User talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:DavidCane. 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. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 17 |
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
The Signpost: 29 November 2019
- From the editor: Put on your birthday best
- News and notes: How soon for the next million articles?
- In the media: You say you want a revolution
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Arbitration report: Two requests for arbitration cases
- Traffic report: The queen and the princess meet the king and the joker
- Technology report: Reference things, sister things, stranger things
- Gallery: Winter and holidays
- Recent research: Bot census; discussions differ on Spanish and English Wikipedia; how nature's seasons affect pageviews
- Essay: Adminitis
- From the archives: WikiProject Spam, revisited
The Signpost: 27 December 2019
- From the editors: Caught with their hands in the cookie jar, again
- News and notes: What's up (and down) with administrators, articles and languages
- In the media: "The fulfillment of the dream of humanity" or a nightmare of PR whitewashing on behalf of one-percenters?
- Discussion report: December discussions around the wiki
- Arbitration report: Announcement of 2020 Arbitration Committee
- Traffic report: Queens and aliens, exactly alike, once upon a December
- Technology report: User scripts and more
- Gallery: Holiday wishes
- Recent research: Acoustics and Wikipedia; Wiki Workshop 2019 summary
- From the archives: The 2002 Spanish fork and ads revisited (re-revisited?)
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: Wikiproject Tree of Life: A Wikiproject report
DYK for Royal Commission on London Traffic
On 18 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Commission on London Traffic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Royal Commission on London Traffic proposed constructing 9 miles (14 km) of avenues with railways underneath at the cost of £30 million in 1905 (equivalent to £3 billion in 2016)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Commission on London Traffic. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Royal Commission on London Traffic), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
The Signpost: 27 January 2020
- From the editor: Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium
- News and notes: Six million articles on the English language Wikipedia
- Special report: The limits of volunteerism and the gatekeepers of Team Encarta
- Arbitration report: Three cases at ArbCom
- Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2019
- News from the WMF: Capacity Building: Top 5 Themes from Community Conversations
- Community view: Our most important new article since November 1, 2015
- From the archives: A decade of The Signpost, 2005-2015
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan: a wikiProject Report
The Signpost: 1 March 2020
- From the editor: The ball is in your court
- News and notes: Alexa ranking down to 13th worldwide
- Special report: More participation, more conversation, more pageviews
- Discussion report: Do you prefer M or P?
- Arbitration report: Two prominent administrators removed
- Community view: The Incredible Invisible Woman
- In focus: History of The Signpost, 2015–2019
- From the archives: Is Wikipedia for sale?
- Traffic report: February articles, floating in the dark
- Gallery: Feel the love
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- Opinion: Wikipedia is another country
- Humour: The Wilhelm scream
A tag has been placed on Category:Unbuilt tube stations in the London Borough of Merton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2020
- From the editors: The bad and the good
- News and notes: 2018 Wikipedian of the year blocked
- WikiProject report: WikiProject COVID-19: A WikiProject Report
- Special report: Wikipedia on COVID-19: what we publish and why it matters
- In the media: Blocked in Iran but still covering the big story
- Discussion report: Rethinking draft space
- Arbitration report: Unfinished business
- In focus: "I have been asked by Jeffrey Epstein …"
- Community view: Wikimedia community responds to COVID-19
- From the archives: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own
- Traffic report: The only thing that matters in the world
- Gallery: Visible Women on Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Amid COVID-19, Wikimedia Foundation offers full pay for reduced hours, mobilizes all staff to work remote, and waives sick time
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Mill Hill (The Hale) railway station
Replaced by Mill Hill Broadway? That doesn't sound right, the two sites were quite separate. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Not replaced by, but they were going to have a combined entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 April 2020
- News and notes: Unbiased information from Ukraine's government?
- In the media: Coronavirus, again and again
- Discussion report: Redesigning Wikipedia, bit by bit
- Featured content: Featured content returns
- Arbitration report: Two difficult cases
- Traffic report: Disease the Rhythm of the Night
- Recent research: Trending topics across languages; auto-detecting bias
- Opinion: Trusting Everybody to Work Together
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
- In focus: Multilingual Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: The Guild of Copy Editors
Charing Cross
"To carry out the works on the station and the running tunnels, a site on the north-western corner of Trafalgar Square at Whitcomb Street was used to construct a pair of access shafts 120 feet (37 m) deep from which long passages were excavated beneath Trafalgar Square to the existing below ground concourses. Although not originally intended for passenger use, one of these became the interchange passage between the Bakerloo and Northern lines."
I am a bit confused by this segment. If you are talking about these "long passages" originating at the northwest of the square, neither of these is used as an interchange passage for passenger use. From what I've been able to find, they are shown to the public sporadically as a sort of museum piece. The northern one connects to the interchange passage, but it's not itself used by passengers for anything, and only this one connects to any section/area of concourse; it appears the other ones connects to the western Jubilee tunnel. Am I misunderstanding what you're talking about? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm summarising. From what is described, the section of passage way that is now the connection between the mid-level Bakerloo line and Northern line concourses was original part of the construction tunnel. Badsey-Ellis says (page 285):
- "One of these tunnels split in two at the station, with branches heading in opposite directions to the existing Northern and Bakerloo line lower escalator concourses. Although originally intended to be a temporary working tunnel, it was realised during construction that it would be convenient if it was fitted out for passenger use to enable passengers to access the Northern line from the Trafalgar Square ticket hall without having to descend to the level of the new platforms and then up again (and vice versa)."--DavidCane (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea this tunnel wasn't originally planned to link the two stations. This would probably mean that they expected people to interchange at Embankment station, or if they wanted to get between the Bakerloo and Northern platforms, to interchange at the lower-level Jubliee concourse. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Nav boxes
"this navbox should go only on the pages that it links to" Noted! How best to link the "heads of public transport in London" to the actual articles - just a piped link? Turini2 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the question.
