Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive of EdJogg's talk page

31 August 2008 - 31 August 2009

For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

Hi, Ed thanks for message, just added a couple as not wanting to over load article, as saw it had an expand tag. was only there for Thursday but got about 600 photos for my project at Tractors.Wiki.com so started with the tractors then moved to the steam as trying to get photos of every machine for the steam section. Gave up on the Showmans as too many people in the way. Missed the Heavy haulage (trucks) area out but got few in the ring last off. Should have gone to the top of the ploughing field hill to get an over view shot but didn't bother as had some steam ploughing ones from Holcot the other week. Most of my photos are going on to 'my' Wiki project. Did consider going back today but a full tank of fuel and 4+ hours each way and with a poor weather forecast i decided not to bother, think you had a better Idea stopping a few day. May do that if I can get next year, as missed last year as was in Ireland working. Also got a few small books for reference material and got a few photos of the steam cars including one with the "Engine" mechanism exposed. Think the GDSF article needs splitting into sections to build up but was unable to think of much text to add to go with the pictures last night as it jumps about a bit. BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point about not overloading the article -- would be easy to add a photo of every section and make a huge picture-based article, but that wouldn't go down too well :o) The problem with expanding it is the need for reference sources (I notice two more links have been added -- we should incorporate them as refs in due course!) There is a good history on the GDSF site itself, but haven't got round to modifying this article yet. I mention a picture book (I think it is used as a ref!) but I forgot to pick up a copy this year (didn't visit the stand concerned). I haven't even found out when (or why) it is known as the Great Dorset Steam Fair.

We have been going for about 6 years now. After the second year of trying to do a full day trip (2hrs driving each way) we decided that the only way of doing the show real justice was to camp and visit two days running (in practice, an evening + 2 days) - and it is still difficult to see everything, especially if you lose yourself watching the heavy haulage ring, which I can do for hours on end! The weather wasn't too bad at all, in fact it's the warmest we've been all summer (having spent two very damp weeks under canvas earlier). Next year my boys are wanting us to stay for the Saturday as well!

The only thing really missing from the show (that springs to mind right now) is a proper steam shovel. They've had later diesel equivalents, but no steam-powered beasts; however, they are very rare in working order, and big, so it's not very surprising. Also I'd like to see some less-conventional (steam) rollers, such as the Robey tandem and tri-tandem types, and any vertical-boiler examples (all exist in preservation, but I have not seen them in the flesh: pics would enhance the steam roller article, if you have any in your collections?)

Easier to take pics of the showman's engines that are not in the line-up, otherwise you just have to be very patient!

EdJogg (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Only been 3 times now. Dont think I had a digital camera the 1st time, so must look at the old fashioned collection. I canot think of a Proper steam shovel, dont think they have one at the Vintage Excavator trust site as Ive got most of there machines on photos. Got a steam crane but its incomplete and unrestored at Ironbridge some were. The Armstrong And Whitworths roller in the tents rare as they only made few late on, and its No.2 according to another data base. The VET have an early diesel at Threkeld thats un restored yet. Not seen the other you mention (yet) but if i find them will add. Got book on Fowler, Garrett, and a reprint of a paper on road rolling to the IME by T Aveling, printed by the RRA. Is there a proper steam shovel at Lincoln museum ?

Got most of the Showmans that were doted about, and one shot of the line of 30 but too many people wandering about. Trouble now is remembering which engines I'v got already as some are at lots of shows, Dosent matter as much with my new camera as old one usest to run out of battery power after 150 photos :( Just Disc space now.

A Gallery section might be an idea, and was thinking split it into the different show sections for a description and photos. I've used some of the photos for other related articles with a link to the GDSF article - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Steam needs a Project or task force as other transport sectors have project groups; Trains Bus, canals etc for example all have one.

What do you think to having a Project for UK engineering heritage, covering Steam, Old Engineering firms etc, and the transport stuff which is covered but other areas are lacking. The UK area of Wikipedia could have an overall Engineering Heritage Project with the different branches below that as there is loads of Isolated article not really tied together. As the UK used to be the engineering and Industrial innovators for a lot of the world at one stage. In the Yorkshire section there is loads of article on coal mines, and then theres all the old Companies articles like the steam engine builders and rail locomotive firms which are often not grouped other than to railway categories. I know your trying to build up the Steam related firms articles as well as the Basic Steam engine and car articles. I Started with tractors and plant then added steam engines, and Internal combustion engines and Truck builders to my tractors project and its spreading out like a spiders web, as i hunt for info to fill in the gaps and go beyond the wikipedia basic history of each subject with details of all preserved examples and specs etc that fail to meet WPs criteria / policies.

I've come across several firms id not heard of before, as steam engine builders, Brown & May, Babcock & Wilcox (Babcocks i did know of as powerstation engineers), Armstrong & Whitworth building rollers, others building stationarty IC engines like Wolseley before moving onto car making, and are now the plumbers merchants. So vast range of History and interconnections of firms missing in general. What do you think about some new project(s)? BulldozerD11 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A project sounds like a good idea. There is an official process for creating one, but a task-force of an existing project would be simpler. I would certainly participate, but don't really have the time to set anything in motion. There must be some kind of 'WikiProject UK', and that might be the best place to start off asking, to see what sort of support there might be. Thereafter, notices on the UK Railways, Trucks, UK Museums, and Industrial Archaeology projects (I think that last one exists, it might be just 'Industry') would also raise awareness. EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes times a problem. I'd looked a bit and not found anything other than the transport stuff, and some articles had been tagged business project by a bot but then never graded. A Project Lincolnshire's just starting so that may cover them a bit. So maybe should sound the idea at project UK then ? Articles need abit of support or else the daft merge Road rollers and Steam rollers type proposals appear as their both about rollers. Then theres the other extreme of articles on every little stream and creek, football team, and 2 house town etc. getting a stub or major firms (in a local context getting AfDed). - BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

We last discussed this on 22 Aug. You said you did not want us to cause 'motor' to become the standard usage in this context. So what day does User:Wolfkeeper chose to go and put 'motor' here: [1]? What can yer do, eh? Globbet (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to know what to do here. Life outside WP has been hectic recently (too many things to repair!) and I don't have the energy to fight this particular battle. I have been consciously avoiding the arguments on the steam engine page. You may care to ask Wiktionary for verification of the terms added to Steam Engine, since the definition there is somewhat sparse, and this might assist our cause. As I said on the Steam Engine talk page, the only real answer will be when we find some references to support our usage of this or equivalent terms, and then no-one will be able to argue about it any more. EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand this: "I would support this, in which case the category should be restored to the Foden redirect to assist anyone searching via the category." You seem to be saying that Category:Steam road vehicle manufacturing companies needs Foden and Foden Trucks, or whatever that gets moved to? Globbet (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's getting rather late! I am supporting your rename suggestions. The reason for including the redirects in the categories is that people are likely to be searching inside a category for an article titled 'Foden xxx' rather than one starting 'Edwin' (Yes I know they'll be in adjacent sections, but I don't think that's a real issue.). The only point I was trying to make about Foden Trucks is that there's bound to be a diesel category equivalent to the steam category mentioned and that we should use that. EdJogg (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we get round that by using "Category:Steam road vehicle manufacturing companies|Foden, Edwin, Sons & Co." Globbet (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems a sensible move. EdJogg (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you might want to consider the previous feature, it does help fighting vandalism ...

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, although I don't know why you singled me out... I have been using the non-administrator Rollback facility, when appropriate, since it was introduced.

EdJogg (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw you fighting vandalism, please do not ask where, and I thought that the rollback button might be handy. I always suggest people to get it if they do not have; I would suggest you though to place the template {{user rollback}} in your page, so people know you have those rights ;)

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've also reorganised all the boxes into two groups: those specifically related to Wikipedia editing, and those for 'external interests'. Hopefully this will be more useful to casual vistors!

As for where I was doing anti-vandal work, it was most likely a page associated with railways, steam engines/transport or any of the "Thomas" pages; however, being a WikiGnome I end up editing most pages I visit, so it could have been anywhere! (Just checked, and my latest tally is over 3000 unique pages edited.)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I've responded to your input but just wanted to warn you to refresh your browser if you read further, as I've made some minor changes in the 'restoration' part :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wise move - thanks for the warning - avoided a possible edit conflict. I've responded in the FAC review. Will try to review further for you this weekend, but there are many non-WP calls on my time at present, so I cannot promise to finish the job, but I'll give it a go if I can -- there's rather a lot to read! EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

-

heh, that would be fun :) In all seriousness though I'd like to let rip with a chainsaw on some sections, a bit of rope, a few straps, and CRACK over they go :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your tweaks to the quotes are fine. The OCR on the older articles in the Times archive is dreadful, and it more or less involves a complete rewrite. I should have run it through Word's spellchecker when I'd finished I suppose. Richerman (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, based on their own admission and this discussion it now appears that User:Olana North was a sockpuppet of User:Canterberry. Which probably explains quite alot. --CBD 11:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I knew that, having recognised his style. But I also recognised that his positive contributions to WP far outweigh the negative ones which attract all the attention, and are usually brought about through provocation of some kind. Early-on I warned him that a repeat of his previous behaviour would not be tolerated here, and I thought that he might have learnt his lesson. The latest issues arise through two potentially hot-headed editors allowing matters to get out-of-hand. It is most frustrating!!

EdJogg (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your help with the references etc on Kennet and Avon Canal. The recent "edit torrent" was because it was up for GAR and would have been demoted if the additional references had not been provided. While I'm here you wouldn't fancy taking a look at Bridgwater and Taunton Canal as well as this has recently been undergoing a major expansion?— Rod ^talk 14:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The K&A has been on my watchlist, but I had to take it off briefly as the large surge of edits was swamping my list (it was impeding me tackling a backlog of changes to check). I had noticed it was a GA review, but the review was passed before I could join in! This edit was the result of me double-checking the bulk changes and returning the to my watchlist. Note that for speed I only proof-read the displayed portion of the references.

Since you have asked nicely, I will try to have a look at the B&TC page in the near future. It is only 'C' class currently, so I will not necessarily take as much time as I would for an FA review, but it'll be useful none-the-less. You'll see I've already had a tiny look, although I've only read one paragraph -- I noticed the picture showing "demolition chambers" and wanted to find out more, but "demolition" is not mentioned outside the picture caption, which is an omission you will want to address.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilink. I did see the article but wasn't sure he was the right person, which is why I didn't link him. Mjroots (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's OK. Lord Faulkner's page needs expanding to show his involvement in railways, which is considerable. (Can be sourced from articles on his website and the Railway Heritage Committee, which also deserves its own page). That's the trouble with WP....I keep finding more things to do!!

EdJogg (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Why did you remove the roller picture I added? It's not towed, but it's still a roller. (Please reply on my talk page of course) Tempshill (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did - thanks for the disambig - never mind. Tempshill (talk) 05:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GWR 645 Class

Anything built or converted to broad gauge would have been (re) converted from 1892 onwards. Strictly speaking the locos were not pannier tanks until progressively converted in the early 20th century. Because of their long life and numerous close relatives, the similarities are arcane to say the least and even the original spec might not really be original. Similar comments would apply to 850, 2021, 2721, 1854, 1501 classes as all started as open cabbed saddle tanks but most ended with PT and full cabs.

LaScala

I appreciate your changes (typically Woodham's Scrapyard to Woodham Brothers scrapyard) but could you check whether an apostrophe has been added after 'Brothers]]'? (it is needed). I've modified the two articles I have come across so far (GWR 56xx, SR WC/BB).

