User talk:EdJogg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Archive of EdJogg's talk page

07 June – 06 October 2007

For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

User:Dimension31

		The Original Barnstar
		Recently it was brought to my attention that I made a mistake with a redirect. On his own, User:EdJogg corrected the redirect, which I feel merits a barnstar. - Dimension31 07:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thomas rescue

We have a technical issue at TSW. Please rescue the pics in imminent danger to your client pending our resolution. We have a support engineer inspecting our servers currently. Fiddle Faddle 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've downloaded (and printed) the five which have been tagged (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thomas#Fair-use images tagged for deletion). Hopefully the rest are 'safe' for now, as I don't have time to do the same for all 140 images!. It's possible that the bot has been called-off due to the chaos it was causing, or because the resultant workload was impacting the servers, but it's also possible that it's just been looking elsewhere.

Hope your server issue is sorted soon.

EdJogg 08:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Boat Lifts

You volunteered to proof read articles which I might need help with so I intend to take you at your word. I have an article at [1] which I am not sure what to do with. It is partly translated and partly written by myself from the cited reference. I am not sure whether to merge it with the Boat lift article or give it independance. Need input. Martin Cordon 23:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A promise is a promise, and I enjoy reading canal articles, so as long as you're not too prolific...

I shall respond further on your talk page, in due course, as it will be easier for you to refer to.

EdJogg 12:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was precisely that kind of de-muddling that I needed help with. It is now clear to me that it can stand alone. The boats used were not standard sized. I know their correct dimensions, therefore I will correct that. I see your point about a diagram, I will see what I can do. Martin Cordon 14:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By 'standard' I was trying to imply that they were all the same shape and size (which I presume they were for the operating mechanism to work). Maybe, if this is actually the case, it would need expanding to something like: "...each was designed to work with a particular size and shape of boat, built to fit the mechanism...". Just a suggestion...

EdJogg 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, each boat was required to have lifting eyes at a specific location to fit the hoist. Apart from these, maximum lengths and widths will apply as with all lifts. I will attempt to make this requirement clear. Martin Cordon 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to clarify the source of translated articles. Martin Cordon 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for giving you more work to do in List of funiculars!

No need to apologise. It is far better to have the information in (in whatever format) than not to have it. Thanks for your additions. -- Chris j wood 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Peugeot 306

I've added a comment on the 306 discussion pageTalk:Peugeot_306, But I'm new and never actually done this befre, as you were the last/only person to comment on that page Could you please do me a favour and check over what I've done. Cheers.

--Darkest Inferno 09:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've posted a reply on the 306 talk page. What you have supplied does contain a few typos / minor style issues but is nevertheless quite useful. You need to work out the best way of adding your information to the 306 article, and then to be Bold and go and edit it. It's on my watchlist, so I'll be able to see what you've done and whether it needs any later tweaking.

Cheers - EdJogg 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: SR Class Q1 No probs!

It needs clearing up, that sort of thing, although one should not completely remove the reference, so I assume what's there now will do nicely. Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

re: inquiry about Link Spam for Devon articles

Hi, I know what you mean, although unfortunately I'm afraid I have to do it the manual way, too, going through all the spammer's contributions and reverting them. I suspect there are quicker ways of doing it, though - I think AutoWikiBrowser is a tool that is available for this sort of thing, although I don't have that. Administrators can do a more advanced rollback than normal users, and bots can be used for large scale rollbacks that would be really tedious - you could always ask an admin or a bot operator, perhaps. Thanks. Bob talk 16:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Penmanshiel Tunnel

Hi Ed, thanks for nominating my article, quite chuffed seeing as it is my first attempt at a wikipedia article! ColourSarge 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SR Class Q1

Original post by EdJogg, on The Rambling Man's talk page, for reference:

SR Class Q1

Hi. Having seen your GA Review Comments for SR Class Q1 I have a question for you. You indicate that the 'In Fiction' section needs a reference. As the section refers to an animated TV series, what sort of reference would be adequate here? Would it be sufficient to specify the particular episode in which the character appears? I suspect there are many, many TV series on WP that have not been substantially written about on paper (or from an academic viewpoint online) and presumably take their information directly from the TV programmes themselves.

As a member of WP:THOMAS I am keen to comply with WP standards. But there is precious little written formally about the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends TV series, making it difficult to cite references.

If the 'In Fiction' section of the SR Q1 article is removed to achieve GA status, it is bound to be re-instated before long by one of the many young editors who 'contribute' to the Thomas pages, so it would be useful to know what approaches are available to us to retain the section in some form and maintain the quality of the article. Any advice would be gratefully received.

EdJogg 14:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi EdJogg, thanks for your message relating to my GA review of SR Class Q1. The difficulty is that with that sentence in place without any kind of secondary source to back it up, it's bound to be picked up at some point by someone else claiming a [citation needed]. So, in order to back it up we need something substantive link proving the claim. I think my review of the article itself is particularly harsh having seen how other GA nominees have faired, so perhaps I should resist the temptation to pursue the source, but I'd like to think over scrutiny is better than under scrutiny.

I agree that if it's just removed it'll probably end up being re-added. So, a problem. Unfortunately there's an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which basically says that just because other articles are equally flawed, why should this one be picked up. The answer is that the flawed articles are wrong too and need correcting.

So, unless we can provide a reliable source for the claim, it'll have to go I'm afraid. Hopefully that makes sense? The Rambling Man 17:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it makes perfect sense! The section does make the article more complete, but it loses little by its absence.

