User talk:EdJogg/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive of EdJogg's talk page

31 August 2009 - 20 January 2010 (approx)

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

Re: GWR Dean experimental locomotives

Good catch! Yeah that was just a misclick I believe. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 10:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Original comment, from User talk:Woohookitty, for reference:

GWR Dean experimental locomotives ==

Hi, FYI your edit to GWR Dean experimental locomotives (see here) wasn't quite accurate. :o) In resolving links to compound you should be aware that in steam engine / steam loco circles, 'compound' is usually short for compound engine (rather than your selection of chemical compound!) I've fixed this link, but I haven't looked at your other edits to see if any others need adjusting. Cheers. -- EdJogg (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tables in MOS

Re this edit summary:

You may well be right, but I can't find anything in the MOS to verify this. Can you point me at the right section please, because if this is the case, there are some tables I'll need to update. Thanks. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is counter-intuitive, isn't it, when the general rule is to avoid repeating links, however, if you look at Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated_links (WP:LINK) you'll see that it says (emphasis mine):

In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:

• where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
• where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
• tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.

It's not something I make a big thing of usually and I suspect it's not widely known/practised. In this case it was a small table with few links, and two of the company names had extra/missing dots and needed editing anyway, so I just linked 'in passing'. What I was mainly trying to do was avoid unwanted line breaks which I now know how to do much more efficiently!

EdJogg (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - good find! —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

How's your backlog looking at the moment?

Alright, Pete? As you can tell, nothing much has been done to the K class article apart from a bit of house-keeping. However, I have a dilemma that I wish to get some guidance on. I have a photograph of the K1 class locomotive in a publication that I would like to add to the article taken at Bricklayers Arms shed in July 1927. It is listed as part of the "T. J. Edgington collection" (ie. not his own work, and therefore unattributable), and is published as an image in Patrick Whitehouse and David St. John Thomas The Great Days of the Southern Railway (Nairn: David St. John Thomas Publisher, 1992), p. 116. What would the copyright status of this image be, bearing in mind that the image is over 70 years old? Anyway, hope you're keeping well. I may start to edit the N1 class article while I await your comments on your review. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am basically only 'backlogged' for today (should catch up tomorrow!) as I've been doing non-WP stuff this w/e, although my ToDo list is healthily huge. (I am getting much faster at reviewing pages quickly (Firefox has helped enormously) but I am still trying to get the time balance right as I am distracted far too easily and spend far too much time here!) Your original request was made a month ago, so I've moved it closer the top of the ToDo list so I notice it...

Right, now to copyright... I was going to make some comments, but on reflection, I really can't offer you any that have any knowledge behind them. My view is pretty similar to yours, so that doesn't help make it any clearer. Sorry. You'd be best hunting down the WP group who know about such stuff.

BTW I thought of you as I was watching Blackmore Vale being carried around the heavy haulage playpen at the Great Dorset Steam Fair... I suspect that WC/BB/MN locos are favoured for the event as it is held in S&D territory (you may be interested in the Shillingstone Station Project) and because Swanage is not that far away.

EdJogg (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hope to see 34023 (21C123) in the museum shed at Sheffield Park on the Bluebell when I attend their 'Giants of Steam' gala at the end of next month. I'm going there as they have Sir Lamiel chalked up as the visiting engine, and I have not seen her yet. There are also rumours that the LBSCR E4 0-6-2 will have her overhaul completed in time for that, and will be in Maunsell Olive livery, which is a somewhat rare livery on in-steam locomotives these days (only a U and S15 825 currently have it).--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I had a sneeky peek at your to-do list, and saw that you had done a bit of work on the Giesl article. I have now updated the WC/BB article with a new section on BR modifications. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How am I going to pretend I'm busy if you go looking at my ToDo list? :0)

As you will have seen, the intention was to drop you a note about the Giesl. The way I work these days is to correct as many issues as I can 'in passing', and where there is more work than can be tackled immediately, I drop a note on the ToDo list to pick up at a slack time. This comment was written during a rushed backlog recovery between two weekends away... Did you read the refs about the Giesl? I thought they were fascinating.

(I'll take a look at your other changes in due course.) EdJogg (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

SECR K and SR K1 classes (amongst others!)

I've hopefully clarified the braking information, as they had different types of brakes to make the class compatible on all parts of the Southern Railway, therefore half had air braking (LBSCR), and the rest had vacuum (SECR/LSWR). --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very clear. If you get queries at FAC, you may need to write a paragraph in the Southern Railway article about brakes!

