User talk:Chris j wood/2012

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * History of Reading, Berkshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Air raid


 * Reading, Berkshire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Air raid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was unintentional, but having looked at the options offered by the dab page at air raid, I think I would prefer to leave it as is. Not ideal, but none of them really seem to describe what most everybody knows as an air raid. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dresden Funicular Railway
Hi Chris. Thanks for letting me know about your reversion of my edit. I completely agree with you - not sure why I would have changed it; the German article doesn't mention this, so it's not a translation blooper. Must have just been tired! Well done for spotting it. We may have different views on one or two things like how to handle Hauptbahnhof, but that shouldn't stop us working together elsewhere. Do keep up your good work! Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. With regard to the Hauptbahnhof issue, I'm not necessarily against giving articles English language titles (your rename of Dresden Standseilbahn to Dresden Funicular Railway is perfectly reasonable), but I just don't buy this argument that central station means main station. In fact, I'd have no problem with a general translation of xyz hauptbahnhof to 'xyz main station or xyz main railway station. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

New articles
Indeed, keep up the good work on Swiss railway stations!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dead link in article 'Swaffham'
Hi. I tried to fix the dead links in 'Swaffham', but there was one that I couldn't fix. I marked it with Dead link. Can you help fix the last dead link?

Dead: http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/projects/op_ecotech.html Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!
 * You added this in February 2006.
 * I tried to load this link on 6 March, 8 March, 10 March and today, but it never worked.
 * I looked in The Wayback Machine and WebCite but I couldn't find a suitable replacement.

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply
Chris, Please see my reply at User talk:Peter Horn. Peter Horn User talk 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jenny Castle
Chris, see my response to your comment on Jenny Castle. Regards Tobyc75 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bärengraben
My point of putting in the year was that this is not "as it is today". It's arlready 5 years ago (ancient history in zoos) and it will farther and farther away from today every year. Today means 2012. I would prefer just eliminating the "as it is" or something more general like "in modern times". Don Lammers (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason for all my edits to this article was the fact I thought that the article was previously very misleading. I'd read it prior to a recent visit to Bern, and it clearly gave the impression that Bärengraben and BärenPark were separate places, and that the bears had moved from one to the other in 2009. I was very surprised therefore to see the Bärengraben in use just 10 days ago (and by the way, it still does look just like the photograph, although I appreciate that is inadmissible original research). So I sought to correct the article and dispel that impression, both by finding citable text that it was still in use, and by my use of images to give a good impression of what the complex currently looks like.


 * In doing this, I noted that the immediately preceding picture was 1880, which was the historical perspective I thought applied. Although I guess your putting the infobox 'between' the two pictures has lessened that linkage.


 * I do have some photographs of my own from last week, and I'll check to see if one of those may be a suitable replacement. In the meantime I've adopted your suggestion of 'in modern times'.


 * -chris_j_wood (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was not complaining about your work on the article, which was badly needed. I have uprated the article to start. In terms of text it's almost C-class now, but it needs to be cited a bit better. If you have a decent photo of the facility, it would probably be a better choice for the infobox, with the old picture below. I only put that in the infobox because I thought it gave a better overall picture of the facility than either of the others. Sorry about the "today". Use of such indeterminate dating ("recently", and "last year" are some other examples) is one of my pet peeves. I agree that the actual date isn't needed as long as it's not specified. Don Lammers (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

French communes
Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your post on my talk page. I can't respond in detail to each change that I have made, but here are some of my reasonings: 1. INSEE links in the References section: Since most of the basic information on a commune page comes from INSEE, I was hoping to use the INSEE home page and let the user search for the commune. With time, I have learned that it is not all that easy to find the information on INSEE, so more recently, I have switched to linking to the Chiffres clés page for that commune and calling the link "INSEE statistics." This avoids multiple footnotes leading to the same place.

2. Deleted text and links: I have consistently deleted broken links to the canton and intercommunality topics that don't exist. When these pages have been created, the links should be recreated. I have also deleted text that is out of date, a restatement of information in the Infobox, or irrelevant to English-speaking readers. If I have deleted something that does not fall into these categories, feel free to put it back in. However, I request that you not undo my changes because I have made other (sometimes small) changes that need to stay in. Ksnow (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)Ksnow

Packhorse bridges
Hi Chris - I note you were an early contributor to the list of examples at Packhorse bridge. As explained on the talk page, I'm attempting to enhance and extend this list, probably as a separate article. See User:Dave.Dunford/Packhorse for my work in progress. If you have any suggestions, or any other contributions, I'd be interested in your input. Thanks. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)