User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2010 February

Templates with errors
Templates with errors are most easily corrected by simply writing out the reference paramaters. Nice to see you are still on the job. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Vertical fire-tube boilers
Hi Andy. Any particular reason why you have a plural article title this time? (Also Vertical boilers with horizontal fire-tubes) -- EdJogg (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm really not sure what's best here for naming.


 * Vertical boilers with horizontal fire-tubes doesn't work in singular because there are multiple types in there, quite separate. "Cochran boiler and variants" doesn't work because there's no family resemblance. Cochran boiler is notable enough, but the others only so if bundled together. For an article that's thus a grouped composite in scope, I think it's reasonable as a plural.


 * Vertical fire-tube boilers is even less clear. Is this one or two forms? Should it split to a singular scope with a singular name, and Stanley steam car boiler separated out? We could do this, leave the existing plural name as a disambig. Or should it be Vertical multitubular boiler, as is a common, but perhaps more ambiguous, name?


 * If you've any good ideas or strong feelings, rename away. In other news, I'm stuck over diesel vs. compression-ignition for bunch of engine articles, which is an even more awkward choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I see your point, but don't really understand why the naming should be different from other articles (such as "Boiler", "Automobile" or "Steam wagon"): you describe a generic configuration of boiler (as in the title) and then discuss individual types with differences. I'll move them later ('cos if I don't, I suspect that another editor will sometime in the future).
 * Article naming can be quite tricky, so good luck with your other problem areas. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Moved, links fixed.
 * I zapped a couple myself (thought you'd finished!) I've also tweaked the first line of the two articles so they match the new title. I think the meaning is the same as you intended, but singular. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Templates with errors
Templates with errors are most easily corrected by simply writing out the reference paramaters. Nice to see you are still on the job. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Retrotronics
A tag has been placed on Retrotronics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Retrotronics
An article that you have been involved in editing, Retrotronics, has been listed for deletion (not by me, but I noticed the nom failed to notify you). If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

About WSO2 wiki page
hi Andy i reverted the WSO2 page coz i saw the same ip address did the same thing to virtusa wiki page i think its playing fool with wiki pages. Please refer the history of those pages. Darshana Jayasinghe : U graduate,University Of Peradeniya,Sri Lanka (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back your Advert tag on WSO2 page and added COI tag. They removed your Advert tag twice - so I added db-spam because page is clearly just advertising - mostly copied directly from marketing site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauljdw (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

British hardened field defences of World War II
Thanks for the revert - something went very wrong with my editor! Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Robotics Certification Standards Alliance (RCSA)
Hi Andy, Please see the talk page of [industrial robot] regards, David Robotics1 (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Poyle Pump - FYI
Hiya. Late last year you (correctly) removed File:Poyle Pump 022.JPG from the traction engine article on the basis that it pre-dated the machines by several decades. (I had no problem with that -- obviously I'd never spotted the date mis-match before!)

A little research has just thrown up this page (http://www.villagepumps.org.uk/pumpsBucks.htm) which mentions:
 * "The [Colnbrook Turnpike] Trust was responsible for the maintenance of 17 miles of the Bath Road between Cranford bridge and Maidenhead bridge. They erected several pumps along the turnpike, specifically in order to fill water tanks to lay dust. Only two such pumps remain now, one here at Poyle, and one at Longford."

Presumably the water tanks were mounted on the back of horse-drawn carts, which would explain the need for the great height of the pump.

Cheers. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1827 seems reasonable for that pump's construction (1754 wouldn't), and the "barrels on carts" theory. Are there any similar tall pumps elsewhere? Is Longford similar? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Longford is similar (File:Longford Pump - geograph.org.uk - 136930.jpg), but no idea about other pumps. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)