(I don't know what the MOS says about adding an 's' after the apostrophe after Brothers, but I think it looks odd in this case, so I have omitted it.)

Thanks EdJogg (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (PS is your WikiBreak notice still relevant?)

[update] Having thought about it, this will depend on context. The two instances I mentioned did need an apostrophe, whereas the instance in the lead of Barry Island Railway ("the former Woodham Brothers scrapyard.") does not. (No chance for a bot edit then!)

EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Thanks! But they spell it on their website and in their companies house registration without the apostrophe. It is always a difficult one, but I tend to go with the company/organisation spelling over any punctuation rules, even if the company gets it wrong! Look after yourself - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's OK -- I'd already given up trying to 'fix' it! Having done the two I mentioned I saw a number of other instances, and the more I looked, the less I could work out whether an apostrophe was needed or not!! EdJogg (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Big Eddy.. I was trying to improve the US traction engine page. Someone added a huge list of traction engine builders. Most of them one off and very obscure. I thought if we halved the list by moving to talk and wrote more articles on the the bigger builders it would work. Also, looking at the UK builders the articles are very thin too ie Burrell. msg to IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.76.183 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Big Eddy"???? Um...No.

There isn't a "US Traction Engine page" as such -- steam tractor covers much of the topic, but the List of traction engine manufacturers is just that: a list. Please do add to the individual manufacturer pages, but don't try and make the list what it isn't supposed to be.

And PLEASE register a username for yourself.

EdJogg (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

Fellow TTTE fan here, and fellow TTTE Wikiproject member! I noticed you are an active member of the wikiproject and was wondering if you would take a look at/join my forum.

I'm just getting started and I'll be inviting everyone in the TTTE Wikiproject soon.

Here is the link to my forum:

The NEW Tugboats and Thomas Forums

I hope you enjoy, and I'll check here for your response.

ZEM (Hankengine) (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Thomas forum! How many of them are there? What's wrong with the others?

If I had any time to waste on Thomas forums, then I would probably head for the Sodor Island Forums which is long-established and whose members brought about the Thomas WikiProject in the first place. As it is, I try to steer clear of ANY forums except when I need assistance with something, as they are a total black hole for one's internet time. Instead I try to spend my time more constructively at that other time black hole...Wikipedia!!

EdJogg (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see where you are coming from on that. If you ever change your mind, your still welcome to join. :) ZEM (Hankengine) (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye out. If anyone else tries it, they are simply (or should be) off-shoot articles from a parent (main article) 'Locations in the RS', for length purposes and WP:SUMMARY. That should hold them off.

–MDCollins (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I must admit that I was rather worried about this, although this has eased considerably since we have determined that the AFD was raised by a confirmed sock puppet and vandal! I hope it is now a case of someone deciding that there is no case to answer for so that the case can be dropped, and since the original poster is no longer around (supposedly) the articles should be left alone now. Well, you can hope.... EdJogg (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake for inverting the order on the Haytor Granite talk page. My apologies, and thank you for fixing. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk)

I couldn't believe that there wasn't an article List of steam fairs, so created a very incomplete one just now. Obviously there are loads of these worldwide, but I have no idea whom to encourage to add to it and to create articles on the topic. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Could be useful, though I don't know how many of the hundreds of steam rallies are going to be notable enough to include in WP. What makes a steam fair notable here?

In other places we have got away with (for now!) providing a suitable external link where an internal one is not available. Problem I can see is that people might view it as an advertising or 'list of links' page.

You could add the other pages listed in the category (where appropriate) and also look at steam engine, traction engine, steam tractor and live steam for further links, although most will be external.

There isn't yet a 'steam' WikiProject, although I have mooted one occasionally. Problem is two-fold: (i) which parent category to use? (would need to be a sub-group of an existing project -- too much work otherwise!) (ii) there are few people who contribute regularly to steam-related articles. At least if you link your new page from the ones that I mention we have the potential to shunt the external links from those pages. (And if anyone complains, we'll just have to move the content to TSW or the Tractor Wiki.)

EdJogg (talk) 10:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS - just looked at my watchlist and noted that you have already provided a number of links into the page -- EdJogg (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose any list of events can have the same issues of being considered advertorial. And yet the almanac side of WP does mean that they could/should be included, at least in list format. Whether they warrant an article is always an interesting point. I think I've got to the end of my "within WP researches now, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, I think it's looking quite healthy: several countries represented, majority of internal links. Only criticism I can see potentially levelled (it crops up occasionally) is whether the list AND the category are both required -- in which case it is more likely to be the list that survives. I guess we'll just have to see how it pans out... -- EdJogg (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One can make a very strong argument for both the list and the category using WP's own rationale for lists and categories. Such deletion arguments are usually proposed by the less rounded wikipedians who think disk space should be saved! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the "founder" of the Thomas Minor Characters WikiProject. I do not participate in it and I only created the page because me and my friend Bulldog180 were sitting at a computer and we were on my account. Bulldog180 created the WikiProject, and you should take up any concerns with him. Thanks, The New Squeaky ^razgovor 00:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I hold you both responsible, and I've answered at your talk pages. EdJogg (talk) 01:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You know where I am if you want some help!–MDCollins (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of the fact that you keep buging me about it I am almost ready to leave the wikipedia but im not going to because of my friends here like The New Squeaky with no help from you making me feel down. (respnde on my talk page). Bulldog180 (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What appears to be a new editor has made some valuable additions, but in a way that renders the article pretty much entirely OR. I'm standing a bit too close to it to copyedit the OR out, but have sprinkled it with {{fact}} tags and left them a message in their talk page (and edited quite a bit of the OR out as a side benefit). I've reconstructed a great deal of what they removed and tried to weld it all together, but I don't think I've done a particularly good job. It needs a fresh pair of eyes. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I spotted that he had removed a large chunk of what was there previously, and noted it needed some reversion. I didn't read it carefully enough to spot whether it was OR or not -- most seemed like common sense to me... I'll take a look... EdJogg (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with common sense and WP is that it may be reasonable, even well written, but the no original research guys rip articles to shreds rather than research them. The additions make sense in that they are logical, but that doesn't mean it passes the guidelines, I fear. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It says "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere." in red. Google Chrome doesn't render it properly, so it obscures text! Not that I care. Just mentioning it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It also obscures the text in IE6/IE7 (sometimes) which I use, so I suspect there's summat wrong with the template. (I've just ignored the issue so far!)

EdJogg (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but assumed it was deliberate - it certainly gets noticed!—MDCollins 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thomas the Tank Engine Rug (Cropped).jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember this rug - maybe I had one when I was small - it looks so familiar! Having checked the Oliver/Duke history and the contributors, the penny drops and it all falls into place. BTW have you noticed this image is being used in "certain userboxes" by a certain spin-off wikiproject?

Yours in sanity,

—MDCollins 23:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It was made by my better half from a kit, many years ago. I assumed that we were 'safe' using this image as the project pic but apparently it is a 'derivative' and hence copyright persists... I was aware of the more recent other use, but was turning a blind eye to it (I think the related regulations are completely OTT.)

EdJogg (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But your better half will have deviated from the instructions, thus modifying the design, surely? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that makes any difference 'officially' -- if you remember a comment a little while back about fan fiction being technically still a derivative work due to being based on a copyrighted original? Frankly I think it's crazy that a bit of common sense cannot persist here -- I could put that image on any number of other websites and I doubt the Awdry's would bat an eyelid... Who would use it commercially? It's a picture of a rug!! EdJogg (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The best I can find is this - the table with all the links in the correct places in. Can't find much discussion other than in Archive1 where Gonzo suggests that 1-10 have main articles, and nobody took exception, thus forming the basis of the consensus, without everybody saying "Who agrees with Gonz" - "We all do...".—MDCollins 13:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it was the comments from Archive 1 that I was after, thank you. The selection seems to have been by silent consensus rather than a specific vote (and the Skarloey engines have never been fully resolved since!). It was interesting to see how my involvement with Wikipedia started off, as I was very much a 'junior' member of the project then!

At least there is a basis to what we are trying to uphold. The FAQs need updating to reflect the current status. I think the information I am seeking was once part of the main project page, but has since gone. Time for a FAQ review!!

EdJogg (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the discussion on UKT is getting a bit heated. I'm not sure what the correct course of action is here. Canterberry should be given another chance, but if he returns, he should understand that he is on probation and that a block will be reimposed if there is a repeat of the behaviour that led to the block in the first place. Would RFC be a better place to allow a wider debate? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what to do. I have got dragged into these debates through standing up for Canterberry when he was originally blocked last year. I spotted (fairly quickly) that Olana North was the same character and, AFAIK he kept his nose clean until September this year - then he got into a barney with another editor and someone (Pigs~~?) spotted a connection, which was confirmed by Canterberry himself. I don't know him off WP, but he seems a pleasant-enough guy most of the time. Trouble is that sometimes he lets his guard down and starts expessing his opinions too freely -- this has often happened late at night, so whether he's started editing after a visit to the pub...? This is only a theory of mine, and I don't have any grounds to think this other than the timing of the edits. So please do not read too much into this.

Now, unfortunately, my name gets mentioned in these discussions because of my previous involvement, so I feel duty-bound to continue my support. Today is a case in point. But I continue because I feel that justice has not been done. (Incidentally, I think that Pigs~~ was blocked, for a shorter length of time, around the same time as Canterberry, and this really put C's nose out of joint! -- not out of jealousy, but because the punishments were not equally applied.)

What is even more frustrating is that Canterberry didn't seem to have learned his lesson -- if he'd kept his head down, Olana North (or was it North Olana?) would still have been editing constructively and no-one would have been any the wiser. As it is, he was blocked again and when his name gets mentioned all hell breaks loose -- sheesh!

EdJogg (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My user name is "Pigsonthewing", and if you have any comments about me, you're welcome to address them to me directly. Meanwhile, I look forward to your apology on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Canterberry/Olana North. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I've asked another admin. The correct procedure is to raise the issue at WP:AN. What do you think about doing this? Whether or not the block is overturned, at least doing that will allow the issue to be debated fully. Mjroots (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ed, regarding your recent edit to Wilts & Berks Canal Trust, it suggests that Wilts & Berks Canal Amenity Group still exists. Is this so? Derek Andrews (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you -- I haven't the foggiest idea! If you look carefully at my edit you will see that I merely copied some text from further down the article! (I've just looked at the W&BCT website, and that doesn't really give any clues about itself....

...some minutes later...

...oh yes it does! Thanks to Google, I found the page http://www.wbct.org.uk/aboutus.html, which clearly states: "The Wilts and Berks Canal Trust, and its predecessor the Amenity Group..." (In fact, you just click on the 'About us' sidebar button, ignoring the popup menu.)

So, there you go! I keep finding stuff on subpages of that website that I hadn't spotted previously (which may say something about the way it's arranged?)

EdJogg (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pete, hope I've found the right page and done it correctly... I'm at the bottom, and I've added a new header, although I couldn't find the "+ symbol at the top of the page" which was mentioned.

Editing of lovely "line" map: I'm keen to have a go, but I can't get it into my sandbox. There's no option to edit the map itself, and when I go to Edit Page, there's a link to Wilts and Berks Canal map, but when I put that title into the search box, no page with that name exists.

