User talk:Opolito

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Opolito! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Rtkat3 (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland loco page

I double checked all the "Number in Class" columns and only the "A12 (small) class" was wrong (3 instead of 1). The "Classification" heading still needs a fix, but it seems to be much better than before. ----MountVic127 (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountVic127: This is the state you left the table in when I commented on your talk page. Note that virtually every entry that you added to the "Number in Class" column is wrong. You had 13 for the A10 Avonside class, instead of 4; 4 for the A10 Nielsons instead of 13, 3 for the B11s instead of 4 etc. Please don't claim that only one was wrong when the evidence is right there that they almost all were wrong. Opolito (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date extinct column?

What about a "Date Extinct" column to compliment the existing "Date Built" column? ----MountVic127 (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MountVic127: you should focus on completing the "Number in Class" column first. "Date extinct" isn't the right title, since locomotives don't go extinct and some of the class members still exist. You could maybe add a "Disposition" column, but it would make that table too wide and it is complex to include the details of what happened to a class of locomotives. Overall, I wouldn't recommend trying to shoehorn that information into the table. Readers can go to the individual class articles to see what happened to each class. Opolito (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granite Rock Co. 10, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aromas. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown (1974 film)

I don't understand why you reverted my edit on Chinatown to add Penthouse as one of the companies involved. The end credits of the movie literally say "A Paramount - Penthouse Presentation." Penthouse was given equal billing to the home studio in the credits. You can see the credit at 4:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsKFwwAPJqE Jamesluckard (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesluckard: the source you gave did not say that. It said that Bob Guccione invested in the movie. That's different from Penthouse producing the movie. If you have a reliable source for your claim then you can add it to the article. Opolito (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The end credits of the movie are the best and most reliable, definitive source. They say the film was jointly made by Paramount and Penthouse. I don't understand why there would be a question about that. Jamesluckard (talk) 07:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the end credits as your source. You used a Vanity Fair article which only says that Guccione invested in the movie: [1]. Opolito (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to cite the end credits, and there is no usual expectation to do so. The article was an additional source, but I provided a solution in the Chinatown Talk page that I think will fix everything. :) Jamesluckard (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gas engine edits

Thank you for your review and your thoroughness! I have checked the guidelines again, and it seems that the source I had added to the article on gas engines was just what is needed for Wikipedia – a branch expert discussing a relevant topic in a non-promotional way. Have I misinterpreted this? If so, please tell me – otherwise it would be great if you could take another look at my source and re-add it if it seems suitable for you, as the article is in need of more citations.

Thank you in advance!

GraBenj (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lousy link and a poor section. It misleads more than it informs.

That section is a (very) simplistic description of a four-stroke cycle. Which TBH is barely adequate for that.

The main problem with it is that this is an article on gas engines, not four-stroke engines, or even four-stroke gas engines. It implies that all gas engines are four strokes (they're not). It implies that all gas engines use compression (The first ones didn't, which is why they pre-dated the Otto engine. Otto knew that compression would aid efficiency and give him a lightweight engine, but it also started to need complicated fuels, like petrol).

As a source, its main problem is that it's a commercial parts retailer trying to bask in some reflected glory by 'explaining' gas engines by pasting up some simplistic explanation they found somewhere, probably online and increasingly AI-generated. That is not what a WP:RS looks like. As a simple example, "Carl Benz, the founder of Mercedes Benz and MWM, is inevitably credited with inventing the now established internal combustion engine." is cringe-worthy. He invented the car (a petrol engine in a locomobile chassis). He did not invent its engine. Nor did he found M-B (although just who founded M-B, D-B and Daimler is its own special tarpit).