I reached that far at lunchtime today. The text seemed strangely familiar... :o) Didn't find much needing attention. Only query I have is whether 'Central section' and 'Eastern section' need linking to the SR article (or elsewhere).

The next section ("K1 Class") is more problematic. I recognise that much of the text has been lifted from the N/N1 article, and thus we have a section which is actually talking about a different loco. Also 'inside' and 'outside' are not explained -- I'm sure that somewhere we normally mention 'between the frames' for clarification.

Will try to continue looking over the next few days, although I don't think I'm really firing at FAR-level yet -- probably need the FAC process comments first to set the standard (and give some ideas).

EdJogg (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think the K1 section is too short, but I need to actually purchase a copy of Bradley's book on SECR locomotives (ironically, it contains all the SECR and SR moguls, whereas his SR locomotives book only contains the Z class, Schools class, Q, Q1, LN, MN, WC/BB, 'USA'- and I don't feel like doing some of these yet! I'll see what I can do with what you've mentioned in the meantime. I may order a second hand copy of Bradley's book tonight. Who says I don't suffer for my science? Mind you, they are excellent books, and I've been after a comprehensive library on Southern locomotives for years. Its only now I can just about afford one! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I was looking for a link to Eastern section of the Southern Region for the SECR K/K1 article, and I end up making whole-sale edits to the Merchant Navy class article. Its amazing what information a new source throws up, its almost as though I'm learning about the class for the first time! Anyway, have sorted that bit out. I still need to have another go at the K1 bit. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP has a habit of doing that -- both, in fact! (I've had to be very firm with myself about buying traction engine books to support Wikipedia work -- it's insane really.) EdJogg (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, I've just seen what you've been up to! I haven't looked at your last edits yet!

On a more serious note, such major changes could imply the need for a FA review. I don't think this is an automatic thing, but equally I'm not sure there's an expectation of major changes to articles once FA status has been achieved. I'm not suggesting you do (or don't) request a review, but thought I would voice my concerns anyway. EdJogg (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally, for now, don't forget that you've created some links to Southern Railway (Great Britain)#Routes which doesn't yet exist... :o) -- EdJogg (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth considering, but I'd rather someone else take up the review, and sort out the problems then. I can see where your coming from, but its just improving what's already there. Any FA can have substantial edits after the promotion, and submission for review pretty much depends on the quality of the additional material. WP has very lop-sided rulings on such things. On the one hand, it says "If you can improve it, please do", and on the other "If you improve it, please review it". But I'm really trying to nail the K/K1 article at the moment. Its only because I noticed someone else changing around the sub-titles that I made the changes (and as its quite an old FA, with a few more FACs done since, it does benefit from the expansion- stylistically its FA, but it may not necessarily take the story to its conclusion quite yet). Anyhow, enjoy! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I must've changed the section title at one point in the mists of time. It works better, now... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I took the plunge and purchased a second hand copy of Bradley's Locomotives of the SECR for around a tenner. Its part of my drive to have a comprehensive reference for all Southern locomotive classes and the locomotives of its predecessors. I must have spent nearly £200 on improving my library in that respect (I now have all of Bradley's volumes on the LSWR and LB&SCR locomotives, so guess where I'm heading after I finish with all of the actual Southern locomotives- I'm set for several years of pottering here when I have a spare couple of hours now and again!). They are very well written, too. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think detailed discussion of K/K1 article issues is better placed on the article talk page, so I've added a first comment there. (Our conversations do tend to wander off-topic here!) EdJogg (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm done for now! I've finished-off by running the FA checks for DAB links, ext links and curly quotes. The prose could still do with tweaking in places, but I am too close to do any more. Fresh input from an external reviewer is now needed to spot the remaining issues, from where I will no doubt discover more! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks for your help. I've got a few things to add now I have taken delivery of the Bradley book, mainly regarding the difference between the K/K1 and the N design. There's also the fact that the AW examples were air-braked for use on the Central section, and that the prototype K was also so modified. I can now safely clarify the Gresley issue, and there is a bit more on the operational side (again, perhaps a sentence or two). What I'll do is copy and paste it into Word, make the changes, then post it on here, so that you'll have one big edit on your watchlist, rather than several small ones that are difficult to keep track of (well, that's the theory, anyway!). Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Having sat on this article for a while ( a) because I was doing some changes; and b) because I haven't had much spare time of late ), I've now pasted my own final version onto Wikipedia with all the improvements highlighted. As usual, there's probably more we can do, but that can wait for FA when I get round to submitting it.

