User talk:EdJogg/Archive 2

An archive of EdJogg's miscellaneous discussions between 06 June 2006 and 06 June 2007. For WP:THOMAS-related topics, please see: /Archive 1.

Welcome!
Hello, EdJogg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 12:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

User:Dukeboy
Ed, thanks for the heads-up. I've reverted his latest changes and given him two more warnings. I'll keep an eye on him and if he resumes his destructive behavior I'll step in with a block. Best, Gwernol 10:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ilfracombe railway
Hey Pete, I've edited the railway bit on Ilfracombe again. I see what you mean about the headings looking too similar but personally I think it looks a bit messy using so many sub-headers. Now I've merged the entire transport section together, maybe you could create a Ilfracombe railway station page and put all the history in there (like most railway stations have) and then slim down the actual description. Unfortunately trains are definately not my strong point so I'll leave you to decide. Cheers Jack 03:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Jack! I've been meaning to create a page for the Ilfracombe Branch Line since I first expanded the section on Transport. Will do so this lunchtime, as the current format is unredeemable.  A separate section on Ilfracombe Station can follow in due course, if the branch line article overflows! (If the station were still active, it would, indeed, warrant its own page.)  Hadn't planned to do it yet (my ToDo list is growing at 2 - 3 times my editing rate!) so it'll be a stub for now.


 * EdJogg 09:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Boco move

 * Original message posted by User:EdJogg on User:Gwernol's talk page. Copied here by EdJogg to make full sense of the answer.


 *  Boco vs Boco (disambiguation) 


 * Hi. I'm afraid that I have helped prolong the Boco/BoCo/Boco (disambiguation) mess identified in WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages, although I did at least resolve its connection to Boston Conservatory, for which I was given a barnstar! (Yes, I got fed up of typing 'BoCo' into the search box and ending up at Boston Conservatory rather than Boco the Diesel Engine!!)


 * If you look at the history for Boco you will see that it would be quite reasonable to move Boco (disambiguation) back over it, and delete the latter, since Boco (disambiguation) was only created from Boco in July. This is the activity identiified by that project, but requires an admin to do it.


 * Could you have a look when you have a spare moment please? (It's not urgent).


 * Thanks. EdJogg 10:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I've moved the Boco (disambiguation) article over the Boco page and fixed up the redirects. Take a look and make sure this has ended up how you wanted it. There are still a few redlinks around to Boco (disambiguation), such as the one on your userpage. None of these are in article space so I've left them alone for now. Best, Gwernol 12:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Looks OK.  I've added a note to Talk:Boston Conservatory so that they know why the link has now gone red. -- EdJogg 13:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Talyllyn Number 8
I see you've tagged the Talyllyn diesels as diesel-mechanical. According to the Talyllyn website, Number 8 Merseysider is "Dowty hydrostatic transmission, chain drive". I don't know much about transmission systems, but I suspect this is hydraulic, at least partially. What do you think? &mdash; Tivedshambo (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This was all a side-effect of noticing that the Skarloey Railway links were missing. I was tryimg to adjust the table so that the column 'wheel arrangement' was re-titled 'type', since that was more appropriate for the information shown (the steam locos are indicated as various tank locos) and adding the 'DM' was therefore necessary for consistency.  However, this did not work, and I ran out of lunchtime.  I'm afraid I took a guess at the diesel transmission types, hoping someone knowledgeable would spot any errors!


 * Having looked at the Talyllyn site, #10 is definitely hydraulic, as it incorporates a torque converter. As for #8 - no idea!  However, I have corrected the details as best I can.


 * Thanks for the alert. EdJogg 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Best steam tractor
Hi Ed, thanks for the kind words about my photo of the Best steam tractor. It truly is an amazing beast, and I think you're right that there was nothing like it in the UK. I was lucky enough to see it in steam last year. Quite the most extraordinary thing. I have more photos of it - follow the "Best steam tractor" link at the bottom - there's even some video. Best, Gwernol 10:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for that. 1905 is quite late, really - amazing to think that this thing has been through 40-50 years of development! You couldn't use anything this size in the UK, at least not with a vertical boiler, due to the many railway over-bridges. Hence it's not just soil-type that determined the separate development paths for these things.
 * Also of interest is the 'flywheel' - on traction engines this was much larger and heavier, and assisted with keeping the engine going. This one looks too small for that, and may be provided solely to drive implements via a belt (as on a traction engine).
 * This is a fascinating subject. (It's amazing how much I have learned as a side-effect of editing on Wikipedia!) The other pictures could be useful for the same article - the first side-on picture shows the arrangement of the Be(a)st rather more clearly, and the three detail shots are good. Would they be available in the future (either of us could add the related text!) - and what about an 'External links' reference to your page?
 * Incidentally, any idea why a large proportion of North American tractors (both steam, and internal-combustion) had three wheels while European types mostly had four??
 * EdJogg 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to add more of the pictures. I'd love to get a separate article on Best tractors going as well. When I get some time...
 * I don't know enough about tractor development to answer the question of 3 vs. 4 wheels, but you're right, there's a marked trend there. As you say, you end up learning lots when working on Wikipedia, which is great. All the best, Gwernol 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Beaulieu Abbey
Hi! I'm not sure about your recent category change to the page on Beaulieu Abbey from Buildings and Structures to Churches. My reasons are twofold. Firstly, the abbey church at Beaulieu is notable by its absence - the visitor will see a wealth of mediaeval buildings at the site but not that (the converted refectory/current parish church is of course still there) and the main significance of the site does not lie in its church remains. Secondly, the Buildings and Structures category contains many similar sites such as Southwick Priory and Netley Abbey plus many other important historic buildings within the county and I think that Beaulieu should be listed with them. I'm putting the Buildings and Structures back in, though I will leave the reference to the churches. Soph 19:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please forgive me - I've covered between 150 and 200 pages over the past couple of days doing this, and I'm bound to have made a few mistakes!
 * Your revision is fine by me. In this case I decided that as there was still some form of church on the site it was justified in being listed under churches. However, you are quite right, it's probably best if placed in both cats.
 * I came at this finding churches scattered in cats all over the place - many in 'Buildings and Structures', but not all. I've tried to produce a consistent categorisation by county for all "churches".  Many are straightforward, but a large number of monasteries and/or ruins are rather more questionable.  I still have to search through each of the 'Buildings and structures' cats again, so I may reconsider the questionable ones.  I normally replaced the 'buildings and structures' cat entry with the 'churches' cat entry since the 'churches' cat is also included as a subcat of 'buildings and structures' and it didn't seem right to include them twice.  I'm still not entirely convinced with my handling of cathedrals - they certainly fit within the 'churches' categories, but should they then be removed from 'buildings and structures'? So far I have reckoned 'yes'.


