User talk:Redrose64/queries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EKLR

Nice work expanding the article. I've sorted out the Stephens Museum links and they are all working again. Re the stations distances - are they in miles and furlongs? If so then I can sort out conversions to km. Are you intending to expand the carriages and wagons sections? This article has the makings of a GA in the medium term. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

All that I expanded was the locomotives section, because that's what I have info for. I added fully-linkable refs for my material. By fully-linkable, I mean that as usual, you click the little number to take you to the "References" section; but in there, additionally "Bradley 1967" is bluelinked, and clicking that will take you to the relevant row in the "Sources" section. This works in Firefox 3.0, IE6 and IE7, but looks better in Firefox 3.0 because the target gains a pale blue background. For some reason IE6 and IE7 don't do that - style sheet handling I expect.
Anyway, also under "Locomotives", I also improved the way that Lawson Finch & Garrett is linked through to the actual {{cite book}} template - these are also now fully linked, and so behave similarly to the Bradley refs.
I did nothing for station distances, but judging by paragraph 2 of East Kent Light Railway#Stations on main line, it's miles and chains (1 mile = 8 furlongs, 1 furlong = 10 chains, so 1 mile = 80 chains) - furlongs are rarely found in railway context but common in horse racing. Despite being unmetric, distances in miles and chains remain the official measure on Britain's railways; many WP articles show only mi:ch figures and ignore the metric equivalent. The {{convert}} template will handle miles and chains, but not nearly as compactly. Taking Eythorne as an example, the present Wikitext has
* '''[[Eythorn]]e.''' 1:52.
which renders as
If you amend thus:
* '''[[Eythorn]]e.''' {{convert|1|mi|52|chain|km}}.
it will render thus:
One common source of up-to-date distances is the "Railway Track Diagrams" series of rail atlases, also known as the "Quail Trackmaps" (home page). These mostly use miles and chains, only giving kilometres if that is the official measure on the line concerned - the Heathrow branch from Hayes & Harlington for example, as well as the whole of the London Underground. The current editions are mostly shown on their website but vol. 6 is out of print:
  • 1 Scotland & Isle of Man (Map) (5th ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. December 2007. ISBN 978-0-9549866-3-6.
  • 2 Eastern (Map) (3rd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. September 2006. ISBN 0-9549866-2-8.
  • 3 Western (Map) (4th ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. November 2005. ISBN 978-0-9549866-1-X. {{cite map}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • 4 Midlands & North West (Map) (2nd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. March 2005. ISBN 0-9549866-0-1.
  • 5 Southern & TfL (Map) (3rd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Cartography by John Yonge. Trackmaps. November 2008. ISBN 978-0-9549866-4-3.
  • 6 Ireland (Map) (2nd ed.). Railway Track Diagrams. Quail Map Company. November 2003. ISBN 1-898319-68-5.
However these are near useless for lines which have been lifted. The surviving portion of the EKLR is in vol. 5, page 13.
Sorry, but don't think that I have any info other than what I added for locos. I do have some books on SR coaching stock, so might be able to expand the entries for coaches nos. 5 (1st & 2nd), 6 (2nd) and 7-11. Most are doubtful, particularly the 4- and 6-wheelers, since many C&W authors concentrated on bogie stock (it lasted longer so more information was available to them). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Brackley Central

Hello Redrose64

Hope you're fine and had a great Christmas!

I wonder if they actually will restore "Town" back to Aylesbury station despite the fact that we now have Aylesbury Vale Parkway a couple of miles away. My gut feeling is that they won't. In south Wales, Barry's main station is widely referred to as Barry Town although officially it's been just Barry almost throughout its existence, yet it doesn't cause confusion as far as I know.

Anyway, I've been able to add some extra info to the article on Brackley Central station, plus photographs (and also provide some sources). The big mystery here that I'd love to try and solve (and I've mentioned this to user "Lamberhurst" and also on the article's discussion page), is to find out something concrete about the proposed Northampton branch. The source that I've mentioned (the only one I've come across so far online) - the Forgotten Relics website - gives fairly scant info and seems to question whether there ever was any serious proposal. Yet I've seen a map of the line - I only wish I could remember where. It was a while back. If you know anything definite, it would be great.

