User talk:Picapica/archive1202

Ammanford railway station
Hi, re - what's your source for Duffryn Lodge? Butt (pp. 84,231) shows simply Duffryn. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I got it from Railway Stations Pantyffynnon to Llandeilo, on the Town of Ammanford website, but I've no problem about removing the word "Lodge" if that is indeed spurious. -- Picapica (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "A map showing the extension of the Llanelli railway line between Dyffryn Lodge and Garrey Fach deposited to the Clerk of the Peace by Joseph Watling Clerk to Crowder & Maynard 30th November 1852" (Carmarthenshire Archive Service here) may also be relevant, though it does not, of course, settle the question of whether the word "Lodge" was included in the original station name. -- Picapica (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The first link is internally inconsistent, with such phrases as "a mineral line swinging off at Tirydail, then called Duffryn Junction"; "Ammanford Station, né Tirydail, né Duffryn Halt as it is today"; "Originally called Dyffryn Lodge Station, Tirydail was renamed Ammanford and Tirydail in 1960"; "Ammanford Station, né Tirydail and Ammanford, né Tirydail, né Duffryn Halt, date unknown (1930s?)", so we have two votes for Duffryn Halt and one each for Duffryn Junction and Dyffryn Lodge. We can allow the Duffryn/Dyffryn inconsistency, since Duffryn is merely the anglicisation of the Welsh Dyffryn, but can we be sure about any of the suffixes? I'm particularly suspicious of the word "Halt" in two of them, because the GWR didn't use that word until 1903, 14 years after the renaming to Tirydail.
 * In the case of the second link, Dyffryn Lodge may have been shown on the plans as the name of the nearest identifiable feature - the locality where a station was proposed, or the name of a country house near that point; but that does not necessarily mean that the station would have been given the same name. The plans for Didcot railway station for example, give the name of the locality as "Dudcote". If you check out this old map website, and in the box upper right, look for "1878 Pre-WWII 1:2,500 CARMARTHENSHIRE", and click the green button "Enlarge Map", you'll notice that the map centres near to a railway junction just north of Ammanford. Just below centre is "Dyffryn Station"; but not far to the right of centre is "Dyffryn Lodge". You can click on these to enlarge; and it seems that Dyffryn Lodge is indeed a country house. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the solution pro tem. is simply to remove the word "Lodge", don't you? It's what I've done, anyway! -- Picapica (talk) 08:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, till we find some books explicitly naming the station as "Duffryn Lodge", anyway. I've checked MacDermot's History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II 1863-1921, and he gives (p.77) the name of the point reached on 6 May 1841 as "Duffryn", with a footnote "renamed Tirydail in 1889". -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also reverted to "Duffryn" as, having consulted a number of works in the library today, there is no doubt that despite Dyffryn's being the correct Welsh spelling of the locality as shown even on English-language maps of the time, the railway did spell it "Duffryn". Railways (especially the GWR) were notorious for taking such liberties! Even the cast-iron-lettered "Tirydail" of the later station nameboards conflicts with the Tir-y-dail clearly shown on maps (the stress falls on the wrong syllable in the spelling "Tirydail")... -- Picapica (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The GWR were not the only guilty ones: the LNWR & LMS used Conway instead of Conwy. I think it's only since the 1960s or 1970s that the Welsh spellings have been preferred over the English for station names: for example, Llanelly became Llanelli in 1966. Of course, where there is a lot of difference, the English spelling stands firm (Swansea, not Abertawe), although in such cases the nameboards have been bilingual for a similar period. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the Highways WikiProject
naveenpf (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bill of lading


A tag has been placed on Bill of lading requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Gsingh (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with me, guv. I haven't been near this article in more than seven and a half years... -- Picapica (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DIN 1451 and DIN (typeface)
Re: Talk:DIN 1451 - it's taking so long because nobody's done it. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  17:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Trouble is: it needed to be done well -- and that means by someone with far more technical expertise in this area than that possessed by me! However, I see that you've now effected the merger, so all's well that ends well. -- Picapica (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)