User talk:Pencefn/Archive11all

The Archive of my Talk Page for 2011.
Archive Index

Archives

Archives

Archive Index

July, August, September 2006 October, November, December 2006 January, February, March 2007 April, May, June 2007 July, August, September 2007 October, November, December 2007 January, February, March 2008 April, May, June 2008 July, August, September 2008 October, November, December 2008 January, February, March 2009 April 2009 to January 2010 February to December 2010 January to December 2011 January to December 2012 January to December 2013

Bo'ness and Kinneill railway

I don't understand why you've reverted this. It's the same line, showing the same bits as being closed. And the old one is for the north top convention upside down anyway. What's the problem? Britmax (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tact is not my strong point

If you find some, chuck me any you don't use... Britmax (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh

The wonders of things..... Well, didgeridoo to you too. Simply south...... 17:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Shilford

Thanks. Yes. That's the bridge. Rosser Gruffydd 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Northern line map

Well help is always welcome, particularly the ideas you have put on the working map. I have to go to work soon and will be little help for the rest of the day but another editor is having a go at the map, on the page itself. For Finsbury Park you seem to need some elbow room and I wouold suggest moving Euston and Mornington Crescent nearer Camden Town so you can use the space next to the junctions just south of Euston. Britmax (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pencefn. You have new messages at Britmax's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Useddenim (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Pencefn. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HRiWales v HRIGwynedd

Stewart,

The use of HRiG removes the catalogue from the view of HRiW, a ludicrous situation - hence it would be more advisable to have it in HRiW.

It was most disconcerting to see a map of HR in Wales and find the FR, WHR , and Talyllyn missing becuse of this.

Action had been previously taken by others to remove this anomaly be reverting the earlier edit that removed the original HRiW cat. I preferred to leave both as they are both relevant. However, I feel the use of HRiG is a bit anomalous(?) as there are a number of lines in other Welsh counties that are not so grouped. --Keith 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would think removal of use of HRiG totally would be more appropriate. There was no visible discussion on its creation, and is a solitary effort within the UK - i.e. there are HRiScotland, England, NI, Wales, but no further splits for eg Monmouth, Lancashire, Ayrshire etc. If you agree, I will endeavour to amend again on the single cat HRiW basis --Keith 05:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

St Pancras International - naming controversy

Hello, Since you took part in this before, you might like to know that there is a revived proposal under discussion at Talk:St Pancras railway station#Requested move. -- Alarics (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Muirend railway station, etc.

Hi, re your comments at User talk:Redrose64#Muirend railway station and at Talk:Muirend railway station#Category:DfT Category E stations, I believe that I have now worked out why the DfT list includes several Scottish stations - see Talk:United Kingdom railway station categories#Mysterious station. This doesn't explain the specific case of Muirend, which has been open for over 100 years. Since I believe (see third link in first sentence) that the Annex D list was prepared on the basis of

"Here are two lists: one is all stations, the other is Scottish stations only. Using that, cross out all the Scottish stations in the first list. That will then become the Annex D list."

I can only explain the presence of Muirend in the Annex D list as either (a) Muirend was inadvertently omitted from the Scottish list; or (b) it was in the Scottish list but the person carrying out the task simply overlooked it. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vallance-HR-4th

Hi, re this edit - my copy doesn't have the ISBN in 1-4-4-1 format - it's definitely in 1-6-2-1 format (which is consistent with ISBN#Pattern); and it's shown as such in two places: on the back cover above the barcode, and on the copyright page opposite the contents page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Templates

I'm sorry you seem to have a problem with things I've done. I can assure you that it was done with the best intentions. I shall not bother in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoEPB (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

TC

TC has been blocked as a suspected sock of Tobias Conradi. See new proposal for a category tree at WT:TWP#Track gauge categories, part 2. Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons class by operator categories

Hi. Please don't remove categories like this - the category Class Xs of Y is for photos of Class X being operated by Y, and this will change over time. Currently all 320s are First ScotRail, but they weren't always, and they probably will have other operators later in life. For similar reasons we have categories of 350s operated by Central Trains, as well as by London Midland, even though LM operate the entire fleet now. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong - the 320 were buit for SPT have lived all their life on the North Clyde Line and are currently being refurbished and modified for the extended route to Edinburgh. The 334 were also built for SPT and I would be very surprised if they ever leave Scotland. There are very few fleets of EMU that have left the initial areas - 508, 313 and 322 are the one I can currently think. DMU are a different matter as their have been built initially for UK wide use 170, 158, 156, 150, etc --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 08:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Class 320 have always operated the North Clyde Line. To follow up and ensure that your coaching is properly followed I have now applied your advice consistently across all the commons pictures for 334, and will do for the 320 in due course. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 10:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. To make it easier, you can use the template {{subst:ukt|Class|Number|Operator|Livery|Line}}, eg {{subst:ukt|158|778|East Midlands Trains|Stagecoach White|Midland Main Line}}. I do accept that this category system can result in a few places where categories are somewhat redundant - for instance Class 378s by operator. However, this allows a consistent approach across all British TOPS classes. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

