![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Is this a good edit?
Changing British Railways (Southern Region) or British Railways to the plain, and unspecific, British Railways. This is on loco articles for SR locos, with AFAIK no use outside that region.
I've seen a bunch of these recently, all from Vodafone IPs from Ireland. They ignore discussion attempts.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
As some of you may know, Chris0512 ( talk · contribs) was blocked a few weeks ago for being WP:NOTHERE. One of their habits was to frequently revert their own edits, sometimes days or weeks later. Reverting your own edits is not a crime; but two new users have surfaced today, with similar habits: Christo McBride ( talk · contribs) and Scotlandinia ( talk · contribs). Their edits are also primarily reverts, either to edits made by Chris0512 or to edits made by themselves. Does anybody else smell a WP:SOCK? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the project membership list be pruned to remove inactive members? If so, what sort of cut-off date should be used (e.g. no edits of any sort in the last 12 months)? At a quick look at the first few entries, about half of the members now seem to be inactive for various reasons.
Also a reminder that you can add yourself to the list, or update your details, if you haven't already. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone any reliable sources for the existence of the following stations or halts shown on Template:Cumbrian Coast Line RDT?
I can find nothing on the first two except railfan forum postings and on the last nothing except a single mention in Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain volume 14 that gives no dates or other information. Nthep ( talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I happened across the removal of a set of livery diagrams recently. I observed [1] removal of Livery diagrams under the edit summary of caption. As may be guessed from my moniker displaying a location related to Havant it may not be surprising British Rail Class 158, British Rail Class 313, British Rail Class 377 and British Rail Class 442 are perhaps the most relevant modern units to me. I then deduce it is perhaps explained by [2], a good faith contribution by Tony May which has the edit summary Livery Details: please use photographs, not MS paint drawings. Points that strike me include:
I guess in general the livery diagrams can be useful though I might be concerned if they become obtrusive. An overview of people's thoughts and identification of policies and guidelines before a possible wholesale removal occurs might be a useful discussion. @ Merlinhst7, Feathers44, Nightfury, Smithdo43172, N0thhan, and Redrose64: ... at a glance I think you are some people who may have been involved with these diagrams or placement or removal in one way or another and may not watch this page ... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
|x40px
in this example. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)I am currently writing an article on this subject. I heard through local sources late last year the diesel depot was returned to service late last year to service local DMus and to take the pressure off Crown Point but have not yet found (or missed it) any reference in Modern Railways or Rail magazines. Can anyone supply a reference? Also if anyone knows when it lost its allocation of Class 08 shunters that would be useful. Thanks -- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
T.taylor1997 ( talk · contribs) is persistently trying to add unsourced opinion and timetable information to Cannock railway station. I left them a note, which they reverted, and then told me to "sod off". -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Their IP sockpuppets continue to do this. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Redrose64 and Ritchie333: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T.taylor1997; for some reason no one else seems to have noticed the other account in the page histories? Jc86035 ( talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Consistently removing relevant information from pages. In particular, I have recently updated the Cannock Railway Station page. All the information is true and can be sourced to Google maps, red rose claims to be an opinion. All other information I have included in recent days is in keeping with what was there prior, including times of the first bus and train service on a Sunday. In addition to this, I have been receiving persistent condescending and rudely blunt messages from this user. ( talk) T.taylor1997 ( talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) redrose64 ( talk · contribs)
Another revert on the Cannock station article. I make that 4RR and a strong whiff of WP:NOTHERE. This needs kicking upstairs. - X201 ( talk) 15:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record, this editor also made an number of edits to Didcot Parkway railway station, which I reverted. Mjroots ( talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have come to realise he May 2019 introduction of electrified services past Walsall is likely the trigger for some of this activity. I've add a sentence about this at Cannock; made Template:Chase Line collapsible and added it to that article which is a little right lopsided on a desktop and by efforts to fix that were unsatisfactory and a Gallery attempt looked awful so I gave up. I was also drawn to the external link which emphasised Train times over Station information which I wasn't happy about but that is more down to Template:Stn art lnk. I've sort of started an informal proposal on that template talk. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in reviewing the edits myself, but perhaps someone else would like to check Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2059::0/48 and Special:Contributions/75 bluesara. I think most of them were made in good faith, but I have concerns about the person's understanding of policy and their English ability. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
We appear to be missing an article on the British Rail Class 799. Mjroots ( talk) 15:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Please could somebody explain to Neith-Nabu ( talk · contribs) that WP:V is policy. They are persistently and wilfully reverting sourced edits at Mid-Norfolk Railway. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Spondon railway station#Image of PERTIS machine. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: {{ Whyte}} and changes like [6] [7]. @ Railfan23:
I would list this at TfD, except that it wouldn't attract an audience who understand the issues. Like the narrow gauge argument, it's likly to get closed under WP:MACEDONIA or something irrelevant.