Regards Tonythepixel (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Butt (which is correct to 1995), Aylesbury station was always called simply Aylesbury. I'm presently still on hols in Barford St. Michael, and all my books (bar Butt) are back home in Didcot, so can't check, for example, Mitchell & Smith. Will try to do so in a few days, but don't expect a definite answer until about 6 January.
I am aware that at Marylebone, and possibly other stations, "Aylesbury Town" is indeed shown on the departure screens. However, at Aylesbury station itself, the nameboards have not been altered; the Network Rail info page shows "Aylesbury", as do the downloadable public timetables (Table 114 as PDF and Table 115 as PDF). Until the station itself actually changes, we should stick with "Aylesbury". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Queries regarding SECR N1 class on SECR K and K1 classes talkpage.

Hello. I've given my thoughts on you post of 11 January on the above page. Rightly or wrongly (and I'm paraphrasing what I've written), I feel that we are broadly in agreement. However, my understanding is that as No. 822 was ordered as a K class, the fact remains that even after a delay in construction, the intention was to produce the N class. However, the order was changed in 1922, which required the conversion of parts intended for No. 822 to create the three-cylinder N1 class. In my view, because the prototype N1 class wasn't initially intended to be built as such, the resultant changes constitute conversion (especially as parts were standardised anyway). The other five were indeed built as N1 class from the outset, for the intention was there in the beginning, and therefore cannot be referred to as 'converted N class' locomotives.

I hope this has clarified my understanding on this issue, which is one that will affect around four articles, and demonstrates the complex history of these classes of locomotive. If you still disagree with my understanding of the subject, would it be possible to ask you to modify the K1 section of the article to incorporate your interpretation for comparison purposes? Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to think about this. On the one hand, we have a loco that was originally ordered in one form, but entered service in a different form. On the other, the word "convert" might suggest to the casual reader that an existing loco was taken out of service and altered. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Sandy Georgia's comment

I'm not entirely sure what he means about the referencing, but it is relatively minor, as he's usually in charge of FA promotion. I'll go through the NBSPs now before I go to sleep. Just have a look through the references and make sure they are in line with WP policy. Congratulations, by the way! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Station coords

Isn't it overdoing it to have x,y coords mentioned twice for a station? Either they remain in the top right hand corner or the infobox, but surely not both. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was editing the articles anyway in order to:
and also clear up any little things. Since I'm sure that I saw a bot going around removing the {{coord}} and placing the values in the infobox, I thought I'd pre-empt it. If the coords are specified in the infobox, they automatically show at upper right as well. If you try to specify lat/long in the infobox and as a {{coord}} then you get three sets, two of which overlap. Sometimes they overlap precisely, sometimes one is slightly displaced. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Decdeg

Thanks for you comments about {{Decdeg}}. I could not duplicate the bug. Could you give me an example where it occurs. –droll [chat] 04:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I was able to duplicate the bug and looking at my old code it is obvious that your fix is necessary. I guess no one ever used the rounding functionality before. It was a bug that did not always appear. See the testcases. Thanks for reporting the problem. –droll [chat] 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Jumbles Reservoir

How do the spaces in the OS grid reference change the accuracy? •• Fly by Night (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Station Usage Statistics

Hi Redrose64. I know one of your main areas on Wikipedia is UK Stations, just wondering if you knew where I could find the statistics for station usage in 2003-2004. They seem to be easily available for 02-04 and 04-10, but not in between. Thanks Sgreen93 (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. On the rare occasions that I have added usage stats to station articles, these have come from the sources listed near the top of the documentation for {{Infobox GB station}}. That infobox has six pairs of usage parameters. Each year, as the fresh figures are released, somebody adds a new pair of parameters (the most recently-added were |usage0809= and |lowusage0809=), and because it's a big job to populate the 2500+ station articles, somebody (Adambro I think) will set up a 'bot to do it automatically. This year's task is not yet complete; see Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics.
The infobox is not set up to recognise either |usage0304= or |lowusage0304=, almost certainly because no source of figures is available. Therefore, I wouldn't worry about missing usage figures on existing station articles, particularly if you notice that the same year is missing from every article - should the figures ever become available for 2003-4, somebody will add the relevant parameters and start a 'bot to fix up the station articles. Same for pre-2002. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Submitting an article for peer review.

Hi. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, but you seem to be more informed about what to do on this here website (I'm still trying to work out where you put the coal). Basically, I'd like to try and nominate LB&SCR A1 class for peer review to hopefully bump it up the quality scale, however I haven't the foggiest how to do it. I tried looking at Template:TrainsWikiProject as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review, but nothing that appears there appears on the page. Any chance you could point us in the right direction?