You'll probably get another headache with the 'redecorating' going on with the WC/BB article; suffice to say, there's no need to panic just yet, as I'm on the case regarding the current level of grammatical errors within the article, as I have been working on it on MSWord. I have a few more references and bits to add, and will then paste it to the article. The data needed re-formatting, anyway. Cheers for now, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been ignoring the WC/BB/MN article changes due to the level of code text churn. They are noted on my ToDo as needing a full proof-read, but I hadn't planned on doing so just yet (Compound engine has been recently re-written, and Fred Dibnah is currently going through a major re-write as a new biography has been published and incorporated as a source.) Let me know when they are stable and I'll add them to the list!

As for K/K1, are you planning on pushing for FA soon? I'd noted your recent changes but hadn't managed to check them yet.

EdJogg (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Good question, but I think I'll leave it until I and another editor finish revising both Bulleid Pacific articles. Once they are done, we'll all be in a better position to nail the K class article. If you know anyone who will provide an outside opinion on the prose, let them know and hopefully we can get somewhere close to FA submittal. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now submitted the K/K1 class article for peer review to get the ball rolling. I'll put my intentions to further develop the N15 and N class articles on hold for the time being to concentrate on this. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WP is vying for computer time with eBay selling, website management, and Christmas preparations, and is coming off worst! Nevertheless. I'll try to join the party this weekend. EdJogg (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion on including a 'Further reading' section? A reviewer has chalked this up on the K class talk page. I have no problems with this myself, but a reviewer on a previous FAC told me to remove them as they imply that not all sources have been consulted. Whilst that is generally true, surely its impossible for one editor to have access to all available sources, and that it would be prudent to include such material in such a section? On the one hand, they generally have similar content to the sources used, maybe with a few extra paragraphs. Whatever, having a 'Further reading' section makes it possible for a viewer with the book in question to add to the article at a later date. Just a couple of thoughts. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "Not all sources consulted" is a bit silly, really, when any book could conceivably be a potential source. What if they have been consulted but provide no further encyclopaedic information? Further Reading sections are not discouraged (see WP:FURTHER), although they are not encouraged either! I had a quick look at the "Advice from Wikipedians" under WP:FA?, and none mentions Further Reading explicitly (OK, so I only did a text search!).

Perhaps the issue lies with including Further Reading as a subsection of References, rather than being a top-level heading of its own? I would suggest you leave it in, maybe as a new section, and see what happens. If any reviewer complains, and you feel inclined, you could question it and perhaps ask for clarification from other reviewers -- with a view to the advice being included on the WP:FA pages. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for guidance on this point.

EdJogg (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Typical Wikipedia, there's plenty of guidance when it comes to preventing edit wars, but none when it comes to actual article formatting policy. I think there's also a problem with the guidance on prose, as its mostly subjective to whoever is reviewing the article. As I said, I like to have notice of further reading into the article, as this would give me the opportunity to do some of my own research. Whilst the articles may be fairly comprehensive, there's nothing like looking at the texts yourself (that's the historian in me creeping to the surface!). If the reviewer was just referring to the choice of section grading when recommending the removal of the section, then that was just a tad petty in my book. Anyway, I have added one recommended text to a new 'Further reading' section, and I feel all the better for it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You may have noticed the thorough peer review by David Cane. I'm currently in the process of working through this. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't specifically, although I had noticed a number of recent changes. Must try to take a look...

Not been near WP since a week before Christmas! Only just come back today and been trying to work out how to make the best use of my time here. In recent months "vandal patrolling" has been taking up too much of my time and it's getting rather tedious... I can make better use of my talents...

EdJogg (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick look now -- it's quite comprehensive, isn't it? Has implications for other articles maybe? I haven't looked at any of the changes suggested or made (although I remember the gist of most of the text mentioned!). How can I best help with this? I don't really want to review every edit. Do you need a full re- proof read, maybe? If so, it's probably best to wait until you've tackled the findings of the peer review (which I am presuming you can handle on your own) and look at the completed work. (I am currently taking a fairly aggressive look at my watchlist and how I use it, so helping you will need to be done in parallel.)

