Talk:Murder of Deborah Linsley

Compartment

Does a six-person compartment mean one that could seat six people in total, or six people side by side and another six facing, a total of 12 people, as in the diagrams at https://www.networksoutheast.net/dc.html? Six people per compartment would probably have been with a corridor at the side, similar to class 442, but the sources don't mention a corridor and the diagrams don't show one. Peter James (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If it really was a 4-EPB as stated, the compartments would have been six-a-side (12 per compt) with no side corridor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

6 people each side. Often only smokers carriages available. 82.4.57.142 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

I do not have access to The Times back issues, but could someone check some dates please? The citations are listed as this;

• 10. ^ "Last journey retraced". The Times (63043). London. 31 January 1847. col E-F, p. 2.
• 11. ^ "Killing clue". The Times (63039). London. 26 March 1988. col G, p. 4.

Given the issue numbers 63042 and 63039, there is no way that cite number 10 is in 1847. Additionally, what the cite is referring to could not be something that was printed 140 years earlier. The date should be either the 30 or 31 March dependant if there was a Sunday inbetween, as The Times on Sunday does not follow the same issuing number sequence. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's being/has been dealt with as we speak...Thanks Vigilant One!  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I had a brainfart. Been working on something else and the next time I'll be using The Times will be to cover 1847. Template already set up to use those issues. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, we've all had days like those. Happy editing and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Notes

I see that this article now has five notes; in the text these are shown as etc. but in the list at the bottom they have simple numbers, which could cause confusion with the ref numbers. Are editors of this article aware that if you alter |group=n to |group=lower-alpha you can then have the markers in the text show as etc. and the same letters will be in the list at the bottom. The {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates will do the same thing with less typing, and you can still put {{sfn}} inside, as in {{efn|Speaking a few days after Linsley's murder, a British Rail spokesman described the coaches as "segregated compartments" which had no "permanent access to the passengers by the guards".{{sfn|Newcastle Journal|1988|p=3}}}}.

So there are two things to do: (i) replace all {{refn}} with {{efn}} and remove the |group=note from those; (ii) in the "Notes" section, replace {{reflist|group=note}} with {{notelist}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Many thanks. I've come across this arcanery before and scarpered. Surely if people see a "Note 1", and then look down to where there is a section called "Notes", and then see...err.. a number one...that's pretty self explanatory?!

You gotny back issues of Railnews or the like? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Tags

I removed the tags, I think all of them can be answered with "we don't know, the sources don't tell us". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)