...Really. You really created a subcategory for each individual unit... -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Railways in the Signpost

WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject UK Railways for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Railway line coordinates

I see you've reverted the addition of coordinate missing templates to railway line articles. In case you weren't aware of it, there is a discussion about whether we should (and if so how we should) present location information about railway lines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Railway line coordinates. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock and Ayr Railway

Didn't have to look at Google Earth- simple mapreading error involving the wrong railway. Thanks for spotting that. Britmax (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Edinburgh Park Railway Station

Hi,

I used this station yesterday and was surprised to find direct trains to Glasgow (which weren't available a few months ago). That was the reason behind my revision today - which I see you rapidly removed!

Would you consider it worth mentioning that trains are direct to Glasgow from this station? I think it's useful information - especially if the reader has no idea where Helensburgh or Milngavie are.

Mat — Preceding unsigned comment added by DI Ramekin (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Difficult, since it is on the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway, but the trains on that route do not stop en route to Glasgow Queen Street, it is trains on a branch line that go through to Glasgow - also Queen Street, on their way to points west. However, the North Clyde Line is noted in the article, and the route map for that identifies the various Glasgow stations trains to Milngavie and Helensburgh stop. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Point taken and accepted. --DI Ramekin (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Haymarket electrification.

Hi Pencefn, sorry about getting that bit about Haymarket electrification wrong.

Haymarket railway station still gives platforms 1 & 2 as unelectrified, which was definitely the case when I was last there in early September, just a month or three before A2B opened, so the Edinburgh to Aberdeen Line was wrong misleading for at least a couple of months.
Back in September, I was musing that adding Bathgate trains to the WCML trains on the electrified southern platforms might be problematical, but then again, the main E2G (via Falkirk High) could be diverted onto the northern platforms. However, I hadn't realised that they would finally get around to electrifying the northern platforms in the last few weeks before opening (or possibly even after that), and then the Aberdeen train came through the tunnel. A week or so later, I remember seeing the overhead lines from the M8.

Anyway, all that is original research. I'll watch this page for a while, should you wish to reply. Tim PF (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks like I may not have been wrong after all. I checked the Airdrie-Bathgate Rail Link and its sources (such as Network Rail), and it only specifies electrification of the line between Drumgelloch and Haymarket. I have therefore reinstated my change. Tim PF (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Last time I went through Haymarket station the north tunnels were electrified (early Jaunary 2011). I will try to get across that way at the weekend to get some photographs. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Images now uploaded and the Haymarket article amended. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 13:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Pollokshaws West

Hi, re this edit - it is true that the Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway was jointly owned by the Cal and the G&SWR, but like many joint railways it retained its title until the Grouping. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an odd one - especially as the Glasgow and Neilston Direct preceded the GB&KJR. City Union is an even odder one (to which the GB&KJR connected en route to St Enoch, which although it was joint, the southern section was purely G&SWR, whilst the northern section NBR. I am not sure in that case where the services north of St Enoch went to? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's "odd" - several joint railways had antecedents of different title, e.g. the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Railway which was formed as an amalgamation of the Portpatrick Railway and the Wigtownshire Railway by its four co-owners. Again, some lines (or parts of lines) hitherto wholly owned by a single company were transferred to a joint committee of which the previous owner was a partner - for example, the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway included a section (High Wycombe-Princes Risborough) which prior to 1899 had been purely Great Western. According to

• Casserley, H.C. (1968). Britain's Joint Lines. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 171. ISBN 0 7110 0024 7. 469 CEX 468. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

the GB&K was set up in 1869 to "take over certain lines authorised by Acts to the two companies severally" and comprised the main line between Gorbals Junction and Kilmarnock, plus the branch from Lugton to Beith and the freight-only line to Spiersbridge, total 29+3⁄4 route miles. Whereas in

• Awdry, Christopher (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. London: Guild Publishing. pp. 68, 76–77. CN 8983.

we find that the Glasgow, Barrhead & Neilston Direct Railway opened as far as Spiersbridge on 27 September 1848, was leased to the Caledonian in 1849, and completed to Crofthead in 1855. The Cal wanted to extend the line to Kilmarnock, but instead cooperated with the G&SWR. The GB&K was thus formed, with the GB&ND being transferred to the GB&K and so itself becoming part of the joint concern.