I have already asked Mjroots but he hasn't yet got back to me, and as you're obviously au fais with the page (having editted it yourself)

Cheers. Bluebellnutter (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Bulleid Pacific (talk · contribs) is a good one to ask: he's got tons of SR loco knowledge, and has also submitted peer-review requests before. I haven't previously requested a PR, so I'm going by the information at both Wikipedia:Peer review (shortcut WP:PR) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requesting a review.
I'd go with the Trains one, as being more applicable; so the first thing to do is edit Talk:LB&SCR A1 class, and add |pr=yes into the existing {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner. It doesn't really matter where it goes, so long as it's inserted either before an existing pipe "|" or the closing braces "}}", thus either of the following will work:
{{TrainsWikiProject |pr=yes |class=B|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid|locos=yes}}
{{TrainsWikiProject|class=B|importance=low|UK=yes|UK-importance=mid|locos=yes |pr=yes }}
Save that, and you should find that a new row has appeared in the banner, containing a redlink:
This article is currently undergoing a peer review.
Click that redlink to create the page. At the top of the new page, add a level 3 heading, wikilinked to your article:
=== [[LB&SCR A1 class]] ===
Below that, add your reason(s) for nominating the article, sign it in the usual way and save. Make sure that this page goes on your watchlist.
Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review#Requests on WikiProject Trains, edit that section (use the [edit] link to the right of the "Requests on WikiProject Trains" heading, not those of any subheadings below it). Insert one line immediately below the heading:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Peer review/LB&SCR A1 class}}
Save it, and you should find that "LB&SCR A1 class" appears as a bluelinked sub-heading, immediately followed by your review request. Then wait for the fun to start. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers for that, much appreciated.Bluebellnutter (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Textile Glossary

Hi, I have added citations for all of my edits to Glossary of textile manufacturing. I really hadn't paid attention to this glossary before, or I would have been adding terms as new articles are added to the Textile arts wikiproject.

I am considering breaking out sewing terms into their own glossary separate from textile manufacturing - as an experienced editor of the current glossary, do you think that is a good idea? There would obviously be a few overlaps (yarn for example). - PKM (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually have a preference. This is possibly something to ask either on the article's talk page, or at WT:WikiProject Textile Arts (there doesn't seem to be a wikiproject for textile manufacture). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. - PKM (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

London and North Eastern Railway

Hi again, I am a bit bemused by that Railway Magazine reference which just seems to refer to itself. Why not just put the full citation in the footnote? Maybe I am missing something. I haven't come across this before. Alarics (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't refer to itself - the [[#RM195002| in the short note links to the |ref=RM195002 in the {{cite journal}}, see Wikipedia:Citing sources/Further considerations#Using freehand anchors. If you're using Internet Explorer it's not very noticeable, but in Firefox or Google Chrome, clicking the link in the short note highlights the full citation later on, in pale blue. The article already used the short-note system, so per WP:CITEHOW I kept it that way; if the full citation were in the note, it wouldn't be a short note. Having just three short notes, and three full citations does look rather redundant in London and North Eastern Railway but that article is hopelessly under-referenced; if refd properly, it's likely that multiple facts would be drawn from individual publications, and that's where short-note refs come into their own. Have a look at Hawkhurst Branch Line (the method used there uses different wikicode (the {{sfn}} template), but the visual result is similar). Each magazine cited has a full citation under Sources, linked from one or more short notes under References. Firefox exhibits another feature lacking from IE here: the short notes are in columns, each 20 em wide. If your display is 1280 pixels wide, you'll see four columns of short notes. If such short notes were mixed with longer citations, either those longer citations would wrap several times, or the columns would need to be widened. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. The reason I thought the link referred to itself was that when I clicked on it, nothing happened. Generally in web design this is regarded as a Bad Thing. Alarics (talk) 06:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

LU Capitalisation

Noticed some edits you made very recently to Central line. I'm not sure whether you read this discussion from a while ago, but for what it's worth: Talk:Victoria_line#Requested_move.
best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your change: if you look at recent edits to Central line you'll see that it was not me who altered that (or any other) instance of "line" to "Line" - this alteration was carried out by an anon, with this edit.
My first three edits were partial reversions of that edit:
  • (1) - the reader should not be given the impression that the term "Central Line" was used from the opening;
  • (2) - the statement "In common with all of the Underground lines" has not been true since about 1905 when the District started to receive the "B" stock, and so long as the Edgware Road-Wimbledon section uses a different type from the rest of the District, the statement "In common with all of the Underground lines" remains untrue;
  • (3) - as (1).
Since the article as it stood did not mention when the term "Central line" came into use, I checked an official LT publication from 1970, and added a paragraph: (4) - here, I used "Line", because that's what the source says. I am aware of the convention for small "l", and indeed the TfL editorial style guide (page 63) says to use "line"; but this relates to current TfL usage, and has no bearing on how pre-TfL events should be described, certainly not historical events from 70+ years ago - we cannot alter the past to suit current conventions. So, since we cannot pretend that the line was "Central line" at opening in 1900, we need to describe historical changes, with sources: far too much of Central line is unsourced. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies for the misunderestimation! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Locator maps

Hi Redrose. Thanks for your reply to my comment on the Wales locator maps at Template talk:Infobox UK place. You mentioned the Scotland map appears to have changed also. I hadn't noticed a difference there (they were using a pretty awful pseudo physical map last time I looked). Have you any more details? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since 21 September 2007 Template:Location map Scotland had been reasonably stable with File:Scottish infobox template map.png; there were brief periods with File:Scotland location map.svg (12 December 2008, 8 August 2009 and 16 June 2010).
On 26 June 2010 it became File:Scotland relief location map.jpg with this edit; and almost immediately it had to fight it out with File:Scotland location map.svg; and although resolved quickly, there was a brief period of similar change/revert again today. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lyme Regis branch line

Thanks for picking up the error: I changed the Commons file, but forgot to do the encyclopaedia page itself. I think that edition of the map is using minutes of arc. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking against the current edition shows the gridlines to be at intervals of approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi); it would be worth verifying if they are exactly two miles apart. The best way of checking would be with an original: if you have one, do the gridline intervals measure exactly 2 in (50.8 mm)?
I did wonder about minutes of arc: but the current 1:50 000 edition has minutes marked along the outer borders, and they don't correspond - 1 min longitude is approx. 1.2 km east-west, and 1 min latitude is about 1.9 km north-south, so one "square minute" would appear rectangular (or nearly so, given the transverse Mercator projection). Taking the measurements from the gridlines on your map, the vertical gridlines are at approximate intervals of 2'45" east-west, and the horizontal gridlines at approximate intervals of 1'45", a curious pairing if they are angular intervals. I'd go with two miles, pending verification. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
No, my own copy is much later: the "New Popular" dated 1946 (see here). I did File:Map BWHA Railway.jpg first, where the grid lines aren't parallel with the edges, which is what you'd expect for "minutes of arc". Coupled with an undated, but probably slightly earlier, example of a "New One Inch" (special Stanford's edition), which has these, I thought I'd hit on the answer, but I was wrong. Sorry for the confusion. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The New Popular Edition (aka the 6th Edition) definitely did have 1km squares from the outset (circa 1945). I don't know exactly when the use of 1km squares began, but it was possibly with the New Pop, since I've seen sheets from the immediate pre-war period where the squares are not 1km.
I have now dug out a "Popular Edition" sheet 113 (Reading and Newbury), which at bottom right states, among other things,

... Surveyed in 1870-83 and Published in 1880-9. ... Revised (3rd Revision) in 1913-4. ... Printed ... 1919. Minor corrections 1926. Reprint 1000/21. 3000/27.

so it's a 1927 printing, and almost certainly prepared on the same basis as the 1919 Axminster/Lyme Regis map. Apart from the dates, the significant thing about the Reading map is that the grid squares are exactly two inches both horizontally and vertically (the columns are numbered 1-14 left-right, and the rows A-H plus J, top to bottom). Since the scale is 1:63360, the lines are at intervals of exactly two miles. Minutes of arc are also shown in the inner border, and there is no correspondence between these and the grid lines.
I see no reason to suspect that the grid lines on the Axminster/Lyme Regis map are not also at 2 mi (3.2 km) intervals, which if true, means that the grey bar labelled "One kilometre" is too long; since its length is about half the grid line spacing, that makes it more like one mile. 1 km would be approx. 0.3 times the grid line spacing. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
As you have established the size of the grid squares (which can be confirmed from Ordnance Survey, Owen and Pilbeam 1992, ISBN 0-319-00498-8, p 96, which reproduces a portion of a "Popular" edition map") I'm going to remove the misleading scale from the image, and while there fix the crooked scan on File:Map BWHA Railway.jpg. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bexhill West branch line

