This is an archive of past discussions with User:Our Phellap. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello Our Phellap/2004 and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Archive of discussions for 2004

Image tagging

Hello. Thanks for the photos you have uploaded, they are appreciated, except that they need to be accompanied by licensing information. This is explained on the upload page, but I notice that your images aren't tagged. If they are yours all you need to do is add something like "Photo by Our Phellap" and then below that {{GFDL}} (if you want to release it under the GFDL that is, see image copyright tags for other possibilities). If you don't own the copyright you need to say where they come from and what license they are available under. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask; I have refrained from tagging your images as {{unverified}} for now, except for the first one I came across. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:19, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see that you haven't followed my advice, and you also appear to have uploaded more images since I left the last note. This makes me suspicious about the copyright status of these images. Please understand that we cannot have people inserting copyrighted material into Wikipedia: it endangers the whole project. Please at least respond to this message or your photos may have to be deleted. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:32, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

re:British Rail classes

AFAIK 170s etc are Sprinter-style in their roles 168 being developed into 170s 171s, etc. I'm trying to sort this out so it's very much a WIP -- be bold in editing it to help me out! Also because of capitalisaiton rules, they should be listed under British Rail class 03 not British Rail Class 03 but the latter should be a redirect (phew) Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:27, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

btw, what class was the HST and HST prototype in before the Power Cars were reclassified as 43 because they kept swapping them so much? Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ok fair enough for classes 165/66/68/70/71, but the others 175/180/185 are new designs and not sprinters

HST power cars were classes 252 - prototype or 253/254 for the production power cars - can't remember which way round the classes were but one was for western region and other for ECML/MML. (Our Phellap 22:41, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))

also mate, could you have a look at the Wikipedia:manual of style regarding use of thumbnail sized images (for folks with phone line connections or those silly hand-held things) and about enboldening sections (only the initial name or alternative titles should be bold). Otherwise, I'm being nice :) Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

are you on about the large pictures under classes or the small thumnails under the list page?

I was meaning to have a nice word with you about this. All pictures should be 250px width; ish. Users can then click on them to expand them. I think that some of your photos -- welcome as they are -- are being displayed too large on the pages, and the originals need to be maybe edited down for size a bit too. And not to demean but City of Truro is horribly underexposed -- you could try bombarding random boilerplate requests for permissions at fotopic websites like I do! (I'm not biting you btw) Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:03, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I thought the photo guide said to upload photos as large as poss (under 2MB) or did i get this wrong? the only reason i used big photos under classes was so u could actually see what they are! however ill change them to smaller if this is a problem (btw i use dial-up myself and its not THAT slow!) (Our Phellap 23:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC))

DEMUs do use 3rd rail power http://www.lexcie.zetnet.co.uk/tops-demu.htm Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:35, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can assure you that they absolutely do not use 3rd rail power - it is a very common misconception - have you ever been to London Victoria and HEARD them leave on diesel power? why would they do that if they could use 3rd rail? Try looking at the hastings diesel website as they own one of the preserved sets.

I thought they got better acceleration on the electricity and pootled along the branches at the end. So why not classify them with the DMUs? Dunc_Harris|☺ 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know why they weren't classed with the DMUs - maybe because they were southern region. btw DMUs are more correctly known as DMMUs (diesel mechanical multiple units) - altho the class 127 were in fact hydraulic-transmission! the virgin voyagers are also DEMUs as they have electric-transmission (as do HSTs) and they don't run on 3rd rail etc.... (Our Phellap 01:27, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC))

I was merely following the previous pattern for infoboxes like that. Look at all the shunters and you will find infoboxes in the same position. That said, however, they are somewhat excessively wide in a couple of cases, like the Class 66. A pixel width restriction on the table would not go amiss I think. David Newton 15:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reminder to tag images

Please tag Image:360111_at_Ipswich.jpg and other images you have uploaded with the appropriate license information. (See Trilobite's message above). — David Remahl 01:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! — David Remahl 01:23, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Class 489

The units in this class were officially numbered in full TOPS style, i.e. 489 101. However, in pre-TOPS days, BR(S) used 4-digit unit numbers. For a while after the introduction of TOPS, southern region EMUs still continued to show 4-digit numbers, with the first two digits of their official numbers being chopped off. So, 489 101 showed in its corners number 9101. This practice was continued up until recently. Old stock like the 411, 421 and 423 still painted in NetworkSouthEast colours (there's still a few around) still show only the last 4 digits of their number. HTH Chris 15:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ok thanks. i know some of the 455 units are now being renumbered into their full six digit numbers. i guess since the old stock is being withdrawn there is any point renumbering it physically. (Our Phellap)

Hmm... there is no such thing as "physical renumbering". They were never renumbered, because they have always been (48)9101-10. Before being rebuilt as GLVs (which was definitely under TOPS, so no old numbers), they had completely different numbers as Mk 2 coaching stock. So they have officially and physically only ever had the one number within that class - it just happens that for reasons of idiosyncracy, they applied the numbers visually in the same old SR style - this does not mean they "physically" had different numbers - that's just BR(S) being awkward, different, and ... well, ... BR(S) ;-) Chris 04:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

GWR Renumbering

Hi - I noticed that you swapped the 3440/3717 renumbering of City of Truro. I can assure you that 3440 was the original number and 3717 its number under the 1912 renumbering scheme. This saw locos in the 32xx/33xx/34xx/37xx/41xx series renumbered into new series to bring locos of the same type together - I've set this out in a table at Locomotives of the Great Western Railway#1912 Renumbering. Hope this of help. Musicandcomedy 12:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK thanks for pointing this out (Our Phellap 15:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC))