User talk:Sladen/Archives/2009

Possibly unfree File:Manchester-metrolink-logo.svg

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Manchester-metrolink-logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Pit-yacker (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove "Formulation for Euler spiral"

I have problem in typing formula. If you wish to amend, please help to convert them to wiki text. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have copied and pasted the content of File:Euler Spiral.pdf to a sandbox at User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve‎ to make it easier for you to work on wikifying the material prior to inclusion on the Track transition curve article. Once again, many thanks for getting involved. —Sladen (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I could hardly handle formula in sandbox.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The equations need to be in TeX format before they can be included into the final article. The PDF is not editable and the screenshots of the PDF definitely not editable in a useful manner. The User:Ling Kah Jai/Track transition curve‎ page is just another wiki page, but is under your User: namespace, meaning that it will not disrupt the existing article unless there is some material ready for adding. —Sladen (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry that I could not provide any reference material as I derived it entirely by myself.

I don't understand:

• Are you representing anybody when you are thanking me? Otherwise why do you thank me for my contribution?
• Why I cannot incorporate the text at Track transition curve and let anybody who does not satisfy with the presentation to get involved with the editing works, instead of letting me to do 100% editing work according to the style? --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding praise; I devote time to Wikipedia because I believe it is a useful thing to do, expanding a repository of well-written information. I would assume that other contributors such as yourself (vandals excepted) are adding and improving material for the same (or similar) reasons—and therefore should be thanked for equally choosing to donate their own time and effort. Showing appreciation is a great source of encouragement; even if improved material is not quite ready, the encourage to try harder will hopefully improve it sufficiently.
2. One problem with deriving something from scratch ("original research") is that Wikipedia is not about obtaining truth directly, but is about providing verifiable material that matches the published/reviewed library of human knowledge. (Which hopefully is truth). The threshold for inclusion is verifiability and not truth (See WP:VERIFY). As to finding published references, Raph Levien's PhD extract[1] is probably now a good place to start hunting for citations, both within the paper and in-turn in the references that Levien has used.
3. The primary reason for not integrating the proposed material into the article as-is is that it is highly unsuitable. In PDF/screenshot-form the text is not editable and in copy-and-paste form it is not presentable! Wikipedia is something that is both editable and presentable. Material can always be improved further, but it does need to be editable, presentable and verifiable before it is added in the first place. Pasting the images of screenshots into the article gave the article an unprofessional look, stopped the article being editable by anyone except the creator of the screenshots and in the mean-time lowered the previous quality of the article, diluting the content that was already there. Instead of disrupting the quality of the article (in the hope of improving it later), it would instead be better to actively work on a draft version, tweaking experimenting and asking for review ("is it ready yet") on the article Talk: page and then incorporating any comments received.

The edits were not improvements at they time they were undertaken, but that does not mean that they can't be an improvement in the future! With careful editing, tuning and tweaks, the act of including the mathematic origins of the spiral is a very useful thing to do—it will probably take less than 8 pages of proof to do so! So once again, I (myself, just me) would like to thank you for wanting to improve the track transition curve‎ article and in giving your time to do so. —Sladen (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly, it is very simple to verify the mathematics. Any body with a good foundation in calculus will be able to verify it. You may check with Raph Levien.
• Secondly, I have changed the text of the formula so that it is understandable to anybody who has used scientific calculator. What is the point of these formula to a person if he has never used a scientific calculator?
• Thirdly, I object to you acting as an administrator when you are not one. I have ever included similar formula text in Wikipedia and the formula was later amended by users who prefer TeX. You cannot deprive this right of mine. --Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your third query (only), please be aware that the rôle of Administrator is a technical designation (Mediawiki capability) and is in no way different to any other established editor (see WP:NOBIGDEAL). —Sladen (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lastly but importantly, if I have to quote published articles only does it mean I cannot devote my knowledge to Wikipedia? Then how can Wikipedia be called the sum of all human knowledge?--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to [Talk:track transition curve] on further discussion.--Ling Kah Jai (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Grand union

The number of frogs one encounters in a Grand union is:

• 4, when going right
• 20, when going straight or left (on a right-running system)

18 is not correct. I've verified this by:

• counting the image
• if you go left or straight, you cross 4 other lines fully (4 frogs required) and diverge or converge with another track 4 times, which requires 1 frog each. 4*4 + 4*1 = 20
• if you go right, you only converge/diverge with four tracks, and cross zero tracks.

I have corrected this in the article, just wanted to let you know. IIVQ (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ISO dates in Entropa

Hi Sladen, thanks for all your cleanup/copyediting at Entropa. I just wanted to check with you about this edit. My impression was that, while there's not an official policy that I'm aware of, YYYY-MM-DD dates are discouraged (I'm just assuming this based on the fact that in some GANs I've been involved in, people have asked me to remove ISO dates and instead use dates like "14 January 2009" for clarity)...do you know anything more on this? I reverted your edit quickly just because I figured it would be a lot of work to change anything if intervening edits came in, and was hoping we could make a decision quickly on which date format to use—I'm willing to go with ISO dates if there's a good rationale for doing so, I just wanted to discuss with you first (since my habit is not to use that date format). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cite/doc "the ISO 8601 date format (YYYY-MM-DD) should be used". —Sladen (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's documentation for a general template; the documentation for {{cite web}} (the template used in the article) says "date: Full date of publication in the same format as the main text of the article." Also, I don't think template documentation prescribes MoS guidelines. But I don't know all the policy stuff. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; the change that removed the explicit ISO instructions from the {{cite web/doc}} appears to have been done quite recently[2] and possibly unilaterally. It was previously (6 weeks ago) stated very explicitly. —Sladen (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the links handy, but I think there was a discussion somewhere about both ISO dates in {{cite}} templates and about getting rid of automatic date linking in |date= and |accessdate=.... It happened right around when I first started editing, so most of it was over my head at the time; I'll have to look around and see if I can find where the discussion was. I don't think this change was unilateral, but I'll have to find the original discussion to see what the consensus was. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Raised at Template talk:Cite web#Unilateral removal of YYYY-mm-dd, thanks for the heads-up! (Plus your hard work on Entropa!). —Sladen (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Entropa Italian football players

Re this edit: I was also reverting the masturbation stuff when the only source given was the official pdf, but this time it was mentioned in an independent source (the one I gave was Radio Netherlands Worldwide, and I tried to qualify it (by saying "appear to be masturbating" and specifying that it's just according to some observers). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the above edit, I was there at the official opening on 15 January, and once the figures start moving, is is clear what they are doing with those footballs. I would suggest changing "appear to be" to "are".~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.194.202.5 (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a wiki, if the suggestion of masturbating Italian football players is added back in view of new information, I shalln't remove it—as Politizer notes, a better reference had been found; I'd just missed it. I was just keen not to cause more outrage/liable/misinformation that the artist had perhaps intended! Hope that helps, —Sladen (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

class 66 infobox picture

Are you sure? "Restore a picture of a *whole loco* in the infobox. A zoom-in on a dataplate provides very little high-level context and adds nothing to the article that isn't already in textual form."

The article already has about 4 picture of locos - so another adds very little to the article - whereas the dataplate add extra interest.Carrolljon (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be preferable to include the contents of the data-plate article as text (see MOS:IMAGES "Image as text"). The introduction should be accessible to all and provide an overview (see WP:LEAD). Having a overview picture gives a good, clear and high-level overview of what the article is about. If you really must include the data-panel (rather than its contents), there are plenty of opportunities lower-down where the detail can be discussed, but it is completely inappropriate for the infobox/lead image. —Sladen (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the data plate is not intended as a text replacement - I liked the image because it gave real world context of some of the data provided - for instance it shows that RA and ETH are actually used and important enough to be entered on a metal plate on the loco rather than being just meaningless 'tech specs', similarily it shows that 'class 66' is the actual name used by the railways for the loco.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article.

Unfortunately that is exactly what I was trying to do - looks like I went too far for the guidlines given in WP:LEAD if you count the infobox image as part of the lead section.

I was thinking more in terms of the picture being a sort of dust jacket - and I think the image would make a rather good book cover image.

As you may see - from that point of view the plate image is less useful lower down the article...

I have to accept that some readers might find it confusing.

Now I must return to writing 'Prima locomotive articles' covering the series in more depth..(see below)Carrolljon (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Prima (locomotive)

Hello again, I've reverted your changes to Prima locomotives - I added those new 'red links' because I'm in the middle of writing those articles...

Perhaps I put the cart before the horse - but if you could wait 24hrs, then the those red links will have dissapeared.Carrolljon (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Writing, researching and expanding eleven articles in 24 hours is likely to be extremely hard work; I would not try to hit that target, but instead concentrate on producing one article at a time, introducing one link at a time and a process of incremental improvement. WP:REDLINK states "when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first". The revert[3] has had the following side-effects:

Re-introducation

• formatting 20th May 2008 per WP:MOSDATE
• spelling of nameed [sic]
• spelling of designer [sic]
• WP:MOSNUM non-compliance of 4
• WP:MOSNUM non-compliance for spacing before km/h
• {{main|Alstom Prima electric locomotives}} redlink (such article exists is unlikely to survive WP:AfD anyway)
• {{main|Alstom Prima diesel locomotives}} redlink
• Duplication of "of Prima locomotives" in sub-headings
• Incorrectly indented lists
• Vagueness of present day (encyclopedic)
• Potentially confusing November 2007, 20
• Excess newlines
• Obscure redlinks in lists (WP:REDLINK)
• Duplication of identical link Israel Railways on consecutive lines

Removal

• Link EWS
• Link overhead line
• Link diesel locomotive
• Link electric locomotive
• Link China Railways
• Link Acciona

Reverting stylistic changes is allowable under WP:BOLD, but reverting for the sake of it, or intentionally (re-)introducing errors is frustrating and unhelpful. It would be preferable if you could consider reverting your own revert, and working within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies; perhaps adding any links one-by-one as you write, or match-up the articles in question. At the very least I would hope that you will carefully re-apply all of the remaining errors that had been fixed[4]. Once again, thank you for getting involved and wanting to try and improve Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what your on about - I've removed the double link to "israel railways", and as promised written the article "prima diesel locomtives", I suppose I should write the other article soon.

I didn't make the errors you can see in that article. If there is still a problem please contact me on my talk page. I'm sorry but it seemed that my revert wasn't really undoing much work on your part - I didn't look very closely...

Red links surely exist to encourage people to write articles - the red links on that page would make notable articles - therefor I don't think it's right to remove them. Sorry about that - it will no doubt be quicker for you to revert to your version and then add the relevent links. Carrolljon (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected a few more errors I re-introduced. Carrolljon (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to read - Wikipedia:REDLINK#Dealing_with_existing_red_links "In general, red links should not be removed from articles if they link to something that could plausibly sustain an article" Carrolljon (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way I meant 1 red link dissapearing every 24hrs, not all of them!! (my mistake)Carrolljon (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I've now reapplied[5] the remainder of the changes that were not the removal of redlinks (except for the non-existant {{main|...}} which I have removed). Happy editing and I look forward to reading the articles as and when they appear! Certainly the Alstom Prima diesel locomotives article you've just created is very substantial. —Sladen (talk) 07:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Entropa

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Entropa, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Georgia 300 edits

First, please forgive me for not knowing much about how to "talk" and "edit" on this site.

Please note that I am the fiancee' of the owner of the Georgia 300, and can assure you that I have participated in continuing refurbishments of the car over the last many years. I was on the Georgia when it made its first trip after Jack purchased it, and have spent almost as much time on the car as I have in our home. (I know that the AAPRCO website lists the most recent year of upgrades as 2000, but that is simply VERY old copy!) It is a constant work-in-progress, from carpet to drapes to bed-coverings, etc. For example, we recently redid all the monogrammed linens and bed-coverings in the bedrooms, and recovered the couch in the observation lounge. In addition, the interior and exterior of the car have been completely repainted in the last two years. Please email me with any questions, lfeagin@comcast.net. Thank you!

LeAnne Feagin for Jack Heard Lefeagin (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello LeAnne, welcome for to Wikipedia, it's always very useful when people with the best and most direct knowledge get involved as the information is alot more authoritative. I've tried to add[6] much of what you've said to the Georgia 300 article, so that it extends the information that is already there, rather than replacing it. (Working on the basis that the existing information is correct, but perhaps not update!...).

It sounds like maintaining the carriage is a never-ending job (just like my narrowboat) and it's very interesting to hear the details. Please do feel free to keep adding (and even better, if it can be placed on an external website, it can be used as a reference aswell). Once again, my appreciation for getting involved with Wikipedia! —Sladen (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

cd 66 merge

You've just merged the infomation, I've just added... (edit conflict?)

I've put the info in the table,and the drivers conditions things is mentioned in in the techincal section...