First problem is WP:EASTEREGG
This gives us two adjacent bluelinks, which is recognised as a usability problem. Also (and there's no reason for this) the first link is now to "0-4-0" rather than the more specific "0-4-0ST" – and could even be a different article page. We already have pretty good endpoints, by sections and redirects, for the tank variants of common wheel arrangements. I don't see the rare case when this gives a better destination for a "back tank", "wing tank" or "well tank" as really justifying it.
Secondly, what does the template even do? Mostly it's an empty template, just re-linking from the same parameters. It re-targets the 4-4-2 link (there's a football page involved too, so Atlantics aren't the primary topic). But we can fix that by our general practice for disambiguating wls in place. There are also two diesel links redirected. The suffices are expanded through a case statement at {{ Whyte suffix}}.
Many of the calls to this template are wrapped in a {{ nowrap}}. If this is a good thing though, we should do that within the template, rather than having to wrap every use.
I see no purpose to this template, I don't like the splitting of the call parameters and I really don't like the adjacent links as a result. Should we use it?
Should we keep it? If we keep it, should we change how the links work? Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Whyte/sandbox|0-4-0|ST}}
gives
0-4-0
ST. I'll look at restoring that functionality later, and adding the space. —
O Still Small
Voice of Clam
13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
A few pages such as SNCB Type 12 appear in "What links here" for redirect 4-4-2, because #ifexist: records spurious links. This causes minor inconvenience to the disambiguation team. This change should solve the problem. Does anyone object to its release? Certes ( talk) 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The naming of UK rail yards is a mixture of upper and lowercase - Bescot Yard, Colwick marshalling yard, Erimus Marshalling Yard, Tyne Yard, Wath marshalling yard etc. Whilst I would say they are proper names, with forebearance to WP:NCCAPS, do we need to change these so that they all align? I am not strongly in favour of either variant (all caps or only first word in caps), but I feel they should all be styled in the same way. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help). The naming of yards is quite inconsistent. "Chigton Green Yard" and just "Chigton Green" are used commonly. "Chigton Green Marshalling Yard" is less commonly used. There is consistency mostly though in how a yard is named, once named. Capitalisation is used as proper names, at least where " Yard" or " Marshalling Yard" are part of the regularly used name, not merely a context in a sentence.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about trying to find a reliable source for the meaning of the B and P prefixes at Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock#P and B. Please comment there. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Can any of the experts here identify what class of DMU this is so I can classify it on commons? G-13114 ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found a website run by a man called Nigel Tout, and it has a fairly large collection of railway photographs, some of which are historically quite interesting from the 1960s to 1990s which are available under the creative commons license, so they are free to use on wikipedia. Does anyone want to download them to the commons? I've uploaded a few, but to do all of them is a big job. I'm just putting this as a notification. G-13114 ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#Large gallery from a little less than two years ago - it seems that PeterSkuce ( talk · contribs), who has been absent for lengthy periods, is now active again. They seem to have resumed their previous behaviour, having added an image gallery to Great Central Railway (heritage railway) three times. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, Please can you explain the issue/problem that you have with my actions and behaviour, as I have actually included three photographs/images that were not taken by myself. Also note that the article was rather bare, there were no photographs of trains operating on the Great Central Railway. Finally please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. Therefore how am I doing any harm, vandalism or wrong doing? PeterSkuce ( talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. PeterSkuce ( talk) 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. Also I am not damaging or destroying the articles and I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am adding photos to the articles. I am not complaining to other photographers or editors on Wikipedia. I am not writing anything abusive, harmful or offensive on Wikipedia. I have not been adding any sexual remarks or swearing. I have not done anything negative, so why do you want to ban me? PeterSkuce ( talk) 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Please can you explain to me how I can be in serious trouble just because I am adding more photographs and improving the articles? To me, you do not make sense that you are taking offence by me taking the time by spending hours of my day uploading images onto Wikimedia Commons and uploading some onto Wikipedia articles. As I have