If this policy is applied strictly then quite a lot of the Thomas the Tank Engine & Friends articles may be in jeopardy (although the very earliest stuff does have a source available, fortunately). But this is a battle for someone else to fight, as trying to maintain the standard of the existing pages is taking up too much of my time.

Thanks for the advice. EdJogg 00:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Fan Fiction

I see it looks like we have the same problem we had last summer with engines being added to the Thomas/RS related articles that have never been in the stories I notice they are being edited by various anomynous users but they are all clearly the work of Felix Cheng again perhaps its time someone had a word with him before we get any more. Penrithguy 09:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it is Felix, actually, although the Culdee Fell diesels might be him, or inspired by him. Remember that he is a year older and had started to produce some useful contributions (have a look at his talk page - he was responsible for finding most of the original screenshots, and uploading the book covers). He's not edited by name for many months, although we have had several anon editors who have been giving me a lot of work to do (too much, but more on that at WP:THOMAS later). Fortunately, they usually go away after you've reverted their edits four or five times, but it's a war of attrition...

Good to see you back in the project. EdJogg 11:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Pete, you are welcome to come and play in my sandboxes that I have just put on my user page - bring your bucket and spade...--John of Paris 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John, do I detect an invitation to do some proof-reading? There's a lot of text there, so I'll need to set aside some time (feel free to remind me if nothing happens for a while!). Incidentally, it's usual practice to create sandboxes as sub-pages rather than actually have them on your user page...EdJogg 12:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So that's why I cant separate the two articles. How do I create a sub-page?--John of Paris 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

July 16th, 2007 DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 16 July, 2007, a fact from the article Penmanshiel Tunnel, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 20:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

Would you care to review the above article? Any points of interest can be placed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes. Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Have done so already, to some extent! We were editing simultaneously...rather annoyed to get an 'edit conflict', but completely dumbfounded to find the page had gone completely! (just a redirect...) I think I incorporated most of your changes; please check for any I missed. While editing I found a few areas that required a little more work, and noted them on the Peer Review, but I'm sure there are more to find. Rambling Man makes some interesting points, particularly about railway terminology -- you'll see that I replaced some terms completely. I think it requires looking at the article with a different frame of mind, one that is not a rail enthusiast! (Difficult for us, of course, but you'll notice I spotted a few more problematic terms.)

You'll have noticed that I have been following (some of) your GA/FA nominations. (Not very closely.) It is interesting to see the process from a hands-on POV, without actually having to drive the process. Thank you!

EdJogg 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you did a couple of changes, and they were pretty relevant. However, the reason there was an edit conflict was down to the fact that I had to rename the article to take into account the fact that it is also about the Battle of Britains.

I haven't seen your comments, sorry, for I have been looking periodically at the peer review, and they don't seem to have transferred. Have another look (there have been several changes concerning air-smoothed casing terminology and I created an article that goes some way towards explaining the Bulleid chain-driven valve gear, although there needs to be a diagram), and put any further points for consideration, and yes, your shadowing of some of my edits are most welcome...Happy reading, --Bulleid Pacific 13:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have found the old peer review page and copied the notes across. I haven't re-examined the article nor the notes to see whether any of the points have since been addressed. EdJogg 00:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I have now incorporated all changes you have put forward. Is it possible that you could re-read the article to find any other issues that have arisen? Cheers for your help so far. --Bulleid Pacific 21:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Will see what I can do.

Have you seen/incorporated the notes by TivedShambo on the peer-review page? I think these were added after it was 'archived'. If not, you might care to copy them to the FAC page.

EdJogg 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just gone through his suggestions now. There were quite valid, it improves the look of the footnotes section. I hope you are still enjoying the process, it's really a case of tinkering here and tinkering there until you finally reach a stage where it is perfect! Keep up the good work, --Bulleid Pacific 15:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am still enjoying it, even though I'm more of a GW man, it's just that I can't really justify the time! That last edit, for example, started by me spotting an apostrophe on the wrong side of a comma, then I thought 'that' sentence needed a bit more length, then, then... ...and so it goes on! It is quite useful though because I'm having to read the article as a non-railway enthusiast, for FAC purposes, which requires a more disciplined thought process.

I'll see what I can do over the next week, as I spotted quite a few phrases that would need attention, but then I'm on hol for a couple of weeks and away from WP (how will I survive??) :o)

EdJogg 17:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I'm on my holidays next week, before having a blast on the Torbay Express on August 11th, hauled by 6024. Should be fun...And also, if you fancy doing a GWR article and bringing it up to a decent standard, I'm more than willing to help (*cringe!*;)). I suggest the 60xx or 4073 classes!--Bulleid Pacific 21:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see what you mean. But I think we should put the larger firebox into its context, as regards to smaller designs ie. 4-6-0 etc. What do you think?--Bulleid Pacific 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Had a look at sandbox version, like the idea, but the formatting was a bit of an issue, so I took the liberty of moving the Naming the locomotives section up to construction history on the sandbox version. Also, there is a slight problem with too many photographs clumped together in the middle on one side, I suggest 257 Squadron could be moved down to Preservation, or at least stagger them to both sides of the article (left and right). What do you think?--Bulleid Pacific 10:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had another round of edits, and actually now think the article is a lot better in sandbox mode. I believe that it could be pasted onto the main article, which I think I'll do presently. I've also pasted that re-hashed paragraph onto the samdbox version, so there is no problem concerning editing problems. It keeps all details of construction together in one handy section (naming, I believe, atually goes in that section rather well, too!), and the photographs are not so 'clumped' anymore. A fine effort, and I have now pasted it (done a few tweaks since) as the main article!--Bulleid Pacific 11:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree about moving 'Naming', layout looks fine and headings make sense. The issue I had with the previous layout was that the construction stuff was split into several, separated pieces. I haven't re-read the text to make sure it all still fits/progresses logically as you go down the page, but I might have time tonight. (To say I was busy right now would be rather an understatement!)

