User talk:Bulleid Pacific/Archive 5

Hello?

No-one's talked to you since last August??

Huh? (Thought someone had vandalised your talk page!)

EdJogg (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting

Hi. Just bumped into this template ({{rp}}) and thought you might find it useful. It is a display mechanism for reducing the number of Harvard refs in an article. Suggest you look at the template doc before use. (Please pass on to others!)

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I will be glad to look at, but it may take me several days. Thanks for asking, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - I checked for the double quotes on "Leader" but not the rest. Look forward to the other pictures and let me know when it is at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSWR N15 class: quote marks vs FA

Hi. I note you have changed double to single quotes in this article. I thought that doubles had been applied in order to gain FA status? Is there new guidance? (BTW, I agree that single-quotes look more appropriate here.)

EdJogg (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SR Leader Class

Hi, this is a very interesting and well-written article, but I have just one quibble—the repeated use of the word "design", particularly in the Lead. Could we have "prototype" or even "locomotive"? To me, and it might just be me, "design" means a plan on paper and not the actual locomotive. The article is within a gnat's crotchet of FA level in my view, well done. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SR Merchant Navy Class

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give SR Merchant Navy Class a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. I've flagged this one to be dealt with by an admin. Mjroots (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry too much about the notice above - it's a kind of "right of passage" and many editors make a cut and paste move at least once! <g>. For reference, if you wish to move an article to an existing title, propose the move at WP:RM. If consensus is that it should be moved an admin will do the honours. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted out now. Mjroots (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'ere! Wossup? My watchlist just exploded!

Look at all the trouble you've caused!!

:o) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously, how far have you got with making the SR loco class titles consistent? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another peer review

I will be glad to do a review - it is third in line for review from me currently. COngrats on LSWR N15 class being TFA tomorrow! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind returning the favor? I recently did a fairly extensive copyedit on BP Pedestrian Bridge and it is on PR now. There are some fairly technical aspects to the article, but it also has an Aesthetics section. Any feedback would be appreciated, if you have the time and inclination. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the PR - I will let Tony and Torsodog (who are more familiar with the sources) address the references points. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LSWR N15 class -- main page FA

First, congratulations.

Second, I've had a quick run-through the article, mainly looking for missing links and 'clumsy prose' (no offence intended). Little needed doing, of course, as it's already at FA, but I found a couple of bits that might benefit from your attention.

Please see Talk:LSWR N15 class#Pre- Main Page appearance queries when you have a mo.

As you're busy with the 'N' at present, I'll leave you to it today, and nip off to the GWR...

EdJogg (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do nicely, thank'ye! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Monitoring

Thankfully, lots of editors are watching, 'cos we had a rash of puerile vandalism 'in the early hours'.

To save you half-an-hour, check out this diff, between version 'Cleaned up with AutoEd' and 'EdJogg's safe version'. This cuts out all the p***ing about and shows the 'real' edits, ignoring the preceding AutoEd tidy-up (which is worth a separate look at).

Please check the two changed dates and also notice that if the first date is incorrect, the 'six' should be 'seven'. (Incidentally, 'several' may be more correct if the build programme was discontinuous -- depends whether you think the revised wording is misleading.)

EdJogg (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We survived, just. Have you had a chance to check the above edit? -- I'd love to remove the entry from my ToDo list!

-- EdJogg (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Echoing my previous comment, two suspicious edits were made on FA day, and they have not been reverted: Delivery in 1925 changed to 1924 and construction to 1926 changed to 1925.

Could you please check these and either confirm the new text is OK, or revert them to what you wrote? (If you do revert, please see the other link above which shows a change from 'several' to 'six' that may need reverting/adjusting too.)

Thanks. -- EdJogg (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of SR Merchant Navy class locomotives

Welcome back. I've already had a go at the previous submission by this editor, reducing the detail, but he's back again with this diff (groan). Gut reaction was just to 'prune' it, although the pruning would have been effectively an undo! For now I've just left it, as I think a different approach is required.

If you look at List of preserved BR Standard Class 9F locomotives you'll see that each has its own section. I wondered whether the same approach would work for the MN list, at least for the 'preserved' engines? Table column 'Preserved/Location' would instead list the scrapping date/location, being blank for the preserved locos, with the remaining information in the 'notes' column. The preservation details currently in the table would move into sections underneath, with a section for each loco.

I'm not proposing to do this myself, partly because I don't have time, and partly because it's your baby, but I thought I'd throw the idea towards you anyway...

EdJogg (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SECR K and SR K1 classes

Hi, I see you've nominated this for GA status. Having recently got an article through GA, I thought I'd mention that you'll need to improve referencing as some statements are unsourced. Mjroots (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding section, last sentence of first paragraph was the one I'd spotted. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping

Regarding Tony's comment about the 1923 grouping – I entirely agree with you that it's irksome to have to explain the grouping on every single railway article. In my experience, linking to List of railway companies involved in the 1923 grouping is more user-friendly than linking to the 1921 Act – the opening paragraph says all that needs to be said to the general reader, without the obscurity of the Act itself. It's a compromise that's survived unchallenged so far every time I've used it (including a stint on the main page).

Regarding the FAC, have supported there – although, as I say, I do think you should explain the colours. It's unfair to expect people to know what "Maunsell grey" refers to, for example, especially on an article without colour photographs. – iride scent 22:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep on about it, but I think Iridescent's comments support my suggestion of a page describing Southern Railway liveries. Could link from all over (which will offer opportunities for simplifying article prose), and if page includes example photos -- then you don't have to worry about finding representative colour photos for every loco class. Don't worry, not expecting anything soon (add it to your ToDo!!) but if you remember for previous FAs, we got round similar terminology problems by creating articles and links!

EdJogg (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be lucky! I doubt there's any colour photo of Maunsell grey. All it is is dark grey with white lettering, added as a wartime expedient (and it was cheap!). --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk as well, but might it be worth adding solid blocks of the assorted livery colours to the SR page? A similar solution at {{Infobox TfL line}} seems to work. – iride scent 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School's Class (minor issue)

I hesitate from getting either of us embroiled in another SR Class at the moment, but I was just following up a strange edit to Train. Research took me to SR V Schools class and then to List of SR V "Schools" class locomotives...

The hatnote in 'Naming the locomotives' suggests that preservation details may be found on the 'List' page, but there is no mention there! On return I found a preservation section in the main article. On your ToDo list, could you add looking into this please? It's not urgent!

EdJogg (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like this I treat as urgent. Will have a quick look now. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, try not to spend too long, 'cos if you've still got your 'FA' hat on you might be there for days! (There are some issues in the lede, for example. I decided it was too dangerous to edit!)

Actually, the reason I came back here is because I have just restored a ref to 914 Eastbourne on the Eastbourne College page -- dunno whether it will survive! In researching I found a fact on the SEMG site (page 1) that isn't obviously mentioned in the V Class article: traffic to/from public schools at the term ends was a significant traffic flow, and was (IIRC) a factor in the choice of class name. You may wish to incorporate this in due course. Cheers. EdJogg (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SECR K and SR K1 classes GAN

I would like to inform you I have more comments for the GA review of SECR K and SR K1 classes. Comments are here. Dough4872 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just one more concern before I can promote the article to GA. Dough4872 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on the GA review page, the remaining issue is the citation needed for the statement "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion." Dough4872 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]