User talk:Tina Cordon

Welcome!

Hello, Tina Cordon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Also, your article about Butterley Tunnel has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to have a say in the article's deletion discussion, just follow the instructions on the article's page. -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for pointing that out. I have revisited the article, and found that you are indeed correct. I have changed my vote to keep. I hope that you continue to be an inclusionist. Good luck with the tunnel, !paradigm! 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm! also, Ask me for any help you may need, just add youre name to my users i know list, and post any questions or requests on my talk page.[reply]

Request as to Butterley Tunnel

Can you please add citations and references to the article? This will help others make a judgment as to the verifiability of the content and notability of the tunnel. Thanks, Pan Dan 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, Tina. As it stands I think this would be a good addition to Cromford Canal (as I just wrote in the AfD). Even if it's merged, that's effectively a keep, since all the material will still be here and you (or anyone) can continue to work on it. Pan Dan 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I typed that before your last message to me--now to answer that) As to notability, P.B. is correct, Wikipedia doesn't have a set guideline as to structures. First, even if it were unarguably notable, my opinion would still be to merge because I don't think it can be significantly expanded. (But as to notability, for me, I would probably judge something to be notable if it's been featured in many independent non-trivial works--that's basically the recurring criterion in existing guidelines on the notability of people, companies, websites, etc. In this case as most of the sources are primarily about the canal, I don't think notability of the tunnel is established yet.) Anyway, even if the article is merged, as I said above, all the material is still here. And if more sources are found and the section on Butterley expands significantly in Cromford Canal, then it might be in order to transfer the Butterley section to a new article once again. That's why a merge is effectively a keep. Pan Dan 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarifying--hopefully) I apologize for the somewhat rambling nature of my above comment on notability. I'll try to clarify. Uncle G writes in his essay that "Notability is not subjective.... A subject is notable if the world at large considers it notable." What I think this means is that it's not up to us to subjectively judge whether the facts you present (9th longest navigable tunnel, etc.) make the tunnel notable. Rather, it's up to us to check and see if there are any independent publications out there that considered the tunnel notable enough to feature it. If, say, the editors of a number of British newspapers took note (so to speak) of Butterley Tunnel and published lengthy stories on it, remarking that it would be the 9th longest navigable canal tunnel in the world if the canal were repaired, etc., etc., then that would show that they consider the tunnel notable--and therefore using Uncle G's criterion (and my criterion above) I think the tunnel would be deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In sum, we don't rely on subjective impressions of notability to tell if something is notable, we rely on independent publications' editorial decisions of what to feature in their publications. Hope I'm making sense, if not feel free to ignore me, or to ask me, or to ask someone more experienced (I've been here < 2 mos.) :) Pan Dan 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, some of those 48 tunnels are less referenced and less notable than Butterley, and I (for one) think those should be deleted (especially those without references). But this AfD isn't over yet, and I don't know whether it will result in a merge, but it certainly won't be a deleted! You shouldn't feel abused. Merge or no merge, you've made a valuable contribution to WP.

As to a direct link to Butterley Tunnel--if it does get merged (big if), and there's a section titled Butterley Tunnel in Cromford Canal, then it will be possible to link directly to that section using Cromford Canal#Butterley Tunnel.

By the way, as to sources, are there any old books about the tunnel (or about the canal) to your knowledge? (I looked on Google books and didn't find anything substantial.) Pan Dan 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say congrats on the result of the AfD. The article is interesting and looks terrific, and I also want to thank you for what I think is a valuable contribution to WP. Pan Dan 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The article still need a lot of citations, but it looks better. I still don't think it should have its own article, but it could be merged with Cromford Canal. -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second reply Hey, Tina. The article looks a whole lot better now, and a lot more detailed. Though I still think the subject isn't notable enough to have its own article (and no amount of editing could change that, no offense), I think it could be a BIG edition to the Cromford Canal article. Thanks for all the hard work! -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Reply Hello again, Tina. I'm not sure if there is a particular notability rule about structures (see here); I think it's usually just left up to the community to decide. As for the other tunnels with their own articles, well, I never knew about them, and frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been merged as well. What are their names, so I can check up on them?

And as for not writing any more articles, I urge you to please reconsider that. There are plenty of subjects out there that don't have an article yet, and are quite notable. Wikipedia can never have enough editors.