Sorry to be a pain (once I get the hang of Wiki I'll be very quiet and good, promise!) but can you please explain in very simple terms how I can access it? Thanks in advance,

Lucy Cassidy (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hi EJ, if you prefer the +, you can use it yourself by adjusting your "preferences/gadgets/UI gadgets" - the +/new section depends on the readers settings I think. Bit of useless knowledge I found this week for you!!—MDCollins 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC))

While I was preparing a reply for Lucy -- which you interrupted :-p -- I realised that my text would need to mention BOTH possibilities, for that very reason.
(Bother!) EdJogg (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Now where was I...?

Thanks for mentioning the '+'. A recently-added user option was to allow the user to select whether '+' or 'new section' should appear at the top -- I have changed the text to suit. And, yes, you have followed the instructions for adding to a talk page correctly!

OK, your second paragraph covers a number of issues. You have already found that when you edit a page there is a list of links at the bottom. These point to the pages that define the templates (and sub-templates) used within the article. If the map isn't written directly into the article, then it is written as a separate template page. The tendency is for larger maps to be created as templates. To find a template using the search box you will need to prefix it with the namespace 'Template:' (note the colon). Alternatively, just click on the link

Recently a number of railway routemaps have been modified to include 'v d e', which provides direct links to View, Discuss (Talk page link), or Edit the template. It would be useful if the canal templates did the same. (It CAN be done -- I've just added it to the W&B map.) Do be warned, though, that if you modify a template, the pages that use it are not immediately updated (they are placed in a job queue and may take a day or more to appear) -- or you can 'purge' the page (can't remember how), or edit the article, to force the changes to appear.

This should get you going.

EdJogg (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so very much, I am "going" right now! No doubt I'll run into problems and reserve the right to come back and pester you...

First task: make myself a sandbox page, and play about with a copy of the map before daring to amend the real one.

Comments re update delay have been noted, thank you. Lucy Cassidy (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"May the urge be with you!" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear that referring to anoraknophobia as vandalism may be an indication that one's sense of humour is in need of restoration. The reference was in no way inaccurate but if dull is the only way anyone can be on Wikipedia so be it--Cassandra1953 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me who reverted your addition. If you can provide appropriate references then it may be possible to include the term; however, I suspect that the term is only ever used to poke fun at train spotters and so is probably not appropriate in a neutral article.

As for the (sense of) humour...there's nothing wrong with mine. However, WP is intended to be a serious encyclopaedia so joke materisl is out-of-place.

EdJogg (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I've been working my way through Category:Somerset geography stubs (I've reduced it from 500+ to 300ish) & came across User:EdJogg/sandbox2 as it has this cat on it. It looks to me as if the Somerset Space Walk article is good enough to go into mainspace & I wouldn't call it a stub any more. Would you like any help with it & can you remove the stub tag?— Rod ^talk 20:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the stub tag, as requested. The article is about as finished as it's likely to get with the currently available online information. The next task was to send an email to Somerset County Council and the local canal group to clarify a few points before it went 'live' (+ DYK!). If you have any further information, then that would be good.

EdJogg (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been discussions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Design standards, perhaps? regarding the standards for route diagram templates. As the original creator of {{RoutemapRoute}} you may like to add your views on the use of otherwise of arrows in these template. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tankboy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tankboy. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note about Alexander McDonnell (engineer). I will look at the copyvio issue. I think all CMEs of railway companies should be regarded as notable. Even if a person was in post for only a short time, it makes no sense to ignore him because that breaks the continuity of the series of CMEs. Biscuittin (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have modified the text. Biscuittin (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining the debate about North British Railway loco classification at Talk:Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway? Biscuittin (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• how does charles dickins create an atmosphere in the line up to the signalmans death?
• what is the setting that he uses so improtant does it help create terror in the readers eyes?
• how does he use charactoristics in the signalman?
• what is the plot? what is he trying to achive?
• finally is there a theme/ moral hidden behind the signalman?

-- could someone help me answer my curiosity please i need to know or i wont be able to sleep to night --

---

from a young mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.207.167 (talk • contribs) 20:18 08 Feb 2009

Ho-hum, that lot sounds like homework to me!

Unfortunately, you are asking the wrong person...I was always hopless at plot/character analysis in English Literature.

EdJogg (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't underestimate yourself Ed, I'm sure you could at least spell "Dickens"

I always preferred David Copperfield and the sadistic headmaster thrashing boys who got others to do their homework for them within an inch of their lives. 8-) This place gets more like Usenet every day. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello EdJogg! Thanks for improving my new article on this railway-linked operator. I'm told by a very experienced Wikipedia contributor that the lead section of articles should normally be left as a simple introduction, without links etc. I recently gained 'GA' (good article) status for a piece on Manchester Liners, a shipping company, without including links in the lead-in (sic). Hence my (deliberate) omission in the P&M article. Sincerely RuthAS (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing GA and FA articles whose ledes were peppered with links! I have just checked against WP:LEAD for clarification, and found this, relating to the first sentence of the article (see WP:BOLDTITLE):

"Use as few links as possible before and in the bolded title. Thereafter, words used in a title may be linked to provide more detail:"

It may be that your fellow contributor had read this and then remembered it differently. As far as I can tell, there are no other restrictions on use of links.

EdJogg (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJogg. Yep, you're right there. I must either be Mr. Unpopular or I'm doing everything right, so that no-one needs to talk to me! I'm going to have a pretty long break regarding the Southern Railway article. The calm before the storm, you might say, but I'm doing an MA dissertation on this railway at the moment, so to prevent the risk of being accused of plagiarism, I'm going to have a break on this article for at least 1.5 years! That's not to say that I won't tinker with what's already there by adding more references as they arise and improving the wording, but nothing particularly new will be added by myself, especially as regards the war. This is why I have returned to my old stamping grounds of specific railway locomotive classes, as they are relatively harmless where my dissertation is concerned! My latest push will be the 'Leader' for FA, as this has evolved a bit more of late, and it really did need a read through despite it being a GA. It probably needs a lot more, so I'm going to take my time over it, rather than do my old thing of dashing between multiple locomotive articles in getting them all raised to GA/FA at the same time. Anyway, hope all's well with you. I'm still on the lookout for an image of one of the Beattie 'Ilfracombe Goods' locomotives, but it's quite difficult to find a public domain image without having Bradley's LSWR Locomotives: The Early Classes to hand. There's bound to be one that was in the BR archives somewhere! Anyway, if you fancy giving me a helping hand again, you're more than welcome. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm supposed to be trying to cut down on my editing time (without success so far!) but I enjoyed working on the loco article FA pushes, so it may be worth asking me for input in the future. The only down-side is that such pushes tend to not only swallow-up your normal editing time, but expand into other time as well (especially if up against a deadline) so I must be very careful...

EdJogg (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Same here. The problem with Wikipedia is that it can get too addictive, especially if you are interested in the subject you are contributing to. I'm supposed to be doing a paper on the contribution of maritime power to eventual victory in the Second World War which is due in April (bags of time, but I like to finish early so I have plenty of editing time), but doing this seems to make the research for my MA rather disjointed. Never mind! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, although I don't think it will help me much as it appears to be more for instances where people are using {{cite book | }}. Besides, have you seen the amount of work I'd need to do just to change one of the larger articles I'm working on :D Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Was pleased to find the article on the space walk, although I noticed shortly afterwards that it was sandboxed.

I can confirm that Pip Youngman is indeed the same who built the Bobcat.

My late grandfather, unfortunately I never met him until his funeral, but good to see his name lives on with his accomplishments.

Please publish this article when you are ready to do so. Markthai (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi EdJogg, thanks for nominating the article. I came across the phrase at random on a Requested Articles page a couple weeks back, it piqued my interest -- and turned out to be way funnier than I could have known. So, I still have a bit more research to put into it, though it's most of the way there by now (and I see you got to The Goon Show already; right on).

I've never been involved with a DYK before, so is there a short period of time before it gets voted on for inclusion on the front page? I.e., if I wanted to suggest an alternate hook, how long would I have? Yours are good, though. I'm not sure a single sentence can quite summarize the greatness of the British Rail sandwich anyhow. Cheers, WWB (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Reply made on User talk:WWB)

There is a process to go through, although the mechanics (if not the timing) have changed since I last did it. Essentially an article creator, or someone else (not necessarily an editor of the article) can nominate an article within five days of its creation or greater-than-five-fold expansion. (There are additional requirements regarding minimum article size and quality, and using a referenced fact for the 'hook', etc. See the DYK pages for details.) After nomination, there are editors who specialise in the DYK process who will review/refine/etc the sugggestions, selecting several batches for Main Page display every day.

The five-day limit is significant. In this case, the article was created on 22 Feb, so that is the section it is entered in, and if it is chosen it would appear (most likely) on the 28th or 29th (D'Oh! - 1st March!). Until then, feel free to suggest a new hook as 'ALT2' (preferred) or refine an existing one, unless already noted as OK (when you might as well leave it alone!) From past experience, suggestions that attract no comments are usually OK for selection, but I may have just been lucky! If you do want to make a suggestion for improvement, make sure your comments are clearly visible, since reviewers will not be watching for 'differences' between edits.

EdJogg (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On 1 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Rail sandwich, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

nice nom .... any more for April Fools day Victuallers (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome. What a brilliant article. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

'fraid I can't take much credit for the article (other than a little proof-reading), User:WWB created and wrote the majority of it.

EdJogg (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going by what I've learned doing the SR Leader Class article, which is currently under peer review. I was advised to change to the single quotation mark by an editor who had also reviewed this article. As such, I felt it prudent to standardise the articles beginning with the FA articles, but will be happy to revert if there is consensus that better presentation is achieved with the double quotation mark. However, I also prefer the single marks. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, having re-read comments on the reviews of both articles, I have reverted back to the previous incarnation of the article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is in keeping with WP:MOS. Check out WP:PUNCT and look for the section on "Quotation marks" (currently the 2nd section) which recommends use of double-quotes always, except where enclosed by other quotes.

EdJogg (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ed just to let you know I added a Category:Steam museums in the United Kingdom for museums with steam exhibits. (as other interest groups are featured, OK not many 'Purely' steam ones but its start). You may be able to add some relevant article to it (or vice versa). Or upgrade the articles in it to have more weight to the steam exhibits in them. (I think there must be a few pumping engine ones to add) - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good show! Had I mentioned my User:EdJogg/Steam Portal page to you? 'fraid it's a bit disorganised, but in the absence of a category such as the one you've just created, I was using it to categorise steam-related pages that were not otherwise identified as such. Your action may be the final catalyst to me getting the last pieces of the steam category jigsaw in place! Pretty much the last category to be created is 'Preserved steam', not least because I think some editors will query the accuracy of the name! (We understand what 'preserved steam' means, but if you take a step back and just consider the words, it is rather an odd concept! Somone over at commons has just moved all the categories 'Steam wagons', 'Steam buses', etc to 'Steam-powered buses' etc - got a lot of sorting out to do here!)

I am wondering whether we need to clarify within your category what its scope is. By 'steam museum' (using generic terms here to save time!), are we implying that it is a museum that merely exhibits some steam engines (such as the Manchester Museum), or mainly steam engines (ie it is the primary focus, as at Thursford). Or else are we wanting to concentrate on just working steam engines? -- that could potentially exclude museums that exhibit steam engines in non-working form, such as Elsecar (which has the last-remaining Newcomen engine in its original location, but currently non-working), so that's probably not a good idea. I'm trying to pre-empt a possible CFD attempt to change its name....

As for adding to it... You'll see from the steam 'portal' that I have identified a number of articles already. I'll get on to it at lunchtime...but I'll have to sort out 'commons' first!