What the article really needs is a link to wikimedia - but the 66 pictures are all mixed up there, could you add {{commons:British Rail Class 66}} when you are finished editing.(trying to avoid edit conflicts will come back in a few hours) - the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Falkberget_tunnel_2008-10-23.jpg image is good I think.Carrolljon (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, add {{Commonsimages|British Rail Class 66|Class 66 / Series 66}}. I wonder where we can slip that other image in. —Sladen (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia:User_Talk

Hi, my name is Sebastian Hellmann from the DBpedia Project I'm currently testing and implementing the live extraction User:DBpedia. I already talked to a Wikipedia User called User:Angr. About my problems. see here User_talk:SebastianHellmann As I'm still new to the rules of the Wikipedia Community, could you confirm that it is a no-go to link to Categories from User Space. It would be nice, if you could give me some assistance, as we do not want to get into conflict with the community. Could you explain to me what the extra colon in front of Categories does? Is there something similar as Categories in the User Space? We really need a way to test the extractors and therefore need a test page. Could there be any other problems later, e.g. with other automatically generated lists.

Regards, Sebastian Hellmann DBpedia (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia

Hi, my name is Sebastian Hellmann from the DBpedia Project I'm currently testing and implementing the live extraction User:DBpedia. I already talked to a Wikipedia User called User:Angr. About my problems. see here User_talk:SebastianHellmann As I'm still new to the rules of the Wikipedia Community, could you confirm that it is a no-go to link to Categories from User Space. It would be nice, if you could give me some assistance, as we do not want to get into conflict with the community. Could you explain to me what the extra colon in front of Categories does? Is there something similar as Categories in the User Space? We really need a way to test the extractors and therefore need a test page. Could there be any other problems later, e.g. with other automatically generated lists.

Regards, Sebastian Hellmann DBpedia (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

why was my message copied to User_talk:Orangemike ??

see this link to diff

Regards, Sebastian —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBpedia (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sebastian, sorry about that. There is a 'bot that archives threads if there is no activity for seven days. It is the thread above this one that was moved/combined on another User's talk page.

Back to the topic; the page in question, User talk:DBpedia appears to be a copy of sections of a couple of articles; at the bottom are the "categories" that the page appears in. Categories are for easier navigation between related pages and to make a page appear in a category, code is added to the bottom in the form [[Category:XYZ]]. When the article content was copied to User: space, the Category inclusions were brought with it... however, having this "strange" User: namespace page appear in the Main namespace Category isn't helpful (it does not improve navigation for a normal user of Wikipedia)—I originally spotted it from looking through Category:Barack Obama.

To solve that, my edit[7] removed the Category inclusions and replaced them with ':' colon prefixed links... meaning that you can still get to the Category, but it won't be visibly included and nobody will be able to accidentally navigate to the User: space page. Links from User:→Main namespaces are fine, but links from Main→User: are not.

Looking back at the same page, it is currently being included in Category:Host cities of the Summer Olympic Games, Category:1961 births and Category:Living people. I'll try and do another edit to remove these aswell if I they're not too hidden in templates.

Hope that helps, thank you for getting involved with Wikipedia and let me know if I've confused you further! —Sladen (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hot bulb engine

The United Kingdom's first two self-powered "motor" narrowboats—Cadbury's Bournville I and Bournville II in 1911



—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdl1961 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I'm completely lost as to what you're asking about. You've quoted some material, but not stated a question, or issue you'd like to raise about it. (Perhaps you could try rewording your question/answer/point/query so that it contains one or more verbs, as I'm having difficult following. Many Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

""first two self-powered""

where in ref???

Wdl1961 (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not in any provided reference, which is why it says "^{[citation needed]}". —Sladen (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

see hot bulb talk Wdl1961 (talk) 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hybrid train

Thanks for your contributions to Hybrid train. Railpower Technologies is a Canadian company so you might like to note this in the Hybrid train article. Biscuittin (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rail-joker map

Thanks for cathing my mistake on the map. I use that line every day but apparently that's not enough... — Kjet (talk · contribs) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

image deletion

Just wanted to let you know that File:Mark-shuttleworth-iss-thinkpad-big.jpg has been deleted on Commons. I had it restored, because i was convinced I would be able to find it on the NASA website, but so far I have been unable to. If you know anything about it, that might help. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello TheDJ. Thank you for the heads up. The original had a different orientation and washed out colours; this crop I originally prepared for a The Fridge article Soyuz, think you're a road warrior like sabdfl? (this is the "previously published elsewhere). The originals (which would at least get the source filename for Googling were done back on Laptop[N-1] or possibly Laptop[N-2]); I do have both hard-disks if I can find something (PATA, not SATA) to plug them into... Actually, here it is[8]. Let me see if I can ping a few people on IRC on Monday and get a better back-history, or specific license grant if required. (First African in Space seems to have acquired a legalese footer). —Sladen (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be important to determine if this is a NASA image, a Roskomonos image, or a "personal image" from Mark. That are basically the only three original rights owners that I can phantom. If this is a NASA image, it would be the simplest if we can track down the NASA image ID. I have already tried browsing the NASA galleries, and it is not among the published pictures. This is not uncommon, often NASA images are published on their main page, and then disappear from the web after that. Thanks for the assistance though. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

London mainline stations

I apologise if im annoying you. Can you help me standardise the title of all London mainline station articles, The names are all over the place and are very confusing to readers like me. London Paddington station, London King's Cross railway station, Euston railway station. Why can't there be a decision so that they are standardised rather than having some titles with railway station, some with London etc. Thank you. Clover345 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Clover, sorry for not replying quickly to the previous thread. I wished to find find pointers to the previous discussions held over the naming of London stations, but I have not gone hunting yet (it will take some time). In the mean-time so I'll try to summarise my recollections;

1. Generally mainline stations are called Something railway station. Often Metro stations are Something metro station and Tramway stations are Something tram stop
2. When a station (eg. Euston, or Victoria) is a combined major interchange, it tends to have become Something station because it's multi-modal.
3. When a station has multiple possibilities (eg. Kings Cross railway stations in Sydney and in London) then the choices are Something railway station, London or London Something railway station and with the choice between two bad options, the latter was deemed preferable.
4. Where a station has multiple possibly names (St Pancras ...Lowlevel/Domestic/International/Thameslink/Midland Road) the common-name/shortest is chosen, so St Pancras railway station—as it is not a tube station!

About a year ago, the specific possibility of harmonising naming for the London mainline terminals was discussed over a period, which lead to the names they have now. The very recent attempts at moves were copy-and-paste (rather than using the Move functionality) and this was why they were reverted so quickly. In due course, I'll try to track you down links to the specific discussions (although you may be able to find them faster youself!). I hope that in the mean-time this quick synopsis from memory is useful. BTW, if you find any redirects that you think are missing, please do feel free to add them. —Sladen (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

UIC class

Hmmh. I don't know.. But it seems unlikely that British Rail Class 220 and British Rail Class 221 have different traction arrangements..