The City of Glasgow Union Rly wasn't a joint line; it was originally an independent concern who provided facilities to the G&SWR and the NBR. St Enoch station became G&SWR property in 1883, and the CoGUR was dissolved in 1896 with the line north and west of College West Jc being sold to the NBR, the rest being sold to the G&SWR, the two companies retaining mutual running powers over the whole of the former CoGUR. I don't know where the NBR services from St Enoch went - my books don't go into that much detail.

Here are some RCH junction diagrams showing portions of the GB&K - Gorbals Junc-Strathbungo (1904); Pollokshaws-Barrhead (1912); Caldwell-Lugton and the Beith branch (1904); Kilmaurs-Kilmarnock (1913). Each of these shows the route in dashed green & red, described in the colour key as "Glasgow Barrhead & Kilmarnock Joint (Cal. & G.&S.W.)", sometimes being abbreviated. I therefore consider that placing Pollokshaws West into Category:Former Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway stations is valid. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at various old railway maps, and examined the station entries in Butt, I'm pretty sure that the NBR services from St Enoch went to Springburn. The layout here is two through, two terminal platforms; and I'm pretty sure that the through platforms are relatively recent (post 1980) although there have been two through tracks for very much longer. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely four through lines at Springburn, two through the through platforms (now used by Cumbernauld trains); and two round the back opposite the terminal platforms? The bypass lines I are probably lifted now, but I recall them there when I last went that way (on an Aberdeen push/pull train in the early 1980's). --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 19:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Er, I don't think that the Aberdeen trains went through (or past) Springburn - they went straight up from Queen Street towards Lenzie. Until the construction of the Cowlairs chord circa 1990 it wouldn't have been possible to run from Queen Street to the Cumbernauld line without reversing at Eastfield depot. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On several occasions (mainly weekend engineering) the E&G through Lenzie was closed. On those instances all Edinburgh trains reversed at Eastfield, and sometimes the Aberdeen trains (when pushpull) did the same. The Inverness trains (and sometimes the Aberdeen trains went from Central, via the Rutherglen and Coatbridge line (I think the Whifflet line article mentions that). Of course when work was being undertaken on Cowlairs Junction, everything apart from Wet Highland trains went from Central. The West Highland trains used Queen Street Low Level - starting from Springburn and head through Partick to Westerton. Such were the delights of diversions in the early 1980's. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stewart, Long time.... The problem (yet again) seems to be the strong rivally between the Caledonian and the G&SWR. According to Awdry (P.77) the G,B&N Direct railway was built first and leased to the Caledonian, who then got powers to extend to Kilmarnock. This upset the G&SWR railway who intended to build a parallel line. Common sense lead to the Joint Line. The Category:Former Glasgow, Barrhead and Kilmarnock Joint Railway stations is a sub-category of both Category:Former Glasgow and South Western Railway stations and Category:Former Caledonian Railway stations categories, so on a "book keeping" basis using the joint line category rather than the two parent categories seems to be tidier. (see User talk:Pyrotec#Paisley Gilmour Street). Pyrotec (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Euston services

Hi. I've started a discussion on Euston railway station's talk page about our edit conflict; unfortunately it seems at the moment that nobody cares either way. I've always understood that those boxes give the weekday between peaks service pattern, rather than just the next station up the line (or the wrong one in the case of Tamworth?). Please have a look at what I've posted there and maybe we can come to a consensus, especially if more people eventually chip in. Tom walker (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you

Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Pencefn! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi again. Is there any chance you cold make route maps for Dumfries, Lochmaben and Lockerbie Railway as you once did for Solway Junction Railway? Alternatively I could try to figure it out for myself, but it would be great if you had time. Thanks for any help you can give. --John (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will see what I can do over the next few days. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 07:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. Alyth Railway could do with one too, if you have time. --John (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done {{Dumfries, Lochmaben and Lockerbie Railway}} --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks great. --John (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done {{Alyth Railway}}

And thanks for that too. Nice work. You must let me know if ever you need a favour in return. --John (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Catania Metro