One final question. Do you think there's scope for a category called 'preserved steam'? There is a Commons category for "Preserved British steam locomotives" (with numerous similarly-named sub-cats), but not a more general category (yet). Does 'preserved steam engines' adequately cover such disparate example as beam engines, steam museums, preserved railways, pumping stations and steam ships? Do you reckon we should try 'preserved steam' and see how long we can get away with it?

So many questions!

EdJogg (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, It was finding Bressingham, Thursford and a couple of others that stimulated the Idea (as I was tidying my museums list up at Tractor Wiki and looking for starter info (as OG had a list of engines in museum collections, but the Definition for inclusion was an issue and my original one had "Large collection" in it but then I dropped the large as felt it could be misconstrued as for example in steam terms the science musem has a 'large number' but not a "Large" proportin of its total collection is steam related. As few Pure Steam museums and the potential for Steam Train cconfusion (which are already covered under Railways.

The diferentiating of Raiway steam from others is an issue I have as well as "Steam powered machinery" is a bit long, but "Steam engine" has railway conotations, and "Steam vehicles" is also ambiguous. I decided I'd Be BOLD and just creat it so atleast they are in a grouping and the sstructure / correctnes can be debated as the Catagory naming people will just move it any way (and if it has a bit of content should escape CfD moves).

Yes Presrved Steam should realy be there as a master catagory woth Railways and Ships etc as Sub catagories, because what do you logicaly search under. Niche sub categories of few entries (< 5) are of dubiouse value people dont know them to actualy add things to them, but a 'Common term' works for me. As you say moving Steam buses to Steam powered buses, may be technicaly correct but is not common usage (in UK any way).

Any way its Wikipedia, so no rules (apart from Clause xyz in policy "WP:Obscure ilogical things to do to confuse people", which obiously overides "Keep it simple" and WP:IAR) ;) Good look sorting commons out - BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy Dingley has picked up on this too. (See Category talk:Steam museums in the United Kingdom#Category definition, where I have replied.) The problem we have is in defining to the wider world what we steam (engine) enthusiasts (there's that assumed term again!) understand by 'steam museum', and what either party might expect to find within the category.

EdJogg (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not claim you reverted me when in fact you made a new and clearly better edit, [2]. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Often I try to work through my watchlist backlog quickly, which may mean that my edit summary is less than perfect. In fact here I did revert your change, effectively, since you had deleted an external link which I reinstated using 'undo'. It's just that I also changed the URI at the same time. Sorry if I caused any offence -- one could argue that you actually did the better job in finding the lousy link in the first place. EdJogg (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Ive started creating an improved (from my original stub version) for a wikipedia Taskers of Andover article on this firm over at Tractor Wiki Here as its a major co that had no wikipedia article at all (that I can find). Its based on the disjointed Hampshire Council material and Old Glory articles. Would be grateful for a bit of critique as to if suitable to move here yet. Steam engine production details need expanding and some material probably removing for WP use. The Wikipedia article on the Milestones Museum should link to it (currently goes to the town). (but thats a basic stub realy with no detail of the collection of Taskers material or Thornycroft vehicles). Old Glory listed 14 Tasker engines in HCC care with 3 at the museum, and several other makes.

The title is open to interpretation as several names used but common one chosen even though thats probably actually the firms later name. - Cheers BulldozerD11 (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I would suggest that Taskers of Andover Ltd is a reasonable name to start with. It has the advantage of indicating (a) that the article is about a company, and (b) where they were based. At a later date it can be moved to another name if that is more appropriate. For a complete job, create redirects for these other names at the same time.

Ignoring the several typos and capitalisation issues, the article could be dropped straight into WP as-is. You will need to apply the references more thoroughly, but the rest of it can be worked-on here. As you say, the steam engine info could do to be expanded. The preserved engine info would be new to WP, although there are precedents for steam locomotives. Alternatively you could potentially link to your Wikia page in an external link, but I'd see if you can get away with keeping it in for now (if you have a ref). When you create the WP page, I suggest that you add a brief note on the talk page (with link) to say that it was adapted from your wikia page, to avoid any criticism of copyvio or plagiarism.

I would also suggest you consider creating a Tasker disambiguation page (possibly with a redirect from Taskers too?). If you enter 'Tasker' into the WP search you get >60k-hits! There are quite a few people with this surname, so it's a worthwhile page to create.

Hope that helps. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

1 - Thanks Ed I tidy it up abit first then. The use of Ltd in titles cause the Speed delete crowd to claim company articles are adverts ! and its use is generally opposed in policy.

I look at refs then a bit. The big list is the reason for the Wiki project as general WP policy & some editors are anti list and want repetitive/redundant babbling prose were a table or a short list will do. Linking to Wikia for lists is preferred option. Good point about note on source (seen some instance of copyvio claims were WP was original source of mirror article). All my TW articles get a credit template if started from a WP article, but dont thing the reverse will work crediting TW.

I noticed a Tasker search got a lot of hits to Australian politician. There appears to be different Disambiguation page styles ?

The next level of article has a trial one Here for an individual Engine. Any layout sugestions and comments on the info box would be welcome. (Ignore spelling and Gramar issues) ;) once a good layout/format created a i can build a page template for them as there are a couple of 1000 + to write. The Notable ones can then be copied to WP.

Which other firms do you consider important and worth a WP article as well ?

Thanks for looking at it Ed - BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

1 - The business about 'ltd' in titles, if true, is plain silly. I trust your judgement, so pick whichever seems most apt.

2 - Regarding lists -- if there are very few preserved examples I see no reason why you cannot list them all (at WP). Many things work better as lists. I think what is deprecated is the use of a simple bulleted list when the same infomation could be presented just as well in prose. Personally, I disagree, and use lists/bulleted lists wherever it would be clearer to the reader to do so. Information about preserved railway locomotives is frequently added to the class articles, and no-one has yet complained. (I would defend its inclusion on the basis that someone researching the topic may well want to see a live example, so why not list what's still in existence?)

3 - Not sure what you mean by 'different disambig page styles'. As with any page there are editorial differences, but there are good guidelines for the preferred layout -- the precise layout will depend on the variety of links to include. If you intend to create one, just do the best you can, and others will join in to expand and tidy it.

4 - T E infobox looks good so far, although I'd be very surprised if you find many engines that are individually notable enough for inclusion at WP. The Iron Maiden is an obvious exception, but even then I would suggest the correct location for the information is where it is now -- ie within the page describing the film, from which it gains its notability. (Similarly, Fred Dibnah's engines and Teddy Boston's should go on their own pages.) The infobox should clearly indicate if the engine has been converted, and what type it was before. You could add coal/water capacity, number of speeds (?), cylinder configuration (that's an important omission!), maximum speed?

5 - I'm interested in the navibox at the bottom - at WP it would need to be 'List of steam road vehicle manufacturers', to distinguish the content from stationary engine builders - although some of the headings would need a tweak. As for 'other manufacturers'...almost any that you come across are likely to be sufficiently notable, assuming they produced more than a few machines, and you won't have issues with 'advertising' since they'll all be historical.

EdJogg (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comments Ed

1 - It in one of the many Guidances that get touted out, most of the most of the FTSE 100 Co's don't have PLC suffix (or have been moved from) designation in title.

2 - The big names run to several hundred engines in preservation (Fowler, Burrell and Aveling each about 250, but others are only a few. Yes I see the rail ones have a similar table in some articles. I personally like bullet list and tables and find timeline relate info easier to read as a bullet list.

3 - Fair comment, probably more my perception then of differing layouts

4 - Agree that few would meet WP notabilty requirements (but then its the old notability perception by differing authors issue). I fail to see how streams in California or every village in countries meet requirements yet get stubs created for them on mass and major PLCs minor but notable local ones get article deleted under speed delete as adverts).

Agree that depending on level of info available could be best in the related article, as a defined section, the practice of splitting some items to new article stubs for the sake of its pointless. The converted and capacities are a good point, I looked at the rail box to use but that is very complex (overly). Not sure max speed is often mentioned but it is a reasonable option as some manufactures literature probably quoted it, so as an option adding a parameters a good idea. There is a Number of cylinders & type parameter for compound cylinders, with gears, but if not filled in will not display. Also has date bought by current owner & date scraped for others not preserved. Any sugestion of how to incorperate the Conversion parameter (if coverted from x to Y by z in date) ? near top or in prservation section. As you have noted this was an important factor with Irion Maiden, from road loco to Showmans loco.

5 - Navbox at bottom keeps evolving and suggestions welcome to make it clearer. I like them as they form a easy link to related articles. A cut down version without the by type section may be better at WP as most built at least one or two engines of all types, or Drop the top section and just list them by the types most notable for ?.

Others - The list here has several I've never heard of and due to lack of history data the country of their origin is unknown. The Question was aimed more at getting your opinion as to major manufacturers missing from WP, as i filled in some earlier from a list (possibly that you ? had of missing articles I think) and expanded the List of TE article. I have ones for nearly all the ones in the traction engine list but some are in need of work first as based on MERL database entries. Notability is probably helped by the OG list of engines in Museums that Im adding to them, and crosslinks to the individual museums/collections. (A cut down version of the template 'list / table' could be used in the articles.

Feel free to use them on here as GFDL, just credit the source, as I do with all articles using WP material on TW. I'm trying to get to 1000 articles on TW before 1st anniversary on 10th April, without generating stubs (which is easy option). - Thanks for feed back Ed - BulldozerD11 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ed, I can categorically state that the Mid-Hants only run a 117, and a 121. It is not a 122. I have checked this with the Diesel group ( I work there ) and this is almost certianly the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphchadkirk (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

In which case, perhaps you can explain why it has the outward appearance of a Class 122 and has a Class 122 running number? If it is a Class 121 masquerading as a 122 (and heaven knows why anyone would want to do that) then the article should state that.

You might be interested in the page: WP:DUCK!

EdJogg (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea, this is what I have been told by the people who restored and currently drive the unit.

Ralph Chadkirk (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Purely by chance I found a link from the Railcar Association website pointing to a series of pages describing W55003's restoration (written by the owner). I have added it to the Watercress Line page. Makes an interesting read, although will take you a fair while to work through all 28 pages!

EdJogg (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather embarressingly, you are right! (Unsurpurisingly!) I shall have a look at that link. Also, thanks for undoing that vandalism on my page.

Ralph Chadkirk (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've ticked all the boxes possible. Could you have a look and see it I've managed to get to GA status with Mid-Norfolk Railway? Cheers! DiverScout (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The editing on Great Western Railway seems to have dried up. Are you ready for it to try for GA after the Easter break? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

My reviewing, for what it's worth, had reached the Operations section. I don't know how much time I'll be able to spare, but I can try to look at the remainder over the weekend (any progress should be obvious!). Regardless of whether I do or not, please feel free to put it forward whenever you wish. I have a nagging feeling that some of the structure/order isn't quite right, but I suspect that both of us are too close to the article to spot whether there is anything actually wrong or if I am just imagining some alternative which is no better.

EdJogg (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes to Hudswell Clarke, it makes it look a lot better. I started a new article on Pleasure Beach Express who took delivery of three of their locomotives and got a bit carried away adding information :) Scillystuff (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Comes down to laziness, really -- so much easier changing someone else's work than writing new stuff yourself!

-- EdJogg (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you are still actively working on this? but you might be interested in Uranus at Geograph?— Rod ^talk 20:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am actively waiting to find the time to do the final stage... Harumph! (I have got some new info to add, then it'll go live.)