Sincerely,
P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forth Reply The reason Wikipedia doesn't have "administrative sections" is because all of the information on it is for all of the users (and casual readers), and therefore everybody has a say in an article's importance. Wikipedia does however have certain groups called "WikiProjects" (such as WikiProject Albums}, and other groups like Esperanza, the latter of which I am a member. And it's not like your contribution with the Butterley Tunnel is going to be worthless. It will most likely be merged with the Cromford Canal article, which will help drive it towards becoming a featured article.

Sincerely
P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new articles

You've done very well. That's a better article than most people's first new article. You've improved Wikipedia.

And now you know what to do in the future. If when creating new articles you ensure that from the first edit onwards you cite sources, either as references for the existing text or as further reading (and thus potential sources for expansion), to the degree that Butterley Tunnel now does (The citations don't have to be perfect, but the citation information has to be clearly there in the article for casual readers to see.), I predict that you won't have much trouble with people nominating your articles for deletion in future. Articles, even stubs, that cite multiple in-depth sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Editors with pet subjects, from canal tunnels to traffic circles, in the main only encounter trouble with AFD if they don't cite sources. Use Butterley Tunnel as it now stands as the sort of new article to aim for in future, in particular the sort of sourcing to aim for in future, and (I predict.) you'll have few, if any, dealings with AFD. You might have editors wanting to merge your articles into existing, broader, articles, but that's a wholly different ball game to deletion, and doesn't involve AFD at all. Uncle G 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterley Tunnel

Hello Tina. I'd like you to know that I appreciate your continued work on the article Butterley Tunnel even when it seems as though the result of it's AfD discussion is going to be merge. I'm pretty sure that this specific tunnel will never be notable enough for a wikipedia article (though by no fault of yours). However, I urge you to continue editing Wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Also, just a friendly reminder, please sign all comments on talk pages (including user talk pages) with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks a lot and enjoy editing. Feel free to reply on my talk page. --דניאל - Danie lroc ks123 ^contribs 00:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a creeping change within the Wiki world to cite references. As with many things in life, people take them to different levels. Some people are quick to jump on the AFD route, others let things develop. Don't get put off and keep up the good work.Jschwa1 11:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your images

Any chance you could also release your images under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/) lisense which is somewhat better for images?Geni 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

simply add {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to the image pages.Geni 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you can't there is no central respositry of images. Creative commons is just a lisence. There is wikimedia commons:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Which has a large number of images under a number of "free" lisences such as GFDL and creative commons.

For example in the case of canals there is:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Canals_in_Great_Britain

Other than that relivant wikipedia articles will often have pics.Geni 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Erewash Canal pic was the reason I asked you about Creative commons lisenceing.

incerdentaly {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Tina Cordon}} will produce add Attribution: Tina Cordon to the template.Geni 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arkwright

Dear Dracontes

What does you addition Hr gav mean on the Richard Arkwright page?

Yours Faithfully Tina Cordon Tina Cordon 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the comparison of my revision on the right column to the previous one on the left column you'll notice that the only thing I did was revert what seemed to be an inconsequential edit, including that bit of nonsense you refer. But never mind, "Hr gav" removed.

Dracontes 08:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Keep!

Hey, Tina! I saw that Butterley Tunnel has been "kept" by consensus of the Wikipedian community; good job expanding it and not giving up! -- P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hello again, Tina, and you're welcome! Looking at the tunnel page now, it definitely looks like it should have its own article; if I'd have originally found it looking like that, I'd have never requested deletion. You mentioned that I requested deletion after you wrote just one line (sorry about that); there's a way you can keep this from happening in the future. Whenever I create articles nowadays, I build the whole thing up first in my own personal sandbox, and then I move it to the encyclopedia part of the site, all completed. If you would like your own sandbox, just create a subpage, like User:Tina Cordon/Sandbox.

Happy Editing!
P.B. Pilhe t / Talk 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. -- About Valento, I think he just forgot to start a new discussion when he wrote that message. Nevermind him :-)

Cromford Canal

I've taken the merge tag off now. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Railway Bridges etc

Thanks for the pics. Didn't think about that. Do you think i should somehow put the list in a table (once i get the hang of it) so that people can view the bridges and viaducts themselves? Maybe similar to List of largest suspension bridges? Simply south 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Victoria tunnel

Hi, I see you've recently added information to the article about Nottingham Victoria railway station. Your link currently says "Midland Road railway tunnel". But the article this is linked to (Nottingham's Tunnels) appears to list the same tunnel as the "Mansfield Road Tunnel". Do you know which is correct? Cheers, – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kieran T

I responded on your talk page and then read your request to keep the discussion here, therefore I deleted that response. That was mistake 2. The tunnel is definitely Mansfield Road Railway Tunnel not Midland Road Railway Tunnel. That was mistake 1. I have corrected both errors, thank you for spotting the mistake.

