en User talk:Lynbarn archive 003

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lynbarn. 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.

WikiProject Piers

Hello, Lynbarn/archive I noticed your interest in piers by your contributions to the Pier article. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Piers, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to piers. If you would like to participate you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. --Paul E. Ester 06:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox added to Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

Thanks for upgrading this article to the GA category, however I was surprised that you have added the infobox, especially as, with the inclusion of Reporting marks, that particular infobox appears to be specifically for USA-based rail systems, wheras the L&B is most definitely in England! Please can you explain the reasioning for this - or Perhaps there should be an infobox specifically for UK Heritage Railways - if there isn't already - which would, I feel, be more appropriate.

regards, Lynbarn 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

My bad on that; I cut & paste the infobox and didn't realize I'd left the reporting marks section active (it no longer appears in the article). Thanks for bringing this to my attention.--Lordkinbote 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Heritage Railway Association

No problem at all. I just happened to catch it on a section of Special:Newpages I'd pulled up for review. You'd be amazed at the proportion of substubs, copy/pastes, and outright nonsense that show up there :). In any case, you may want to create a subpage on your Userpage (User:Lynbarn/Sandbox for example.) You're pretty much free to do whatever you like on such pages, which make them a good staging area for converting source texts into full articles without interruptions. Happy editing! GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:L&bwbtrack0436.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:L&bwbtrack0436.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) added GDFL Lynbarn 11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar Award

Very sorry about that, meant it for someone else. KingstonJr 13:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

Hi there, I responded to your Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) request but while looking over the article I noticed a few things that I thought I should bring to your attention. Firstly at the screen resolution I'm working with (1280x1024) the tables and images frequently squash the text and can appear hapazardly arranged, with the tables sometimes overlapping with the text (see Image:L&BR screen.png for an example). There may well be too many images and tables as things stand, though a reorganisation could also solve the issue. One possibility is to move the images into a separate gallery section at the end of the article (but above the references, see also and external links sections). Another option is to move the tables into a data section. In either case it may well be worth considering trimming any tables and/or images that aren't strictly necessary. On the subject of images, it's not usual to have images going across the width of a page, so it might be worth considering changing the locomotives images to a vertical rather than horizontal line.

I also noticed that the last few sections don't quite conform to the Guide to Layout, the "further information" section should probably be renamed "further reading" or "bibliography" and the order should go See also -> Notes -> References -> Further reading/Bibliography -> External links. It might also be worth considering moving the "reawakening" section at least (possibly also "The fate of the Lew") to a sub-section within "history". Finally, though it may be a lot of work it might perhaps be worthwhile adding more footnotes to try to attribute as many statements as possible to their relevant sources. You can have a look at what I and another editor did with BBC to see what I'm talking about. Though I've no doubt the article is very well sourced, directly linking the comments to the corect source would help anyone doing their own research, and would also help the article to become a featured article. Indeed, the main reason I'm bringing up all these issues is because I feel there's the basis for a featured article in Lynton and Barnstaple Railway (it really is very well written and researched), but can see that it needs a few tweaks to get there. I identified three related featured articles (Canadian Pacific Railway, Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railroad and BC Rail) that might be worth looking at. If there's anything I can do to help out feel free to drop me a line.--Daduzi ^talk 21:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I've been quitely working on the article offline for a while now and only just finished. Regarding the changes to the structure you made, that seems absolutely fine to me and now the sections and sub-sections seem to work very well indeed. I decided to have a go at the layout myself, which is why the response is delayed. What I decided to do is move the tables to the end of the relevant sections, inclosing them within a larger table (I used wiki markup for the data tables and html for the organising table to make it easier to differentiate between the two). I also changed the tables from {{MetaSidebar}}s to standard tables (but formatted the same) to make it easier to change them if needed. I must confess to not being 100% happy with the way the tables appear, I was thinking it might be better to change the second group (in the "rolling stock" section) so that the tables in each column are equally wide, but thought I'd just try out the most basic setup and see what you thought. I've also reorganised the images to avoid bunching up the text between them (as this can make it difficult to read the text at lower resolutions). The only place I couldn't avoid this was at the start of the history section, but the right hand route diagram is thin enough that it shouldn't be an issue, though I did create Image:L&B map2.png which combines the two images and highlights the stations (I'm not entirely happy with the quality of the route diagram, though, and it'll probably become unreadable when thumbnailed so I didn't include it in the article). The only remaining issues are the horizontal locomotive diagram in the introductory section (peronally I don't mind it so much now, but other editors could have issues with it if you decide to go for featured article status) and the relative lack of direct inline references, though I don't think that's a major issue given the large reference section. I think the article's getting to the point now where you should at least consider putting it forward as a good article and then later put it to peer review and eventually go for featured article atatus. Anyway, if you dislike any of the changes I made feel free to revert them and if you've got any questions drop me a line. --Daduzi ^talk 12:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lynton & Barnstaple Railway rolling stock

Hi

I was just wondering if it would be worth mentioning in the article which of the original L&B coaching and wagon stock survives, and where? The table could be colour coded like British Rail Class 86 (go to bottom to see fleet details).