Didn't know about this photo - thanks for the tip-off.

EdJogg (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded it to Commons, along with a second view of the Sun. I have some further close-ups of the sun, plus some Pluto pictures, yet to upload.

EdJogg (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How old are you and what qualifications do you have to write an article On Ruston Proctor/Ruston and Hornsby/Ruston Gas Turbine/GE/Alstom Gas Turbines/Siemens?

Lincolnshire Poacher (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Will 'middle-aged' do? (crikey, what a thought!)

As for qualifications: none, just an interest in railways/steam engines. I have considerable WP experience, and frequently edit/add to articles, but very rarely have time to create anything from scratch. I would offer to proof-read these articles for you, if you planned to write or expand them, but I don't want to raise expectations I might be unable to fulfil -- my editing time is rather restricted at present.

EdJogg (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I contributed a lot to these pages, all of which has been wiped out by morons with no idea about Rustons. Rustons was an innovative, technologically leading company, and this article is a disgrace and a sham. I have free access to the official Ruston Archive, currently in private hands, that contains more than 100,000 images and 23 tonnes of documents. I even posted images from there onto this page, but wikipedia made its usual fuss about copyright, even tho the guy who owns the archive gave me permission to use whatever photos i wanted, so they were all deleted. In the archive is the records of every single engine rustons ever built, from the steam units of the late 1870, through a full log for every single Sopwith Camel and car, al lteh diesel units, anl lteh Power shovels, everything.

Im vastly more qualified to write this article than anyone else on this site, my g'father and father worked there all there lives, and I and my son now work in the same buildings, even though they are a different company. I walked in building that are long gong, such as the refrigerated engine shed where they could shunt a diesel power unit in, close the doors and take the temperature down to -40 to test if they engine would start from cold. I remember the diesel units running up a long concrete ramp, now long gone, towing railway carriages, each with 50 tonnes of rock in for a torque test.

The article makes no mention of what ruston cars were developed, how much they cost, how long they sold them for and why the failed. It doesnt mention why they stopped making rope and pulley shovel, why the YD7 diesel unit was revolutionary, how rustons developed the diesel head crown for them, why they went into gas turbines. I can show you where the last surviving stretch of rustons test train track running through a public highway is in Lincoln. I can even show you where on which nearby RAF base there a Matilda tank squirreled away.

In fact, all rustons gets, despite being the leading engineering company in the UK for decades, is barely an acknowledgment. The article is a disgrace and a sham, a snub to he genius of the enginers who worked there(including my father) and of all those men that worked there. And lets not ignore the fact that rustons was the biggest employer in Lincoln for nearly 60 years from 1910 to 1970, when it was broken up and Small Engines was moved to Newton le Willows. At one stage rustons employed 55,000 men in a city of 180,000 people.

So if you are going to write this article, and your name IS plastered all over it, then you need to make a much better effort than so far. As it stands, the removal of a lot of that text and images I inserted, and the banal rubbish used to replace that text, is a personal insult to my family, and two fingers up at the city of lincoln.

Lincolnshire Poacher (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I have no idea where you get the idea that I had planned to write on this subject (+ all the other points in your final paragraph). As far as I can see I've just done a little copy-editing.

Now, please let us put that to one side and harness your passion for Rustons!

Firstly, with this wealth of information at your hands, are you sure you don't want to write a book (or two) on the subject? If you have published your best information here first, then any such publications would be diminshed somewhat. (Remember that you have absolutely no copyright in what you contribute here.)

Secondly, there is nothing stopping you from writing as much as you like in these articles. To meet Wikipedia's policies, all information should be referenced from Reliable Sources. However, it is not uncommon for articles to be initially updated with unreferenced information, and the references added later. I would certainly never remove unreferenced info unless it was clearly wrong or dubious. If you can highlight the dates at which your contributions were removed, I can take another look and see what happened. There is always the chance that the text was removed by a vandal and no-one spotted this -- I have seen this a number of times, and in some rarely-edited articles the damage may not be spotted for years!

Thirdly - photographs. We've been here before, and this time I will try to find out exactly what you need to do to show that you have the necessary permission to publish the photos at Wikimedia Commons. It is not very difficult, but there is a proscribed procedure to follow, since the Commons admins need to be certain of the legal ownership of the contributions. However, you will still have to do the legwork yourself, since you know and have access to the copyright holder. I won't be able to look into this immediately, however.

I hope this helps. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed (AKA Pete) Sorry to post this message here, as I realise it's off topic and I don't mean to block up your pages- unfortunately I'm the only person in my generation who's computer illiterate! I found your piece on the Somerset Space Walk the other day and was really pleased so I sent it on to my Mum, who would like me to send you the following message;

"Hello Ed. I'm Pip's wife. I was thrilled when my daughter emailed me about your Wikipedia article and I know Pip would have been too, so thank you.

To fill in a few blanks:

Pip was born Philip Robert Vassar Youngman in Hunstanton, Norfolk, on 26th August 1924 and died in Taunton, Somerset on 23rd May 2007.

The concrete for the planet plinths was provided by ReadyMix Concrete, the plinths were formed by Pip using fibreglass moulds which he had also made and the steel for the planets was provided by Avimo, a local defence contractor. (They were lovely about it - much of what the company designed and made was obsolete before it was ever put into use, and they were genuinely pleased to be involved in a project where their efforts would last for decades.) The model Sun was transported on a flat-bed truck (not a barge - sorry! It's a lovely idea, though) and craned into position on a very windy, rain-sodden day not more than a week before the opening. The day of the opening, 9th August 1997, was warm and sunny and beautiful, the one fine day in what was otherwise a fortnight of cold, dreich, miserable weather, which Pip took as something of a sign.

Funding came from COPUS (Committee on the Public Understanding of Science), the initial leaflet was paid for by PPARC (Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council) and there was also a small grant from Sustrans, who fund art installations along cyclepaths, to deal with maintenance requirements in the years before Somerset County Council took on that responsibility. In order to apply for the COPUS funding he needed two 'sponsors', so he wrote to Arthur C Clarke (a local boy himself, then living in Sri Lanka) and Patrick Moore, who both wrote warm letters in support. The Taunton Solar Model Group consisted of Pip, Trevor Hill and David Applegate who, during his time as Mayor of Taunton, had expressed a wish to see some kind of science initiative in the area. When Pip came up with the idea for the SpaceWalk it seemed logical to approach David for help.

To my great shame, I do not have a record of all the planet descriptions. Printed versions have disappeared, and the text was stored on disks pertaining to our last antediluvian computer system, which was incompatible with our present antediluvian computer system. This is something that I should remedy, and probably means that I now have to go out and take pictures and/or write them all down. Thanks. Do you know how long that thing is? Oh, yes! Of course you do.

My computer grinds exceeding slow and took ages to load your article. I was unsuccessful in creating an account and my daughter has posted this on my behalf. If you would like any further information you can get in touch via her account - or you could always give me a ring. You've got the number!

Pip was an amazing man, very bright, innovative and imaginative. He initiated lots of projects, some more successful than others, and never lost his passion and enthusiasm. He wrote poetry. He left behind many people who still love and miss him. He was a real star."

I also extend my thanks- I think my Dad would really love the article, and I think it really helps to generate interest. Feel free to get back to me anytime!

Sticky mess (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for getting in touch. It is rather overwhelming, actually, to hear from a source so close to the subject -- especially since your message was very nearly lost in a Wikipedia housekeeping procedure.

I have as much information as I can realistically expect to get now (in the short term) and it is very remiss of me to not complete the last 5% of the article and make it go 'live'.

Spare time is in short supply at present, but I will see what I can do soon (and I will almost certainly give you a ring too!)

(PS - if you still have the disks from your "antediluvian computer system", I'm sure it would be possible to find someone with the equipment to read them...)

EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ed

Thanks for writing back. I hope the information helped, and I'm glad you now feel you've got enough info. to finish the article. It would be lovely to have it done and see it 'live', but please don't feel pressured - once that happens, it becomes a chore and where's the fun in that? Just do it when it feels right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sticky mess (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already part-updated it using the material you sent. I still have a news cutting from the opening ceremony to incorporate, and some photos that my Mum took -- both of these require 'home' editing time (which is in short supply!)

But it will happen soon, promise! -- EdJogg (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my question on the WP Surrey talk page re whether or not the Bluebell Railway article should be tagged with this WP. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Have commented there and at the Bluebell page, and also been bold and resolved the issue. WP:Surrey is not very active at present!

EdJogg (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you can probably tell, I have just standardised most Southern Railway locomotive articles bar the H15, Z class and USA class (primarily because I have not finished them yet, and there are a few more articles to sort out before I reach these), and it really is becoming a one-man mission to improve Southern Railway articles at the moment. I've recently put the N class article up for peer review, so if you have time, take a look and help improve some of the prose (please!!!). Similar edits have been made to the other Maunsell moguls, so anything that affects the N more than likely affects the others (they do have differences...). Nice to hear from you after all this time! By the way, I'm attending the Eastleigh Works open day this Saturday, more Bulleids than you can shake a stick at! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be one of the ways that WP grows -- a maverick editor comes along, finding inadequate coverage of his favourite subject, and starts systematically creating and improving related articles. Andy Dingley has been doing the same with boiler-related articles (huge improvement in coverage) and I've seen others systematically working through UK canal articles. As for me, I should be systematically working through steam vehicle articles, but I get side-tracked too easily!! I've got the categorisation in order though.

I ought to finish doing GWR for Geof Sheppard before I take this on (but I'll add it to my list :o) ). Problem recently is that I get behind with my watchlist checks if I don't edit at weekends (which can be a politically sensitive issue!), so much of my time is spent catching up. (Fortunately, Firefox, rollback, and concentrated effort on ways to accelerate checking times seems to be increasing throughput!) There is also a new article (see above)(the first to be properly developed off-line) which has been gestating for 6 months now and still isn't quite' there...

Who'd be a WikiGnome?

EdJogg (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly crave accolade (although the LSWR N15 class article will be on the main page tomorrow, so watch out for vandalism if you get the chance), but I do like to see justice done to something that I'm interested in, and it is sometimes better to charge off by yourself for a few weeks, then put the product up for scrutiny to make it even better. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, congratulations are in order once again. I had ignored the bot edit to the N15 that would have alerted me, but I saw the note on your talk page (hence his morning's edits). Thought I'd give it the once-over as it's nearly a year since I last edited it!

I'm afraid that I do appreciate acknowledgement of effort, though I don't think that I 'crave' it as such. I know that getting a fact featured in DYK -- or an article appearing as main-page feature -- is not terribly significant in the Grand Scheme of Things, but it does give me a boost when it happens -- kind-of "makes it all worthwhile"? Thanks to you, this will be my second TFA. Don't you think those user FA page stars should receive a halo or something when the articles have been selected for Main Page? :o)

Will see what I can do with the N article over the next few days (but expect a few tweaks to the N15 first!)

EdJogg (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have faith in you! I will be off Wikipedia for a couple of days as I'm going to Eastleigh Railway Works for their open day, so if you don't mind watching the N class peer review, then that would be grand. I should be back on Sunday. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! (Thought the peer review was on watch, but it wasn't...)

I'm up-to-date on my watchlist, but there's a certain overdue article that really needs my attention first!

Enjoy Eastleigh. Weather looks good. Lots of piccies?