 * EdJogg 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think your plan for providing a category of churches by county is an excellent one and will prove a good addition (this area of wikipedia is very confused, as you rightly note). However, I think that major churches, such as cathedrals, abbeys, priories, collegiate churches or places that are just famous for historical or artistic reasons (like St Mary Redcliffe in Bristol, or St Martin in the Fields say) should also be left with an entry in buildings and structures - a list of buildings in Hampshire really ought to include Winchester Cathedral, to my mind at least. Generally, I would approach the project by adding the relevant category rather than deleting Buildings. For ruined or former churches I'd add them to the churches category as well where there are standing remains or maybe if it's a generally important site that people would expect to see listed such as the Old Minster at Winchester. Soph 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There were seven counties that contained no entries in Category:Churches in England, which was my starting point. For these (Hampshire, Herefordshire, IoW, Lancashire, Norfolk, Northumberland, Tyne & Wear) I moved some/all 'churches' from the Buildings and Structures in (county) to the appropriate church cat.  I have now been through these and restored the Buildings cat entry to those churches which I felt merit it (which were, in practice, 95% of those I'd moved, as I'd typically chosen the biggest churches/cathedrals!).
 * EdJogg 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've come across your work on churches category and have added a handful of churches in Yorkshire to them. I have also listed the ruins and the abbeys, but have left them all (as Beaulieu above) in Buildings and Structures also. I know one category is a sub of another, but as they seem to be seperate topics I feel they could be listed twice. Well, they were 'churches' once, but I still take Soph's point that they are tourist attractions as well. I have no problem with seeing Whitby Abbey under Buildings- and Churches- in Yorkshire. After all, many of the ecclesiastical buildings on WikiP are ruins anyway - it is what makes them notable. Anyway, well done EdJogg for more stirling work.

Mdcollins1984 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This was a bit of tidying that got well out-of-hand!  Category:Churches in Yorkshire is looking very healthy now.  After I've re-classified the remaining entries in Category:Churches in the United Kingdom (the super-category) I'll work through all of the 'Buildings and Structures' cats to hunt down more churches to move.  This could take some time!
 * EdJogg 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Old Minster, Winchester
I think Category:Churches in Hampshire for this article is good. Walgamanus 14:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As per consensus (see above) this is now in 'Churches' AND 'Buildings and Structures'. -- EdJogg 14:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Steam engine layout
The layout needed a tweak, but the new animation only seems to work at the original, 450px, size. May I revert it, or do you want another try? (I previewed a couple of variations, but none of my efforts were any good). ––Moonraker88 16:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've re-tweaked it.  I've used a sneaky trick (a Wikitable) to centre the image in the available space, so that we can use it at 450px.  On my 1024x768 screen it looks rather good - the bottom of the animation box and the bottom of the TOC are aligned!  I had a feeling that the first go wasn't going to work, as the animation was causing the image to jump around - but I assumed that that was due to my ancient PC which occasionally does some weird things with IE animations!
 * Thanks for alerting me to the problem. -- EdJogg 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikitable – far beyond my markup abilities! --Moonraker88 19:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ...it's not for the faint-hearted!! -- EdJogg 19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Great Britain
Copied from my talk page:

No edit of mine put in the 1842 date... in fact it pre-dates my involvement with the topic, as it goes all the way back to the start of 2006 (diff). It's got a fotonote for a source - see History of rail transport in Great Britain, though History of rail transport in Great Britain 1830 - 1922 need it adding as an inline reference. Thanks for your kind comments - very much apreciated. Although the rate of my edits has been rather high, they've mostly been reference-related. Regards Tompw 00:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See also this... although it merely tells us that 1840 is the earliest possible date.

I have a question
Hello... I would like to know why you are deleting the link to johndeeretractors.net? I do NOT own the site and I DO think that it is a very good resource to learn more about John Deere, his family, and early agricultural equipment. I would appreciate it if you would not delete the link. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West wikipedia (talk • contribs) 02:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * EdJogg's Response on West Wikipedia's talk page...



Spam masquerading as External links
I started writing this before you commented on my talk page, but it shows why I have been removing the links. The next paragraph is an 'official' comment provided by Wikipedia, which I provide for your benefit.


 * Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product.  See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate.  If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

As you well know, the link you have added to all those farming pages goes to http://www.communityhotline.com/johndeeretractors/ and the 'History' there is merely copied from the Deere & Company's official site. Unfortunately, the history on the official site covers none of the implements other than the plough (I wish it did), and so even substituting the link to the 'official' page in place of your commercial link is inadequate (hence why the links have all been removed as inappropriate).

I have looked at the link that you are using, several times, and it has NOTHING about the early history of farm implements. Therefore it is irrelevant, and since the page is provided by a commercial company, it will be regarded by most Wikipedians as spam. In the few places where it was appropriate I have redirected to the Deere & Company site instead, as the coverage is so much better.

Please do not re-instate the links to that site as it just wastes everybody's time. (Someone will remove them again, even if it isn't me). Instead, please put your enthusiasm to good use by creating content that covers Deere's products (but make sure it doesn't sound like advertising copy or someone will soon remove it again).

This is nothing personal (I am just applying Wiki policy) - you just happened to fall across my watchlist first rather than someone else's. EdJogg 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) 
 * EdJogg 02:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please Read
Hello... I am the one that put all those links to johndeeretractors.net and I would like to say that I am sorry about that. I feel like kind of an idiot for putting all of those links! I took a closer look at that site noticed that it really does not have much information on early equipment. Anyways I just wanted to say sorry for putting all those links on there. I am trying to look for anymore pages that I may have put that link on and take it off. Have a good day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.118.239.204 (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * ''Response by EdJogg on User talk:West wikipedia:
 * Thanks for the comment you left on my talk page (I presume it was you - the comment was unsigned). It is good that you are learning how Wikipedia works. I am sorry if my edit reverts seemed harsh, but your actions appeared to be just like a tractor seller trying to promote his business by putting his website on loads of pages.  This, of course, is not permitted on WP.


 * As I said before the reverts were not 'personal' - I just happened to get in first!


 * In future, can I strongly recommend that you always sign in. Questionable edits by anonymous users are likely to tolerated far less than by those who sign in.  Secondly, please sign talk page edits with ~, as this makes them easier to read.


 * Cheers! -- EdJogg 15:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Parish church

 * Original question from User talk:PMJ
 * Hi. I bumped into this template on the St John the Baptist, Egglescliffe page while creating and populating the raft of 'Churches in ' categories. I am not qualified to comment on the quality of the template (relative to other templates, that is) but it does look like a potentially useful thing to add to the many other church articles.


 * I have noted that it is 'under development', so I won't step on your toes by 'fiddling', and I hope you'll accept some friendly constructive criticism:
 * Were you planning to add an 'image' field at the top of the template? (It seems common practice and would brighten the articles.)
 * The 'Clergy' bar is twice as thick as the other subtitles. Have had a look and cannot see why!
 * The grey shading is a little pale. I do not notice it when viewing the page on my laptop.
 * Would the template do for other churches, or only Parish churches?
 * In the article text, once the template is in place and populated it will be possible to replace the link Anglican with [[Anglican]] – which is important in an encyclopaedia as the two terms are not strictly interchangeable
 * It might be helpful to editors if instructions for using the template are added to the template page
 * Once you are happy with it, would be worth promoting its existence at the WikiProjects for Anglicanism and Christianity


 * Having viewed most of the articles in the 'Churches in ' cats, it is clear to me that at least half of the English 'church' articles need extra work (at least a third are still stubs) and a consistent approach to content would be beneficial. Adopting your template when I re-visit the church pages next year will be a good start to this.


 * Cheers -- EdJogg 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's still work in progress, to be honest I should've been playing with the template in the sandbox or a userpage but it just seemed that there was a niche needing filled!

In answer to your questions
 * I've added an image field - did have this originally...
 * I also can't see why the clergy bar is twice as thick. If you look at All Saints' Church, Preston-on-Tees, it's fine, but St Mary Magdalene, Yarm is the same. I'm sure it's something obvious but I just don't see it!
 * I agree
 * Will do when I'm happy with it!
 * ditto

Feel free to play with the template, especially if you can think of anything to add. I've run out of names for priests... Originally, the template was aimed at parish churches but I think it could be adapted, which is why I've made the fields conditional. Obviously, there's been no such thing as a diocese in the Church of Scotland for several centuries!

Cheers PMJ 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation, but I must decline for the moment - I have so many other WP projects on the go! However, I must try to plan tackling the church articles next year, and if I start using the template then  I shall certainly tweak it if needed. (Indeed, I've just corrected a typo!)
 * EdJogg 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Further replies posted to User talk:PMJ .....

Template 'clergy line problem'
OK, I've had a bit more of a look. (That's the problem with being a software engineer...can't stop the testing!)

The two pages that are 'wrong' have a Rector, the one that works has a Vicar. This is significant. Try changing the title of the first priest. You will find that 'Priest' and 'Vicar' work fine, 'Rector' and 'Curate1' have a 2-line title, 'Curate 2' and 'Minister' have a 3-line title, and 'Pastor' has a 4-line title. There MUST be a link between this problem and the position of the appropriate row in the template. I suspect the other sections would suffer the same problem too. I don't know how these templates 'work', so I must let you experiment further. It is possible that when the conditionals cause TWO lines to be missed, WP equates this to a blank line in the title (in the same way that two blank lines between paragraphs will leave a big space).