It needs a reference. for both.

The B5000 look like 1A units... http://www.bogie-operator-forum.com/fileadmin/Downloads_Member/BT_Datasheets/M_MXXXX_B5000_Virgin_03-11_EN_web.pdf but it's not explicit.

As for "HVT" no idea. If you've seen under one and know for certain please say and put me out of my ignorance. All the same some external source would be good.

I'm just going to have another look...FengRail (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK Class 220 (B500 bogies) are definately A1 type - (mentioned at very end of reference above) - but are the trains A1-1A, or 1A-A1, or even 1A-1A etc etc.

As for class 221 - I can't find anythingFengRail (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Class 221 - see http://www.traintesting.com/Class_221.htm (2nd paragraph)

If this is correct then the 221s are also A1, but again, as above, the page gives no indication of which way round they are arranged...FengRail (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I found some reference this morning (before adding, but which I can't find again) that said something like "[for the 221] ... the inner bogie is ...", which sounds like it's wrong and more likely should have been "... the inner axle of each bogie is ... ". That's a good reference you just found (even if it's doesn't state it explicitly) about the testing. [9] and [10] confirm the bogie types as B5005/HVT respectively. Which means that it's probably 1A'A1'+1A'A1'+... again; the motors are in the power pack in the centre and have mechanic shafts out to the bogies. However, I wasn't particularly happy with the 221 result, so didn't move on to 222. Thanks for picking me up on it. —Sladen (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Woo! Found [11]. —Sladen (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, the text for 221 was wrong, (I think it was me that added it... don't know where I dreamt up "the other bogie is unpowered" ) - sorry about the confusion. I've deleted that bit.FengRail (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

London mainline stations

Thank you for your advice and help. Clover345 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Brompton Bicycle work

Nice job. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

great work on the folding Brompton SVG too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithonearth (talk • contribs)

I'm also quite pleased with the SVG diagram. I drew it sometime last year and was intending to have a blitz on the Brompton article and found it in a backup. It would be most useful if either of you could help improve the main body of the article. In particular I think it could benefit from coverage of the current models and a more prose-centred tackling of the improvements/add-ons. —Sladen (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

TGV (speed record train)

A minor footnote on your recent edit of the TGV article: the edit was entirely correct, but in the edit summary, you entered the wrong configuration. It was not Bo'Bo'+Bo'2'2'Bo'+Bo'Bo' (not even Bo'Bo'+Bo'(2)(2)Bo'+Bo'Bo'), but Bo'Bo'+2'(Bo)(Bo)2'+Bo'Bo'. That is, it was the Jacobs bogies that were driven; they were the prototype AGV bogies from the "Elisa" demonstrator. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, thank you for the correct, it now makes much more sense as well as distributing the traction more evenly. I might be intrigued enough to go and have another little research. —Sladen (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mark Shuttleworth

You can forward the message to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and the OTRS folks will probably deal with it. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and good work btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

BBC Box now imageless

Commons admin Eusebius has deleted the three images of the BBC Box, due to "unconclusive OTRS ticket". I've asked him over there for clarification of the issue (I am Ultra7 on Commons). I hope this is just a technicality as to how you filed the tickets and they can be refiled/reuploaded (I know very little about OTRS or how it is done). MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ta for following that up. The contents of the three(?) emails in question were also pasted into the Image metadata page aswell; so if that's "inconclusive", Freightliner and the guy in Glasgow can be followed up again directly. Taking the Subject: line out of the image page and searching OTRS for that subject line should at least get tickets matched up. —Sladen (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Folding bicycles

• copied/wiped from[12] and in relation to this[13] page blanking —Sladen (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Folding bicycles. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In no way were my changes vandalism. (1) The elements I deleted were entirely inappropriate for the folding bikes page, (2) they were an abuse of the template page, and most importantly (3) I left a very detailed explanation, point by point, of why they were removed. I didn't do that lightly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.220.69 (talk • contribs)

Greetings .220.69, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. The edit that you made[14] involved the blanking of a template page. Per WP:BLANK, deleting the entire content of a page is unacceptable, it is unconstructive and is to be generally regarded and treated as vandalism. If you come across a similar article, in future you should either work to improve the content, or if required, to use the deletion nomination process. Once again, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mark Shuttleworth

I was thinking about changing the infobox in those two articles, too. Mark Shuttleworth is, first and foremost, an entrepreneur. Adding an astronaut infobox to his article seems to be a really bad idea due to WP:UNDUE. The same is probably true for the other two articles as well. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's a hard question. Although their funding to go into space has come from being an entrepreneur, what gained each of these individuals international notability (significant coverage by newsmedia inside and outside their home countries) has been their trip into space. There are hundreds, or thousands of people in the world who have also gained sufficient wealth to fund the costs of private spaceflight, but few have chosen to explore that avenue. What makes the individuals in Category:Space tourists primarily notable is, or was. their trip into space.

I went through Template talk:Infobox Astronaut and there seems to be an expectation/acceptance on that page that it be used for self-funded spaceflight participants. Deferring to WP:GHITS is a little skewed in this case; for Tito/Ansari it gives about 50,000 space/ISS results for both. For Shuttleworth that is dwarfed by mailing-list posts related to Ubuntu, even though, if you hear him talk at a conference, the audience are far more keen on hearing about going into space!... —Sladen (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the usage of the infobox should be decided on a case by case basis, especially considering that, in the future, there will be more and more space tourists. I've also changed the template at Richard Garriott, for example, and I think it's pretty obvious in his case that he shouldn't have the astronaut infobox, considering that he's been clearly notable long before he was in space. It's not as simple with Mark Shuttleworth, and you're right, he got most of the media attention from being in space. But that's not what he does. It's one, single experience in his life, and it just seems weird to me to define him by that. So, if there are other noteworthy things to say about someone (like being the guy behind Ubuntu), we should focus on that. It shouldn't be "He's the guy who was in space, and he's also working on Ubuntu", it should be "He's the guy working on Ubuntu, and was one of the first space tourists". And the infobox should reflect this, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 11:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Blucoats

I meant to ask about the relationship with Wollaton Park if any. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00 22 May 2009 (UTC).