What are you doing with the templates? There is no need to use something unique there. Sw2nd (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Not unique - follows how the Scottish railway articles have been developed. IF you do not like, I revert the whole lot back to as it was before I started. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What? Catania is in Sicily not Scotland! You replaced a perfectly good standard worldwide infobox, with something unique and custom. There is only one use of that template. It is redundant in this situation. Sw2nd (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stewart. I like the way Scottish railway articles are maintained and properly looked after. I am originally from Scotland and so take a peripheral interest in what your group does. There is a struggle in many places to maintain some kind of consistency and I am just trying to retain the use of the standard infobox with the addition of a standard style of route diagram, since there is a wide divergence of standards and quality of editor, unlike the UK which runs a tight ship (or train). In Germany, for example, they use three different infoboxes in railway station articles, and nobody seems to care. I also think you have me confused with the newer editor who wanted to know how to create an RDT. Sw2nd (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

commons:User:Pencefn/sandbox

Hi, would you mind if this page was deleted, or at least edited so it's not inserting itself into image categories? Thanks. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done - sorted. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)

Hello, Pencefn. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 23:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

'Not a Timetable'

With regards to my edit to the page Ardrossan South Beach railway station which you reverted, I apologise if I have just overlooked its mention, but on the page that you linked me to I could not find any mention of the notion that Wikipedia should not mention the calling points of train journeys. I would appreciate if you could please verify this for me, as although I of course want to adhere to Wikipedia's rules, I still believe that the stops should have a place in the article.Mwhite148 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WP TIS

Hi, re this edit - there's no need, because the |Scotland=yes in the {{WikiProject Trains}} already pulls in WP TIS. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops - did not notice. Me to revert, or you? --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 20:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Newpark Station

Hi Pencefn, Newpark and Livingston south should be separate articles as thy are 1 mile from each other and there is no real connection between the two and the only minor connection is that they share similar locations. C. 22468 (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

little coloured boxes

Hey. I showed you a better way to do the coloured boxes and you cut it and point at another template that's using the old way? I've no issue with it being cut, but, frankly, am now expecting you to implement the better method in {{Scottish railway lines}}. Alarbus (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Old is not bad. I was removing an un-necessary section in the navbox. Better? Not sure about that. Different? Yes --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 12:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, the old way is bad. Watch. Alarbus (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

First, I converted to hlist, and then I improved the boxes. The other template used the "font" which is a deprecated html element. The second one also used embedded markup using the "span" element. Both are inappropriate; see WP:Deviations. And see WP:HLIST for the new navbox method. The {{pad}} allows the box width to be controlled and avoids whatever that weird black box character, which is plain weird. If you could use this technique in whatever other templates do this stuff, that would be great. Alarbus (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This {{colorbox}} might be a good fit for the stuff just above. I'd not noticed this template until now. Alarbus (talk) 08:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

RDT have a better fit for a total header colour, and the template is designed for this. {{BS-map}} is designed for a solid header colour. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 08:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea what RDT means. The techniques you're using are at odds with the site Manual of Style, impede accessibility for some users and are, frankly, ugly. WP:ACCESS, WP:COLOUR, WP:Deviations. Alarbus (talk) 09:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not tarting things up with colour is really the best route. Alarbus (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

RDT is Route Map template. There are thousands across Wikipedia which have solid colours not {{colorbox}}. I look forward to seeing you changing them all - search across {{BS-map}} and {{BS-header}}. This is changing the policy that has been applied across projects such as WP:TIS for several years. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 09:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thousands, huh? OK, we've started. What you're calling a 'policy' isn't; it's simply a practice. The Manual of Style isn't even a policy, it's a guideline. But you need a pretty strong rationale to not follow the manual of style. It's far from perfect, as anyone can edit it, too.

I get that things like railroad lines have colours associated with them. We should be indicating that to readers. Doing so with large swatches of colour in box headings is inappropriate. Such colours are chosen (by the RR-people) to be visible on a platform and in a schedule. They're not selected for the accessibility of web pages. See what I edit; thousands of templates. Alarbus (talk) 09:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on the templates on my watchlist removing the colours, following your coaching. Thanks --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 09:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• WP:POINT
• I'm not responsible for edits like this. I suspect they're not all supposed to be red. Alarbus (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

See you have become a Template King in your two months. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 09:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do try. Are we on the same regarding this stuff? There's no guidance against the colored boxes to indicate a RR-line colour. The concerns arise when it interferes with accessibility and maintenance. At the top of {{Bigfour}} (which should be renamed), one of the colors changed a lot when I got the 'new' one via {{LNER colour}} and the others changed slightly. This illustrates why such things need to be managed centrally and not explicitly in individual templates and articles. Alarbus (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)