EdJogg 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I lied. Before I had submitted that last message I realised what was the probable problem, and did a quick experiment... ...FIXED!  Have a look at the last two differences and you'll see the necessary tweak.  You may want to apply this to any other templates you've been developing!
 * This certainly appears to have fixed the existing problem. Could you please find time to play with the pages that use the template to ensure I haven't broken something else by mistake? Thanks.
 * EdJogg 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Phantom White Space
I've noticed the white space appearing at the top of the articles that use this infobox again. I remember you tried to fix this with Selby Abbey, in fact I believe you did at some point. Any ideas how, it seems to be back! –MDCollins (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mate, can't help with this one. I had a look at the code and the history just now, but I don't really understand how these templates work, so your best bet is to collar . He has applied most of the changes to this template and effectively undid my edits 2 weeks after I had applied them.  I have not seen the problem elsewhere, so it might be a case of calling in the help of a template expert. Cheers. EdJogg 13:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilfracombe
Sorry about the poor quality of the photographs. I hope they will be of use to you. Rosser1954


 * No need to apologise, they are quite clear enough for our purposes, and, as I hinted on your talk page, I am delighted to have access to ANY pictures of the station!
 * EdJogg 14:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I increased the resolution of the scanner without much apparent difference. I will have another go. Rosser

Battle Chess
I noticed you added it to your 'interesting pages' list - its brilliant. Brings back memories - I've got it somewhere! Mdcollins1984 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It makes me feel very old...('Windows 3.1' and all that!)...we had a copy on one of the computers at work – back in the days when a '386' was the thing to have, and the difference between 10MB and 20MB was VERY significant! I loved the animations, but never got around to getting a copy.  Looks like it's available as a download now, so presumably works with current Windows OS's?


 * Reason for adding to 'interesting pages' is to remove it from my watchlist. Being a Wikignome I end up with all sorts of pages kicking around there.  For sanity I'm trying to remove some - especially those that are obviously watched by others. (For example, most of the Thomas (TV series) pages are watched by Gonzerelli, so I leave the anti-vandal work to him.) Otherwise I end up continually finding new stuff to fix and never get on with my own projects!


 * EdJogg 12:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an xp download! Think I might start playing it again. Mdcollins1984

Thanks for the heads-up re: Ilfracome Railway Line page edits
Hi Pete, I think I understand about the formatting and placing of images. However, in order to fix the copyright date of the file I uploaded, must I delete the file and upoad it again, or is there another way?

Thanks -

Wil Davis 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Later:

I think I've sorted out the copyright and also the layoout. I've found the original negative of the Braunton Station photo, it was taken in mid-Feb 1977 (almost exactly 30-years ago!); I've also found some other negatives from 1976, 1977, and 1979 taken of that general area. The station buildings and signal box (including broken windows) were still there, as were the goods sheds and the signalling gantries. I wonder if it's worth scanning and adding them to the page. Wil Davis 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Wil. Yes, it would be worth scanning your photos and adding some, at least, to the article. We need to be careful that the article is not overwhelmed by pictures though, as there are already quite a few there. (I find it really surprising that I'm saying that – when I started the article I thought I'd be hard-pressed to find ANY!)  The point is that there isn't a great deal of text there (yet), and WP doesn't like picture-heavy articles.  There are a lot of Ilfracombe pictures at present, but they will move to the Ilfracombe Station article, when I get around to writing it.  Unfortunately, I don't think there's really enough encyclopedic information about Wrafton or Braunton stations for either to have its own article, so any pictures must be proportional to the available text.


 * May I suggest you investigate storing your photos in the WikiCommons area. Images uploaded to Wikipedia are expected to be used in articles, and any orphaned ones may be removed. However, images in the Commons area are available for anyone to copy into WP, and there are no restrictions on whether the pictures are used or not. Hence that may be the best place for your collection. Sorry for being vague, but I've only uploaded a single image so far, despite having started editing last June!


 * Another consideration is that there may well be other articles that can use your photos, and they're much more likely to be found if in appropriate categories in 'Commons'.


 * Hope that makes sense - my brain went to sleep ages ago. :o)


 * Cheers -- EdJogg 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, it makes more sense than it did 24-hours ago; I'd come across 'Commons' in my efforts to understand more about submitting images; that looks like the way to go.
 * Regards - Wil Davis 02:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Road types
When you say collide, do you mean the text overlaps with the template body? (this shouldn't be the case, as Navigation and equivalent navbox-templates already contain a "clear:both" statement). If just a empty line is needed above the template, this can be done in the article body (one clear line above a group of navboxes if that is the case). --Qyd 15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Navbox generic uses class "navbox collapsible", which already includes clear:both (I tried adding it to the style, and it doesn't seem to make a difference). I looked at Macadam and Tarmac, haven't seen any overlap, what browser are you using (I tried it on Firefox and IE7)? You are right there are editors that remove surplus whitespace from articles, and there are those that (like myself) delete it from navboxes. I explained my reasoning (look how navboxes stack in Canada for example). If you feel that Template:Road types would really benefit from a supplementar clear line, by all means, add it back. I don't like it, but wouldn't mind that much. Cheers. --Qyd 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Backhoe fade

 * Deletion of Backhoe fade - original question copied back for reference


 * Hi. I noticed you have (just) deleted Backhoe fade. Given that it was the subject of a merge discussion with Backhoe, it would have been polite, at the very least, to run it through an AfD and place a notice on Backhoe, so that us watchers could respond appropriately.


 * I don't remember the exact content of the article now (the merge discussion started last September!), as I only encountered it in passing, but the term seems to be 'recognised' and would be sensibly located as a section in Backhoe (with Backhoe fade becoming a redirect).