Would you say that this branch deserves a stand-alone article? Mjroots (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and title it Crowhurst, Sidley and Bexhill Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:COMMONNAME, that should be a redirect - similar to Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway. Mjroots (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I've made a start. Further sources, which I don't have are Peter Harding's book on the line, Mitchell & Smith's book on the Tonbridge to Hastings line, and possibly Brian Jewell's book "Down the line to Hastings". Any assistance you can give in expanding the article would be appreciated. Would we be able to use this photo of Combe Haven viaduct under a NFU? Mjroots (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't have those. However, I do have:
Also please note the publisher's name is Ian Allan, not Allen. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've raided my father's bookshelf and expanded the article a little. Now heading back home. Mjroots2 (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on image use criteria. If I want to add an image (which I didn't create myself) to an article, I hunt around on commons:, where non-free images are prohibited - mostly they're Creative Commons, some are Public Domain; either way there's no need for fair-use rationale. You could have a look at recent FAC noms raised by iridescent (talk · contribs), to see who usually shouts about image copyrights, and ask one of those users directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The best two to ask are User:Elcobbola and User:Jappalang. There are lots of people who shout about image copyrights, but those two are the only two whose opinions I trust. – iridescent 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Elcobbola re the image. The three books I mention have been added as a "further reading" section for the moment. Tunbridge Wells library currently has two of them on the shelf. Harding's book is not in Kent Library Service stock. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re this edit - have you really found a page number in a Mitchell & Smith book (they're usually omitted entirely), or is is a typo for |loc=figure 89? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed those, I was misinterpreting illustration numbers at start of book as page numbers. Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Arlesey Railway Station

Re: references. Which sections of info in particular would you liked referenced, I'll see if I can find anything them, thanks Sgreen93 (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. Basically, anything not already referenced. More specifically (and this list is by no means exhaustive): the last three sentences of the section "Original station" (ie from This was due to declining receipts on); the first two paragraphs of the subsection "Present station"; and the last paragraph of the section "Facilities".
Have a look at Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station to see the level of referencing that is considered desirable for a railway station article; this is one of the qualities that helped that particular article attain FA-class. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DNSR

I see that you're already on the case! So is it to be Chesil or Cheesehill? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I went down there just 3 weeks ago. There's a huge multi-storey car park right on top of the station site, named "Chesil car park". I bagged a photo of the tunnel mouth while I was there. It's blocked off with wooden boarding.
Butt says that Chesil was final name; unfortunately most of my DN&S books are currently on loan to somebody building a 2mm scale model of Highclere and she claims to still require them. However I do have a copy of
  • Judge, C.W. (1984). An Historical Survey of the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. pp. 121–130. ISBN 0 86093 149 8.
who plumps for Winchester (Chesil) throughout, except in the reproductions of pre-1950 timetables, and a short note concerning the 1950 renaming on p. 123. So: create Winchester (Chesil), and then amend existing redirs Winchester Cheesehill railway station and Winchester Cheeshill railway station to point to that. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Lamberhurst (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Should Litchfield move to Litchfield (Hants)? Ditto Whitchurch (DN&S) to Whitchurch Town, Barton Stacey to Barton Stacey Halt, and Worthy Down to Worthy Down Platform or Worthy Down Halt? Lamberhurst (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No to Litchfield (Hants) - final name was Litchfield; Worthy Down Halt, because this was final name; yes to others (again, final name rule). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

diffs

Hi. I don't understand your edit or the summary here [1]

Template:diff doesn't give a clue to me - the url has both version numbers in it - I don't see how what server is used makes a difference, can you explain? Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Secure server.
The {{diff}} template is server independent and allows the link to be built without full URLs cluttering up the place. For example, this:
{{diff|Template talk:Infobox locomotive|380574816|380564141|my edit}}
is equivalent to this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_locomotive&action=historysubmit&diff=380574816&oldid=380564141 my edit]
but is shorter and neater, and server independent. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
ok thanks. never heard of the secure server before.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:South Wales Railway

Hello Redrose64, I recently switched all or the CONTl's and CONTr's on a number of railway maps (including Template:South Wales Railway) as the icons seemed to have seemed to around (originally CONTl pointed right and CONTr pointed left) and I assumed they had been corrected as they were pointing the wrong way. So now it seemed that 'CONTl' stood for CONTleft and CONTr right. I switched them and on several of the maps but my edits were reverted by several editors (namely you and Britmax). I don't why this is, are the arrows appearing to point in the correct direction now on your computer? On my computer they appear to pointing in the wrong direction. Is it a problem with my computer, the servers or did you and Britmax just happen to make a mistake at the same time?