Yours Faithfully Tina Cordon 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina, thanks ever so much for taking such trouble over this — I hope my request about carrying on talk page discussions doesn't seem too fierce! I realised after a short period using Wikipedia that keeping topics on one page makes it easier for third parties to follow the discussion, should it be of interest to them. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Just a quick note to let you know I've commented on this on Andy's talk page. Adambro 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So have I. I happen to agree with you on some canal tunnel/tunnel articles, but not on all of them. Don't allow these two to discourage you.Pyrotec 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented further on Andy's page. Tina Be_bold_in_updating_pages, if you disagree that strongly, just revert.Pyrotec 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am not going to revert without concensus. It is clear that this will start an editing war. Life is too short for that. Tina Cordon 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worsley Navigable Levels

I'm afraid I don't have the relevent book to hand at the moment. At one point I did try and track down the photos taken by the coal board of the inside of the tunnels. However the collection was broken up in the early 90s. I think the photos should be at either the county archives or the Manchester archives but I didn't investigate that far.Geni 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tina,

Kimberley Railway Cutting

Thankyou for your interest in the Kimberley Railway Cutting. We met last night at the rifle club. I must apologise if I seamed uncooperative but we have to be careful with unknown visitors asking to go in the club. The local historical society has all of our contact details, I have also forwarded your details to our club secretary. Regards M Poole.

Dear Mr. Poole

I do understand your concerns with respect to entry into your club. I am very happy to have been able to see those parts of the building which I saw. Thank you for forwarding my details to your club secretary.

Yours Faithfully Tina Cordon 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways

Thank you for your support for Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Waterways. I've started it, and listed you as a member. Please feel free to amend your entry on that page, to show your areas of special interest. Andy Mabbett 19:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Ship Canal NOT a minor edit

Please do not mark such massive changes as you made here as minor. This is a gross violation of the trust which ought to opperate within the wikipedia community.

Please read the first paragraph on minor edits "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."

Tell me, how does the edit you made fit that description? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I apologise. Tina Cordon 19:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you are right, I apologise again. Tina Cordon 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problems mate. Sorry this appeared twice - I misformatted the link first time. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make more minor edits than major edits and as a result I sometimes click the minor edit box and the Save Page box too rapidly for my own good.

Boat lifts

Hi Tina. Keep up the good work with these articles. I don't know whether my spur-of-the-moment creation of the 'Boat lifts' category encouraged you into action, or if it was just one of those 'coincidences'. Either way it is a fascinating subject and its comforting to see that these pages are in good hands.

Drop me a note on my talk page if you want a specific new article proof-read, and I'll be glad to help if I can.

EdJogg 11:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the absence of an active link to the Scharnebeck Ship Lift on your Boat Lift page that set me off. This led to the other missing German Lifts. Thank you for the proof reading offer. Kirkfield lift and Fonserannes Water Slope will take longer to produce however. I list the new articles I produce on my User Page if you want to keep track. Tina Cordon 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tub boat lifts

As promised, you'll see I have 'had a go at it'! Fascinating find.

Rough comments are as follows:

You may wish to change some of the titles, etc.
I have stated (the presumption) that they were designed for a standard-size boat: you may wish to elaborate on that. A picture of an appropriate boat would be very useful.
There is currently no article/redirect for the term 'tub boat'
The section on 'Operation' is crying out for a diagram. (and the comment referring to the first sentence needs to be addressed!)
To complicate matters, the Hay Inclined Plane is also a tub boat lift, but based on an inclined plane! (I haven't tried to incorporate this - sorry, forgot to look before I started!)

What to do with it? Well, if you think enough material can be found, it can stand alone. However, it would certainly fit in an enlarged boat lift article... My thinking is that boat lift can be expanded to become a parent article, and a companion to the locks article. For a start, the Locks (water transport) section on 'Alternatives' could be severely summarised so that its content may be moved to boat lift, you could also incorporate summary sections for water slope, canal inclined plane and ship lift as all of these can be described as types of boat lift. Not a small job, but would be consistent with drawing-together your other recent contributions.

