User talk:Chris j wood/2016

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forch railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esslingen. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rete tranviaria di Lugano listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rete tranviaria di Lugano. Since you had some involvement with the Rete tranviaria di Lugano redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strasbourg again

Hello Chris. I've got a little favour to ask. I would like to turn the article Palais Rohan, Strasbourg into a Good Article, and for that purpose, I made a request for a review here. Only - no one reacted because no one seems to care! So... tell me if I'm being rude... given your interest for Strasbourg I thought maybe *you* could read the article and add your thoughts. (I made the same request to LynwoodF). All the best, Edelseider (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Edelseider: Interesting. I've not done a good article review before. Doesn't look like I contributed to this article, so I shouldn't be disqualifed from doing so. Let me take a look at the process, and I'll try and help. Might take me until the weekend to get there though. If you don't see anything by Monday feel free to ping me again. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Gloucestershire

I see three unhelpful edits since your improved version - but am getting near WP:3RR if I do what seems sensible and revert the lot. How long before we need to revisit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Some1asks? (It's still open). PamD 16:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I know. I've just reverted one of them, which seemed more confused (at least the edit comment didn't seem to relate to the change) than deliberately damaging. I'm not sure if we are dealing with a vandal or just a very inexperienced editor. The other two edits I can live with for now, rather than use up more of my 3RR. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal

Your input is requested: Talk:F Market & Wharves#F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Express Transit - Toton Lane tram stop.

Chris,

Can I just point out that the location of the Toton Lane tram stop that you have 'corrected' back to Chilwell (from my correction to Stapleford) is incorrect. The reference that you cite https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/ actually shows that the tram stop and park and ride site are in the district ward of "Toton and Chilwell Meadows". Chilwell Meadows lies about 1KM south east of the tram stop whereas Toton borders the southern side of the park and ride. It would be more accurate to say the tram stop and park and ride are located in Toton than Chilwell which - to a local like me - doesn't make sense.

The site now occupied by the tram used to host Stapleford Circus. Google Earth still has it on their database http://www.titsham.co.uk/images/staplefordcircus.jpg . The footpath to the south of the circus is the Stapleford/Toton border. Whilst I concede that the electoral boundaries have been changed (for political reasons), and that the tram stop is within the Toton and Chilwell Meadows electoral ward, it is certainly not in Chilwell.

The only debate is whether the tram stop and park and ride site is in Stapleford or Toton. http://www.nottinghampost.com/Nottingham-tram-Confusion-cleared-location-Toton/story-27681744-detail/story.html Politically it is in Toton, but Historically it is in Stapleford.

Nevertheless, In April this year (2016) Broxtowe Borough Council erected a new sign welcoming people to Stapleford on the historic border, ignoring political ward boundaries. Anyone approaching the entrance to the tram park and ride would assume it is in Stapleford and not Toton - certainly not Chilwell.

http://www.staplefordcommunitygroup.org.uk/2016/04/21/welcome-to-stapleford/

Please consider this and update the Nottingham Express Transit page accordingly.

Tookey2k (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of moving this discussion to Talk:Nottingham Express Transit#Is the line 1 terminus in Chilwell, Toton or Stapleford? so others can contribute if they see fit. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconsfield Street tram stop

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Beaconsfield Street tram stop, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: [[:{{{url}}}]]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shipstone Street tram stop

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Shipstone Street tram stop, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: [[:{{{url}}}]]. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wilford Lane tram stop

The article Wilford Lane tram stop has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Why would a tram stop be notable? What's next, bus stops?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: I've responded at Talk:Wilford Lane tram stop. Incidentally, I'm intrigued why you chose just this article out of the many NET tram stop articles, and did so in the middle of proposing the deletion of a swath of planned Edinburgh tram stops (a proposal, incidentally, with which I agree; planned is too soon). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing of sources at R&ER article

Hi. I'm afraid your recent additions and alterations at the Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway article contain very closely paraphrased from sources. This can be a problem under both our copyright policies and our guideline on plagiarism.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following: The source says:

In 1958 and again in 1959 the line and fittings were offered for sale but, without any serious potential purchaser, it was announced that the 1960 season would be the last. The Railway was to be sold by auction in September.

The article says:

In both 1958 and 1959 the line was unsuccessfully offered for sale and it was announced that the 1960 season would be the last, with the railway being sold by auction in September of that year.

This is an example; there are other passages that similarly follow quite closely. In general, a good rule of thumb is that no more than three words should appear in the same order as in the source text, although the overall structure of the text should also be taken into account.