EdJogg (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

i have replied. Simply south (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to start a new section. I've added an answer about GNR's chief engineer on my talk page. I am also awaiting another person's answer on him. Simply south (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This chap seems to have a fixation about 35005 (I cabbed it and 34070 over the weekend at Eastleigh, not to mention having a go on that lovely Bulleid whistle on 34070, which was in light steam!), but we'll leave it as it is for now until someone starts an article specifically for this locomotive. Lets be vigilant on this one... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

N15 class

I've had a go-through after the Main Page fiasco, and I think the article is finally back to normal, if not slightly improved. So take my last edit as the current standard (re-reading the article, a few bits seemed a bit ponderous, so I decided to change them. There's also a bit of over-wikilinking going on, especially regarding Eastleigh railway works). Hope you can remove it from your 'to-do' list now! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed,

Thank you for your message and offer of help, I think I reply to you here? I'm getting to grip with the basics there is plenty to learn. I've been using Wikipedia for years but this is my first real editing. I've got a few books about steam engines and I know a bit, but spelling isn't my strong point!

The Charles Burrell & Sons article is still very much work in process. I'm happy with the headings but I need to add more info, my big thing next is to add more information about individual types of engine the company constructed. Finally I'd like to add some pictures as I take a few now and then. I'll give you a shout when I'm happier with the article.

Steamscenes (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, cleaning those pages 'll have to be an ongoing progress, but I'll try to catch slip-ups like that when I can. Starkiller (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

While I wait for the N class article peer review to either close or for someone to add another observation, I'm working on this article. It would be nice to have this and the N class in an FA frame of mind as they are close relatives (in the locomotive sense), so that a veritable 'production' line of (two) articles can be scrutinised at some point. The N class will go for FA first, as it is the closest to completion. Although I've currently exhausted ideas on the K class article, I have a niggling feeling that I have forgotten something, but its still basically complete. Now that your watchlist has cooled down a bit, could you take a gander over it and bring an outside perspective?

I've been fairly busy with the Maunsell mogul family of articles, and they are frankly driving me round the twist (so much conflicting information on them)! As a result of my labours, my net has expanded to include the three Maunsell 2-6-4 designs (K, K1 and W classes). Whilst there is no change on the W class article yet, I have written a draft expanded version on Word. It just needs fine-tuning, and an image (I've found one!) and that one is also ready to go.

So if you'd like to take a look at any of the articles (but especially the K-K1 classes), then as usual, I'd be most grateful, and we can get another high-quality article under our belts. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that I'm rather letting you down with these articles. I have an aversion to letting my watchlist back-up, so I tend to tackle edits in a very reactive manner. Sometimes this can be fun, sometimes a real chore. And usually I end up shooting off at a tangent... But the point is that I feel a need to keep on top of the latest edits before starting to apply changes that require more than a couple of clicks.

Recently, you are quite right (how did you know?), I have been sufficiently on top of the watchlist to clear some old merge requests that had been hanging around since February (and another that I found from September, not one of mine...) It's good to clear these old tasks (some date back to 2007!!) and I have done quite a few recently, but not much in the way of FA reading.

The thing is that doing these articles justice for FA requires concentrated effort, and I'm not often in a position to give that effort.

I'll have to see what I can do next week. -- EdJogg (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You're not letting me down at all. You have your own tasks to do, and I sometimes feel as though I may be taking a few liberties in asking you to look over an article every time I edit it. I suppose it's because I regard you as a first point of contact, and I then try to get others to join the fray towards nailing the prose issues. There's no real rush, but I would like to get one through in the next month or so to keep things ticking over. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I knew I'd missed something out! I forgot to mention that the design had a coal bunker instead of a tender, a bogie, and that it had water tanks. Simple things are easily forgotten when you are lost in the overall detail! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- those are pretty serious omissions! Tragic thing is, I don't think I would have necessarily spotted this either. EdJogg (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest, would you know whether it is possible to create an auto-collapsible wikitable that the user has to open themselves to view its contents? I think articles with unnamed locomotives such as the Urie S15 would benefit from this, as it would tidy them up a bit. Just a thought... I've also done a bit of housekeeping on the Bulleid Pacific list articles, as I've removed the 'sortable' capability, as it serves little purpose other than add unnecessary download time to an already resource-heavy page. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought you'd already done one of these. At least one of the railway loco class pages on my watchlist includes such a beast (you'd be shocked by the current size of the watchlist!)...

...pause while consults watchlist...

...thankfully the actual list is sorted alphabetically, and I had a good inkling which page it was!

Try LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0#Construction details

EdJogg (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the baby, will have to spend some time sorting it out before lunch... I've also put the SECR K and SR K1 classes up for GA. Must walk before we can run! It'll probably take a while before it gets reviewed though, and I'm not a particularly good reviewer to help reduce their backlog. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've now decided to bite the bullet and end the peer review, archive it and put it up for FA. Gives me a break from (re)editing the SR U1 class for the umpteenth time. As such, I'm not overly fussed on the K and K1 classes at this precise moment, as they are up for GA anyway, so things will get ironed out by default (when someone starts reviewing it). Its only when its up for peer review and eventually FA that all hands need to be on deck. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the toolbox on the FAC page? Interesting to see I've edited the article 3 4* times so far (compared to your 222 edits!!!!!!!!) The redirect finder looks useful too. Might snaffle these for my own help page...

Since you've upped the ante I'll try to start working through it -- you'll be able to watch my progress, of course! (I'm getting much faster at processing my watchlist backlogs, although it does mean that I am rather more heavy-handed with the editing knife sometimes!)

EdJogg (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC) -- *forgotten I'd started writing this!

Sound man! Thank-you for you time as usual. Will look forward to seeing your progress through the article. Best regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm starting to get bogged down in the tense of the lead paragraph. I've tried to emulate the Bulleid Light Pacifics article, but I need a second opinion. Malleus Fatuorum has raised a valid point, but I'm at the stage where I cannot see the wood through the trees! Anyway, regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes me proud to be a level-headed Southerner, this one. Have you seen the fuss on the Peppercorn A1 about whether to regard it as the 50th locomotive? Its blown out of all proportions between two editors and their acolytes. Anyway, well done on the edits of the SECR N class so far, its looking good!

BP - earlier today...

I've bumped into it occasionally, when it spills over into other articles, but generally kept out of the way. I think, ultimately, the problem arises from both camps being part- technically correct, but that there isn't the English to cope with the middle ground!

EdJogg (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you make of that Tony chap's Oppose to the SECR N class article FAC? It seems pretty damning, but its one of those situations where I don't think I can do much more myself in terms of improving prose. He seems to hover around the FACs like a bad penny, but I wouldn't mind if he didn't seem a bit sarcastic about it. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the sort of approach that will put people off editing.

Unfortunately, some of the things that he comments about are exactly the sorts of things that I look for (and usually correct, or highlight for the author's attention) so I'm sorry I hadn't got to them yet! Many should have been spotted before GA, so the GA reviewers may have been too lenient.

For these articles, I need you to get the facts in place to start with (or subsequently), and clarify the meaning of ambiguous prose that I can't fix myself.

Actually I've been quite surprised at the speed at which this article has been changed, but as you already appreciate, I must keep plodding through at my own pace (GWR took over 6-12 months to complete, on-and-off, with several large gaps!! but that is an exception) Rapid changes don't assist my editing, since I have to keep re-checking the new edits individually or give up, ignore them and start from the beginning again. But we'll get there. (There was one article that I didn't finish checking until a week after it had achieved GA/FA!!)

EdJogg (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've said on the FAC page, I'm taking more of a back seat for the time being. There's definitely enough factual stuff there to see the article through. Anything else is just a bonus! I just hate to think about the amount of work I need to do to the other articles. I suppose I had the naive idea that things could be put through quickly; it's a case of "I have patience, but not THAT much patience!" Anyway, I think the article, after my most recent blitz is a lot tighter, with a lot of the more flowery language removed. To be honest, they were a hang-over from when the article had very little to say for itself, and the only way to improve it was to fluff the content.

It's only fairly recently that I have taken the time to expand it factually, and to have some jumped-up git from the colonies throw it back in my face as amateurish dribble (for that is what his tirade seems to infer) takes a bit out of you, to say the least, and I am beginning to see why Malleus Fatuorum is thinking of jumping of the band-wagon. Anyway, off to the land of nod as it were, will have another look tomorrow, but will probably just take notes and leave you to it until you are satisfied with your improvements. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I'm getting a bit fed up with this particular FAC, as nothing seems to be going right. There are far too many cases where things are being highlighted to be 'explained' or expanded upon, which will ultimately wreck the flow of the article, and turn it into something resembling the history of railways. I wish I could take a back seat on it, but for better or worse, someone needs to stick up for what has already been written, and act as a brake on some of the over-zealous suggestions posted on the talk page (present company excepted!). A lot of the issues cannot be dealt with in the short term, and I wish people can see beyond this and review it on what the article is actually about, one particular class of locomotive. I mean, the issue on the Background section has been blown out of all proportions, something that seemed to me simple and concise. However, I did agree with their point that it was better in the section below, and I've moved it accordingly.

What has really annoyed me about this is the fact that one editor has decided to state that he may oppose the FAC because of the issue regarding the Background and the number of edits undertaken on the article. The thing is this particular editor has done a fair share of the editing, and is effectively snubbing their own contribution to the article. FAC, as you already know, is all about gaining consensus, and if it means rapid flurries of edits to gain this, then so be it. Anyway, sorry to give you this earache (or eye-ache!), but I felt I had to air my frustrations somewhere friendly... Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, you need to know you've got some friends here! (Some editors can get pretty hostile!)

I hope I haven't contributed too much to your distress, as it is most likely me that has been highlighting areas requiring further information - for example, the extra axle and the 'poor trackwork': the explanations for these are directly related to the locomotive design and I think they help fill out the article with useful information. If you think that I am being too strict, then you'd best tell me to read the guidelines again, but when I am reading the article in a particular way I will be looking at the context of all the statements. Some of these will raise the question 'why?', and I feel it to be my duty to state that there is an unanswered question in the article.

However, I would agree that the prose has been reworked to death, and I can quite see that you're losing sight of your original writings. Usually the reason for me rewriting a sentence is because the meaning is open to interpretation -- you know, some sub-clause picking up the wrong object from earlier in the sentence

A FAC should not fail due to the number of edits, surely? When the article is put up for review, isn't it inevitable that an amount of rework will occur, the number of edits falling to a trickle, by which time the FA may be granted? Surely the review page as it stands is largely in favour, isn't it? Tony's comments have been addressed subsequently, which should be taken into account.

As for my input, I think I'm just about done, apart from looking for more wikilinks ('top feed' for example) to explain railway terminology for the uninitiated.

Of course you always have the option of stopping at GA. If what you enjoy most is the research and collating it into a meaningful article, with a little push for GA, but the FA push is too frustrating, you don't have to do it. Admittedly the chances are that no-one else will do it either, at least not in the short term, but that is your choice.

Keep your chin up. WP needs editors like you!