 * Article deletions do not show up on watchlists, so the first that anyone may be aware of them is when redlinks appear where they shouldn't (have a look at Backhoe, and you'll see that your deletion has created two redlinks, including one in the merge box, plus more on the talk page - goodness knows how many other links have been broken elsewhere).


 * Perhaps you can revert your unannounced delete so that users can take the correct remedial action on the problem.


 * EdJogg 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that this is a serious and notable subject, and not just neologism/humour. I'm reluctant to restore this as an untagged standalone, and if the tags stay it will get redeleted, so I've put the text with deactivated tags here. There was no merge tag on it incidentally. jimfbleak 13:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring this locally, I will see if I can ascertain usage of the term and take the apprpriate action. Rest assured I won't try to recreate it as a stand-alone article. Frankly, I have no idea whether it is serious/notable, although the other users commenting about the merge seemed to think so. I agree that over half the text is completely worthless, which makes my life easier.


 * My apologies for assuming that you had ignored a merge tag. I had assumed that one was present, since Backhoe was thus indicated.  Poor practice on the part of whoever tagged it in the first place. :o(


 * Incidentally, I am not an expert on the subject, I have merely ended up with backhoe on my watchlist due to its connection to steam shovel!


 * EdJogg 13:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI I have merged the term, as proposed. I have restored the article Backhoe fade as a redirect, since this seemed appropriate. (In doing so I discovered about ten pages linked.) The term IS widely known in the telecomms industry, and I managed to find a suitably 'official' web reference that defines it. EdJogg 13:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, glad it's all worked out in the end. jimfbleak 14:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blasco de Garay
Just cleaned up a short paper on Blasco de Garay and can send you a Word copy if you want it - but how do I get it to you? All the Rochester articles I mentioned the other day are very interesting but most are infuriating to try to read as they look as though they were copied by bored students using a pen scanner. The are blocks of text mixed up an uncorrected scanner errors; I am currently working on cleaning up Oliver Evans' "Abortion of Young Engineer's Guide" and Thurston's book on Fulton, so no need to duplicate the work. Best wishes, John Wright --John of Paris 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi John. Seeing how you have offered, yes, a copy of the paper would be interesting, thank you. However, I must confess that I hadn't a clue what you were talking about until I re-visited the Paddle steamer article!


 * Being a WikiGnome I tend to wander about and rarely concentrate on any one article for long (for example, just recently was the turn of crane (machine), which was in an appalling state, and still needs much work – the (exceptionally well-written) history section starts with the Ancient Greeks and continues to the mid 13th century, but then stops; the article then describes every configuration of modern crane! Aaargh!).


 * I have been a railway enthusiast for many years, and my love of steam comes from that direction. Since last July, I have also become intensely interested in traction engines, a direct result of discovering the scant coverage given to these wonderful machines on WP (check the article from last July, it's much better now, but there's loads still to do) and determined to do something about it. From there I have expanded my watchlist to cover the majority of steamy topics, and contribute (and defend!) where I can (some article sections had a distinctly anti-steam bias – the intro to Paddle steamer being one of them!).  However, my knowledge of the historical development of steam is virtually non-existent, and, although I am learning all the time, I don't think I can help you much. The books I have on traction engines can provide most of the history of steam road transport I need, but I need to buckle down and find some time to concentrate on writing it up!


 * As for how to send the document, look in the 'toolbox' on the left and you'll see 'E-mail this user'. If you send me a message, I should get your email address and we can progress from there... I've never tried it myself, but I got a message from a chap in Hungary yesterday, so it must work!


 * EdJogg 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed London Underground stations
You commented (and changed) my edit to the 'Closed Underground Stations' to indicate that the Poirot programme was broadcast in 1995 not 1994. I never indicated that it was broadcast in 1995 - The programme was MADE in 1994 and first BROADCAST in 1995. I know as I have the DVD of the programme which caries the copyright date.

(cur) (last) 19:00, 16 February 2007 EdJogg (Talk | contribs) (→Fictitious stations - Re-write to provide link to the TV series page, which clearly shows it was broadcast in 1995, NOT 1994.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.128.72.68 (talk • contribs).


 * Gosh, that was six weeks ago!
 * Maybe if you decided to register and log-in, your edits would be treated more kindly.
 * In this case there was a clear mismatch between the date on Agatha Christie's Poirot, which I assumed to be correct, and the information you added to this other article.
 * However, I apologise if you have taken offense to an edit summary which was itself not entirely accurate – but then, your original text did not say it was made in 1994, either, so assuming the date as 'first broadcast' was not unreasonable for me (or any other reader) to do.


 * EdJogg 13:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Style guide
The Wayback Machine at archive.org is your friend! However, the latest copy of The Times' style guide that they have is from 2002, so finding a more current link would be better if available. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. The reason the link is dead is that the Times website file structure is being overhauled at the moment. I sent an email to the tech department and got a very quick reply from them with the correct URL to use.  The Style Guide WILL be returning, but at present it is not available.  An alternative workaround is to go to the Times website and type 'online usage guide' into the search box (you get an odd selection of pages, but it does work – BTW this was their suggestion!) I will try to add the correct link in the near future.