EdJogg (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW -- I've taken the page off-watch for now, while I tackle my backlog, as it has been changed quite a few times during December. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through David's review, and have implemented the changes suggested. The Peer Review has also been archived in the intervening period, so the article should now be ready for submission to FAC. I've also tackled RedRose's issues with terminology, so I think there is now consensus that its of decent quality. However, another read through wouldn't do any harm, and would make sure that nothing simple has been missed. I've been looking at the N class in the light of some of the changes suggested by all the reviews, and have begun to draft a revision of the article. I intend to post this up once I've uploaded a new picture of the locomotive.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that! I think I've managed to solve the little copyright issue with that image of the K1 class I mentioned a while back. It took a fair amount of research, but I discovered that it was once part of the Ian Allan Ltd. collection of railway photographs, which was sold to the National Railway Museum in 1992. Add to that the fact that it was taken in 1927, that its not a high quality reproduction (so pointless for anyone to use it for financial gain), and that the NRM is a publicly financed body as part of the National Museum of Science and Industry, I feel that we have an image suitable for use here. Other than that, free images of the K1 are extremely hard to come by because of its rarity and the short time period that it was used in this guise.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugly brute, isn't it?! Well done though, for your perseverance. And as that photo is the same orientation as the K photo it clearly shows the differences (if we had another pic to use in the infobox I'd suggest showing the two side-by-side). -- EdJogg (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

K/K1 Following Peer Review

I'll try to push through with reviewing this over the next few days. My 'watchlist backlog' is pretty much under control now, and I need to make way for re-reviewing Great Western Railway in the next few days, as Geof will soon be trying to put it forward for GA (see below). (Culmination of about two years work!)

I'll add comments on the article talk page, and/or within the text, as usual.

EdJogg (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm done now. I've mainly been doing my usual checks for English meaning and unambiguity (plus punctuation/spelling). No doubt others at FAC will decide some of the wording needs tightening, although its fine by me. It's a really interesting read as it gives explanations for all the twists and turns of the design through its life. After so many reviews let's hope for a smooth path through FAC review... -- EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll put it up today and see where it takes us, altohugh I've decided to be bold and remove the offending bits about suspension, and left it at the fact that it was modified due to rough riding on the last batch. I'm still plodding my way through a revision of the N15 article as well. I think that may need a FA Review after some editing. I'll post it up as a sandbox when I'm finished so we can work through it at a later date.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of Template:Fictional rail insert

Hi, I've been going through all Category:Rail transport templates recently and I noticed that the Fictional rail insert template is only used in one of your sandboxes. I also noticed that Template:Fictional rail start was deleted in September 2008. Are you intending to use either of these templates when you migrate your sandbox work to the article namespace? I didn't want to nominate Fictional rail insert for deletion until I'd spoken to you. Thanks Hertzsprung (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This (sandbox) was a long-ago project that ground to a halt partly due to the excessive amount of work required to complete it, and partly due to more interesting work coming along. I wasn't sure even then whether the succession boxes -- describing the previous/following stations for each of the settlements, and each railway, described by Rev W Awdry on Sodor (fictional island), and providing an alternate way of navigating round the article -- were appropriate. There is a comment in the deletion discussion you indicated suggesting that the succession boxes were 'not allowed' for fiction anyway. I guess now is the time to formally state that that sub-project is over.

Thank you for having the courtesy and consideration to think of me, and feel free to nominate the template for deletion. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying – I've nominated the template for deletion. Hertzsprung (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Noggin Stamp

Thanks for finding my error on the Noggin Stamp picture rationale thing. I should be more careful copying things. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks again - Yes I think perhaps waiting till ww2censor gets back with more specific problems and dealing with them then. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

Stirling boiler

As I have a vast amount of scannage on these (done and potential) I might get round to an article on them, once I've finished Yarrows.

They seem to have been important as an early watertube design, but were too big (often more than 3 drums) and expensive to build relative to their performance and so fell from favour. In particular they weren't particularly amenable to turbines. One virtue they do seem to have had was a huge grate area, so they'd happily burn garbage: both sugar cane bagasse and urban domestic refuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As you'll have seen from the edit history, my tidy-up was prompted by someone adding 'and coal' at the end. (Many of your boiler pages are on my watchlist!) I found it difficult to be certain which sentences related to which others, most being linked by these/they/those/etc. (For example, the multi-fuel sentence - does it relate to the two-drum type only? and obviously they could burn coal or oil, but did they?)

Perhaps you can double-check the accuracy of what's there (no need to add much more till you're ready!) now you're more familiar with them?