mentioned before, I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am not touching the main text of the article either. PeterSkuce ( talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I did place a photograph that someone else took into the info box of the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and I also included three photographs that were not taken by myself in a gallery also on the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and finally I received a thank you for my edit for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway page;. I have not criticised other people's photographs or editing on Wikipedia. Therefore what have I done wrong? PeterSkuce ( talk) 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Railfan23 thanked me for my edit on Keighley and Worth Valley Railway for the creation of the gallery of photographs and this was on Sunday 16 June. PeterSkuce ( talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
PeterSkuce, we don't care if someone thanked you or not. You're welcome to upload as many photographs to Commons as you like, but anything added to Wikipedia is subject to consensus, and if there's a consensus that something isn't appropriate you can't keep adding it. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images even though it's long, and in particular the section Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, as you seem to be under a misapprehension about what we're looking for when it comes to images. We're not looking for as many images as possible, and we're not looking to illustrate every aspect of the article's topic; we're looking for a few, high quality, representative images to communicate key facts. (As a rough rule of thumb, if an article has more images than it has sections, then it's getting cluttered; if it has more images than it has paragraphs, then it's outright disruptive.) The reason articles have the {{ Commonscat}} template at the bottom is precisely because we don't want many images on our articles and want to point people who are looking for multiple images to the appropriate place. Nobody here wants to block or ban you, but if you're not willing to follow our rules after having them repeatedly explained to you, that's what we'll have to do. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify what sort of locomotive this is so I can classify it? There's two more photographs of it here and here if that helps. G-13114 ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I am coming towards the end of my tether with Tony May ( talk · contribs) for his continually crtiticism of my photographs, and those of other users, both here and on Commons (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], and the false implication that I " don't know what I'm doing"), together with several insulting references to WP:Vanity, e.g. [14] and [15]. Despite several warnings from myself and others, [16], [17], [18] he has recently resumed this behaviour [19], [20], [21].
I believe that further warnings will have no affect, and that only a topic ban, preventing him from criticising or removing photographs, will stop this behaviour. However as I am involved, I do not wish to take it straight to WP:AN without getting feedback from uninvolved editors first. Please let me know what you feel. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
So don't tolerate it then. If you don't want your photographs critiqued by someone who knows what "composition" and "exposure" mean, don't upload photos to Wikipedia.as unacceptable, particularly after the issue has been raised here. You do not need to make personal snipes like that to discuss the quality of a photograph.
Wow, that guy seems like a piece of work - just looking at his contributions I've found loads that really need to be undone! Jeni ( talk) 13:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
He's now on some kind of rampage to remove livery diagrams from articles - the sooner he gets blocked the better Jeni ( talk) 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
These personal attacks on me are unacceptableIf you can't handle being on the end of personal attacks, perhaps you shouldn't dish them out? Prt580 ( talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify what sort of DMU this is? G-13114 ( talk) 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Station opening dates -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's another DMU to identify, which was at Leicester station in 1985. I'm thinking it must be a Class 105 as that is the only sort I can find which has two rather than three windows on the cab end, which would have been in service at that time, but some of the features don't match with the other photographs of that class. G-13114 ( talk) 21:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It has long been accepted ( [2011], [2014], [2016]) that road bridges don't belong on railway route diagrams unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Recently, a pair of IP vandals ( 46.226.49.230 & 216.82.243.88) added—curiously, only Ring road—motorways to (primarily Manchester-area) RDTs, most of which are historical lines that were succeeded long before the motorway era. An attempt to halt this resulted instead in a 24-hour block. Ritchie333 proposed to semi-protect the templates, and I second that, but am somewhat averse to doing the edits myself at this point.