 * EdJogg 01:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

SWML
Well i've added all the intermediate stations between Woking and Waterloo, as well as Queenstown Road. Simply south 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good stuff. I guess we'll need to see what others think before doing anything further. I'm just looking at Portsmouth Direct Line, although there I think I will persist with the 'see xxx for other stations' and see what happens.
 * EdJogg 12:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

North Downs Line
Thanks for your additions and tweaks to the diagram I added to this article. All improvements welcome! Britmax 00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it! By accident it is now quite close to the actual geographical arrangement of the line (at least with respect to Guildford!). It still needs mileage figures, and junction names, but I don't have the former to hand. EdJogg 00:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways
Thank you for your support for WikiProject UK Waterways. I've started it, and listed you as a member. Please feel free to amend your entry on that page, to show your areas of special interest. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ECML
I have started uploading duburban stations to here. Simply south 00:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Surrey map
Great, I'm glad that you approve! We have User:JeremyA to thank for the excellent work on the map. Warofdreams talk 02:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disused stations
Your comments at Talk:Reading to Plymouth Line included some thoughts on closed stations. I too have been pondering on those. Unless it was a really important location, such as Plymouth Millbay, I agree that they probably should not have their own article. I have two possible solutions, but as yet I am undecided which to follow.


 * 1) Add them as footnotes to adjacent stations, in the same way that I have been adding local junctions and yards to places such as Newton Abbot. This would be useful for, say, Weston-super-Mare where there are two demolished stations that pre-date the current one, but would be awkward with a location such as Durston that falls a long way from both Taunton and Bridgwater.
 * 2) A distinct article such as Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line). This would solve that problem and could have links to stations such as Weston-super-Mare.

Either of these would keep the route articles for just route information, and station articles for station information. My preferred style for routes is like Maritime Line where the route history and geography can be clearly seen, and there are clear links to the more detailed articles on operator, stations and nearby geographic features.

PS I still think we should be merging, not splitting :-) Geof Sheppard 07:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Option 2 would seem the clearest way to go. Not so sure about the 'adjacent stations' idea, although where they are clearly in the same place (as your W-S-M example) that is a clear and sensible solution (although the article title might need to change to the slightly odd "W-S-M railway stations"!)


 * The reason for me persuing the idea of a split is simply to recognise the amount of potential information in advance and identify suitable break points. If we take a more thorough approach, yes, GWML could be the combined top-level article and cover just the route and main (or open) stations.  More detailed route descriptions (such as Maritime Line) could then follow, with, as you suggest, further detail articles for closed stations and the like.


 * I think it is a problem of scale. Maritime Line looks a fine piece of work (is it your local line by any chance?) but could not be applied in the same detail to GWML – you'd fill a book! (BTW – Maritime Line is currently unreferenced, so I don't know how well such an article will fare in the current push against unref'd articles.)


 * As an alternative to articles about 'just' closed stations, at the detailed level, it would be possible to consider the sections of line as originally built and have an article for each of these.


 * I'm not going to be able to contribute much to the creation of these articles, but I do have the Ian Allan (1947?) British Railway atlas so that I can fill in gaps in routemaps!! Hopefully my ideas will help you work out the best approach for WP:UKRail to take...


 * EdJogg 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, you seem to confirm my current thinking. While including closed stations on closed lines is fine (e.g. Ilfracombe Branch Line), it is the ones on open lines that are difficult to find a solution to that suits everybody.

While we both agree that an article of encyclopedic detail for the whole of the current GWML is out of the question, I am concerned about spliting lines too much. One reason being the problem of the station link box or s-rail at the bottom of the page. Take Plymouth for instance, the main line bit should be...


 * colspan=5|* Not all services call at this station
 * colspan=5|* Not all services call at this station

BTW thanks for the reminder about the Maritime Line. So much to do, so little time! No, its not my local line, although it was for a short time. Geof Sheppard 13:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Modern railway stations - guide
I recently noticed that the location details of some railway stations. Whilst i agree on your comment about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a telephone directory, i thought that perhaps it'd be useful for people to know where the railway stations are. the national rail website is often either wrong or out of date when it comes to station details and facilities. by saying that the location of the station should not be included sounds rather odd to me. why have details of services and details of platforms then? surely they can be obtained from national rail too? would it not be easier just to have it all in one page? i for one have looked at a map of a city (cardiff for example, seen a railway statoin, gone to the nearest road marked, and found the entrance is about 15 minute walk around the other side.

please read these thoughts and if you could, do you have an idea as to how to overcome this? Halowithhorns89 14:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There has been much discussion in WP concerning what information should be provided for railway stations, whether it is appropriate for ALL stations to have their own article, and what service information should be provided. I can't provide links to the discussions, but if you Google this site for something like "is not a timetable", you may be lucky.
 * Further (heated) discussions have taken place to argue whether the template link to National Rail and MultiMap (at bottom of page) is appropriate, whether it counts as a valid External Link, whether it is 'indiscriminate information', etc. The current view seems to support its inclusion and use.
 * I would suggest that if you find National Rail site has incorrect information for a station that you email them. (I discovered that Slough railway station had the wrong postcode in its link from WP (although your address details were correct, as were National Rail and Yell.com), so I have corrected that.
 * As for the inclusion of the address information itself, I think your best bet is to read WP:NOT and make up your own mind. However, you will probably find that most editors will agree that its inclusion is inappropriate when it is so readily available from a much more appropriate external source. The same very much applies to timetabling information.
 * Hope this helps.
 * EdJogg 15:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it has helped, while i am disappointed that the said information should not be included, i wish not to argue or dispute the fact.

However as i travel the rail network frequently, i had the idea of putting that to use. i was considering whether or not to put information about the stations, like Smallbrook Junction has no external access, Wrexham Central is in the middle of a shopping centre, as is Hammersmith underground; what the stations serve(local villages, suburbs(see my edit on Aber railway station, local places like Bache for Chester Zoo, Westminster for Houses of Parliament. Whilst i do not intend this to be a travel guide, i do think that providing modern information IS appropriate. i do not intend to print timetable information on the articles, but would saying that Hawarden Bridge railway station has 3 to 4 trains a day peak hours only in each direction to Bidston northwards and Wrexham southwards, would that be appropriate?