Hope that helps. EdJogg 13:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Translations - source references

Hi. I noticed this issue in passing recently and meant to mention it to you (can't remember where I saw it now, probably one of the help pages).

The discussion was along the lines of "all WP articles are released under the GFDL, and this requires a full edit history to allow the source to be traced. Translated articles should include suitable links to the original sources to meet this requirement."

Now this is just the 'gist' of it, and I can't remember any more detail than that, but as this is something you do quite often I thought I would bring it to your attention so that you can investigate and/or add appropriate source links to the pages you have created.

Cheers. EdJogg 09:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each article I translate has a link to the original article. On the left hand side of the page there is a column containing links to articles on the same subject but in different languages. The original article has a link here. I am assuming from your comment that this is not enough, therefore I will add an extra link which tells the reader that this article was translated and where it was translated from. Tina Cordon 11:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never (usually) look at the language column! It may well be enough for WP -- I'm no expert to ask! However, having thought about this a little more, your more explicit Ext Link reference is probably a good idea. If the article exists in several other languages it would not otherwise be as obvious which was the source; similarly, it would not be as obvious whether the 'language' variant was translated from English or vice versa. (In both cases, I am ignoring any attempt to compare the actual content!)

There may be some kind of WP guideline about this, but if you add a link as you did for Tub boat lift then no-one could say you weren't trying!

EdJogg 12:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once I have translated an article, it does not remain static, I add content and I do not update the source articles with this same content. My French and German is not good enough for that. When I add content, I add references, thus staying within guidelines. The result is that over time the English article will resemble the source less and less. The Tub boat lift article is a good example of this. Also, on occasion, there are paragraphs in the original articles which I have been unable to translate. In these cases, I replace this content with my own referenced research. All my translated articles now have an explicit link to the source. Tina Cordon 13:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National Tramway Museum

Thanks for pointing those points out Tina. I am fairly new to wikipedia, but i do know the rules. I have now finished updating the main core of the information - the trouble was that i didn't know how to do tables. I deleted the section because i am merging it into the new section. Please feel free to do as you feel fit with the article now, but please try and keep the core info, and if possible, can you tell me how to do tables, so i can add further info in the future? Also, i noticed you have uploaded several photos - can you also tell me how to do this? Thanks,Bluegoblin7 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tina for doing this. I have noted a few errors, both in the original text, and I the table, which I am duly editing. I agree it does look a lot better now that it is in a table! Sorry if I caused you any inconvenience,Bluegoblin7 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more question for you Tina: How can I add colour to the cells? Thanks,Bluegoblin7 10:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to what you said on my talk page, I didn't mind if you were being selfish - to be honest I just saw it as "guidance from an experienced member", and it has been a great help. I am reading pages that you have contributed to in great detail - many of them are from areas I am very familiar with - Kimberley for example. Once again, thanks for all your help,Bluegoblin7 10:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have added a grey colour to the table. This is fine, however what I though would be better was to colour code the status of the fleet, i.e. Pink=In Use, Blue=Works Car etc. Thanks again,Jack Gordon 12:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this - I think i'm pretty much sorted now! Jack Gordon 12:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I possibly reference my sources if it is all my own knowledge. Some of it is on my Tram Website, so shall I reference it there? Also, I wasn't trying to advertise - just to give readers an idea of the place. The day run through has been flagged - what should i do with this? Just delete it? Thanks again, Jack Gordon 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That re-write seems to be fine Tina - Thanks a lot. I will probably make some changes to it, but it will only be the information - I now see where I went wrong! Another question, how can I add citations to other sites. The tramcars, with a few exceptions, are either in the guidebook, or on the website at www.tramway.co.uk/smx/cms/tramfleet and the same but with tramfleet2. The history is adapted from the guidebook, and some of the other information is taken from the tramways blog, and from The Journal, the official Society newsletter, of which I am a member. Also, on the talk page, someone has requested a map - the one used by the NTM is copyrighted to them, but I could produce a simple line drawing. Would that suffice for Wikipedia? Thanks, Jack Gordon 09:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tina - As you can see, I have merged in your section, and it does look better! Thanks, Jack Gordon 11:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tina, could you tell me how to put together a map of the route of the NTM? It would be a temporary (or permanant) measure until I can get a line drawing together. Thanks, Jack Gordon 16:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what needs doing, but I cannot figure out how to put the icons in the right place. Please help! Once I am told, I can probably do it - It's just starting it off! - Jack Gordon 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a route map - your one certainly helped! Showed me how to figure out how to put on the pics etc! I've now completed it and put it on the page - it looks good. Next up is a line diagram. About the one i've done - Is it possible to put on the sheds etc - there are 11 roads i think. Thanks, Jack Gordon 11:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tina, Just noticed some slight errors in the map - as in they arent putting the symbols on, they are simply putting the names down, and i the case of the yard, shifting the rest of the symbols across - please help! - Jack Gordon 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) Don't worry Tina - someone translated the German Article into English - I read it and i've now fixed it! - Jack Gordon 09:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trams In General