Yes, Wollaton Park is a huge area of public parkland, but is a shadow of its former self. Various parts of the estate have been sold off at the edges for housing, golf-courses, the Ring-Road (Middleton Boulevard) including all the way east to the former site of the Nottingham Canal. This land to the east was used for a "modern" semi-circular housing estate and Margret Glen Bot School was then added onto the western edge of this, eating up even more parkland... by this time about half way inside the original estate wall.^{Google maps link}. Since "Glen-Bott" was associated with failure, the name was replaced! IIRC, the school campus still continues to back out onto parkland on three sides. —Sladen (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Compression Algorithms

Should not really be applied to "alternative" to yield "alternate".--SilasW (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm unsure of the context; which article/edit is this referring to. Could you post a link possibly? —Sladen (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Intermodal Container

Please do not start an Edit War on this subject. Please try form a consensus prior to making changes. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, thank you for your enthusiastic contributions. For a number of years (sorry I can't be more exact with the number of days/years—the redirect and its history have been moved/overwritten) the shipping container link has pointed at the containerization article and during that period, the links that have been created within wikipedia went to the containerization page, which covers the transport system for the conveyance of 2.4-metre cross-section rectangular steel boxes fitted with ISO 1161:1984 compatible corner castings (commonly "shipping container"). Per WP:NOTBROKEN this was appropriate, allowing the more specific article to be filled out and created at a later date.

In the end, the "shipping container" article was created by splitting out material that was already accessible from the containerization article. The split occured after discussion at Talk:Containerization#Splitting out Shipping container and it was done with the intention of providing an even more exact match for the existing incoming links pertaining to shipping container.

To (now) attempt to point the redirect at a less exact match is a regression. A user clicking on an existing link will now no-longer be taken to directly relevant information. This is less useful that being taken to Containerization (which has worked reliably for a long time). Thus, anyone altering the shipping container redirect will break 72 existing shipping container links.

Anyone who really-did-intend to link to an article discussing 2.4-metre cross-section rectangular steel boxes fitted with ISO 1161:1984 compatible corner castings (commonly "shipping containers") now has to write out long hand "a [[intermodal container|shipping container]]" to be sure the link will go where intended. This is inconvenient to editors as it leads to more typing and it is unhelpful as it leads to the creation of unneeded hidden links (see WP:EGG). I have had to do twice when creating the twistlock earlier this hour.

For reference, there are 287 separate pages in en.wikipedia that use "shipping container", and 45 articles that use "intermodal container". Currently there is a {{redirect}} dablink at the top of the intermodal container article, which notes that other (rare) uses can be found on the generic container disambiguation page. If there is a particular reason that causes to you feel this might not be sufficient in proving the expected level of disambiguation for the user then please raise this at Talk:Intermodal container#Shipping container redirect. Note that the photographs on the article (but not on the disambiguation page) provide an immediate overview of whether the user got to the correct place.

I look forward to any constructive contributions you would like to bring to the shipping container^Wintermodal container article (beyond the three edits[15] that your account has made changing the introduction name and introducing WP:LAYOUT non-compliance), or any thoughts that you may wish to share at Talk:Intermodal container#Shipping container redirect.

Once again, thank you for getting involved with Wikipedia. —Sladen (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

St Pancras International

From Talk:St Pancras railway station

OK, here's my final contribution to this discussion. Yes I do accept that the original non-suffixed name is in common use and is an appropriate name for the article. I also should have mentioned (but chose not to) that some or all of the TV monitors opposite the National Rail/Thameslink ticket offices clearly say (to this day) Welcome to St Pancras Station, in addition to all the many occurrences of "St Pancras International" in and around the station. I also wish to apologise for any ill-feeling our discussion may have caused, though this was not in any way my intention! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

When writing a reply like this, it is extremely hard to know how to respond, and manage to show appreciation, and without sounding flippant. To accept it silently, offers the opportunity to avoid a reply being misconstrued, but it also avoids the chance to show gratitude. You deserve the appreciation for taking the time to debate, write and compose it. I shall (try) to reply anyway:

It's not the winning that matters, it's the taking part.

(Nobody won, nobody lost and if it comes up again we have just about every possible angle already debated and covered). Now, my resorting to faux Latin was going a bit far, wasn't it! Kudos. —Sladen (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Storm kettle rewrite

Can you hold off on the rewrite until we have consensus for it? On the talk page I have expressed criticism of the suggested "hollow kettle" terminology. -kotra (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done [16]. Copyediting the content to be generic shouldn't have much/any effect on whatever the article is eventually called. —Sladen (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(belated) Thanks! I agree. -kotra (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Intermodal cars/flatcars

User talk:Peter Horn#Intermodal cars/flatcars. I have to study your comments tomorrow or later. It is 11pm here & I'm about to hit the sack. Peter Horn 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if you be able to create better links, OK. However container train, does not yet have its own article. Railroad car might need to be "split" in that Railroad car#Passenger cars could be transferred to (merged with) passenger car (rail), Railroad car#Freight cars, like goods wagon, and the rest have their own or articles. Peter Horn 22:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just created a conundrum, there is no easy way out. The individual intermodal car is one (or rather two) thing(s) and the whole container train is another. Peter Horn 22:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Storm kettle - move or merge

I very much appreciate your contributions to this debate and revisions etc. What do you think of the Samovar merge? I would support it if you choose to do it - you have put the tag on the Storm kettle page. Unless you think we should revisit the renaming. Thanks! --Fremte (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm happy with it. It neatly removes any branding issue entirely! —Sladen (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

EWS Company Train

Can I assume that if you are looking to develop this article that you feel it shouldn't be deleted? If so you should remove the prod notice. Adambro (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Since I've had prior involvement with the article, I'm perhaps biased and wouldn't want to remove the PROD immediately. I'd be happier if somebody else made the call (either way). —Sladen (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

storm kettle

I saw it because of article samovar. Obviously, Russian editors don't have it on active watchlist. I has no idea that storm kettle existed. As you see from my edit history I am not very active editor, so I didn't see what was happening. It is like someone takes motorcycle article and merges scooter into it. After all, two wheels, motor... all exact same. Timurite (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ben Collins as the Stig

I reverted your edit, seeing that nothing in the section gives definitive proof that Ben Collins is The Stig. Unless you have some verifiable proof, then by all means, please share it with the class. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Took me a while to work out what this was referring to.

Indeed. Since there is nothing 'verifiable in the section itself, there should be nothing verifiable (or suggestive) in the heading title either. According to the HSE report, Collins is known to have had some kind of consultancy role... it's bad enough that there's anything in the article that goes on speculating about what it is—but it seems to be a choice between a carefully-worded analysis (with citations) and having IPs coming along every other day adding even more knee-jerk guesswork.

I'm happy to consider various other sub-heading titles for the sub-section. Could you share why the long-standing name for it is inadequate? —Sladen (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is implying that he is The Stig, without proving it one way or another. "Regular Role" ambiguously tries to establish a fact that cannot be proven in the section. All you have are press reports that allege the role of Ben Collins as The Stig, but as it stands, it's mere Speculation. I've reverted it back because the section is more along the lines of.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only really reliable source we have is one sentence in the HSE report. Is there a title that we can agree on that does not suggest that he is a Stig? (eg. does not use those words)? —Sladen (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange

Hi there Sladen,

I have a little conundrum — I am currently in the process of making a "Railway Line" for the Lausanne Métro M2 Line — but I have hit a snag.