Thanks again for your comments

Postscript, how would i create an article in a different language, for example Cardiff Central station in Spanishand Welsh?

Halowithhorns89 11:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern with the articles you edited was only in relation to including the postal address/phone no of the station, as discussed above.


 * The service information on Aber railway station is, I think, the acceptable level of 'timetable' information that can be provided, as it helps to quantify how busy the station is. Note that this is MY view, and I can't guarantee that other editors will think the same way. (The formatting could be improved too -- a bulleted list would suffice). On the other hand, if you said that services left 'on the hour and the half hour', for example, then that would not be tolerated, since the information is much better sourced from National Rail (eg). But trains-per-hour and journey times are probably OK in moderation.


 * The other contextual information that you suggest sounds OK to me, if it is presented in an encylopedic manner, and if it is not too extreme. ie It must be in context with the station in question: just because 'Town' mentions 'Significant building' (which is appropriate in the context of the area defined as 'Town') doesn't mean that 'Town railway station' should mention it too. However, if 'Significant building' is just across the road from 'station', then it's not unreasonable to mention this.  I can't give you hard-and-fast rules, but as you do more stations, you'll start to get an idea of what other editors will tolerate as being relevant for the article concerned! I guess a rule-of-thumb would be that if the snippet of 'local information' you were adding helps a reader from, say, Australia, to understand the context of the station with respect to its local area, then its worth trying to include it


 * There is an increased emphasis on references now, so you'll need to ensure that your 'travel guide'-type information could be readily verified from a map or by visiting the place, etc.


 * These are only my views, but if you want to bounce your ideas off other interested and more experienced parties, I would recommend you look-up WikiProject UK Railways or WikiProject Trains.


 * Finally, your postscript... I only speak the one language, but I suspect that all you would need to do is log-on to the appropriate Spanish/Welsh Wiki and create the article there, and then provide the necessary 'inter-wiki' links (see left-hand margin on a popular page like Tower Bridge) to tie them together. I also recommend you follow the 'Help' links to see what they say about it.


 * Cheers. EdJogg 14:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll options on Fred Dibnah's birthplace
I've started a poll on Talk:Fred Dibnah with four options for his birthplace area. As you've edited the main Fred Dibnah article, I'm letting you know about this Poll and the chance to vote one of the options. Cwb61 (talk)  00:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Telford Steam Railwy
Thanks for the edit, much improved on my initial effort

WaltTFB 07:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Steam Car
Thanks from me too for the edit. Sorry, I did not know about the line split issue.

All the best,

--John of Paris 10:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating the history: a great step towards rationalising coverage of this information.


 * As for the spaces...this is an area of inconsistency within WP. Many editors like to have a space between numbers and measurement units, and some specifically modify articles to add them. However, as you note yourself, it is not apparent that when the browser window is re-sized or page layout adjusted (for example) the result may leave the two parts orphaned on separate lines. Personally I do not think the spaces are necessary, but I do not go so far as to remove them. It would be nice if there were official policy about this (I am presuming there isn't!) but in its absence I'll just have to keep applying non-breaking spaces to the articles I care about...


 * EdJogg 11:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Steam engine
Hello again, I have put this cri de coeur on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team assessment page where for the moment it seems to be buried God knows where. In the meantime I would be interested in your reactions...

''I have been trying edit this article over the last six months and quite frankly it is a tangled mess. I have come up against such intractable fundamental problems that all that I have been able to do so far is to add some factual input to the early historical material. Even the subject "steam engine" itself is ill-defined: for instance I am at present trying to clarify the initial statement, presumably intended as some sort of "disambiguation": "the term steam engine may also refer to an entire railroad steam locomotive". Well this does not just apply to locomotives: in many cases the term can signify a whole steam unit, including the steam generator and motor or as in this article, specifically to the steam "motor" (or "engine part"). The problem is that the many different types of boilers can be combined with many different types of "motor". The implication of this is that when we talk of "efficiency" we can be referring to any one of three things: the boiler, the engine part, or the two combined into a unit. In each case we have to approach the problem differently: in the first case we are dealing with combustion, and heat transfer, in the second with fluid dynamics - in the third with work obtained from a given heat input. Confusion between the three distinct aspects leads to ludicrous statements like the following in the "efficiency" section. "One source of inefficiency is that the condenser causes losses by being somewhat hotter than the outside world. Thus any closed-cycle engine will always be somewhat less efficient than any open-cycle engine, because of condenser losses." This does not stand close scrutiny, as any steam engineer will stress the importance of maintaining feedwater temperature above a certain level. Warm condensate is most often recycled back to the boiler – and this in the interest of economy! - because it is perfectly obvious that less heat energy is needed to return warm water to working temperature than cold - so how do we square this circle? As I say the subject of this article is limited to the steam engine viewed as an expander unit. It is not about the whole integrated system, so I would question whether in this context it is valid to discuss overall thermal efficiency at all. Anyway, where do we go from here?--John of Paris 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (edit)''


 * Well, the first important thing is that the text is 'buried' at Talk:Steam engine/Comments (note the '(edit)' link at the end of your contribution above).


 * The next thing I would say is that it is probably too technical for them to get their heads round. As the "Additional information" section starts with: This article is an assessed orphan; it has been assessed by Work via WikiProjects, but should be rated by subject experts in a WikiProject. See the FAQ for more info. I think they would rather expect that subject experts (ie 'you' in this case :o) ) would review the topic for them and refine it as necessary.