Unless you have any particular objections, I'll assume I can blank the sandbox page now...

EdJogg 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objections, I think it is safe to say that it has done its purpose quite well, here...--Bulleid Pacific 14:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. And thank you for the nice comment on your user page. We don't do this for the glory, but it's nice to know your work is appreciated...

EdJogg 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seasons 7-10 Pages for Thomas and Friends

Ok whatever is going on between you and Rusty5's idea on the Season pages has to stop! So much information is been deleted that you might as well just delete the whole page. Wikipedia is supposed to be a helpful website, used for gathering information but this new format is just stupid!. There is no use for the page for no information can be gathered from them. The old pages had plenty of information. I'd like to point out especially that the old pages had the characters featured. This information would be useful if your making a number of times a character is featured or what list of episodes containing a charater. The old pages contained other valuable information. I hope you change your mind and instruct Rusty5 to reverse the unbelieveable damage done. I have back up copy's of season 8,9 and 10 but unfortunatly not 7 so Rusty5 or you'll have to fix that. Diesel 10 08:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all 'calm down', nothing has been lost and everything may be recovered, if that is what is best...

Now, I don't really know where to start, but let me get a couple of things straight:

1. I am not the 'Leader' of WP:THOMAS, as there is no such person, however, as an active project member I have contributed a great deal towards the structuring of the pages and the policies of the project. My edits have been generally found acceptable by the original project founders, and I am currently the 'longest serving' member. My desire is to maintain the best possible quality for all of the 'Thomas' pages on WP. In the absence of any of the founders I am making suggestions to improve and keep the project alive -- but that doesn't mean that "what I say goes", I would love to have more project members contributing to the discussions.
2. involvement in a project does not give me any more 'authority' than any other Wikipedian. However, by consistently working within the framework of a Wikiproject, there is an unspoken acknowledgment by other Wikipedians that project members usually know what they are doing with their project's pages and can be trusted to work in the best interest of the project.
3. I have never 'told' Rusty5 to do any such major change to the 'Season' pages, at least not directly. I do remember having a discussion with him over the Season 10 page as I had modified the formatting to a style he didn't like, and I suggested that all the Season pages should look the same. I will need to ask him why he has been mentioning me in the edit summaries.
4. The history of changes for all pages is always available, unless the page is deleted -- this is a requirement of the GFDL -- so none of Rusty5's changes are irreversible
5. This is the first I have seen of the new format, and I rather like it. It has cut out all the mind-numbing drivel that tends to collect on the Season pages (which is why I normally avoid editing them).
6. All of the Season pages were 'rescued' to TrainSpotting World back in June, so if you really want all the very detailed information, the pages are still available there. (Ask me for the URL!)

Now I must go to Rusty5 and ask what he's been up to...

EdJogg 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:UK Trams

Hi EdJogg, Can you help with anything else on the project, such as making the project page look better, making a portal, doing some more templates, showing me how to do Infoboxes to standardise UK Tram articles etc - I aso wish to make templates for each type of page. Thanks, Bluegoblin7 08:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Your best bet is to find a template that does what you want, and copy it! If you then have problems because the modified template doesn't 'work', drop me a line and I'll try to debug it for you.

Same applies to the Portal. I've never created one, and I suspect there are WP guidelines and policies about their creation and form too, which you ought to follow. You'll need to look elsewhere for help with this. Check the WP help pages, look at some other portals, and contact the editors who maintain them....

Same applies to the Project page, etc. Find a format/feature you like on another page, copy it and modify it. That way you will get what you want and learn how to do it for yourself. If you find something 'doesn't work', I might be able to help, but the help pages under the Village Pump are a much better place to find knowledgeable help quickly.

Please note, I am heavilly involved with other WP projects, and my own editing, and I really don't have much time to spend on UK:TRAMS. However, I am keen to see appropriate coverage of all the historic tram systems in the UK, and (within reason!) would be happy to offer my services proof-reading and copy-editing new pages that are created for your project.

EdJogg 10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, ill let you know if I need any help... and if the project survives... Bluegoblin7 11:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

re: An Olive Branch... ?

Below is a reply to your message on my talk page. It also there.

Maybe I did over-react a bit to what you said: It is simply that I am passionate about trams, and get a bit over-protective when people do or say things I don't like. Yes, you did contribute a little bit, but it was many people all together. I do in fact think that your suggestion about the stubs is a very good one, but I am still going to list suitable stub types. I also hope that I have not put you off helping WP:UK Trams, and that you continue to help the project. Can you help with anything on the to-do list, for example? Bluegoblin7 09:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: I see you have space for another Userbox. Do you want to add the UKT one? Bluegoblin7 10:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(LOL) Cheeky!!

Yes it had occurred to me to add UKTrams in the vacancy, but you can see why I have little time for any particular project.

Of course I will continue to assist the project, but it will be 'in the background'. I like trams, as part of my interest in steam engines, railways and Industrial Archaeology, but I have no knowledge to impart. Hence I can copy-edit (which is my speciality), assist with debugging templates and tables (upto a point, I am no expert!) and have been known to assist with expansion of new stubs to near-Good Article status within a week, where sufficient on-line material is available. However, you will not get any new articles from me (no reference material, and a backlog awaiting attention) nor am I willing to undertake major maintenance tasks across multiple pages.