On a different note. I recently visited the Woody Bay station and saw some stock that i was hoping you may have some details of. They were numbers L&B 50 (flat wagon), L&B 61, 62 (grey tool vans), L&B 54? (SR brown van), L&B 60? (grey trolley), plus coaches 1+2. I can't find any details on the wagon fleet on the L&B website, so was wondering if you could help?

thanks

Our Phellap 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the info on modern stock. I was wondering if there was an error. Was L&B wagon 13 renumbered to 28302 (rather than 228302 which is in the table)? Also, do you have details of which other original wagons survive? Our Phellap 13:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops - finger trouble! I've corrected the number now. I will have some more modern stock info to add shortly, but I don't know about other original goods stock - and there may yet be more to find - only a couple of years ago, a van "shed" was found in one of the gardens backing onto Pilton! I don't know what of that was recoverable though. Lynbarn 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth

Hi, I have responded to your concerns on the appropriate page. Above all, thank you for being so very civil, careful, and orderly in your proceedings regarding my {{notability}} tagging. As I do a lot of vandalism patrol, this is a rare sight for me. Thanks again, and happy editing! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

88.144.75.54

Hi Lynbarn glad you like the contributions - must say I am impressed with the work that you have put into this site. I hope you dont mind my tidying up a few historical bits and pieces that got mangled in translation. The many published texts nearly all have mistakes which trap the unwary and have been repeated ad infinitum. I have been researching the L&B for many years and where possible always use source materials. Do you know that there are over 100 depositions about the L&B in the North Devon Record Office that have not yet been read by any of the published authors? I'm still ploughing through them - its a long way from Huddersfield <G>

Railways and Piers

I was going through the commons and came across this gem. Do you know where it belongs? Image:Pier for daddylonglegs2.jpg. Seems it has something to do with the railways... --Paul E. Ester 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pier_for_daddylonglegs.jpg another shot.
http://whitstablepier.com/volks/dll.htm -strange!

Re: Braunton Road/Chumhill railway accidents

A couple of reasons. The first is that there's a WP:TFD discussion to delete that template as it has been superceded by others that are more specific to British regions. Those two articles were the last in the main article space that used the template. I regularly monitor both TFD and WP:MFD for rail-related pages coming up for deletion (I used to watch WP:AFD too, but that's gotten way too big to monitor regularly).

The second reason is that these two articles aren't really about the railroad itself but an incident that happened involving the railroad. There isn't a policy or guideline that I know of specifically related to navigation box usage and their appropriateness for specific page topics; my own rule of thumb is that they should only be used on the pages that are specifically mentioned within the template or on a summary article about the main topic of the template. For example, I consider it appropriate to use {{ALCO preds}} on American Locomotive Company and Cooke Locomotive and Machine Works, but not appropriate on C. P. Huntington (which was manufactured by Cooke). or John Cooke (entrepreneur) (one of the founders of Cooke Works). Slambo (Speak) 10:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Re External links

Hi - it's good to have another actual editor involved in this. Many of these links have been placed by external IP addresses (If you take the North Devon page something like a dozen were placed by a single IP address). If you look at WP:SPAM & WP:EL you will see the guidance there. Equally there is the frequently stated fact that Wiki is an encyclodedia rather than a directory. Sometimes the same links were placed on a number of pages too and it did not seem that they were all relevant to all the pages (I have been a member of the Ramblers but there were the same links on many pages). If there are any specific links that concern you or that you do not agree with with me on I'm sure we can resolve it & failing which I will happily pass it to the WP:WPSPAM project for their review.

Good to hear from you - regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your input and involvement. I think I was more than a little concerned at the volume of the links on, for example, the North Devon([1]). I notice that you have a very good page indeed for the railway you have an interest in - if only all pages were as good. However I also see that there are external links on 30 odd pages for the site as well ([2]). I guess my question would be are these external links all necessary given the fact that internal links can be placed in the article or the "see also" section? Happy to learn & thanks for your response. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As you have not got back to me I have delved a little further into links that are around. I have removed the milkyway link from the actual railway page - I do see the connection but as there is a page for the commercial organisation with a link on that is all that seems necessary. I then looked at similar railways pages in the Westcountry and the external links to their websites which are here - Dartmoor railway, Bideford railway, South Devon railway, Swannage railway, Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff railway, West Somerset railway. All of these have very substantially less external links than the Lynton and Barnstaple ones that my previous message showed. I would like your views on this. --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You will find I have requested further opinions here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Links to private railway site - further opinions please. Thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please remove images

The images Image:Ac heyday logo.gif and Image:Ac logo pms.gif are copyrighted images and are linked to your page User:Lynbarn/Gallery. It is against Wikipedia policy (see #9) and may be copyright infringement to use copyrighted images outside the article name space. Please remove the images from your User pages. -Thanks Nv8200p talk 00:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Devonshire

I'm not sure how a wikilink could draw attention to the distinction between 'Devon' and 'Devonshire': 'Devonshire' redirects to 'Devon'. The fact is that the link to the 'shire' article is as undesirable and misleading as it would be if there were a similar link in the Gloucestershire article. The use of 'shire' in 'Devonshire', while derived from the word 'shire', is not an example of it. Use italics if you're trying to make a distinction.GSTQ 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:L&blynton090806-3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:L&blynton090806-3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —Nv8200p talk 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Lynbarn/archive/003