Pinging Bazza 7/ Dlohcierekim/ Pi.1415926535/ Redrose64 for comments/action? Useddenim ( talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The Brantham TMD article is being discussed at AfD. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A number of unregistered users have added a sizeable quantity of information to List of stations in London fare zones 7–W over the past few months. Is the article still accurate? Jc86035 ( talk) 10:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
An incident occurred on the Caledonian Sleeper yesterday which resulted in the train failing to stop at Edinburgh Waverley station. The train was comprised of a Class 92 locomotive and Mark 5 stock. Forum rumour is that the brakes on the carriages were isolated, leaving only the locomotive brake operative. The BBC reports that the carriage brakes were able to be applied by the guard, thus stopping the train. RAIB have sent an investigator and are currently deciding on whether or not to launch a full investigation, issue a safety digest or take no action. My gut feeling is that there will be a full investigation.
Which brings us to how we cover the incident. At the moment, I'm not advocating an article. However, iff there is a full investigation announced, then one should be considered. For now, should we cover the incident by inclusion on the articles about the locomotive, train, carriages and station involved? Mjroots ( talk) 12:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
RAIB's preliminary investigation indicates … no control of the brakes on the coaches because a brake pipe isolating valve was in the closed position when the train left Carstairs station.
— Sladen ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
Is this a good edit?
Changing British Railways (Southern Region) or British Railways to the plain, and unspecific, British Railways. This is on loco articles for SR locos, with AFAIK no use outside that region.
I've seen a bunch of these recently, all from Vodafone IPs from Ireland. They ignore discussion attempts.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley ( talk) 16:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
As some of you may know, Chris0512 ( talk · contribs) was blocked a few weeks ago for being WP:NOTHERE. One of their habits was to frequently revert their own edits, sometimes days or weeks later. Reverting your own edits is not a crime; but two new users have surfaced today, with similar habits: Christo McBride ( talk · contribs) and Scotlandinia ( talk · contribs). Their edits are also primarily reverts, either to edits made by Chris0512 or to edits made by themselves. Does anybody else smell a WP:SOCK? -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 18:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Should the project membership list be pruned to remove inactive members? If so, what sort of cut-off date should be used (e.g. no edits of any sort in the last 12 months)? At a quick look at the first few entries, about half of the members now seem to be inactive for various reasons.
Also a reminder that you can add yourself to the list, or update your details, if you haven't already. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 11:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Burnt Oak tube station#Opening, renaming and comment there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Has anyone any reliable sources for the existence of the following stations or halts shown on Template:Cumbrian Coast Line RDT?
I can find nothing on the first two except railfan forum postings and on the last nothing except a single mention in Regional History of the Railways of Great Britain volume 14 that gives no dates or other information. Nthep ( talk) 16:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
I happened across the removal of a set of livery diagrams recently. I observed [1] removal of Livery diagrams under the edit summary of caption. As may be guessed from my moniker displaying a location related to Havant it may not be surprising British Rail Class 158, British Rail Class 313, British Rail Class 377 and British Rail Class 442 are perhaps the most relevant modern units to me. I then deduce it is perhaps explained by [2], a good faith contribution by Tony May which has the edit summary Livery Details: please use photographs, not MS paint drawings. Points that strike me include:
I guess in general the livery diagrams can be useful though I might be concerned if they become obtrusive. An overview of people's thoughts and identification of policies and guidelines before a possible wholesale removal occurs might be a useful discussion. @ Merlinhst7, Feathers44, Nightfury, Smithdo43172, N0thhan, and Redrose64: ... at a glance I think you are some people who may have been involved with these diagrams or placement or removal in one way or another and may not watch this page ... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
|x40px
in this example. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
15:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)I am currently writing an article on this subject. I heard through local sources late last year the diesel depot was returned to service late last year to service local DMus and to take the pressure off Crown Point but have not yet found (or missed it) any reference in Modern Railways or Rail magazines. Can anyone supply a reference? Also if anyone knows when it lost its allocation of Class 08 shunters that would be useful. Thanks -- Davidvaughanwells ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
T.taylor1997 ( talk · contribs) is persistently trying to add unsourced opinion and timetable information to Cannock railway station. I left them a note, which they reverted, and then told me to "sod off". -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Their IP sockpuppets continue to do this. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Redrose64 and Ritchie333: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/T.taylor1997; for some reason no one else seems to have noticed the other account in the page histories? Jc86035 ( talk) 13:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Consistently removing relevant information from pages. In particular, I have recently updated the Cannock Railway Station page. All the information is true and can be sourced to Google maps, red rose claims to be an opinion. All other information I have included in recent days is in keeping with what was there prior, including times of the first bus and train service on a Sunday. In addition to this, I have been receiving persistent condescending and rudely blunt messages from this user. ( talk) T.taylor1997 ( talk) 14:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) redrose64 ( talk · contribs)
Another revert on the Cannock station article. I make that 4RR and a strong whiff of WP:NOTHERE. This needs kicking upstairs. - X201 ( talk) 15:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record, this editor also made an number of edits to Didcot Parkway railway station, which I reverted. Mjroots ( talk) 17:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I have come to realise he May 2019 introduction of electrified services past Walsall is likely the trigger for some of this activity. I've add a sentence about this at Cannock; made Template:Chase Line collapsible and added it to that article which is a little right lopsided on a desktop and by efforts to fix that were unsatisfactory and a Gallery attempt looked awful so I gave up. I was also drawn to the external link which emphasised Train times over Station information which I wasn't happy about but that is more down to Template:Stn art lnk. I've sort of started an informal proposal on that template talk. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not interested in reviewing the edits myself, but perhaps someone else would like to check Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:2059::0/48 and Special:Contributions/75 bluesara. I think most of them were made in good faith, but I have concerns about the person's understanding of policy and their English ability. Jc86035 ( talk) 16:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
We appear to be missing an article on the British Rail Class 799. Mjroots ( talk) 15:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Notability#Train stations and comment on the RfC that you find there. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 19:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Please could somebody explain to Neith-Nabu ( talk · contribs) that WP:V is policy. They are persistently and wilfully reverting sourced edits at Mid-Norfolk Railway. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 20:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Talk:Spondon railway station#Image of PERTIS machine. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Re: {{ Whyte}} and changes like [6] [7]. @ Railfan23:
I would list this at TfD, except that it wouldn't attract an audience who understand the issues. Like the narrow gauge argument, it's likly to get closed under WP:MACEDONIA or something irrelevant.
First problem is WP:EASTEREGG
This gives us two adjacent bluelinks, which is recognised as a usability problem. Also (and there's no reason for this) the first link is now to "0-4-0" rather than the more specific "0-4-0ST" – and could even be a different article page. We already have pretty good endpoints, by sections and redirects, for the tank variants of common wheel arrangements. I don't see the rare case when this gives a better destination for a "back tank", "wing tank" or "well tank" as really justifying it.
Secondly, what does the template even do? Mostly it's an empty template, just re-linking from the same parameters. It re-targets the 4-4-2 link (there's a football page involved too, so Atlantics aren't the primary topic). But we can fix that by our general practice for disambiguating wls in place. There are also two diesel links redirected. The suffices are expanded through a case statement at {{ Whyte suffix}}.
Many of the calls to this template are wrapped in a {{ nowrap}}. If this is a good thing though, we should do that within the template, rather than having to wrap every use.
I see no purpose to this template, I don't like the splitting of the call parameters and I really don't like the adjacent links as a result. Should we use it?