Hi Tina, Just thought you might want to know - my website is http://www.tramcentre.com, and if you want you could become a member and, again, if you want, I could give you the priveleges to edit sections of it. How about it? There is also a discussion group at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TramCentre. I wouldn't normally even mention sites etc, but I thought you might want to know as you have helped me a lot, and you said yourself that you are interested in trams. Thanks - Jack Gordon 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. THIS IS NOT AN ADVERT!!![reply]

You are allowed to talk about anything on User's discussion pages, you can even advertise if you wish. Obviously the owner of the user page is entitled to delete anything he considers abusive. I will check out your webpage and I am interested in your offer but I will give it some thought before responding. Tina Cordon 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tina, Did you want to become a member of the website? Theres lots to be done if you want to help out. It's also part of the transport centre, and there are other sites there (bus and railway at the moment) and if you wanted to help with one of those, or create a new one, i would be happy to sort it out for you. Jack Gordon 18:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fonsérannes Locks

Hi Tina, these locks are written in France without an accent (see our own links). Please correct your article, so that we have an perfect link between my german article to UK.

Sincerly skipper69 (user in de.wikipedia) --62.47.154.80 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected as requested. Tina Cordon 09:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine Waterways links

There is a discussion about the appropriateness or otherwise of some links that have been added to a number of pages, and subsequently removed. As you are a member of the project, you may wish to comment at

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Waterways#Pennine Waterways Links

Mayalld 14:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Thanks a lot. If you have enough time to click here sometimes, to check my awfull english when I ask for reread, I would be very happy. Thanks in advance. Alvaro (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De Rien. De temps en temps j'ai le même probleme avec mon pouvre Français. Tina Cordon (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icon beer.gif Santé ! et bonne année. Alvaro (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Si tu as 5 minutes... je pense qu'une grande partie de cette section devrait se trouver dans l'article Briare aqueduct. Mon anglais est trop mauvais pour que je m'y attelle. ++ Alvaro (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comme ça peut-etre? Tina Cordon (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Je pense qu'une grande partie de
« The Briare aqueduct was built over the Loire in Briare between 1890 and 1896 by the engineer Abel Mazoyer to make a connection with the Canal latéral à la Loire (built in the years 1820 and 1830). The Briare aqueduct is built on fourteen piers. These piers support a single metal beam supporting a trough which contains more than 13,000 tonnes of water, 2.2 meters deep. The width of the aqueduct, towpaths included, is 11.5 meters and its length is 662.7 meters. Eight sluices make it possible to empty the aqueduct in the event of severe freezing. »
devrait se trouver dans Briare aqueduct plutôt que dans Briare Canal. J'ai souligné ci-dessus ce qui me paraît plus relever du Briare aqueduct que du Briare Canal. Mais ce n'est pas bien grave ;D Alvar☮ ☎ 23:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, il est plus important que l'information exist dans Briare Aqueduct n'est ce pas et peut-etre dans Canal latéral à la Loire. Tina Cordon (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oui, I think the technical details about the Briare Aqueduct should be in Briare aqueduct rather than in Briare Canal. Le Canal latéral à la Loire, c'est encore un autre problème ;D Alvar☮ ☎ 00:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenant l'information technologique est dans l'article 'Briare aqueduct'. Tina Cordon (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, merci. En plus, maintenant, cette photo est juste au niveau de la phrase « Eight sluices make it possible to empty the aqueduct in the event of severe freezing. », c'est parfait. Alvar☮ ☎ 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egerton, Francis Henry (1812). Description du plan incliné souterrain

Hi Tina,

I am from Germany and I wrote a few articles about boat lifts, water slopes, inclined planes etc.