EdJogg (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I imagine they burned everything (at least one, somewhere, burned each fuel). They initially burned coal, they were notably used for chain-firing with it (i.e. early auto-stokers), they rather pre-dated widespread oil firing so that's the only one that's really doubtful, and they were notably used for garbage burning. Smaller ones were also popular as heat-recovery boilers from furnaces. Versions included 3 drum, 4 drum, 5 drum and a marine version, but they all used fairly large watertubes about 3" and up, so the pressure was restricted to about 150psi, which is what obsoleted them when turbines came along. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Stirling boiler Andy Dingley (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A particularly late night was it then? WP has the same effect on me... Aaaaaargh!

Hint taken. I'll take a proper look after lunch.

EdJogg (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the summary in Water-tube boiler:

(i) I find the phrase "there may also be either more or fewer drums and banks than this" a bit awkward. I keep wanting to replace 'more' with 'greater' or 'fewer' with 'less', since these make common word-pairs (regardless of grammatical correctness!) Having to specify 'drums and banks' is also a little awkward. Is there some other way of saying there were bigger and smaller versions?

(ii) Secondly, above (here) you mention the use of rubbish as a fuel. It would be worth mentioning this as a third example at the end of the summary (after bark and bagasse).

EdJogg (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free - too tired last night, too horribly busy this morning to do copyediting well. "Bigger" isn't really the same thing here, because the size variation was mostly handled by making them wider or narrower. The number of drums variation was more about choice of process. I think (but can't reference) that the were all 4-drums, except when they weren't: 3 drums were used for heat-recovery, low-temperature process steam and really small boilers, 5 drums for UK power stations (not US practice, AFAIK) to chase efficiency, or else to improve efficiency from poor fuels and low combustion temperatures. I don't have a good reference for the urban refuse incinerators yet either ('30s Liverpool is my best lead), so haven't put much in about those. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Done -- it was a bit 'quick-and-dirty' but I don't think I've broken too much. I've left some additional queries on the talk page.

This new page, and the recent discussions at steam engine, are increasingly making me think that we need a page for Glossary of steam engine terminology to briefly describe the many types of engine, distinctive components, processes, etc, with possibly a separate page for Glossary of (steam) boiler terminology (not sure whether 'steam' is required in the title, but regardless I would expect you to be a major contributor to that one!). There are precedents at WP for pages of associated technical terms, so I think they'd be worthwhile additions.

Oh, and had you thought of creating a 'Boiler types' navi-template for all these boiler articles?

EdJogg (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Coupling (railway)

Hello Ed, The break problem lies within Template:RailGauge. The template(s) would have to be revised to correct the problem that you pointed out and that needs an expert who has a lots of time on his or her hands. you or I could make a request on the talk page of the template. Peter Horn User talk 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Coupling (railway)#Gallery 1 The problem is fixed. Peter Horn User talk 21:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. -- EdJogg (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

London Underground Trivia

The reason I marked this page for deletion is that it hasn't had any content other than the redirect for more than two years and isn't linked to by anything other earlier deletion discussions and similar. Any content that was in the page was either deprecated trivia or moved to other pages in the London Underground sphere. The page was nominated for deletion several times before a final delete decision was taken in September 2007 so I don't think that it should exist even as a redirect.

The other pages that I marked for speedy delete are of the same type - remnants of unfulfilled plans or redundant sub-pages.--DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I 'get' all this, but I still think you will find it is the policy to retain the pages, even as 'useless' redirects, although I am prepared to be proved wrong! -- EdJogg (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the decision linked above, the page was supposed to have been deleted, but appears to have survived for some reason as the current redirect. Other trivia pages have been deleted (examples are The Beatles trivia and Charmed trivia which have been truly wiped), so I don't think there's a policy requiring retention. --DavidCane (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought there was a need to retain the edit history for GFDL, but I must have been mistaken. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Retirement

Had enough, didn't have the time in the first place, have many far more important things I ought to be doing. Admin preferences for vandalism over content are the last straw. Sorry. 8-(

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully I've generally managed to steer clear of such friction, although there have been a few close calls.