Mostly what I'll do is watch the Project pages and jump in when I think I can help, or have an opinion to impart.

EdJogg 10:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I do not mind if you can't create articles etc. All the tasks that you have said that you can do are very important! Please feel free to do whatever you can! And in regards to your edit summary: Yes, we can start afresh! I am willing to forgive and forget! Bluegoblin7 10:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No, don't worry if you are being negative. If it's not possible, it's not possible - simple as that! Bluegoblin7 10:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Kew Bridge Steam Museum

Italic text contains extract of message posted yesterday at User talk:Kbsm.
Non-italic text is KBSM's reply here...

Hi,

Please do not (re-)add details of 'forthcoming events'. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. You must be content that there is a reference to the fact that special events take place (my original edit also mentioned that these were in particular special fields, but you removed that).

According to Wikipedia itself, it is OK to add significant forthcoming events. The page you referenced actually indicates this!

Could you please explain the reason for removing the information regarding the MWB railway? The information was sourced from the KBSM site, so the museum is presumably not ashamed to publicise the connections.

We edited the information to be correct. The railway is not modelled on a railway at Kempton Park, but on one at Hampton (which also served Kepmton as a secondary use). THIS is what it says on our website.

NOTE - Since the Kempton Park engines could be regarded as 'competitors', you must be very careful to avoid a possible conflict of interest with your editing - especially considering your choice of user name!

Interesting... we have not included any information about them. They are a separate organisation, although linked in that they too were part of the Metropolitan Waterboard. We don't make any reference to places like Crossness either. Where's the problem in excluding them?

As you would see from my edits, I am very much a steam enthusiast and support the work of the KBSM. However, there are standards to be maintained within WP, or it will not be taken seriously. Hence I try to edit this kind of article to retain as much 'promotion' for the site without breaking any WP rules -- other editors may not be so lenient.

Why delete our copyrighted image from our entry. Being as I am the webmaster of the Kew Bridge Steam Museum website, the IT manager at the museum, and the person who took that photo, I believe I am allowed to give myself copyright permission to use it on any medium I choose. Why do we "have" to have an image of your choice??? Also, when editing our entry - make sure what you write is correct, otherwise don't delete content which we have provided. (seeing as Kew is "our" museum, we tend to know quite a lot about the place).

We won't be putting up much more information about the engines as this is already readily available on the internet, and we wouldn't want to be accused of excessive advertising...

KBSM (23/08/2007)

Replies to above...

By 'significant forthcoming event', I think they mean things like the Olympics or the World Cup, not model exhibitions at Kew! (Sorry for being flippant, must try and get along to one one day...) Seriously though, there is the danger that editing 'your' page yourself could result in the page looking more like advertising copy. The inclusion of specific event dates is probably stepping-over whatever line is drawn regarding advertising, but I'm happy to refer this to other Wikipedians if you think I'm being unfair.

The railway info, as I said, was referenced from your own website. If it is incorrect, I presume you will be looking to amend it in the near future. It is from this info that the link to the Kempton Park Engines was determined appropriate. Obviously, if there is no kind of link to Kempton Park, there is no place for the 'See also' link either. (So, my apologies for any inappropriate criticism on that front.)

Copyright Images - as written by me just now on your on talk page:

COPYRIGHT PHOTO - you are not permitted to use copyrighted photos on Wikipedia. They must be in the public domain. Presumably, as the originator of that photo, you can release it into the public domain, and it may then be used here. I replaced your deleted photo with the free-use one that I found on Wikimedia Commons. Your photo is much better, but the one I selected is the best available for use at this time.

Let's be clear on this. Your photo is clearly tagged as being a copyright image, and it has been equally clearly marked for speedy deletion for that very reason. That is absolutely nothing to do with me. What happens when your photo is deleted is that a redlink is left in the info box on the KBSM page. I replaced the redlink with the free image I had found. (Please bear in mind that there was NO image there at the beginning of the week.) I will do the same if you don't provide a free image (that sounds like a threat, but it is just the sensible course of action under the circumstances!)

I agree that you will know more about your museum than I, and it is useful to know your credentials. The reversions/re-insertions I made were done 'in good faith', for the reasons specified above. Also, please remember that this is not really 'your' page -- anyone can edit it, and they may be less charitable towards steam museums!

As for further details about the engines, I do not believe that this would count as advertising. You have a number of engines present at your museum, and can easily prove that and provide all manner of information to back it up. My view is that anyone researching the products of a particular engine manufacturer, or a particular type or feature of engine, would like to know where such engines may be found. If you or I don't add further information about them, some other visitor to your establishment might well do!

EdJogg 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Richmond Medical Center

I fear a small yield tactical nuclear device may be the only hope this article has. I have resisted nominating it for deletion so far, but this may be the only way, having looked at some of the history, to force it into a decent shape. Fiddle Faddle 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence being sneaky... I'm sure there are Wikipedians who patrol the 'questionable notability' category with a view to putting down any articles that are irredeemable. I only went back to take a look because I've still got your talk page on my watchlist!

EdJogg 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope they find it and its last remaining picture soon! Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Basingstoke and Alton Light Railway

Hi there, thanks for improving the routemap for the above line, in case you don't know, the Thornycroft siding should only be on the right and there was a second siding (this time on the left) between the Alton and Bentworth & Lasham stations for Lord Mayor Treloar's Hospital. Keep up the good work. Mighty Antar 01:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I put two sidings for Thornycroft as that's what it said in the reference book: the line from Basingstoke curved around their works (hence very significant to the line's route!); there was a private siding 'from day one' (presumably), and Thornycroft later expanded their site to the other side of the line, having a second siding installed there too. I'm sure there's much more to be extracted from the reference book, for example, the article doesn't mention the number of level/occupation crossings, nor the fact that all the stations were some distance from the respective villages!