Thanks, WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 13:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The primary files for the BS icons are held on Commons. Two of them were exchanged by Axpde (talk · contribs) on 9 October 2010, see here and here.
The two concerned are   (CONTr) and   (CONTl). If you see these pointing right and left respectively (ie towards each other), your browser is probably holding cached copies of the old versions - these are now out of date, so you need to WP:REFRESH them. If they are pointing left and right respectively (ie away from each other), you have the current versions. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, I have bypassed the cache and can now see the current version, but what confuses me is CONTr (which I presumed stood for right or something similar as it comes from German) points left and the same for CONTl. Do you know why this is? WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Route map
 A
to C
 B
You are correct - r stands for rechts (German for "right"); l stands for links ("left").
It's probably best to think in terms of the route which is to be followed by a train driver who starts at A in the small RDT at right. RDTs are usually constructed so that the start of the line is at the top. The driver proceeds forwards along the line (ie down the page) towards B; on the way he passes the branch off to C. This is to the left of the line, and so is shown on the right of the RDT, in order to avoid a mirror image.
The junction symbol here is   (ABZlf), and the arrow is   (CONTl) - both contain the letter "l". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 14:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ashford Steam Centre

What do you think of the idea of an article on this subject. I remember one visit c1973/4 where I footplated a French pacific, hauling the 4DD coaches if I recall correctly. From what I can find on the 'net, it was open late 60s to c1975. Any ideas on written sources? Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I never went there. Afraid the only info I have is the "Preserved Locomotives" section which appeared at the back of the Ian Allan abc Combined Volumes; for example
  • British Railways Locomotives and Other Motive Power: Combined Volume. London: Ian Allan. 1970. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
In this one, p.194 has against O1 class 0-6-0 no. 65 "Privately preserved at Ashford"; on p.196 we find that H class 0-4-4T no. 263 is "Preserved by H Class Trust at Ashford", etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Pellon railway station

Hi, I see you removed the postgroup entry for Pellon railway station. The station is shown as reopening again after the war and then passenger services being withdrawn on 1 January 1927 at "Disused Stations". Subterranea Britannica. Scillystuff (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Butt does not give a reopening, however; and neither does H.C. Casserley in Britain's Joint Lines (Ian Allan 1968). The other source I have, Marshall's The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, vol. 2 (David & Charles 1970), does state (p. 123) that the HHL line was reopened "after the war", and that it was closed again on 1 Jan 1927: but no specific reopening date is given. I have detected errors in subbrit before: but that said, I have also detected errors in Butt too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fibreglass Mk 1s

Was the BRUTE van a Mk 1 too? If so, it seems that a paragraph on that van would fit nicely in the section I added to the BR Mk 1 page. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It was built to Lot no. 30826 Derby 1970 on the u/f of CK Sc15170. It's dealt with in the definitive work on Mark 1 coaches:
  • Parkin, Keith (1991). British Railways Mark 1 Coaches. Penryn: Pendragon. p. 198. ISBN 0 906899 49 4.
so if Parkin says it's Mk 1, I guess it must be. He also implies that the original body ends were retained. I often saw that van at Banbury in the early 1980s, on a daily parcels working to Coventry, and noted the passenger-coach style bow ends and Buckeye couplers. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've retitled that section, pending the addition of info on this vehicle. Mjroots (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge railway station

Hi Redrose64,

I was just wondering is there any reason all the details of where the trains stop had to be deleted? I was also in the process of creating a new S-line format template for the last and next stations, which is why there were still two. I just feel like that it is a good idea to show all the points where the train stops as then people will know where they can go from Cambridge. Let me know what you think.