I am very sorry to hear of your decision. The areas in which our paths have crossed have shown you to be an extremely valuable contributor to WP, and I have learned a lot from your articles during this time. Look us up if you ever decide to return. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A shame, and a bit of a rum do. Globbet (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed. Still, he has left us with a great legacy of articles about boilers and, you never know, he might change his mind in the future and return to complete the top-level article that ties them all together.... EdJogg (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

William Hope - Hero of the Rails

Just wanted your thoughts on whether http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Hero_of_the_Rails would be deemed a reliable enough source for your citation request back in August for William Hope (actor) (Life and Career section), given the somewhat controversial historic relationship between Wikia and Wikipedia! (IMDb seems unsure at the moment: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1474918/) Hudson702 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the "controversial historic relationship". The Thomas Wikia is populated by ex-Wikipedia Thomas editors, from what I can make out, and it is probably as scrutinised as the articles here, albeit without the same requirement for citations. On the other hand, I do know that IMDb is not recognised as a reliable source here as it is open to editing by anyone without peer-review. (Long time since I looked at the issue, but I think that's the gist of it!) So, on balance I would happily use Wikia to confirm whether dubious facts should remain or be deleted, but I don't think it qualifies as a WP:RS. (But it should be a simple matter to check the sleeve notes, now that the DVD has actually been released.)

Hmmm. Having just looked at William Hope (actor) I notice that NOTHING in the article is referenced, not a solitary sausage! So, I would say: yes, accept that Wikia has its facts straight, and just remove the fact tag! (which is what I've just done...) -- EdJogg (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the info on Wikia! Hudson702 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small caveat. My comments relate to the Thomas Wikia specifically, as I had dealings with several of the editors through WP:THOMAS before they moved across. They wish to describe the TV series in minute detail, and to use screenshots to illustrate this -- both of which were incompatible with WP -- anything 'made up' is likely to be spotted and removed quickly. Other Wikia sites may be better or worse in terms of accuracy. -- EdJogg (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sharing a reference

Have you seen this 2009 generated page. http://www.geograph.org.uk/gallery/textile_mill_engines_9920 --ClemRutter (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I hadn't -- didn't know that could be done at Geograph! I was aware of Chris Allen's work, having purloined a few photos for use here already, but it's certainly a page worth bookmarking. (Actually, we could do with his help working on the articles!) -- EdJogg (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...

Just finished reading through it. We could do worse than purloin the text (suitably edited!) as the basis for the 'missing' history of steam engines, post-Trevithick. There is a second page, showing 'al fresco' steam engines (look for Chris Allen's collections) which is also interesting. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 70 (Powerhaul)

Ed - you might like to look at British Rail Class 70 (Powerhaul). Biscuittin (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First I'd heard of this beast!

At this relatively early stage, with the locos just starting to appear in the UK, any merge activity is likely to be fraught as new information emerges about them. I've left some thoughts on the talk page.

EdJogg (talk) 14:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Light Pacifics revision

Ok, as far as I'm concerned, the BB/WC article is about as comprehensive as it should be without going over the top, but I can't vouch for Das48 if he feels something else needs to be added. I'll ask him to take another look before fully signing it off for a prose check. The sources should be fine. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

After a long time swearing and stammering, I now consider the MN article "finished" (or rather, I have finished with it!), too. It has the usual refinements as per WC/BB article, and added a bit about the Crewkerne incident and the severing of the crank axle through metal fatigue. All very interesting stuff. I'm now back on the straight and narrow, and will consider looking again at the K/K1 classes. I think its just about ready for submital the more I think about it, although I'll have a final flick through Bradley to see if there's any more I can add. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

GP Taylor

Hi, sorry about the edit conflict! I've finished for today now (but you probably have, too). The Y.Post articles that I just cited contain more material that could also be useful for expanding the bio. Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! I just couldn't believe my luck that I'd get an edit conflict on a page that hadn't been edited for 6 months!

The business about GPT's 'conversion' was bugging me, as I had heard his interview on Premier Radio last Sunday and hence knew it to be false. To cut a long story short, I had a phone conversation with him this evening, and can absolutely confirm that he has not converted! Interesting to note that NONE of the newspapers have actually asked HIM whether he has converted or not! Unfortunately I am still no closer to having a good solid reference that states the real facts. -- EdJogg (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting old FAs...

