unclutters things. Do you plan on doing this to the Santa Fe Railroad page as well?

-- Lordkinbote 01:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Following on your suggestion, I've updated the Santa Fe page to use the Gallery view as well for the paint schemes section. The only thing that I don't like about it is that the thumbnails are small and the tag doesn't provide any means for resizing them. I've read that the wiki developers are working on this, however. I've also updated a few links to bypass redirects and point to more appropriate articles.

In updating this section, I noticed that we've got a warbonnet photo, but no descriptive paragraph for it. I haven't added that yet, but we need to mention its development and use on high-priority freights like the Z trains between LA and Chicago. Are you preparing text for the remaining sections about the paint schemes? I'm putting together more information on the history of the railroad to flesh out the stubbed section headers there; I just haven't uploaded anything beyond the rough outline that's there now.

slambo 12:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I just received some reference info I've been waiting on, so yes, I do plan on finishing out this section in the not-too-distant future. Also trying to come up with one last photo or two for some of the schemes...

-- Lordkinbote 19:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the congratulations on the article reaching FA status, I'm pleased that it did. Thanks also for your help on the article, I think it made a difference. JYolkowski // talk 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You may want to add the following terms to the Rail terminology page: [1] and [2].  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 17:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

It has been suggested that technical aspects be split and added to Rail transport in India. I agree with it, but the difficult part is choosing which sections stay here and what goes there and the battle lines are awfully blurred. See: Talk:Indian Railways. Would like your views.  = Nichalp ( Talk)= 17:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that in 1941 the AAR abbreviations were formatted differently, since every reference I've seen for early Birmingham uses the &'s and .'s. Do you know this to not be the case? I can see that it's less confusing to use the current abbreviation for continuously operating carriers, but is there a reason why non-AAR abbreviations for historical railways have been reformatted (or removed)? Also, I don't know if Frisco was called "Railroad" instead of "Railway" in some periods or sections, but for what it's worth, that's what it is called in the 1941 Guide Dystopos 14:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you take a look at USATC S160 Class, USATC S100 Class [3]? Dunc| ☺ 20:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you try to find how they were classified? I think there were S159 and S161 but what was the logic (if any) behind the system? Secondly, any official photographs or drawings ought to be public domain if they are the creation of the US Govt and so can be uploaded. Unfortunately it seems that logistics isn't high on their agenda, and a web search is fairly fruitless, but you could find more luck in any books you have or even try writing to NARA. Dunc| ☺ 23:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Slambo -

I've added many photos (mostly old, i.e. public domain, some of my own) to locomotive pages you've worked on. You might want to take a look that I've not goofed anywhere, especially since there is a general "edit conflict warning" on all Wiki edits right now. Check my contributions page for the edits. Thanks! -- Janke | Talk 28 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Heh - we seem to be updating the same pages at the same time... I was just about to add the 0-4-4- loco to the "Forney page, but you got there first! ;-) -- Janke | Talk 29 June 2005 15:30 (UTC)

thanks for the fixed link! I was trying to figure out how you do that.. =) keep up the good work! PeregrineAY June 30, 2005 09:23 (UTC)