Chris0693 (talk) 11:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

All that I removed was the s-line stuff; there were two reasons for this: first, it duplicated information which was already present later on, at the end of the same section; second, it was left in a far from complete state for over twelve hours.
It was somebody else who reverted the rest of your changes. As to whether the action of 74.15.65.62 was valid: this is a controversial subject. There are those who hold that since Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it should not have that level of detail. Railway timetables typically change at least twice a year, and it's a real maintenance headache trying to keep all that detail up to date. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
OK and I can't contact that other person. Would it be worth re-doing it then? I personally don't think that is it acting as a travel guide, It's just showing the information of where it goes, to see what places one could get to. I know it is common practice in The Netherlands and also in Germany and France. I just think even if its for those 2 times in the year it changes, it is worth it. Currently I'm working on the Great Eastern Main Line and have done between Norwich and Kelvedon so far. What do you think? Chris0693 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not one for adding the finely-detailed service information, but if it's there already, or is added by you (or anybody else), I won't remove it: but I won't check or maintain it either.
You may have noticed that some articles which you've recently amended have been subsequently amended again by me. Apart from Cambridge (above), consider for example Beccles railway station. Previously this had one routebox (see here); you split the routebox (see here) and I have since recombined them (see here). I recombined them because I don't see why it's necessary to split them - many other stations have one routebox for current services, historic services and disused lines.
I also don't see the point of changing a perfectly valid routebox which uses the {{rail line}} style into one which is built in the {{s-line}} style, if either exactly the same information, or worse, less information is presented. The only additional information - "towards Ipswich", etc. - is something we don't normally put in routeboxes; meanwhile the link "East Suffolk Line" has been lost. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

cached pages

hi. i saw this update [2]. can you please tell me if there is somewhere on wikipedia that confirms this? its not that i dont believe you i just want to see where its stated and the reasons why. thanks!MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See meta:Cache strategy which is rather technical, but also see WP:PURGE#How it works. Partly it's a speed issue. The cached copies should be updated fairly quickly after a page change, ideally in minutes or even seconds, but it can sometimes take longer. In early-mid March 2011 the lag for some pages was as bad as three weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks!!! maybe im missing something but i dont see anything about anonymous users vs users with accounts anywhere in there?MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Paragraph 1:
... The next time a non-logged in user views the page, a copy of that page is made to a "server cache" on a set of secondary servers. Until the page is changed again, all non-logged in users who try to view that page will be shown the copy from the server cache. That way, users who are viewing but not editing do not put a drain on the main database server, and still see the most recent version of the page. (Logged-in users have a choice in their Special:Preferences under "Appearance" whether to see cached or live versions.)
Logged-in users are those whose edits are recorded against their user name; by contrast, non-logged in users are those whose edits are recorded against an IP address. Note that a user with an account may still be treated as if they were anonymous should they fail to log in. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thank you!! so what its saying is that they think not logged in users wont be editing the page as much as logged in users? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's more a case of the need to avoid slowing down the servers unduly. Since logged-in users have the ability to set personal preferences, the pages that they view need to be tailored to a greater or lesser degree, so each page needs to be freshly prepared. For example, I have an option which causes some pages to show extra categories (Appearance → Advanced options → Show hidden categories) - so when I view Didcot Parkway railway station, it shows in 13 categories, not 6. The extra seven cats are mostly to do with maintenance: Category:Articles needing additional references from January 2010, Category:All articles needing additional references, Category:Articles with OS grid coordinates, Category:All articles with unsourced statements, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2009, Category:UK stations without latest usage statistics and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2009 - some are more useful than others. This, together with any other preferences which I might have set, means that when viewing this page it's been freshly prepared specifically for me, which obviously takes up time which benefits nobody else (it's possible that somebody else has exactly the same preferences as me, but they're not likely to be looking at exactly the same pages as me). Since the majority of users are not logged in, the fact that non-logged in users cannot set preferences means that just one copy of the page can be given to all non-logged in users, which clearly saves time.
I have friends and relations who use Wikipedia every month, week or even day, but who do not have accounts, and never edit. I think it's safe to say that users not logged in outnumber those who are logged in, but a check of articles (not talk pages, templates etc.) listed at Special:RecentChanges shows that edits by logged-in users outnumber those by non-logged in users by about 7:3. For talk pages, templates and other non-article pages, the proportions are much higher in favour of logged-in users (12:1); overall it comes out at about 4:1. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
oh thanks!!MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bentley Church railway station & Hadleigh Railway

Hi Redrose64,

The co-ordinates that I put in the Bentley Church article are based on the map in Tony Dewick's book (ref 2) and dates from Butt (ref 1). Butt gives an opening date of 15 June 1846 for Ipswich Stoke Hill, Bentley Church, Bentley, Manningtree & Ardleigh, all with the Eastern Union Railway. The Hadleigh Railway article states that construction started in September 1846, and Butt gives opening dates in 1847 for the stations on that branch, with the Eastern Union & Hadleigh Junction Railway.