Should we keep it? If we keep it, should we change how the links work? Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
Whyte/sandbox|0-4-0|ST}}
gives
0-4-0
ST. I'll look at restoring that functionality later, and adding the space. —
O Still Small
Voice of Clam
13:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
A few pages such as SNCB Type 12 appear in "What links here" for redirect 4-4-2, because #ifexist: records spurious links. This causes minor inconvenience to the disambiguation team. This change should solve the problem. Does anyone object to its release? Certes ( talk) 10:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The naming of UK rail yards is a mixture of upper and lowercase - Bescot Yard, Colwick marshalling yard, Erimus Marshalling Yard, Tyne Yard, Wath marshalling yard etc. Whilst I would say they are proper names, with forebearance to WP:NCCAPS, do we need to change these so that they all align? I am not strongly in favour of either variant (all caps or only first word in caps), but I feel they should all be styled in the same way. Regards. The joy of all things ( talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help). The naming of yards is quite inconsistent. "Chigton Green Yard" and just "Chigton Green" are used commonly. "Chigton Green Marshalling Yard" is less commonly used. There is consistency mostly though in how a yard is named, once named. Capitalisation is used as proper names, at least where " Yard" or " Marshalling Yard" are part of the regularly used name, not merely a context in a sentence.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
17:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about trying to find a reliable source for the meaning of the B and P prefixes at Talk:Docklands Light Railway rolling stock#P and B. Please comment there. Thryduulf ( talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Can any of the experts here identify what class of DMU this is so I can classify it on commons? G-13114 ( talk) 16:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I've found a website run by a man called Nigel Tout, and it has a fairly large collection of railway photographs, some of which are historically quite interesting from the 1960s to 1990s which are available under the creative commons license, so they are free to use on wikipedia. Does anyone want to download them to the commons? I've uploaded a few, but to do all of them is a big job. I'm just putting this as a notification. G-13114 ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#Large gallery from a little less than two years ago - it seems that PeterSkuce ( talk · contribs), who has been absent for lengthy periods, is now active again. They seem to have resumed their previous behaviour, having added an image gallery to Great Central Railway (heritage railway) three times. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 16:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, Please can you explain the issue/problem that you have with my actions and behaviour, as I have actually included three photographs/images that were not taken by myself. Also note that the article was rather bare, there were no photographs of trains operating on the Great Central Railway. Finally please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway. Therefore how am I doing any harm, vandalism or wrong doing? PeterSkuce ( talk) 17:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. PeterSkuce ( talk) 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I think people have missed out this sentence that I wrote 'please note that I have actually received a thank you for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway'. Also I am not damaging or destroying the articles and I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am adding photos to the articles. I am not complaining to other photographers or editors on Wikipedia. I am not writing anything abusive, harmful or offensive on Wikipedia. I have not been adding any sexual remarks or swearing. I have not done anything negative, so why do you want to ban me? PeterSkuce ( talk) 13:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Please can you explain to me how I can be in serious trouble just because I am adding more photographs and improving the articles? To me, you do not make sense that you are taking offence by me taking the time by spending hours of my day uploading images onto Wikimedia Commons and uploading some onto Wikipedia articles. As I have mentioned before, I am not deleting, removing or taking anything away from the articles. I am not touching the main text of the article either. PeterSkuce ( talk) 13:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Please note that I did place a photograph that someone else took into the info box of the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and I also included three photographs that were not taken by myself in a gallery also on the Great Central Railway Heritage/Preserved page and finally I received a thank you for my edit for creating a gallery on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway page;. I have not criticised other people's photographs or editing on Wikipedia. Therefore what have I done wrong? PeterSkuce ( talk) 14:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Railfan23 thanked me for my edit on Keighley and Worth Valley Railway for the creation of the gallery of photographs and this was on Sunday 16 June. PeterSkuce ( talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
PeterSkuce, we don't care if someone thanked you or not. You're welcome to upload as many photographs to Commons as you like, but anything added to Wikipedia is subject to consensus, and if there's a consensus that something isn't appropriate you can't keep adding it. I strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images even though it's long, and in particular the section Pertinence and encyclopedic nature, as you seem to be under a misapprehension about what we're looking for when it comes to images. We're not looking for as many images as possible, and we're not looking to illustrate every aspect of the article's topic; we're looking for a few, high quality, representative images to communicate key facts. (As a rough rule of thumb, if an article has more images than it has sections, then it's getting cluttered; if it has more images than it has paragraphs, then it's outright disruptive.) The reason articles have the {{ Commonscat}} template at the bottom is precisely because we don't want many images on our articles and want to point people who are looking for multiple images to the appropriate place. Nobody here wants to block or ban you, but if you're not willing to follow our rules after having them repeatedly explained to you, that's what we'll have to do. ‑ Iridescent 18:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify what sort of locomotive this is so I can classify it? There's two more photographs of it here and here if that helps. G-13114 ( talk) 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I am coming towards the end of my tether with Tony May ( talk · contribs) for his continually crtiticism of my photographs, and those of other users, both here and on Commons (e.g. [10], [11], [12], [13], and the false implication that I " don't know what I'm doing"), together with several insulting references to WP:Vanity, e.g. [14] and [15]. Despite several warnings from myself and others, [16], [17], [18] he has recently resumed this behaviour [19], [20], [21].