To give this subject its own section on your talk page, you may have noticed that I and another editor have revised the Leader, MN and BB/WC articles so far, as I have access to 'new' (as in old, but I didn't previously have access to them until I purchased them myself) sources. As hinted above, I think that they are a vast improvement when compared to the articles prior to revision, and all that's left are a few tweaks around the edges (prose issues, etc.). However, that leaves two more featured articles that we have done to revise, the N15 and the N class. Whilst the N class is the most recent, I am able to add a couple more images when I have the time, and I also wish to re-arrange a couple of the sections to follow the K/K1 article: this shouldn't need too much work, and at worst will require an evening's work. The N15 article is the one that will need a lot more work, as the background section needs expansion, and the sections need refining as per K/K1 article. I hope that my intentions don't give you too many nightmares, but they are purely to make good articles even better. However, this is for the near future, and I would appreciate it if you could take another look at the K/K1 article before I submit it for peer review. Cheers, and looking forward to future developments, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I already have (several!) notes to re-visit the WC/BB and MN articles. Since they are already at FA I have not considered this 'urgent'. The extensive changes make individual edit checks unrealistic, so will have to re-read fully at some point. The Leader article I've never looked at!

Your most recent K/K1 changes are too extensive to review quickly as the paragraph moves obscure any text changes within (I had a quick look at the overall changes, a couple of things 'jumped out', which I've 'fixed'!). I've not been editing much over the past week, but I'll try and do a read-through soon. I should have more time over Christmas for other reading, but there will be many other demands on my time!

EdJogg (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Leader has been FA for a while, but has also benefited from a reshuffle of the paragraphs. Even though there may be further scope for improvement, I'm quite proud of this article, as it is of an obscure and controversial subject, and hopefully gives a balanced view of the locomotive. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ALT images on the older FAs

Hmm, I've been tinkering with this on the Merchant Navy article as an experiment for future reference, and am finding it difficult to get the infobox images to display such texts when called for. To see what I mean, check the toolbox on this article's talkpage. Any ideas? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the article history. Also note new entry at the talk page for {{Infobox locomotive}}. The 'correct' solution is for the template to be enhanced to provide support for an 'alt' parameter. My solution cheats!

I have revised all the ALT text, trying to take on board the policies of the WP:ALT project. I think I can safely say that you're no better at creating ALT text than I. It is not an easy task!

EdJogg (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Further changes. The template has now been modified to provide the necessary support, and the MN infoboxes modified to suit. I have alerted the Trains project to the availability of the new feature. EdJogg (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Anything new-fangled and it takes me a while to get used to it. I thought it would be something to do with the infobox parameters, but chickened-out of doing anything about it (I'm no computer programmer!). --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Now we've done one, we'll have to work our way through the other FA articles so far. It'll be easier for the K/K1 class as FAC has not been initiated, so its a case of doing ALT image texts as and when required. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to use text similar to my ALT contributions, but remember that I feel they are barely adequate. Hopefully there are some editors involved with WP:ALT who can review and suggest. If not now, I'm sure there will be before long... -- EdJogg (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've done it for the Bulleids and the K class article. I'll do the current N class and the Leader ones next, and that should leave the N15. The Leader should be an interesting one to write!--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Now done the N class and Leader articles. Will do N15 tomorrow.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I've since decided to do a revision of the N15 article along the lines of the Bulleids on MS Word, so will include ALT on that when I get round to it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision of old FAs

As the K/K1 class article seems to be ticking over nicely at FAC, I've been hard at the coal face of revising the LSWR N15 class article. You won't find any improvements there, however, but you will find them here: User:Bulleid Pacific/Sandbox 1. I realise that you are busy with the GWR article, but if you fancy a change of scene over the next few weeks or so, do you think you could do a C/E and prose check of the revised article in the sandbox? Once its reached the stage where we can't find any more prose issues, I'll paste it up on the main article page to replace the current one, which I think would benefit from expansion. I'll try and get another couple of editors interested, and I may put it up for FA review to get an outside perspective, but I generally think that its only the prose that is the issue here. On another note, don't worry about making the changes to the sandbox article yourself, as I have a hard copy on MS Word should anything go wrong. I've also got Redrose on the case. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, congratulations! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

N class

Cheers for having a peep at what's going on! How does the reverser bit look now with the simplifications I've made? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, apart from inexplicably changing 'valve' to 'vlave', it looks OK I think, provided that Walschaerts valve gear adequately describes what "single slide-bar and piston tail rods" means (I haven't looked, but yesterday's encounter with it makes me rather doubtful -- that article desperately needs re-writing for a non- CME audience!) I'll try to look at more of the N class article in due course. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in: but I don't think that Walschaerts valve gear needs to explain about slide bars or piston tail rods, neither of which are part of the valve gear: the number (and style) of slide bars, and the presence or absence of tail rods, is entirely independent of the type of valve gear. These items are perhaps better described in Cylinder (locomotive). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to all our viewers :o)