It's on my ToDo list, but not very near the top.

EdJogg 08:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

PS -- you reminded me, must try and get a pic of an Antar at Dorset this week (Great Dorset Steam Fair)!!

Enjoyed your break?

I have noticed that not much more has been done to the WC/BB article since you have been away, apart from some formatting issues which I have undertaken myself. I have personally been working on that most elusive of BR standards, the Class 6, better known as the 'Clan' Class. Quite interesting, sorting out references at the moment. Anyway, nice to have you back...--Bulleid Pacific 10:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did have a good break, thank you, and have a few useful pictures for WP... I had noticed the WC/BB article had been changed while I was away and have made a note that it needs re-checking - can't remember what I saw needed doing, maybe just that there had been a number of changes to check and this would need 'more than five minutes work'. Was there anything particular you were concerned about? EdJogg 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, not really, apart from the odd smart-Alec dumbing down certain words in order to get a definition for them. I think you'll find that very little of the actual content has been changed apart from finding typos, etc., and maybe the addition of further detail regarding locomotive construction, and it's probably my edits which have filled out your watch list, to which I apologise! Anyway, better be getting on with the BR standard class 6 article, which is providing light relief from Southern-based stuff at the moment...--Bulleid Pacific 12:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You forget, the pages had quite a re-arrangement to them. (Check the differences over the first two weeks of August!) Fortunately, most was OK -- you'll see I have applied a little re-wording where it was lacking slightly. This was a basic review, not one from a non-enthusiast standpoint, so I don't know if any more strange terms have been introduced by accident...

EdJogg 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Locomotive wheelslip

I wonder if you would like to help me to start an article along these lines (no pun intended!), as it is something that affects several railway-related articles. Personally, I am not overly sure how to begin such an article due to its extremely specialised nature. I may have a go at a future stage, however...--Bulleid Pacific 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've added my take on it (all 'from memory' as it were). Once you've found a suitable reference (or two), to work from, how to word it should become clearer!

EdJogg 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll have to dig out a few railway magazines to get some of the sources. It probably needs expanding a bit more in one way or another. Anyway, well done!--Bulleid Pacific 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? [2]Cholga^talK! 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Wouldn't normally, as I could not have contributed to this article (where is Oakland?), besides which, the link is now stale. Sorry, can't help. EdJogg 22:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An unremitting apology.

I noticed that there was a request for some mediation on your talk page, but for some highly STRANGE reason, for five minutes, I thought it was my talk page (I was initially checking for any correspondence), and did the highly stupid thing of commenting. However, I have scrubbed my comments (they wouldn't have helped, anyway), although, as a bystander, I'd raise the issue of WP:Canvass regarding the said editor going round looking for support. Anyway, once again, please accept my apologies. I'll see what I can do as regards the Ilfracombe Goods article, but I cannot make any promises, as this is a fairly poorly covered locomotive... Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 12:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me (see reply above!). Agree about the canvassing though. There's canvassing and canvassing: it's one thing to ask for opinions from past editors of a page, or members of a relevant project, but asking 'anybody', isn't on.

Re: Ilfracombe Goods -- a picture is my main 'want'. The web-linked article gives as much detail as I'm ever likely to need, so I was going to 'borrow' from that! However, if you come across any suitable reference sources in your travels, please do let me know.

EdJogg 22:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Castle Cary Cut-Off

All roads lead to ... Cogload Junction! I have been thinking about the Castle Cary Cut-Off article for a while. There is too much historical stuff to fit in the Reading to Plymouth Line article; it would get lost in the Great Western Railway artcile, but I couldn't summon up enough enthusiasm and notability to make decent article.

Of course, I was also thinking of the Disused railway station ... series, so I would envisage the stations being wrapped up into the article on the line. I look forward to doing a copy edit on it shortly! Geof Sheppard 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummmm, that wasn't a veiled request for me to write it up, was it? If it was, you may be in for a very long wait -- until I put the square braces around your text I wasn't even aware that there was such a thing as the Castle Cary Cut-Off!

:-P -- EdJogg 12:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, bizarre.

Just noticed the WC/BB article has gone around again, along with several other articles on FAC. Probably using too much space at the bottom, and not enough support thus far. Shame, really, but it does mean it gets another reading in its current guise, I suppose, which is good. I've been meaning to ask, how was Dorset? I remember going past the fair in 2001 when on the way to the Swanage Railway. Huge. Cheers.--Bulleid Pacific 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The benefit of 'restarting' the FAC process for WC/BB is that it loses the churn from the first attempt. (Obviously it can still be viewed, but it won't distract editors...) Not sure if there's anything 'we' need to do about the FAC at present.

EdJogg 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Dorset Steam Fair

GDSF was as good as ever. A bit cold at times (cloudy & windy) but at least it was dry, unlike my first ever (one-day) visit, when it had been dry for weeks and then rained lots on the day -- having driven from Guildford, I was not best pleased to discover that the heavy haulage was not happening, though fortunately it dried out after lunch and was OK. Frustratingly this year, every morning we woke to bright sunshine, and by the time we got into the fair it had clouded-over...