What you're trying to do here is a good idea, but it needs to be better written and it needs better sourcing. Nor does it really need to explain the operating cycle. I learned 'suck, squeeze, bang, blow' as a kid and it wasn't until I read Ricardo decades later that I really understood anything and realised what a completely pointless and misleading cliche that hackneyed explanation is. What it mostly needs to explain is "gas engines are just like big IC engines, except that they're different in the following ways:". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machynlleth Town

Hi - very interesting to read about the former Machynlleth Town station on the Corris, something I didn't know about. Is the former stable block the stone building with corregated roof that's visible here? If so, I'll see if I can get a photo of it next time I'm in the area. — Voice of Clam (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the stable building. A photo would be a great addition to the article. Opolito (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I detoured back from a trip on the Vale of Rheidol today and took a photo, which I've now added to the article. I've also made a suggestion for renaming it, as I feel that calling it Machynlleth Town is misleading if it was originally unnamed. Your thoughts would be welcome. — Voice of Clam (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voice of Clam: Thank you! I've responded on the article talk page. Opolito (talk) 23:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Paget (MP for Leicestershire), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Paget.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rail profile, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Eastern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation

I was NEVER expressing an opinion about those edits, I deleted them for a reason. If you just chill for a minute and let me explain my edits, user:Trainsandotherthings has physically stated in his edit summaries when editing the Strasburg Railroad article that serial numbers are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You were also clearly threatening me of a block warning when I clearly did nothing wrong. I ask you kindly to please stop threatening me with your block notification messages on my talk page. You keep making up stuff and said just because I removed it, I didn’t like it, that is NOT were I’m coming from, I explained it to you three times in my edit summaries and yet you refuse to listen. Please chill with your edits and just listen for a moment before this gets out of hand. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opolito, the IP is correct that manufacturer's serial numbers should not be included in articles. Unlike road numbers (those used by the operator), serial numbers are not widely used and rarely appear in reliable sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do widely list builder's works numbers for locomotives. There is no policy against this. There may be difficulties in sourcing this, particularly as they're different between individual locos within a class, but that's why we have our basic sourcing policies. They're also cast into a prominent maker's plate found on nearly every loco and stamped into most major components. For articles about locos in traffic, then they're less important than a road number but they're also key to tracking the history of a locomotive across renames, rebuilds or changes of ownership. When looking at the histories of their makers they're particularly important, as they may also tie into building dates or sequences, or building by particular factories.

I can see no justification for deleting these. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they were completely unsourced, WP:V is the justification. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be a justification for some specific cases, but it is far from the general style being claimed here. In particular, it carries no weight where they are sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to the opinion that serial numbers are important, but that has not been the general practice at least for American train articles. I don't know what the standard is for European articles but from what I've seen you all love to list minutiae like serial numbers and which 10 locomotive sheds an engine was at and the hair color of the last locomotive fireman to operate it. If consensus at a given article is not to include serial numbers, you do not get to override it just because you think it's important. There is no policy against listing serial numbers, but there is no requirement they be included, either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the points above. Andy is right that the construction numbers are widely published, in both US and European sources. Indeed several of the articles that the IP randomly chose to edit did have reliable sources that included the construction numbers. So the claim that these were deleted under a violation of WP:V is factually incorrect on two levels - the IP did not claim to be deleting them because they were unverifiable, and they were in fact properly sourced. The idea that there is a general consensus against including construction numbers in articles about US railroads is wrong, and appears to be based only on Trainsandotherthings's opinion at one article. Even if consensus has been arrived at not to include them in a specific article, that does not mean there is a consensus to remove them in every article. Opolito (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I did restore the edits back to its previous state before, I think it’s best just ti leave it the way they are for now. Ever since I put them back, I haven’t deleted them again since. I would also like to apologize for it too, I know you warned me multiple times about, a talk page discussion would of been better, but since then, I later decided it was just best to just keep it the way it was before to prevent any further warnings. 2.56.173.95 (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisfield, md economic history add jm clayton as oldest seafood producer in crisfield

I’m new to this. It seemed that listing the crabplace.com founded in 1996 would be replaced by jm clayton, from 1890? Wilvis1 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilvis1: There were two problems with your edit. First, the claim that J.M. Clayton is the oldest crab company in the world needs to be accompanied with an independent, published source. Otherwise, readers cannot verify that this claim is true. Second, your addition reads like an advert for the company, particularly the phrase " https://jmclayton.com/ for crab shipped directly to your home." Please understand that Wikipedia is an independent, neutral encyclopedia, so we cannot accept promotional edits like this.

If you can locate a proper independent source, and reword your edit so it is purely factual, not promotional, then it would make an interesting addition to the Crisfield, Maryland article. Good luck, Opolito (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]