I believe that further warnings will have no affect, and that only a topic ban, preventing him from criticising or removing photographs, will stop this behaviour. However as I am involved, I do not wish to take it straight to WP:AN without getting feedback from uninvolved editors first. Please let me know what you feel. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
So don't tolerate it then. If you don't want your photographs critiqued by someone who knows what "composition" and "exposure" mean, don't upload photos to Wikipedia.as unacceptable, particularly after the issue has been raised here. You do not need to make personal snipes like that to discuss the quality of a photograph.
Wow, that guy seems like a piece of work - just looking at his contributions I've found loads that really need to be undone! Jeni ( talk) 13:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
He's now on some kind of rampage to remove livery diagrams from articles - the sooner he gets blocked the better Jeni ( talk) 15:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
These personal attacks on me are unacceptableIf you can't handle being on the end of personal attacks, perhaps you shouldn't dish them out? Prt580 ( talk) 06:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone identify what sort of DMU this is? G-13114 ( talk) 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Station opening dates -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 07:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Here's another DMU to identify, which was at Leicester station in 1985. I'm thinking it must be a Class 105 as that is the only sort I can find which has two rather than three windows on the cab end, which would have been in service at that time, but some of the features don't match with the other photographs of that class. G-13114 ( talk) 21:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It has long been accepted ( [2011], [2014], [2016]) that road bridges don't belong on railway route diagrams unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Recently, a pair of IP vandals ( 46.226.49.230 & 216.82.243.88) added—curiously, only Ring road—motorways to (primarily Manchester-area) RDTs, most of which are historical lines that were succeeded long before the motorway era. An attempt to halt this resulted instead in a 24-hour block. Ritchie333 proposed to semi-protect the templates, and I second that, but am somewhat averse to doing the edits myself at this point.
Pinging Bazza 7/ Dlohcierekim/ Pi.1415926535/ Redrose64 for comments/action? Useddenim ( talk) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The Brantham TMD article is being discussed at AfD. Mjroots ( talk) 15:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
A number of unregistered users have added a sizeable quantity of information to List of stations in London fare zones 7–W over the past few months. Is the article still accurate? Jc86035 ( talk) 10:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
An incident occurred on the Caledonian Sleeper yesterday which resulted in the train failing to stop at Edinburgh Waverley station. The train was comprised of a Class 92 locomotive and Mark 5 stock. Forum rumour is that the brakes on the carriages were isolated, leaving only the locomotive brake operative. The BBC reports that the carriage brakes were able to be applied by the guard, thus stopping the train. RAIB have sent an investigator and are currently deciding on whether or not to launch a full investigation, issue a safety digest or take no action. My gut feeling is that there will be a full investigation.
Which brings us to how we cover the incident. At the moment, I'm not advocating an article. However, iff there is a full investigation announced, then one should be considered. For now, should we cover the incident by inclusion on the articles about the locomotive, train, carriages and station involved? Mjroots ( talk) 12:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
RAIB's preliminary investigation indicates … no control of the brakes on the coaches because a brake pipe isolating valve was in the closed position when the train left Carstairs station.
— Sladen ( talk) 09:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)