It is difficult to properly convey what GDSF is really like. Words alone cannot convey the enveloping smell of coal smoke and steam, the noise of countless engines, the rumbling felt through the ground... The heavy haulage 'play pen' is just wonderful -- at one point I counted something like 40 assorted traction engines and rollers trundling around, plus some of the big diesel vehicles. No plan, no schedule, just loads of enginemen driving their machines for the sheer fun of it. We normally reckon to picnic by the side of the arena and it can be hard to move on to something else.

We have found that one day is insufficient to see everything. We travel down on the Wednesday and pitch camp, then visit the fair in the evening. That is followed by two full days ~10am to 11pm!! And a family ticket (in advance) is less than a single adult at Chessington!! (Fantastic value.) Next year, as it's the 40th anniversary, we are thinking of staying an extra day!

I've already put a couple of pics on the Great Dorset Steam Fair page, and have another 200 to choose from!! Expect to see more elsewhere in WP!

Incidentally, last year they were hauling a WC loco around the arena, can't remember which one. This year it was a 9F. (Haulage vehicle courtesy of Allely's)

EdJogg 11:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

92212, perchance, from the Mid-Hants? I think last year it may have been a BB 34072 257 Squadron, which is now under overhaul. I could be wrong, of course...--Bulleid Pacific 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite possibly 92212, as I'm fairly sure it was from Mid Hants (haven't got 2007 prog. with me). I have the 2004 programme here, and that says that 257 Squadron was in attendance then, but I'm afraid the 'token steam loco' usually gets little attention from me -- it's always cold and lifeless, and there are all these road locos and things charging about breathing fire everywhere....

EdJogg 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

257 Squadron was my first experience of a live un-rebuilt Bulleid, back in 2002, my first Rebuilt Bulleid being 34101 Hartland in 2000, and my first-ever being both Ellerman Lines and Winston Churchill in the NRM. An excellent locomotive, 257's boiler was in such good condition that she holds the record for having the most boiler certificate extensions (at three), so she operated for 13 years without overhaul... My fourth un-rebuilt was Blackmore "Fail" (as the Bluebell crew will enthusiastically point out), dead, awaiting repairs. Then there was Taw Valley with a cracked cylinder in 2005. I've seen five more this year, rebuilt and un-rebuilt (Wadebridge, Bodmin, 92 Squadron), with the chance of seeing a sixth on October 6 (the WSR Autumn Steam Gala, 34046 Braunton). I also saw Canadian Pacific and Peninsula and Oriental S.N.Co. at various locations. So you could say I am a bit of a Bulleid nut! Personally, I don't mind if they are operating or not, it's just the fact that they are still here several decades after they should have disappeared!--Bulleid Pacific 15:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, from your user name, I'd never have guessed...

I was right, though, last year it was a West Country: Eddystone, and in 2005 a GWR 2-8-2T, or something similar (with a spare WC/BB boiler on one of the trailers being hauled around the arena!).

Having been born and brought up in GW territory, spam-cans don't have quite such an effect on me, although my interest has grown somewhat through my affection for the wild north west corner of Devon (hence Ilfracombe Branch Line), and heavy-expansion of any subject on WP tends to deepen one's knowledge (hence a growing passion for traction engines and other steam-powered machinery).

EdJogg 19:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

MBB Canal

Thanks for your help tidying things up :) I wonder if you could look at the 'external images' section, particularly the gaythorne images, and help clear up if they're the Rochdale canal, or the MBB Canal? Its tricky as Gaythorne street is near the MBB Canal at the Salford terminus, but Gaythorn is on the Rochdale canal.... I'm sure theres a bit of crossover and the library has mis-categorised some of them. Parrot of Doom 12:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The perils of being a Wikignome! I wish I could help you, but I know nothing of the area.

I am always heartened to hear about canal restoration projects, which is why I was taking a look, and, inevitably, a tidy-up. (It always takes so long to look anything up on WP...!)

EdJogg 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Tyop

What irony! You corrected a 'tyop'. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 12:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, yes. See tyop.

Not always intentional, but I don't care whether my two-fingered keypress (simultaneously on 'o' and 'p') produces 'op' or 'po'!! At least this time round I didn't type 'ytop' or 'ypot', both of which I have done before now when working quickly...

EdJogg 13:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Steam engine overview

Still sweating away on that pesky Steam engine article (I see it has been rated B-class - only because they couldn't put it in Z-class, I suspect). Following comments by User:Peterkingiron on talk:Steam engine (New versions section) I have had the bright idea of doing a short overview of the subject. So I invite you to visit User:John of Paris/sandbox 5 Steam Power (overview). It's very short and I'd like it to stay that way. Would appreciate your opinion on whether it might be integrated somehow as a sort of permanent "stand-alone stub" with lots of links and a few nice pictures. Cheers,--John of Paris 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick read through and it would seem a much better version of an introduction to the steam engine article. I can't see how it would realistically fare as a stand-alone page, since (a) most existing articles link 'steam-powered' to steam engine already and (b) I'm not sure that users would think of looking for a page called 'steam power'.

I haven't applied any copy-editing (you have at least one repeated word) as I guess it will need tweaking in different ways depending on which page it becomes part of.

Sorry I haven't had much time to look at it. How were you thinking the 'stand-alone stub' would fit into the existing page structure in WP (ie relative to other steamy pages)?