I have not seen any map showing Bentley Church station other than in Dewick's book, but it seems most likely to me that Dewick is correct and it is on the main line and not on the branch.

This leaves me wondering why you added Bentley Church station to the Hadleigh Railway route template. Do you have some more definitive source data for the station's location?

Regards Efficacy (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

  • McCarthy, Colin; McCarthy, David (2007). Waller, Peter (ed.). Railways of Britain: Norfolk and Suffolk. Hersham: Ian Allan. ISBN 978 0 7110 3223 1. 0708/c1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
This book is divided into three main sections: text, maps and gazetteer. In the text, the Eastern Union Railway is shown as incorporated 19 July 1844, opened (freight) 1 June 1846 (pass) 15 June (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 19); and the Eastern Union & Hadleigh Junction Railway is shown as authorised 18 June 1846, formally opened 20 August 1847, public opening (freight) 21 August (pass) 2 September (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 24) and absorbed by the EUR 1847 (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 19). In the maps, the Hadleigh branch is shown as starting at a triangular junction, with Bentley Church station close to the western corner (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, map 42 section B2). In the gazetteer, dates given are opened 15 June 1846, closed (pass) December 1853, closed (freight) n/a (McCarthy & McCarthy 2007, p. 108), which agrees with Butt. There is indeed a discrepancy between the map position and the opening dates. The maps in McCarthy & McCarthy are "based upon the original work undertaken by Col Michael Cobb for his atlas". I don't personally have a copy of Cobb: I know that Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) does, but he's not edited for several months. On non-railway maps, the shape of the triangular junction is clearly revealed by the wooded area known as "The Island". The church at grid reference TM118381 seems to be somewhat closer to the western corner of the triangle than to the northern. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that the Cobb atlas shows the station where the McCarthy work shows it, i.e. TM119382. Interestingly, it's named "Bentley Church Crossing". Lamberhurst (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
And could this be the crossing keeper's cottage, indicating that the station was to the west of the road? Lamberhurst (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Gentlemen, your case gets stronger day by day :-) I'll put a summary of the above on the talk page for the station. Efficacy (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Year

I saw this warning you added today. Can't the problem be fixed somehow in the Harvard references? What can you tell me about the problem? In general there has been an effort to leave the usage of "day", "month" and "year" in favor of "date", whenever possible. I think it is worthwhile to make an effort to continue with that, and this warning doesn't fit in that. And especially if there is some problem, then we should try to fix it. You may write here, I"ll watch your page. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a problem with Harvard referencing as such: it's a combination of how {{cite book}} passes parameters to {{citation/core}}; how the latter constructs the Harv links, but most importantly, the MediaWiki parser. It has existed for as long as I've been taking an interest in the workings of Harvard ref linking (I first noticed it here, search for the word "Oppitz"). Put simply, MediaWiki tries to interpret an alleged date as a date including time - year, month, day, hour, minute, etc. If any of these are missing, it substitutes values from the current date. It also assumes that if all that has been provided is a four-digit integer, then this is a time unless it obviously isn't (e.g. 1999 is the year, but 2001 is 1 minute past 8 p.m.).
It's been discussed at template talk:sfn and other places, and has led to the documentation for all the Harvard-ref templates containing a suitable how-to-fix-it, see Template:Harv#Wikilink to citation does not work item 2.1.1.4. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I see. If so, it's above my abilities to fix this, unfortunately. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rail symbol

Hey Redrose :) I notice that rail symbols are being added to stations (including Bamber Bridge, one on my own commuting route never mind watchlist!). However, the symbol hot-links to...Transport in London. Why would this be? Is there anything I can do to correct the error? doktorb wordsdeeds 18:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You'll notice that it's not me adding the symbols, but Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs); I suggest that you ask him, you could also bring up the matter at WT:UKRAIL. I personally have not added any, although I did alter the way that the symbol was shown on one station only. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64/queries&oldid=1176121741"