 * Thirdly - I'm sure there should be a 'thirdly' but it's been a long day!


 * Hope this helps. If you want more specific opinion, please do say as much. -- EdJogg 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Y'see the problem is that Wickipedia itself is often too "technical" for me because I do not have an IT or mathematical turn of mind. My turn of mind is visual and I have to "see" in my mind's eye how systems work. If I set myself up as an "expert" on the subject, the ensuing debate will soon be be in mathematical terms with hot sources, cold sinks and equations all over the shop and that's all double-Dutch to me. The result is always the same: a dialogue of the deaf which will just compound the problem. This has happened already. I have raised this same fundamental problem on several discussion pages - Steam engine, Steam car, External combustion engine. You only have to visit own my talk page where I have copied various discussions to see where that has led; if you fear that what I have just sent you is "probably too technical", - just take a butcher's at that lot! My whole point is that in writing for Wickipedia, we are generally writing for non-specialists and should be at pains to put the subject matter into accessible language and syntax. This does not mean dumbing down - quite the opposite in fact, especially when presenting a specialist subject it means clearly organising our propositions, which is not happening at the present in this article... As I said, what I sent you is a cri de coeur - or a voice in the wilderness if you like.--John of Paris 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * John, I think that "...is not happening...in this article..." is because there are so few of us steamy types active on WP (as we have discussed previously). I suspect that nothing will happen with this article unless we make it happen ourselves, so, scarily (?) you probably have pretty much free reign to mould it however you see fit. I have the understanding, but not the knowledge, to help you, but mainly from a proof-reading perspective (which I find comes fairly naturally to me). In any particular area on WP there are suprisingly few editors working (or certainly in the areas that interest me!) – I have had Traction engine pretty much to myself for the past 8 months or so (which is why it hasn't progressed significantly).


 * Yes I agree that we should make the subjects accessible, and the solution to this (for "efficiency", for example) may be to have an 'accessible' summarised version on the steam engine page with a much more technical/mathematical treatment on a separate sub-page. It is a problem in many areas of WP -- some of the mathematical Featured Articles have quickly gone sailing over my head; and if you look at lightning and/or thunder for a simple expanation you may be sorely disappointed, so the problem is not restricted to steamy stuff.


 * EdJogg 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The situation you describe seems to be of relatively recent date as far as the Steam engine page is concerned. When I started visiting the discussions page last November there were quite a few contributions and a fair number of persons involved in various lively debates. All this now seems to have fizzled out and I'm very much on my own. Now like you, they may be just waiting for me to pull a rabbit out of the hat (some with their gun loaded and primed ready for the day I let it loose!) The other side of the coin is that I don't think they are all "steamy types" but that like me, some may feel that steam technology has as much of a future before as a past behind it, but hesitate to admit that due to the barrage of flak that proponents of steam are so often subject to. I may be just kidding myself about all that, but the following kind remark was encouraging: "This user, for one, is glad to see someone trying to get to grips with this. Your good work isn't going unregarded. --Old Moonraker 14:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)," and fired up by that I started jotting odd stuff down and have been doing so on and off ever since. But the task does look more daunting every day as it is not only this article that needs a rewrite because as I have already said what we have to find a way of clearly distinduishing between the steam engine as a prime mover and the steam engine as a component - a converter of pressure into motion. Well when you go to the "prime mover" discussions page as I did yesterday, you see that they've had their own problems, mainly due to the fact that the contributors (very few in this case) seem to be orientated more towards the philosophical side than the technological one and I get the strong impression that they would like to be rid of the latter - so they're no help! Anyway Pete as you see, I'm not out of the wood yet; I think your talk page is already bloated enough so will copy this lot onto my own if you would care to join me there...--John of Paris 09:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm watching your talk page... Archiving my talk page is on my ToDo list, as I noticed the page is over 100k now (oops!!) Perhaps that's not helped by my wanting to express my views 'in full' (as, I would say, is the case with you also :o)). It makes for good discussions, but not short talk pages!


 * I'm coming up to my first anniversary on WP (start of July... already >5000 edits in >1700 unique articles, and counting... Argh!) and I do not yet have a feel for how 'seasonal' it is. Just now I seem to be the sole active member of WikiProject Thomas, whereas 6 months ago there were 8 or 10 busy editors.  I think there is scope for a 'Wikiproject:Steam engines' which might bring a few more contributors out of the woodwork, although its likely to be thee and me starting it off :o(.


 * Enough! My WikiGnoming has spotted that Hit and miss engine needs saving...


 * EdJogg 10:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few of these. Never knew that's what they were called...--John of Paris 12:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

StealBoy
Hi EdJogg,

Like you, I've been following the activities of this user today, and reverted a number of vandalisms I spotted, going back some time. Bearing in mind the variable IP's he is using (I've checked all those from 220.233.238.1 - ...105 - his (or her) use of different IPs seems to increment chronologically). Is is possible to block access for all 220.233.238.- IPS? I'm not sure what the protocol is for requesting such a block, even if only temporarily?

regards, Lynbarn 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Frustrating, isn't it? I don't know the procedure, but since he/she/it is currently active you may well have a case for reporting the problem on Administrator intervention against vandalism. In view of the shifting IP addresses they may well waive the need for a complete set of anti-vandal warnings -- enough have been lodged across the various talk pages for the user to have taken notice by now. Suggest you include a link to the AfD page too. Good luck!
 * EdJogg 15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)