EdJogg 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:TUK

Hi EdJogg,

It's been about a fortnight, and you said you'd archive our talk page for us. It's getting a bit nire started now, and all we need is more members. Also, would you feel interested in joining my own site? You seem to have a lot of knowledge, and I could set you up with editng rights to edit this and that if you wanted - it can be found at www.transportcentre.co.uk if you're interested!!! Thanks, Bluegoblin7 18:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not advertising, just seeing if you're interested! ;)

Page has been archived, as promised. It's very easy: just add a new redlink in the 'Archives' box, click to create a new page, add the header/foooter/TOC/any reqd notes, then cut-and-paste the relevant sections from the talk page.

As for your webpage, I'm afraid I don't have any more time to spare. WP and TrainSpottingWorld occupy all my online time (and more)!

EdJogg 00:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok! Don't worry! (The offers always there...) And thanks for archiving the page. Now we can actually get started on the project...More members would help!!! Bluegoblin7 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydraulic engine house, Bristol Harbour

Thanks for your copy edits to Hydraulic engine house, Bristol Harbour, what further text do you think is needed? Also would you be kind enough to look at Underfall Yard which I wrote yesterday & copy edit/expand as needed.— Rod ^talk 14:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The main reason for the comment about needing text is that the article is essentially litle more than an infobox and a gallery, with a lot of white space on the left hand side.

What could be added? Well, at present there is no information about the steam engines (type?, manufacturer?, original installation date?), and I have no idea what type the replacement engines are. Then there's a need for a description of what the hydraulics were used for, explanation of why the system was chosen over any other alternatives, what it is used for now (demonstration only?, commercial?) etc, etc. With suitable reference material, such expansion should be easy... :o)

'fraid I can't expand either article, as I've only just discovered the subjects exist!! However, I'll certainly take a look at Underfall Yard.

BTW, I know nothing about hydraulic systems. I previously added details to the accumulator article having been updating the steam engine coverage at Tower Bridge - and then I followed your editing trail!

EdJogg 14:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick (30mins!) glance at Underfall Yard, and applied changes for the worst mistakes (sorry for phrasing, nothing personal!). More needs doing, and I'll write notes on the talk page to suit.

EdJogg 13:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - no offence taken -all valid comments. I've tried to act on the suggestions you've made - but can't get the caption to work on the first image now I've resized it.— Rod ^talk 13:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the image you need 'thumb' AND the px size. As the pic is an unusual format, I've blown up the image and fixed the TOC alongside for best use of space -- some editors may not approve!

Following your edits, I've had another look at the Sluice text. Please seen inline comments for areas needing attention.

Apart from that, it seems pretty sound now. Not up to "Good Article" status, but certainly more than adequate for normal use, as the subject and the text now 'flows' through the article without undue repetition, and there's nothing obviously 'wrong' with it. Further work will add depth and polish.

BTW, you need to learn how to spell 'maintenance' :o)

EdJogg 14:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism to Annie and Clarabel

Apologies for any inconvenience, it seems as though my little brother's been at my PC again! I've put a password on it now so it won't happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.142.210 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Profile changed, and hopefully I will manage to avoid making the same mistake again. Mayalld 06:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Of locks and boat lifts

Greetings EdJogg. I replied to your note on my talk page. It's a tricky matter, and I hope you will understand the concerns envolved. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 12:31 (UTC)

A canal flowing up and down

Hi EdJogg. As you appear to be handling waterways, you might be willing to shed some light on a problem I encountered going upstream on the Kennet and Avon Canal, navigating from the box with the next upstream lock, the article's lock, and the next downstream lock. From e.g. Brimslade lock one goes to the Wootton top lock, from there one gets by the navigation box to the Crofton locks. From the Crofton locks article, going further upstream, one comes back at the top lock of Wooton and stays in a loop between both locks, always going upstream... I had thus assumed a dum mistake and reversed the upsteam and downstream names of the Crofton Locks article and the next one, Bedwyn Church lock. But as also next Burnt Mill lock appeared to have 'wrong' directions, I suspected my assumption to have been wrong. Between Wooton and Crofton there happens to exist a Bruce Tunnel... I already undid my relevant edit at both Crofton locks and Bedwyn Church lock, and await your explanation and advice. It is however obvious that the 'next upsteam' and 'next downstream' in the navigation boxes of the articles on both Crofton locks and Wootton top lock mustnot send a reader back and forth while the reader thinks he's going one way, this requires a specific note clarifying the situation within both navigation boxes. Anyway, if the Crofton lock is 'next upstream' when at the Wootton top lock, then the latter cannot be 'next upstream' when arriving at Crofton from Wooton, I assume the terms 'downstream' and 'upstream' should be replaced with...? — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 13:34 (UTC)

I ran into the same problem when I was marking the K&A lock articles as UK Canal Stubs. (Don't think I ever finished.) The nomenclature is a tad confusing, but you are navigating either side of the summit of the canal (ie Bruce Tunnel), so 'upstream' and 'downstream' may not be the best words to use - perhaps 'eastbound' and 'westbound' would be more appropriate, or 'towards Bristol' and 'towards Reading'?, but this requires a template change and as it affects many pages it is essential to reach consensus from interested parties before any such major change should be undertaken. So, may I suggest you post the question on the Kennet and Avon Canal talk page, and/or the UK Waterways Project talk page, as you are bound to get more expert opinion than I can give.

EdJogg 13:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.
P.S. Just a matter of curiousity: The articles on the locks at Wooton use the spellings 'Wooton' for the place and 'Wootton' for two of its four locks. I walked in the Avebury area in the 1980s and seem to remember a nearby place being referred to as 'Kenneth' in those days, though nowadays in texts I found it spelled as 'Kennet' just like for the Kennet and Avon Canal. Do you happen to know what may have caused a change in spelling and why the designation for the locks at Wooton and that for the place itself did not change together? — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 13:55 (UTC)

Haven't the foggiest. Where there is any doubt, for instance, with regard to spelling, punctuation or capitalisation, I always go to the 'most significant source' I can find. Check on the K&A Trust website (see the K&A page for the link), there you will find the accepted names for all the locks...