I wanted to make a "Rail Interchange" (i.e. {{rail-interchange|london|dlr}}) template for use (not only in this article but across any Switzerland-related articles requiring "Railway Lines").

Due to my current incompetence (for lack of a better word) in using wiki encoding, I have as yet been unable to create a template like the one I detailed earlier. Would you be able to create such a template using this (100 px) logo?

Kindest Regards,

Booksworm ^{Do you speak Wiki?} 14:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Booksworm. I've added[17] an instance for {{rail-interchange|ch|rail}} , but you may well be better cutting the logo down to just the double arrow as a very long and thin logo isn't really suited to the "mini icon" usage (which a square-ratio icon seems to work best). I've also done {{rail-interchange|geneva|tram}} and {{rail-interchange|geneva|ferry}}. But, again, I think you'll have to have an optimised version of this two logos (without any padding, and for the ferry, with just the anchor) in order for them to look reasonable. —Sladen (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image

Hi there,

Sorry, but I've had to remove the image File:Tpglogosmall.png from Template:Rail-interchange and from this user page.

"Fair use" images can only be used on articles, not in userspace, due to copyright issues. Sorry about that. See WP:NFCC#9 for more info.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

BVE Trainsim

Hello, you have recently made a series of unsourced additions to the BVE Trainsim article. Given that the article already suffers from lack of reliable sources, it is vital that you provide sources in accordance with WP:V and WP:NOR - otherwise, your additions are likely going to be removed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.235.42 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you paying such close attention to the edit log and spotting my run of edits[18] (mostly involving house-keeping). If there's anything in the BVE Trainsim article that you feel is is inaccurate, or removes further citation please tag it with one of the tags, such as {{cn}} (citation needed) or {{clarify}}. Alternatively, perhaps you're able to find add any required references directly to speed the process along.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for taking the time to write here on this Talk: page! —Sladen (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I noticed that you just reverted my decision to remove unreliable sources from the article even though you did not leave a notice on the discussion page on why you did so. The question on whether certain sources can be considered reliable or not was and may still be an open question. However, when I argue that certain sources are not (pointing out Wikipedia's policies on that subject) but get no response, then I assume fairly safely that no one has objections. If in turn, you revert my edits (to parts), that does NOT seem polite. Please get involved at the discussion page of the BVE Trainsim article regarding the subject. 87.123.118.198 (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Manx Electric Railway

The editor who recently expanded the Manx Electric Railway article is User:Gordonastill. He's been expanding various Isle of Man related articles but is fairly new to Wikipedia and hasn't fully grasped WP:CITE yet. Mjroots (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Paddington station

This has got to be the first time someone's managed to put in a "strong support", "support", "no preference", "oppose" and "strong oppose" all in the same move request! Maybe we should include more articles in the request, just so that you can add "delete", "upmerge" and "promote to administrator" as well? :P Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Splenda

On the Splenda talk page you used uncommon fractions and made them look normal. How did you do that? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.52.204 (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia you can view the wiki markup "source code" for the individual section[19]. In this case the code is {{frac|599|600}}, which displays as 599⁄600. Hope that helps! —Sladen (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Barack Obama: the dog.

Hi, you reverted [20] my edit on Bo. Your rv, even motivated "politely", is a bit too fast. My edit was open for Talk, and I'd appreciate you'd take the invitation to talk first. -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that a member of canis familiaris is not genetically a member of homo sapiens. However, navboxes are a navigational aid, they are there for convenience. If Obama had an adopted child he too would not share genetic material with that individual, but—like a pet—a everyday reader of Wikipedia would likely associate pets and adopted children as best fitting into a "family". Navboxes are not about cramming information in, or sorting it for absolute accuracy—just about grouping for convenience and ease of association and navigation (WP:NAVBOX). A reader looking at Obama's children might be likely to proceed onto then viewing an article on Obama's childrens' pets.

In this particular case, the Bo (dog) article does not neatly fit into any of the other side-groups in the template. If it cannot be placed under "Family" it needs a new, isolated and empty group... which wastes space and breaks an association. Looking back through the Template:Barack Obama page history, it appears that such an attempted change was already undone previously[21] by another editor—which (per WP:BRD) means that the next step would be to seek discussion and try to build a consensus before re-attempting such a change. I do agree technically with your statement that a dog is not genetic same-species family, but in this case standing back and looking at the issue from afar seems to indicate that placing a pet at the end of the "Family" section is an appropriate and suitable grouping with a positive effect in terms of improved navigation. The piped link at the side to Family of Barack Obama in-turn linking to the Bo (dog) article in its body text demonstrates that this is a reasonable sub-grouping, something that would not appear to be possible using a side-group entitled (eg.) "Other", as there is no suitable cover article Other things to do with Barack Obama and such an article would be speedily-deleted. —Sladen (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: I did not say genetically "a member of homo sapiens", and you know. I hereby state that you abuse my statement in bad faith. Further, I also assume (good faith by me) that you know that Michelle Obama is member of the family. And I am not a member. So I want to complete, just to close your strange line of speaking, that "family relations" can include parental, marriage, and adopted ones. If you write anything "funny" against that, I can only assume bad faith., please Come one. Indeed looking from afar too (from abroad, actually): Bo is none of these. Even if it requires another group: so be it. We do not change borders for an "neatly fit". And please point me the reasoned consensus on this (against this?). -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I fear you maybe reading words that may not be written in the above. If there are specific points you would like to discuss, please raise them specifically and we can try to discuss them. —Sladen (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First I'll withdraw the accusation. Then I'll be back here later on. -DePiep (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued under Talk, Template Talk:Barack Obama -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

fixed cambs guided busway map

I have now fixed the cambs guided busway map as per your note. Thanks. PeterEastern (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

SVG problems

I have been trying to upload an .svg with a .png background but when uploading to the commons it loses the background. Is this because the background is pointing at a file on my hard drive?

If so if I uploaded the background image as well, could the first image point at the second to look as intended as a line and dots over a map (from OpenStreetMap)?

EricITOworld (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The simplest would be just use the SVG that OSM is using to draw that square (OSMArender converts map data to SVG, and then renders the SVG). You should be able to avoid "drawing over" because you can just select the relevant line segments and change the line style.

Of course, this is in theory... and practice may prove harder! (Export→Mapnik→Format: SVG→[Export]). —Sladen (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Lisbon

You added "why" and "citation needed" templates to the sentence The only remaining step is for the instrument to be lodged with the Italian government in Rome in the Poland section of Treaty of Lisbon. What do want a citation/reason for:

• the need for the ratification instrument to be deposited?
• the fact that it is the only remaining step for Poland (i.e. there are no other steps) ?
• the evidence that the deposition has not yet taken place?

--Boson (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?; does a document agreed in Portugal, pertaining to Poland, need depositing in Italy? I don't see the connection, and no explanation of the connection to Italy is given—if it was, this would perhaps be clearer (and any explanation should cite reliable sources as references for the Italian connection). —Sladen (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Chester zoo train.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chester zoo train.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. tedder (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform Diagrams [King's Cross St. Pancras tube station]

Thank you completely for the message. I was kinda in a rush when creating platform layouts and i didn't check when i'd finished, and again thank you spotting the errors and the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryguy93 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Kew Bridge station/s

I see that some time ago you cut Kew Bridge railway station (N&SWJR) and redirected the heading to Kew Bridge railway station. I am not sure that that is correct. Once I thought the two sets of platforms made one station but I later came to think that I had found references that they were two.

Kew Bridge railway station now say sloppily and with ambiguity about the number of stations:

"Between 1862 and 1940 there were more platforms on the site, belonging to the North & South Western Junction Railway. The eastern curve now remains as a goods-only route connecting the North London Line with the Hounslow Loop Line. A few remnants of the old station extents still remain."

A reference in that article (http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/Kew_Bridge_station.html) clearly has the closed platforms as a station in their own right.

Do you have any thoughts on the matter, even if though the (N&SWJR) article was slender?--SilasW (talk) 11:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, the N&SWJR was small (a single paragraph[22]). I'm minded that two things referred to by the the same name, provably within ten metres of each other each other are suitable for merging—it allows presenting the information relating to each of the respective station(s, if they were) in the context of the other. My own [fallible] memory is that there is a passageway connecting the two back-to-back platforms (the ones inside the triangle). I definitely agree that it would benefit with more citations and clarity, but I'm unsure that demerging is likely to be beneficial—unless ten to twenty paragraphs of good material can be sourced. —Sladen (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

FM H-24-66

With this edit you removed a valid category, as 107 of these locomotives were built in the US, as opposed to a mere 20 in Canada. Next time you you think about reverting "per article content", please be sure to actually READ the article before reverting. WuhWuzDat 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you been able to find any citations regarding the FM H-24 locomotives being deployed within the United States, if so, then I agree that it would be appropriate to include the article within Category:Diesel locomotives of the USA as well as Category:Canadian diesel locomotives. —Sladen (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Pinkepank, and Kirkland references in the article, as well as the Sweetland book mentioned in "further reading". If this basic fact of American diesel locomotives has escaped your attention, I think you should question your own motives in editing an article so clearly outside your knowledge. WuhWuzDat 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I have tried give a better high-level overview[23], is that better? Please do you let me know if there are any another categories that are genuinely inaccurate. —Sladen (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD dates in cites

I noticed a few of your edits putting cite dates into ISO8601. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement whatsoever for dates within cites to be in that format. The only requirement, per WP:MOSNUM, is that date formats are consistent within the body and within the refs section. That being the case, I have unified the dates in some articles in accordance with same, as I did here. Thanks for your attention. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Restoring the YYYY-mm-dd dates was clean-up from an AWB date "unlinking only" script that went AWOL. See before and after diff[24]. —Sladen (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Cambridgeshire Guided Busway RDT

Perhaps you would like to discuss your changes before you make them, on the template's talk page? Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that's the normal way that Wikipedia works (see WP:BRD). I have followed up to your queries at Template talk:Cambridgeshire Guided Busway RDT#Recent changes. Please let me know if you have any other points of concern. —Sladen (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Class 373

Hello. The problem with the 110mph thing on this article is the reference that immediately follows the sentence says nothing about a 110mph restriction. Thus re-adding the 110mph restriction in that sentence is a bit misleading. I assume that this speed restriction must be mentioned somewhere - shall I look or do you have a reference? Please bear in mind "verifybility not truth" ie Wikipedia:Verifiability Shortfatlad (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a look this morning; there's a few sites that mention the 110 mph[25][26]... but I failed to find any really high-quality references; eg. checking the Deviations in Force Register. The restriction was because of incidents like [27]. —Sladen (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The guardian article suggests that the problem might have been fixed " From January, top speed will rise to 125mph from the 110mph imposed by Railtrack - though still far short of its 186mph potential." (year=2001 ?)

I don't know if this happened?Shortfatlad (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel tunnel freight

As I understand it the article is about the channel tunnel, not eurotunnels operations - other freight operators eg DB Schenker or Euro Cargo Rail do operate freight trains through the channel tunnel (without using class 92s). If this is somehow wrong of me please mention it on the talk page.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The only electric locomotives currently allowed (and suitably equipped) to traverse the Channel Tunnel under their own power are the Eurotunnel Class 9, British Rail Class 373 Power Car and British Rail Class 92 locomotive. Before the final delivery of the Class 92s, nine SNCF Class BB 22200 locos were temporally used; and in addition, two British Rail Class 319 also made a pair of (one-off) return VIP trips through in 1993.

You can't just send any old locomotive through the Chunnel; the catenary is higher than normal (because of clearances for the RO-RO Shuttle wagons), the train requires TVM430 cab compatible signalling (with an even more special Eurotunnel parameter set), Eurotunnel network-compatible radio (trunked UHF), special post-derailment lifting points; then all of the extra requirements laid down by the Inter-Governmental Commission (fire suppression, dual redundancy—basically two locomotives in one bodyshell).

All of these requirements are laid down in the publicly available Eurotunnel Network Statement[28]; the necessary sections are 4.1.4 (signalling), 4.2.1 (Class 92) and Appendix 2 ("Technical Specifications Concerning the Rolling Stock").

[29] (page 15) notes that the "through the tunnel" sections are hauled by Class 92s [only]. Were there any further queries you had? —Sladen (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you use the articles talk page for the feedback - it may help others. I almost didn't see this response since I was only watching the talk page of Channel Tunnel.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done[30] —Sladen (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Europorte

I realise you are editing the article for correct format, but can you stop removing the links please. eg [31] Shortfatlad (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to www.veolia-cargo.com/presentation/... is broken, and impossible to WP:VERIFY. Do you have another source? —Sladen (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it usual to use {{deadlink}} rather than removing them?Shortfatlad (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would perhaps have made sense to combine all of the references to the same one <ref/> and then mark that single one as dead. We can restore (+ combine) the broken cite if that's useful, but there's very little context given to enable re-finding where the cite content might have moved to. Sladen (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Europorte

You missed a few tenses

• "The company operates wagonload traffic" >> operated
• "Together with Europorte France the subsidiary has 28 locomotives" >>> had
• "Socorail provides services " ?