EdJogg (talk) 13:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, its alright. Everyone's right in principle, but its a question of balance, as some of the points raised may not be easily rectified in the course of this FAC, and it sometimes seems that the FAC is dependent upon not so much the article, but the manner in which the issues thrown up are dealt with. Speaking of which, I've written a new background section for the article (I said I'm getting annoyed with it, but hopefully it'll help when editing other articles that are in the pipeline. The main reason I'm getting cranky today is that I know I have a huge amount of work on my hands, as I have five other articles that I'm editing concurrently with this, and everything that goes wrong here has an effect on those articles), and I hope its an improvement on what was there before, as its more of a scene-setter. I don't really know why I didn't do it this way in the first place! There are a couple of minor issues with the content regarding sentence structure, but I think it now justifies itself. Let me know what you think, and feel free to make any changes you see fit. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've had a go at getting the liveries up on the Southern Railway article. Its not perfect, but at least its there. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You might like to look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_7#Locomotive_designer_and_railway_engineer_categories. Globbet (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've stuck my oar in, although I don't have time to watch the discussion further. EdJogg (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I've fleshed out this bit of the article, and added relevant references. I cannot find much on this locomotive, and it seems to have been one of those quiet ones that no-one misses when its no longer operational. I've also sorted out the red wikilinks regarding the Irish exports of the class by creating an article stub. I think I've also clarified the beach pebble issue by stating why it was poor for use as ballast. I quite like what you've done with the Background, sort of reversing the order in which it was written, and it seems to work a lot better. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re 31874, this should certainly do for now: it indicates the preservation milestones without going over the top...the fact that you couldn't trace any other info is not important! (I'm surprised the MHR doesn't have a page per loco.)

I guess the background is sort-of reversed. It just seemed to flow more logically this way, starting with the general problems and culminating in the design of a specific loco type. I don't think I have seen such a thorough contextualising for the reasons behind a loco design. In its way its quite brilliant, although I'm sure the prose could still be adjusted further -- but I suggest you hold back from modifying your other articles until this one has been approved!

EdJogg (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Its too much work to have it all re-written a second time, so its best to see how this one goes first. We can't be that far off it, its just trying to convince the critics now. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about a conversation we had a while back, I've tabulated the data regarding the construction of the N class, and have now put the results up on the article. Do you think it adds or detracts from the article? Please, feel free to remove it if it does the latter. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I would be inclined to not hide it, it's not very big. Also I would move it to the very end of the construction section, and give it an overall title of "Construction history". There is also the convention that every line in a table should stand-alone (ie you do duplicate repeated links on following rows), so you may want to wikilink it all up.
2. Not sure about that with --> comprise change
3. Also, I've found that top feed exists as a link, but I may have forgotten to add it to the article.

(off home now!)

EdJogg (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the wikilinking in the table, so if you could do it to show me what you mean for future reference, then that would be grand. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing complicated, simply that every term gets linked, not just the first one. Hence you have two SR links, am SECR link, etc

EdJogg (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm gritting my teeth and touching wood as I write this, but apart from the polishing up that you are currently doing, I think this article is now the best its ever been. I've had a good afternoon's re-reading of every section, working through them one by one, and have removed a surprising amount of redundancy. I have also seen areas where the paragraphs required re-shuffling to create a more sensible layout, so that the whole thing flows quite nicely. The only bit that I think needs some real work on is the bit regarding the 119 boiler put to outside contract in the "Woolwich" section. Have you any ideas in this regard? I think the use of ";" in this section looks a bit untidy. Anyway, nearly there! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict when you modified the Design and Construction section. (Fortunately I hadn't touched that section!) I don't have time to go through them in detail, but your recent edit to D&C contains some issues. In particular, the paragraph starting Midland Railway:

• 'These' in second sentence doesn't link to a subject - previous 'Examples' seemed to connect better with 'influences' in prev sentence.
• the sub-clause about reduced maintenance costs reads as though a set of Walscherts valve gear would be shared between locos!
• previously, 822 was a kit of parts that was built as a prototype N1; now it seems to be a 'freak' N, with a third cylinder, and begs the question "what haapened after?" (ie, did it become the first N1? or was the cylinder removed to make it an N? or what?)

out of time now, but will try to look again later, and consider your queries above (I was just about to leave you a note when I saw this waiting).

EdJogg (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A deeper look at the research happened to No. 822! Some of the references used were a bit ambiguous as to the true origin of the N1 class, but as it was built from scratch by the SECR, and the Woolwich batch was not bought until 1924, a year after the first N1 entered operation, then the facts speak for themselves. I also saw that the bits of the remaining N class kits at Woolwich were purchased for use in creating the W class freight 2-6-4T. Once again, apologies for writing new bits that have conflicted with the prose, but at least a lot of the "dead material" has gone in the last couple of edits. What we have now is the actual article thats more to the point (apart from what you have mentioned above and a couple of other bits), and so once sorted, I propose we move onto sorting out the way it is written.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that you are doing a thorough c/e, and will try to leave the article alone this evening to let you get on with it. This is only a suggestion, but might it be better to merge the two paragraphs in the SECR batch bit? This would chunk up the section a bit more instead of having a single sentence as a paragraph. Otherwise, I think it'll look good! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I haven't pasted this in yet, as I want you to give first refusal and/or modifications. I've been working on clarifying the link with the SECR N1 class, which is still unsatisfactory. I have come up with this as a slightly expanded paragraph for the "SECR batch" section. Here goes:

"Following entry into traffic, No. 810 was trialled for three years before 15 more locomotives were ordered and built between 1920 and 1923. All were assembled at Ashford Works, numbered 811 to 825 and equipped with 3,500-imperial-gallon (15,911 L) tenders.(ref name=Haresnape) Before its completion in 1923, No. 822 was given a modified cylinder arrangement to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept.(ref name=Reynolds) The outside cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate an inside cylinder with associated valve linkages. The differences between No. 822 and the rest of the N class meant that this locomotive required re-designation, becoming the prototype of the SR N1 class.(ref name=Reynolds Reynolds, pp. 155–156)"

You may have noticed that I have added an "extra" locomotive in this section, but the sources seem to point in the direction that No. 822 was built as part of the order for more N class locomotives, but was modified (the three-cylinder arrangement) to increase the class's route availability over more restricted lines. Therefore, No. 822, which was in the number sequence with the rest of the N class, became the prototype N1 class. A variation thereof would improve this section. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK-ish. You should link to cylinder (locomotive) somewhere, and you'll also need to explain about inside and outside cylinders. Something like the following (to replace your sentence):

"A third 'inside' cylinder was fitted between the frames, and the existing 'outside' cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages."

<not sure you need 'existing'>

<you probably need to link to 'valve' in the previous section too>

I've finished in that section, so feel free to add it...and watch for some comments in the Operational section which I'm working on. Can't spend much longer tonight.

EdJogg (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Under British Railways ownership, the class was reclassified from 4MT to 4P5FB in 1953; the "B" representing the Southern Railway’s power classification. They were used heavily by British Railways: 29 class members required replacement cylinders between 1955 and 1961 due to excessive wear. Frames were occasionally replaced, but generally only the front end was re-conditioned when outside steam pipes were installed behind the smoke deflectors. From 1957 some of the class had BR Standard Class 4 chimneys fitted to improve draughting.

Do you mean that the frames were replaced/reconditioned due to heavy use? Also, there's no explanation for the outside steam pipes, but these are also (presumably) associated with the new cylinders.

I've finished for tonight (mostly), so feel free to work on the article. I'll catch-up in the morning.

EdJogg (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tinkered with these. As far as sorting out the meaty factual bits is concerned, I've finished. However, I will be happy to expand on anything that you find jarring from now on, just "blow the whistle" so to speak! Anyway, good morning! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Having worked on this article, a number of inaccuracies have been discovered on the N1 class article, so bear with me while I sort them out (thank goodness that one isn't up for FAC, otherwise we'd be in real trouble!). --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite!

I'm done now, unless anyone else changes the text further. (It'll remain on my watchlist.) Do you need to write anything on the FAC page to say as such?

Hopefully this recent exercise will give you some clues about your writing style, so that future FACs won't need as much rework. (This is just an observation, not criticism -- the article wasn't that badly written when we started!) I should learn lessons too, although I'm not sure they'll stick! Perhaps if you can occasionally read your copy with a 'why' in your mind you will spot earlier some of the issues we've had to tackle. Although at times an ordeal, it has been quite fascinating seeing the history flesh-out to show why things happened when they did -- this is frequently missing from articles, but makes for a much more interesting read.

EdJogg (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here. Stuff like this never sticks in my mind, and it becomes a process that's repeated over and over again. This is the fifth FA I've taken part in, and I'm still none the wiser as to what was wrong in the first place! Call me self-interested, but I felt a lot of the issues regarding prose were trivial, and where possible, I just go with the flow (until I get agitated about it). Anyway, I think we got there in the end... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at it, and have replaced those bits with what was there when the article was passed. What worries me is that I made a few edits last week to the titles and capitalisation in the livery section following what was learned during the N class debacle, and when I looked at the article today, they had disappeared. Has someone used rollback on the article? They are in the edit history, and there is no evidence of someone else removing them. No matter, I've done them again. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You may also wish to check the infobox, as something strange is going on. I changed one word, and 600KB of article content disappeared, unless I saved an earlier version of the article by mistake. I'll double check just in case. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew! I think this is was what happened, so I must've lost concentration for a minute. The article is now back on an even keel, with a few modifications thrown in in the light of what's happened on the N class article. I'm thinking of improving the background of this article, too ("oh, no!" I hear people groan!), but will let you see it first. Anyway, got a tweak on the N class article to do first. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have been over-doing it recently, mate! I just looked at the history, ignoring the intermediate changes, and this was the result. Looks OK by me!

Thanks for doing this, I can take it off my ToDo list now!

EdJogg (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask a favour? Could you take over the N class FAC from this Friday (27 June) until next Sunday (5 July)? The reason I'm asking is that I will be on holiday in Malta, and in case anything severe crops up, I want to know that the article is in safe hands. I don't think that anything factual will crop up, but any formatting issues should be fairly easy to do with the facts provided. Let me know your thoughts. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, I guess so. Mon-Fri shouldn't be a problem, it's just the weekend where cover might be patchy (too many non-WP things to do!). Remind me before you go. -- EdJogg (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that I won't be able to make any edits to wikipedia for the next week, so could you do the honours while I'm away? As mentioned above, I don't foresee too much in the way of difficult referencing issues, but if there are, then I suppose we'll have to re-nominate it at a later date (which is a shame, as its currently so near...). Will speak again soon. Regards and good luck, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is always the option of suppressing text that needs referencing, if it can be removed without affecting the surrounding text. Hopefully it won't come to that. Enjoy your break. EdJogg (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a great section, but that was partly deliberate as I didn't want to put content into blowing engine when it really deserves its own (if I ever have time). I was surprised to find that Savery engines did actually earn their keep on a few sites. It's well-known that the "Miners' Friend" wasn't used for pumping mines, more usually garden fountains, but less known that they drive usefully drive some waterwheels. Your extra sentence does clarify things. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was mindful that Savery engines might have been used for the purpose, although I was thinking of atmospheric types when I was writing it. Your affirmation suggests I got the wording about right! -- EdJogg (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well, that much I'm not sure about! It seems unclear (more research needed) as to whether Newcomen engines were used in this way, and whether they were built for use in this way, or if they were merely existing underground pumping engines that had wheels attached to their outfalls. The latter was pretty common in Cornwall (after all, they already had underground cascades of wheels, which are a pretty neat idea anyway), but were these engines returning water in a closed cycle? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ed, your absolutely right, guess it'll have to be three on three, thanks for the tip – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it right now! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC) . . . . . . . Sorted! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Allright! Hey Ed, in other matters and if you don't mind, would it be possible if you proof-read the page Rail transport in Argentina, i think it's in shipshape but just in case, thanks, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you asked nicely (although this does not set a precedent!)...