As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know if you have questions about this. Pyrope 17:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrope: Thanks for pointing that out. I have rephrased the few sentences I added to this article, and hopefully none of them now look like close paraphrasing, although to be honest I was surprised by the example you quote above. I thought I had rewritten it in my own language; just shows how easy it is to unconsciously follow what you have read. If you see anything else there, please tell me. - chris_j_wood (talk) 10:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm afraid I've never held with using the comment box to precis what I've changed (surely that is what the diff is for). I do use it if I feel I need to explain why I've made the change, but not if the rationale for the change is obvious. So you will see that my edits are either commentless, or have attached essays, but rarely anything in between. As you havn't actually seen fit to tell me which edit of mine triggered this missive, I obviously cannot comment on the specific case. (PS. what does ce mean; the only meaning I associate with those letters is Christian Era, but I don't see how that relates to your edit to The Angel, Islington). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It takes much longer to work out whether an edit is any good or not without a summary, and leaves it prone to being reverted. "ce" means "copyedit" and used by many editors who work at Featured Article Candidates. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So a bad edit with a misleading comment is less likely to attract attention than a good edit without a comment. I'd be very interested to know exactly how knowing that an edit was a copyedit makes it easier to tell whether it is a good edit or not. Incidentally, I do know that mos stands for manual of style, but I havn't managed to find anything in said manual of style that suggests that a References section with subsections References (that actually contains annotated references) and Sources (that actually contains unannotated book details) is preferable to separate sections called References and Bibliography. To my eyes, the latter seems both more elegant, and also a more common layout in other articles. Perhaps you could point me at the appropriate section. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you think something is elegant / common, it does not mean others share your view. @Nikkimaria: can answer the question about why the References section is formatted the way it is (something to do with accessibility), I can't remember. Anyway, there is no reason to nitpick over pointless trivia. This conversation is over, have a nice day. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So if you really stand by your initial, and I have to say rather patronising, remarks on the need for comments, your reversion of my edit to The Angel, Islington should have had a comment that, instead of just reading mos, read somebody once told me this was bad, I cannot remember why, but you could try asking Nikkimaria. Humm. Ok, rant over. Have a nice day too. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LAYOUT suggests that "Bibliography" is best avoided as a heading in this context. I think though based on the mention of accessibility Ritchie may be recalling my objection to ;Sources rather than '''Sources''' ? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Assuria Log Manager

The article Assuria Log Manager has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dubious claims of notability, government link is an internal catalogue link rather than something conferring notability, all that's left is one magazine award

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Assuria CyberSense

The article Assuria CyberSense has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim or evidence of notability, article reads like promotional material, has done since creation in 2012

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AssuriaLogo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AssuriaLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Trams in Rio de Janeiro

A tag has been placed on Trams in Rio de Janeiro requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

incorrectly formatted. Not used in any Wikipage

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. David.moreno72 11:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trams in Rio de Janeiro

The article Trams in Rio de Janeiro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not comply with current policy. Although it doesn't meet any of the CSD criteria, it does not seem to comply with what a disambig page is supposed to be. Looking over at the talk page of Disambiguation, there are comments like '"WP:DAB was created to address a very specific situation – what to do when two or more articles share the same name.' and "WP:DISAMBIGUATION has always been, and should always remain, limited to situations where two or more actual articles on WP share the same WP:COMMONNAME"... "When no actual ambiguities exist between actual WP article titles, then there is no need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Period."

In this case the two entries being DABBED, do not share the same title, and do not share the same title as the page itself, so there is no need for any DABBING, and the page should be deleted.

There is also another similar page created by the same editor, 'Trams in Sheffield'. I would like to propose that any consensus reached here should also apply to that, and any other similar pages.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David.moreno72 14:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Trams in Sheffield

The article Trams in Sheffield has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not comply with current policy. Although it doesn't meet any of the CSD criteria, it does not seem to comply with what a disambig page is supposed to be. Looking over at the talk page of Disambiguation, there are comments like '"WP:DAB was created to address a very specific situation – what to do when two or more articles share the same name.' and "WP:DISAMBIGUATION has always been, and should always remain, limited to situations where two or more actual articles on WP share the same WP:COMMONNAME"... "When no actual ambiguities exist between actual WP article titles, then there is no need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Period."

In this case the two entries being disambiguated, do not share the same title, and do not share the same title as the page itself, so there is no need for any disambiguation, and the page should be deleted.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David.moreno72 15:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Assuria CyberSense for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assuria CyberSense is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria CyberSense until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. North America^1000 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Assuria Log Manager for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Assuria Log Manager is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assuria Log Manager until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Assuria Log Manager

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Assuria Log Manager requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jdcomix (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rigi–Scheidegg Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand hotel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is deliberate, as Grand hotel is proposed for transition to a broad concept article from a dab page. No further action taken. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chris j wood. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chris j wood. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]