- List of heads of public transport authorities in London links to each of them direct where they have articles. The title of the navbox links to that. In the individual personal articles, the text should have a link to the organisation they led (e.g. London Regional Transport). All of the articles for the organisations link to History of public transport authorities in London (and vice versa) in the succession box at the bottom.
- If you mean link the articles on the organisations to their heads, a "Chairmen" section could be added to each with names and dates listed (the London Passenger Transport Board article already mentions Ashfield and Latham in the text, so that does not need one).
- Thanks for creating Sir Wilfred. I created several of the others and have been meaning to do the rest when I could be bothered to do the research.--DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 May 2020
- From the editor: Meltdown May?
- News and notes: 2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
- Discussion report: WMF's Universal Code of Conduct
- Featured content: Weathering the storm
- Arbitration report: Board member likely to receive editing restriction
- Traffic report: Come on and slam, and welcome to the jam
- Gallery: Wildlife photos by the book
- News from the WMF: WMF Board announces Community Culture Statement
- Recent research: Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
- Community view: Transit routes and mapping during stay-at-home order downtime
- WikiProject report: Revitalizing good articles
- On the bright side: 500,000 articles in the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
The Signpost: 28 June 2020
- News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine
- Community view: Community open letter on renaming
- Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd
- In the media: Part collaboration and part combat
- Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals
- Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow
- Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation
- Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths
- News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice
- Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking
- Humour: Cherchez une femme
- On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter
Edit review
Hi David, I've reverted a few edits of a new user to London Underground stations that seemed pretty obviously wrong to me, like this one. However, I'm not familiar enough with the services to evaluate some of the others. Would you mind taking quick look at their recent edits? Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
- The edits have the same pattern as two IP editors I reverted many edits from a couple of days ago. I'm guessing they may be the same person. The particular edit you identified above was incorrect, and I see that it and their other edits have been reverted by other users. If their interest stays in editing articles within the WikiProject:London Transport subject area, I will probably spot them all--DavidCane (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Seven years! |
|---|
DavidCane, just a reminder that your review here is still open. The nominator has recently posted that the issues raised have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 2 August 2020
- Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?
- COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
- News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin
- In the media: Dog days gone bad
- Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
- Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom
- Traffic report: Now for something completely different
- News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users
- Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil
Information conflicts from Mr Horne's books
Greetings! I have just bought the Piccadilly Tube book by Mike Horne. While I was stumbling across references from the District Railway article, apparently it mentioned that the Ravenscourt Park to Turnham Green section duplicated on 3 December 1911 on the District book by the same author but, on the Piccadilly book it says 3 November 1911. Any thoughts? Thanks :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- I find a reference to 3 December 1911 in the District line book (p. 48), but just 1911 in the Piccadilly line book (p. 26). The London Railway Atlas 4th edition by Joe Brown gives 3 December 1911 (note on p. 37)--DavidCane (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll use 3 December then. The 3 November one in the Piccadilly book is apparently on page 46 based on my findings. Thank you! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see you're talking about a different Piccadilly line book to the one I thought. I was looking at The Piccadilly line: An Illustrated History which is a companion to Horne's one for the District line, but it is one of three in the series that Horne didn't write - it's by Desmond F. Croome. --DavidCane (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, yes. I'm using the Piccadilly Tube book. That clears the confusion. I might add these books to my collection later. Cheers VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I see you're talking about a different Piccadilly line book to the one I thought. I was looking at The Piccadilly line: An Illustrated History which is a companion to Horne's one for the District line, but it is one of three in the series that Horne didn't write - it's by Desmond F. Croome. --DavidCane (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'll use 3 December then. The 3 November one in the Piccadilly book is apparently on page 46 based on my findings. Thank you! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Hmm another weird date conflict
Hi again. I was referring to a few sources about when the Met opened its extension to Uxbridge from HOTH. While Simpson 2003 p=97 states 30 June as in the Met article, Horne's 2007 (the one I'm using as stated earlier) said 4 July 1904 in p=45. Wallinger et al in 2014 also gave the same details as part of the Labyrinth series. Do you happen to know a clue of the date difference? Else I will make adjustments accordingly. It would be interesting to know if 30 June is an official opening, while 4 July has commercial steam services, or 30 June being Uxbridge's opening and 4 July Ruislip's. Thanks again, cheers! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- I always use Douglas Rose's Diagrammatic History of the Underground for dates of opening, closure, etc. He has 4 July 1904. Joe Brown's London Railway Atlas has the same. 30 June 1904 was a Thursday, which seems unlikely as an opening day, whereas 4 July was a Monday.--DavidCane (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2020
- News and notes: The high road and the low road
- In the media: Storytelling large and small
- Featured content: Going for the goal
- Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way
- Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax
- Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics
- News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online
- Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles
- Arbitration report: A slow couple of months
- From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?