Of course, regarding the placename, there may just be a typo in WP...

EdJogg 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I had googled and found more than 1,500 hits on the even more specific "Wooton Rivers" and at least a few that I checked were handling the relevant place. But now I see there are more than 22,000 hits on "Wootton Rivers" and the first I glanced at indeed mentioned Wiltshire. ;-) — SomeHuman 15 Sep2007 14:06–14:10 (UTC)

Fancy helping on another project?

Hi, how are you? I'm wondering whether you would like to check over another article for prose etc., that of the SR Merchant Navy Class. Although it's already GA, I think that in the light of what has been achieved with the WC and BB Classes article, it could be improved a lot more. If you require help with anything in return, then let me know. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and about the Ilfracombe Goods photograph you were after, although its a bit of a long shot, I believe that one of the photographs on the linked website is a works photograph (the one with a grey background), and so by virtue of the archives of the various railway works entering BR property, I should think that by now the copyright has expired, especially when one considers that it is of pre-1945 origin. Alternatively, you could contact the Colonel Stephens museum, and ask for permission to use an image. I hope this helps, --Bulleid Pacific 18:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Merchant Navy article...it is already on my watchlist, and is one of ten or so articles that were changed significantly during my holiday. They have been noted and set aside to be proof-read when I get the chance.

As for the offer of help...Thank you, I shall try to remember your offer! If you are wanting to help out more generally, the article on Rail transport (ie "Railway") has been selected by the WP 1.0 team as an essential article. Slambo and I thought (independently) that the article could do with a bit of collaborative editing, as it really ought to be GA/FAC standard before inclusion on WP0.7, and I think it's rather a mess at present. (Check the talk page, and you'll see how far we've got, although not being very active there myself recently).

EdJogg 00:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Rail transport

I've had a look, and several things spring to mind. One: the 'Profitability' section is not needed at all, apart from a passing mention in another section. Also, it is a bit US-centric. Two: the trackage section has too many sub-sections, and I believe that it could be better arranged in a couple of paragraphs under a heading 'Track formation', or 'Track components'. These would tidy the article up quite a bit, so that there is just the necessity to reference it. Three: the article seems a bit lop-sided, with important details such as history not appearing before the technical sections. As a matter of personal taste, I prefer the history frst, with the option of going technical later. What do you think? --Bulleid Pacific 11:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking that we're thinking along very similar lines (veering towards dangerous pun territory there!). I hadn't thought so radically about the 'profitability' section, but you're probably right. I'm also thinking that your comments would be best placed on the article's talk page :o).

My feeling is that this should be the top-level article in WP for all of us rail enthusiast editors, and to have such a page in such a deplorable state is a dereliction of duty! (Although I must admit it is a little way down my own ToDo list.)

EdJogg 11:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at sandbox 1 on my userpage. What do you think? --Bulleid Pacific 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Its rather difficult following your changes, as they are so substantial, and I would suggest avoiding any text changes in the same submit. However, working on the 13:24 version, I would suggest further reorganisation, as follows:

• 'Safety' belongs under 'Operations' (or 'General'?), and needs a one-word title. (It also needs reorganising internally, reducing the emphasis on disasters and increasing it on safety?)
• 'Signalling' definitely belongs under 'Operations' (check the content of the related 'main article' to determine what else should be in that section).
• 'Terminology' is short but important, and I would put it in or after 'General'

This has reminded me that the article can easily be expanded in appropriate ways. Most sections have some form of 'main' article, and should be an expanded summary of that article. If there are topics within 'main' articles not covered by rail transport, then they need to be added!

Not sure if there is a need to ask for further opinions before applying these changes 'live', but it would be polite to offer editors the option.

EdJogg 12:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a further reshuffle (good luck if you try to find the changes!), I'm still not entirely happy with it, but it's heading in the right direction.--Bulleid Pacific 15:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the profitability section should be deleted entirely. I also agree the rail transport page is poor compared with many excellent pages lower down the tree. I am not sure about the whole sandbox idea - it is difficult to compare the sandbox version with the current wikipedia version. Would it not be better just to edit the wiki page in the usual way? Paul Matthews 13:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the original idea of the Sandbox was to experiment with a re-shuffle of the sections, but it has gone rather beyond that! (Wasn't my idea!) I'll suggest to Bulleid Pacific that the changes should be re-integrated...

EdJogg 13:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to move the reshuffled version to the main article? I've moved it anyway.--Bulleid Pacific 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

er, Yes! (belatedly) and thank you... (sorry, I was (shock, horror) concentrating on work...

To all - Further discussions (about the article) should be continued at Rail transport - please (for my sanity!)

EdJogg 15:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your message on my talk page. Unfortunately, the issue seems to have heated up somewhat today.  DDStretch  (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

'Ditto' (for the warning!!) I'm keeping out of this one now! Hopefully sense will prevail, ultimately... -- EdJogg 00:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes Part II.

I noticed your comment on the nomination, and as far as I can tell, lead editors are allowed to Support/Oppose a nomination, although they must declare the fact that they have made significant contributions to the article. But if the article is good quality, then this will show regardless of whether its editors support it or not...I think!--Bulleid Pacific 15:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)