User talk:Cnbrb/Archive/2010

New Year Metro

. Simply south (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Linking question

Hi, can you direct me to the discussion from 18 months ago which you mentioned about linking in railway template headers? It'd be useful for future reference. Thanks! Cnbrb (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I did a prelimary search last night but could not find it. I have been linking as you had been and I think it was User:AlisonW who started taking them off as the same time the v.d.e legend appeared at the top. I started adding the main article tag to the templatees at the same time. will get back to you once I have completed reviewing the relevant talk pages. ~~----

That's be good, thanks. I'd rather know what has been discussed so I don't introduce other things that have been decided on. I just worked on the basis of the guidelines here but obviously I've missed something. 10:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS please forge ahead with the ESSJR articles - I just went around the line bringing the articles up to a basic stub standard as there was very little in them, but I don't have much more to add.Cnbrb (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Metro

Another issue to be adressed is, please could people indicate in the next month at the feedback page or on my talk page whether they still want to recieve issues of the metro. A lot of newsletters seem to be going to redundant pages. Simply south (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Oystercard liverpool st map.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Oystercard liverpool st map.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Future metros

You have been removed form the subscrition list as no response was given in the past month. If you want to readd yourself, please drop a note or go ahead. Simply south (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ico logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ico logo.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

International ease

Cnbrb, You rewrote the beginning of West Hampstead stations rephasing "intro para for international audience". I do not understand how international readers' ease of understanding is a criterion for what is written in WP. There are many articles (eg about mathematics) which a reasonably educated native speaker of English would not understand. Though if we allow that the foreigners' comprehension is to be a factor, to what do you object? Is it the word "proximate"? Should all editing be in Basic English? There already is a Simple English Wikipedia.
Perhaps I drew a false conclusion from the articles I have seen that the Title of an Article should be, in bold, at the at the very beginning of the text as its subject.
Title: "Hebbel Hebbel".
Article: "Hebbel Hebbel was [whatever he was]....."
By the way "West Hampstead, a suburb of Camden.." in no way matches the article West Hampstead.--SilasW (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear - it wasn't the language, it was just that your edit didn't place WH in geographical context (i.e. what country it's in). You can put the word proximate back if you like, that was just my personal choice of words. My only real concern was that it didn't say where WH was from a global perspective. Feel free to change the wording if you prefer.Cnbrb (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

East London line

Hello,

Are you sure about that? I always dewikilink world cities, in the spirit of wp:overlink; if people don't know what country London is in (or Paris, New York, etc.) I hardly think they are going to be reading an article as specialised as this.

Even if you disagree about that, we surely ought not to wikilink UK. WP:overlink specifically says don't wikilink United States and I think that is meant to apply to all major countries by analogy.

Just trying to avoid needless clutter. Alarics (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes I do agree about clutter! However, I do think that these three short words achieve a key benefit without causing any disruption to the article. I tend to always put articles, very briefly, in a geographical context, with some very short in the intro (especially if it lacks an infobox). I think this is better than requiring the reader to click through to another article to get the context. In this case, if a user in some random part of the world were to read this, would they know it was London in the UK, London in Canada, East London, South Africa, or any of the other Londons? Maybe by reading on, or clicking the links, but I rather like the idea of making it clear simply at the start. It looks weird to a British reader, but quite useful to someone in Bangkok or Lagos.

I know it's just a small picky point but I often find myself reading articles which take a couple of minutes to deduce that they are actually talking about something the USA. There's even a cleanup message template that sometimes gets stuck on articles.

But that was all - I didn't disagree with the rest of your edit, just like to keep things in a global context. I'll read up on your point about over-linking. Happy editing, Cnbrb (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about the plethora of articles that don't think to mention that the subject referred to is entirely within the United States, and whenever I find such an article I add it in. In fact this "American cultural imperialism" tendency is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine. (However, when I do so I do not wikilink United States.)

Also I am aware of London in Ontario and East London in South Africa, but those are far smaller cities, and in particular they are not "world cities"; nobody would, I hope, dream of writing just "London" if they meant the one in Canada, and conversely I think the general convention is that "London" without qualification always means the UK capital. In the same way, "Paris" unqualified means the capital of France and not Paris, Texas.

Wikilinking is a slightly separate issue. There is room for debate about how major a city or country has to be to not need wikilinking, but the Wikipedia editing tool for, among other things, "delinking common terms" certainly includes London in the words that it automatically delinks. Alarics (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well maybe so. I just take the view that a consistent (but simple) approach makes for a more consistently understandable Wikipedia overall, rather than making choices about what is or is not a world city. I understand your point about convention, but there are bound to be all sorts of controversial grey areas; a consistent approach gets around that. I don't really think an article suffers in any way by mentioning briefly the name of the country in the lead section, but gains in clarity without assuming the significance (or not) of the city mentioned. But that's my thinking and there may be other guidelines which contradict it. Thanks, nevertheless for the pointers on the other stuff about linking. 18:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)