Your suggestion seems sensible. One of the side-effects of BP pushing these loco articles to FA is that we are having to provide accessible descriptions for all the "technical bits" of a steam loco. It is much easier linking to another article than describing within the text, and here we have found more unexplained terminology -- and two articles (Walschaerts/cylinder) that fall far short of what is needed! -- EdJogg (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That's much better! It really is amazing what a couple of words can do to change the entire complexion of a paragraph... Anyway, keep up the good work of weeding-out the problematic and the vague! Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. (Too many on the go simultaneously!) -- EdJogg (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Looks much better after the expansion and the extra c/e. There are a couple more sentences I would like to add, but they are relatively minor, so I will move on for a while. In between writing my MA dissertation and working, I've started to take a look at the SECR N1 class (I've copy and pasted it onto MS word, so you wont be hit by a myriad of changes if you want to review it, just one big one). It's going to be a bit of a slog for quite a while (it's talking about No. 822, but in reverse fashion and in more detail), but I've started by re-arranging the article under the tried and tested sections used before. Will let you know when I have finished. The N15 revision is also pretty much done on my sandbox, so I'll sit on it a bit and have another look when I have the time. Suffice to say, the article will be double the length of its current incarnation, and I have a few more photos to add. Again, I'm going to have a look at it before I put it up on main space. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Steam donkey invention site

"John Dolbeer, a founding partner of the Dolbeer and Carson Lumber Company in Eureka, California, invented the logging engine in August 1881. The patent (number: 256553) was issued April 18, 1882."

As the partner in Dolbeer Carson IN Eureka, CA in 1881-82 where else would the gentleman have invented the device than in his own company? It would be inaapropriate to divorce the Steam engine from the site of its historic development in the Redwood Forests of Humboldt County. It was precisely the vast size of these trees and terrain of Humboldt County that led to the necessity of the device. The categorization of the device stays. You will need to prove that it was NOT invented their (which is not possible) to remove the category of Humboldt County, California. Historic site and situation are very relevant to the article and the history of logging in the County of Humboldt. Norcalal (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The City of Eureka website History of Eureka, California - Timeline of Historically Significant Events and Dolbeer steam donkey and Shay locomotive change the face of logging both show the invention of the steam donkey in Eureka in 1882 (related to the granting of the patent) but actually it was invented the previous year. More to come. Norcalal (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Greenford Branch Line

Regarding your last edit to Greenford Branch Line - I wondered about forcing a line break, but didn't do that because I was puzzled why the infobox doesn't wrap the caption text automatically. Some infoboxes are capable of doing this: see Port Meadow Halt railway station. I must see how the infobox template code differs. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I assumed it was the photo width, but it wasn't. Good idea to follow up about the template. I thought nothing of it really as it was an anon edit. Sometimes my corrections are rather hit-and-run, like this line-break, just to keep on top of my watchlist (which is exploding this evening!) -- EdJogg (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AD/BC versus CE/BCE

Hi, EdJogg. I saw this edit you made, and I wanted to ask about the comment you supplied: "don't change BC/AD (per WP:MOS)". I just read that section of WP:MOS for the first time, and my interpretation is that there is no preference, just that the article should use one or the other consistently. Personally, I grew up using AD/BC, so they feel more familiar, and therefore I guess I'm biased in favor of their use. So the edit itself is fine with me; I just wonder if I missed something in terms of how you explained it. CosineKitty (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Sometimes my edits can be a bit 'hit-and-run', and I'm not always careful with the edit summaries, particularly if I'm behind with my watchlist checking and/or I've been tackling a run of vandalised articles. (My watchlist is rather too long!)

I too find CE/BCE unhelpful, having grown up with BC/AD myself. I see no particular reason to have ever changed them at all. As for WP, the policy is to (a) make sure they are consistent within an article (probably deferring to what was applied by the original author), and (b) then leave them alone. Hence the usual thing is that someone has come along and changed them in an article, when the policy is not to, so we undo the revision. Doesn't happen often, and it's no big deal to me really.

Hope that explains a little better. It's nothing personal! -- EdJogg (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal taken!  :) Like I said, I agree with your restoration of the original suffixes, just trying to understand. So I guess it's kind of like WP:ENGVAR where priority matters when there is no strong national tie of the subject to a variety of English. That's cool. CosineKitty (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)