Are you going to change these or is there some method to your madness I don't understand?
:) Shortfatlad (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, per WP:TENSE, it is preferable to write factual content in the past tense (Wikipedia is reporting the facts after the event). Earlier this afternoon I had tried to clean up[32] the Europorte article, but I must have massively screwed up as the changes were reverted[33] by another editor—I now have attempted to make roughly the same set of technical and style changes, but in small bitesize pieces (so that it is very clear what each single edit relates to and the policy, or reasoning behind it). In the cases above you've highlighted (and perhaps some others), I couldn't think of a simple way to rephrase the sentences without repetition of earlier sections in the article. For the moment I'm keen to avoid large rewrites that might lead to reverts of the more important changes in the process.

Perhaps you can think of a way to rewrite the sentences in question in a more encyclopedic style? If not, I'm happy to have another attempt when the article has settled. —Sladen (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the reason I reverted was the removal of the references, and that some of the rewriting you did seemed to me to read not very clearly. I then started to reinstate some of the work you did, but not completely. As far as I can tell (excluding the three "has/had"s I mentioned above I think the article as you have done it is fine and I will not need to change it. (except " was rebranded to become Europorte Channel and moved as a subsidiary" might read better as " was rebranded to become Europorte Channel and became a subsidiary". in the lead section.)

As for the missing references - I don't think the Wayback Machine is necessary. As I remember it the Veolia site had similar info to that now on the Europorte site - there's not much missing. The real referencing problem is on the old Veolia Cargo page - which used the companies website extensively to reference the article [34] some should have alternative sources in the railway press, other bit may be harder.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oslo

Thank you for copyediting a number of articles related to rail transport around Oslo. While you have all rights to have an opinion on article names, it would be a lot more constructive and considerate of you to post a notice on the talk page first. Perhaps you are correct in your wishes to rename some of the articles, but there may be reasons that you do not immediately see for why an article is where it is. As far as I can see, you have moved three articles without any kind of discussion, and none where you could be considered even a major contributor. Please have more respect for people who have invested a lot of time in writing about rail transport in Norway and Oslo, and at least flag your opinion first. For instance, your proposal of moving 'Nationatheatret' has far-reaching consequences way beyond that single station, as it would essentially require the moving of over 100 articles. You seem to think that place names should be "translated", which again has far-reaching consequences for dozens, if not perhaps a hundred stations in the country. The point is not so much if you are right or wrong, but that these articles are all at their current position for a reason. It seems like you do not see these reasons, or you would not be so bold in moving the articles. With a little more patience and an effort to establish consensus, the process would go a lot smoother and the goodwill among involved editors would remain a lot higher. Thank you for your understanding. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I should like to second this point. While I know little about Oslo, I do know that it is standard for English-language references on Wagner to refer to the Bayreuth Festspielhaus by that name rather than a cod English translation. Please consult with the relevant projects before makign any similar moves.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Arsenikk; I believe you've argued[35] that Norwegian Government-owned entities choices of English Translation should be followed... "National Theatre Station" is not an invention—it's what Flytoget call one of their major stops: flytoget.no/eng/Stations/National-Theatre. However, while I've got your attention, perhaps you could take the time to respond to the discussion regarding your own unilateral moves (Talk:Flytoget#Flytoget and now at Talk:Flytoget#Request move)...

Peter: Same applies here for "Festival Theatre"; it's not an invention, but English use and one that the Theatre itself uses: bayreuther-festspiele.de/documents/_the_bayreuth_festival_theatre_341.html. —Sladen (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festspielhaus

• Bayreuth-related part of thread copied/moved/detangled to Talk:Bayreuth Festspielhaus#Naming variations

Thanks for the reply. I've checked various sources and these confirm that Bayreuth Festspielhaus but Bayreuth Festival are the norm. Here is the first item I've found on searching the gramophone site for mentions of Bayreuth that mentions both building and festival. Of the articles that mention just one, only one has deviated from the rule and that by calling the festival Festspiele. Grove conforms to the practice I describe - if your library provides free online access, check the article on Bayreuth. The first three books I've found on my shelves that mention the building are the ENO/ROH guides on Parsifal and Siegfried and Rudolph Sabor's companion to the Ring. The first two follow the rule I describe. Sabor largely does but occasionally has Festspiele. The first mention of the building in English is on p.61 "...the town council offered him a suitable plot for erecting his Festspielhaus (Festival Theatre)..." Thereafter Festspielhaus is used. So the naming as used by members of WP:Wagner corresponds to standard English-language practice per WP:COMMONNAME--Peter cohen (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I think I may have caused a confusion. In German, Festspiele refers just to the festival and Festspielhaus to the building. And I was saying that Festspiele is rare in English, but Festspielhaus is common.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming Finnish lakes or rivers

May I please draw your attention to this[36]. I'd appreciate your comment on my suggestion made to avoid coining non-existent names in English regarding Finnish geographical names.--Khaosaming (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done[37]. Perhaps you could follow-up there if there's any further concerns you have? —Sladen (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Your kind attention is still needed here. Just in case for the sake of convenience. I guess the talk page must be on your watch list anyway.--Khaosaming (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have the Lake Tuusula article on my watchlist. Thank you for the pointer regarding the new comments added at Talk:Lake Tuusula#Naming convention of Finnish lakes and rivers since last night. The four new comments contain over four kilobytes of text[38] and will take some time to analyse, research and reply to. If you urgently require a faster response, it may be worth raising the concern(s) on one of the project pages (as suggested earlier[39]). —Sladen (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you seem to have begun to move the names of finnish river in new forms without waiting the comments of experts, all though I urged that nothing abrupt should not be done. Do I really have to pick the examples from the scientific geographic litterature translated in english or checked by professional, native english speaking translators (i.e. the secondary sources) from my bookshelf to convince the english speaking wiki-community about the commonly accepted rules of how finnish place names should be handled in english text according to secondary sources? This conduct seems now very much about original research which is not usually accepted in any wikipedia. I do not believe that for example in the surroundings of Koitajoki there is any english speaking community, kind of which there well may be in Tuusula near Helsinki. Please read what I just wrote in my own discussion page, and tell me how your conduct differs from original research (where ever it is linked in english wikipedia).Urjanhai (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit: There seemed to be a secondary source, so this must, perhaps, be accepted; so maybe there are different possibilities in different cases. --Urjanhai (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Urjanhai: Thank you. —Sladen (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)