It was mostly OK although there were several very long sentences which I have subdivided; other issues were pretty trivial. Note that I have only done a quick proof-read, just enough to make the existing text read with a reasonable flow, and avoid areas of ambiguity. I have not checked facts, references, wikilinks (eg looking for DAB pages), image licensing or 'beautiful prose', etc; but my adjustments should move the article a little towards the next assessment level.

Note that I am not watching that page now. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey EdJogg, thanks, i did not mean to ask nicely, I'm just like that, isn't that normal?, you've really went out of your way, especially when you came back several times, i really appreciate it. I've updated quick simple data since then, you're welcome back anytime ... Cheers – Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof-reading a long article is easiest if broken into sections, and it's easier for the regular editors to see what's happening too. So I tend to check a section at a time, and the checks may be spaced over hours, days or even months! -- EdJogg (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

see aeolipile discussion page Granite07 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Full answer on Granite07's talk page)

For the benefit of other viewers, it has been pointed out that Vitruvius described an aeolipile-like device in his treatise De architectura -- 100 years before Hero's Pneumatica -- and didn't lay claim as inventor. Bit of a bomb-shell, really! But vindicates my assertion that Hero didn't actually invent it...

EdJogg (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the De architectura page if you have free time, I am currently limited in time. Thank you for the reference Granite07 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to say a big thank-you for the help you gave in getting this article to FA. It really was a long haul, and deep down, I know that I was a bit premature in putting it up for FA in the first place. But my excuse is that things only get done under the pressure that an FAC brings, and I think that all editors and reviewers involved deserve a pint! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was very relieved to see it had finally got there. I've already said I think this one wasn't as ready as some, and you/we should try to get more of the 'churn' out of the way at (or before) the GA stage in future. I understand your feelings about 'results under pressure', but I get enough of that at work, so the less pressure I'm under when doing the FARs, the better! Anyway, it has been very interesting, and enlightening, and each time we do these we get more and better technical links to link to, which is all to the good.

As for that pint, if you're going to the Great Dorset Steam Fair this year (Thur eve --> Sat) I'll most certainly take you up on it! :o)

EdJogg (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, tempting, I could take in the Swanage on the same day. Problem is, I can't drive, and as I live in deepest, darkest West Wales, it's a bit of a trek. Stranger things have happened, though (I wonder if the various beer tents there sell Comrade Bill Bartram's Egalitarian Anti-Imperialistic Soviet Stout by Bartram's Brewery? See: Comrade Bill). Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[ec]Dunno about that one, but there's no shortage of real ale! (and, of course, cider!!) so you're bound to find something you like.

I'm sure there are buses that run from Salisbury, but travelling from Wales you'd want to stay somewhere local. We camp on site as the fair is too large to take in in one 12-hour day (or two days if I get stuck mesmerised by the heavy haulage "playpen"...) When open it has a larger 'population' than Dorchester!

EdJogg (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Continued from previous thread)... Anyway, I'm churning out the SECR K and SR K1 classes at GA, and am in the process of putting the bits similar to the N class into article. That's the good thing about Maunsell's standardisation, it means that what has been written for the N class is generally relevant to five other articles (with some obvious modifications and additions)! However, I understand if you want a rest ;) ! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Standardised Wikipedia articles, now there's a thought! Not sure whether pushing them through at the same time is a good idea as you may run into a new problem. Whereas one article may be well-written and 'sorted', a second/third/nth article with significant chunks of (near-)identical text may result in requests for re-writing to make them different. (Just a thought!) On the other hand, submitting them at spaced intervals may avoid this issue attracting attention.

EdJogg (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A thorny issue that need not come up if reviewers have their heads screwed on and see the interrelationships between the classes; I mean, how many different ways can one think of saying the same thing? We'd need to re-use some of the stuff at least five times because of the family relationships. I like to think that there's enough different about them to prevent this eventuality from happening, but then again, its all subjective. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The text in the K/K1 Class article is already diverging from what was copied from the N class, so maybe I'm over-stating a problem because I am close to the text. The story of these Mogul classes is rather intriguing, even to someone who is not normally an SR loco 'fan'. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope this isn't a polite way of saying 'I'm fed up with the Southern, I want to participate in a locomotive article to do with Brasso's biggest consumer...!' Ahem, joking aside, I'm going to be working on the K class article for a bit, although its basically complete apart from a photo I have found of the K1 class. Its just the usual tinkering with the prose, I think, of which I have a poor Wikipedia track record (but reasonable in university- they must be driving down standards!). Anyway, I'll be on here spasmodically, as my laptop has just gone for repair after it just stopped working. Thankfully, it was still on warranty. Anyway, cheers!--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no it wasn't! I must admit that I would love your research and attention to detail to be applied to the various GWR loco articles...maybe once you've finished the Southern classes..? Thing is I was brought up in Slough -- pure GWR territory -- unfortunately, long after steam so my formative spotting was of lovely, noisy, smoky diesels and DMUs -- then I emigrated on marriage to Guildford -- EMU, after EMU, after EMU (yawn!)

The comment 'intriguing' was genuine. I've enjoyed learning about these beasts, even though they're 'foreign'! I'd even consider buying a Schools/N/U as a guest loco on my model railway, but there are a few Standard classes to get first, and perhaps a Hornby '50', Bachmann Warship or two, couple of Hymeks...

I'll be on my over-extended wikibreak (till 8/9 Aug) from the end of the week, and I need to start winding down (then afterwards it'll take a couple of weeks to clear the watchlist backlog!) so I'll happily check your prose on my return, but don't rely on my input before then.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed your break! Even though you still have your wikibreak avatar thing at the top of the page, I noticed that you have made a couple of modifications to the MN article, so I presume you are working away at your watchlist. Anyway, very little has been done to the above article since you've been away (I've been fairly busy myself), so if you want to give it another check-though for prose issues when your backlog reduces to a manageable degree, then that would be grand.

By the way, I had a decent tour behind 70013 Oliver Cromwell over the Devon Banks, where it was within a couple of seconds of capturing the record for the quickest time between Plymouth and Exeter from 6024 King Edward I. The sound from up-front was fantastic! Last weekend, I had a more sedate and enjoyable circular tour through the Surrey Hills behind 34067 Tangmere. I have a couple of month's financial respite before my next one from Crewe to Carlisle. No peace for the wicked! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

:Jealous emoticon:

Yes, I am working through the backlog. Thankfully there have been several days with little new activity, which helps. Can take two weeks to clear, as I have to work at twice the usual speed to stop it growing any larger!

Will add an appropriate reminder to the ToDo list.

EdJogg (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff which I took out of my user page (and rejigged). Have a look and see what you think. SimonTrew (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That is SOOOOO much better. My apologies for getting a bit huffy earlier, but I found the essay very hard to understand at the time. This time round it is much clearer and I couldn't see anything which needed changing. EdJogg (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion that may have wider implications for the Trains wikiproject on this talk page under "Deletion". You may wish to contribute to it. I have no interest in influencing you for or against deletion, and simply feel wider discussion would be beneficial. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there. EdJogg (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Original question on User talk:Commdor (copied for reference):

Bring the Jubilee vs Locomobile

Your 7 Aug edit (here) has been temporarily 'lost' from the Locomobile article. This is because there are major issues with the focus/purpose of the article, and an old version has been restored over a number of recent changes. As the other 'lost' change has been re-instated by the original editor, I was going to do the same for yours, but then hit a snag...

The article Bring the Jubilee mentions "minibiles" and links this word to Locomobile. Now, the Locomobile article is expected to be converted to a DAB page in due course, to cover its two meanings: (i) traction engine in French (and other non-English languages), and, (ii) products (steam cars) of the Locomobile Company of America

My problem is that I do not understand what form a "minibile" is supposed to take. Would the link from BtJ be better suited to steam car? (Regardless, the current Locomobile 'In Popular Culture' entry can then be moved to the new destination page.) At present, apart from the link from BtJ, I cannot see a reason for retaining the entry in Locombile, since your edit means it no longer refers to locomobiles!

Could you have a little think about this please? -- EdJogg (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's probably for the best then to move the references to the steam car article. The book describes "minibiles" as expensive, complicated, "trackless locomotives" with solid rubber tires that require a trained driver to operate. They also "chuff" and apparently move fairly quickly, faster than horse-drawn carriages. Within those parameters, a steam car is probably the closest thing we've got to a minibile. Locomobiles were referenced in the book's article before I cleaned it up, and I must have assumed that minibiles referred to locomobiles. I apologize for any inconvenience my edit caused, I never thought to link it steam cars. -- Commdor {Talk} 12:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

EdJogg's response on User talk:Commdor (copied for reference):

Thanks for responding so quickly. No need to apologise for your edit, without it we would not have spotted the problem. Unless anyone can prove otherwise, steam car would seem a sensible location for the link and commentary. EdJogg (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. My quick response was due to my dog-eared copy of the book being close at hand and the fact that I've been up all night with nothing to do but surf the Wiki. Learned a lot of stuff about George S. Patton... So, anyway, glad I could help. -- Commdor {Talk} 12:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid a back-and-forth edit on William Samuel Henson, both 'centre' and 'center' are correct as I'm sure you know - it just depends on which spelling standard you use (American or English). The general rule on Wikipedia (which I'm also pretty sure you know) is to not change the standard spelling type of a page once it's set. While W. S. Henson was English, he emigrated to the US and spent the majority of his life there, so that's not a deciding factor.

The initial creation of the page had no spelling-style-specific words; the first case I found (without looking at all the revisions) was when I added "center" in Dec. of 2007. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to stick with American spellings. Also, I'm the most frequent editor (and adder of content) to the page - I'm researching W. S. Henson since he's my great-great-great-grandfather. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've managed to dig out a lot of data and references from various places, and especially from Google Books. I also just bought a rare copy of his 1871 pamphlet on Astronomy. I'll have more to add once I can get to the Library of Congress and copy their fairly extensive folder on him (including his personal diary).

As for adding 'he': I feel it was fine without it, but it may be more canonically correct with 'he', so I'm OK with the edit. (My parents proofread manuscripts and journal articles for fun, so I'm pretty well exposed to and versed in grammar - even if I make mistakes at times, or disagree with certain rules.) Thanks for proofreading! --- jesup (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Yes, I know the relevant procedures and (mostly) stick by them. In this case...I dunno. I don't want to make more of an issue of it than I am already, and I can't be bothered to look. I suspect I saw it was about an Englishman and worked from that, as that would usually be enough. I know my edit summary was a bit OTT, so my apologies. Just sometimes you want cut loose...

Re 'he'...I have been involved in editing a few Featured Articles, and one of the things I tend to do is read the text quite literally. So, here the 'he' forces the subject back to where it should be rather than 'Chard', which could be regarded as the subject following that comma. (But,, hey, I'm no expert at this!) I'm not sure the sentence would pass a FA review, as they might not appreciate the multiple sub-clauses, but I liked it and wanted to preserve it, and a slight tightening of the precision seemed to do the trick.

I'll keep his page on my watchlist, along with the many other 'minor' (nothing personal) personalities associated with the history of the steam engine. It's important that someone keeps an eye on these relative backwaters of WP, or drive-by vandalism can go unnoticed for months. (Literally just seen some edits to an article on my watchlist, whose last previous edit was by me, back in February.)

EdJogg (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, and thanks for watching the page (I edit it, but I no longer check Wikipedia for vandalism on a daily basis). Spellings: I'll think on it, but I'll probably put it back to American spellings if for no other reason than I'm less likely to make mistakes. jesup (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8