In your list of references you name the above mentioned book, written by Francis Egerton, 8th Earl of Bridgewater. One can download this book from google-books as pdf-file , but unfortunately Egerton wrote this book in french, an my french is not the very best.

So here is my question: is there an english translation of Egerton's book? If so, where can I find it?

Kind regards

Motorbiker (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Motorbiker

Francis Egerton, although he was English wrote the original in French and I know of no English translation. I do speak French and therefore thought no more about translation. I will try to find an English version, if I do I will let you know.

Yours Sincerely Tina Cordon (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tina,

thanks a lot! I do hope that there is an English translation.

Kind regards

Motorbiker (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Motorbiker

I have found a description of the Underground Inclined Plane written by Francis Egerton for the Repertory of Arts and Manufactures (First Series) Volume 16 dated 1802. Pages 153 to 164. This includes an engraving. I downloaded my copy from the Internet Archive. I hope you find this useful. Let me know if you have difficulty finding it. I have added a line refering to this description on the Worsley Navigable Levels page.

Yours Sincerely Tina Cordon (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Dear Motorbiker

PS. the Url at the Internet Archive is http://www.archive.org/details/repertorypatent06unkngoog .

Yours Sincerely Tina Cordon (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear Tina,

thanks a lot, this is exactly what I was looking for!

Vielen Dank und herzliche Grüße

Motorbiker (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bennerley Viaduct

I am intrigued by your claim (which dates back to your opening contribution to this article) that there is only one viaduct similar to Bennerley, namely Dowery Dell. I have accepted it so far though it seems very unlikely in regard to Belah if not Meldon. However, while researching for a new article 'List of lattice truss bridges in the United Kingdom' which I have just established, I have readily located photos of Belah and I cannot see why this does not meet your criteria, though of course it is not clear what those criteria are. I infer that the common features between Bennerley and Dowery Dell are 1) lattice girder superstructure and 2) iron trestle piers. If that is so, then Belah fits, as does Deepdale (on the same line I think) and possibly Meldon (and certainly the original Meldon which was only single track); also probably Crumlin. I may find more. (And Birnbeck Pier at Weston-s-Mare also meets the criteria even though its primary purpose is/was as a pier)

Incidentally, I have posted 3 of my own photos of Dowery Dell in that article - I see that you are seeking such photos.

Please post your reply here and leave a message on my talk page.

Best regards.Flying Stag (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS And what about Staithes?Flying Stag (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flying Stag. My ascertion of its uniqueness was based on the opinion of one of my sources, not original research of my own which as you know, I'm not allowed to include anyway. If it turns out to be wrong then feel free to correct it. I believe the opinion of my source was based on the criteria you have already outlined but I will re-read it just to be sure. I am aware of Staithes as well. Ideally each of the Viaducts currently given space in the Bennerley Viaduct article should eventually have pages of their own. Yours Sincerely Tina Tina Cordon (talk)

Dowery Dell

Were my photos of Dowery Dell of any use??Flying Stag (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you. I'm also happy to see that some of the United Kingom's Wrought Iron viaducts, other than Bennerley are getting their own articles as they deserve. I do have some pictures of Dowery Dell but I do not have copyright therefore I couldn't publish them on Wikipedia. I have attempted to obtain postcards or original photos older than 75 years in order to solve this problem hence the note in my personal page. Now that you have provided some I can concentrate on others. Tina Cordon (talk)

Tunnels etc.

Hi Tina

Firstly, thanks for all your excellent hard work on articles relating to railway history in the Midlands. It brings back memories of ferreting around the suburbs of Nottingham for remnants of tunnels, bridges, embankments etc. during teenage school holidays in the early 1990s!

I noticed your "Pictures Needed" list, and I feel sure that somewhere I have got some photos of Nottingham London Road High Level station that I took around that time, but annoyingly I cannot find them at the moment. I will keep looking though! (I did find one of Mansfield Road tunnel and the northern end of the Victoria cutting, but the quality isn't great - rather dark and shadowy - and I suspect it wouldn't scan well, but if and when I get access to a working scanner I may give it a go.)

One other minor point - I was considering renaming the article Nottingham's Tunnels, and wanted to seek your opinion. I thought maybe one of the following might fit in better with Wikipedia naming practice:

Railway tunnels in Nottingham
Railway tunnels of Nottingham
Tunnels in Nottingham
Tunnels of Nottingham

Any thoughts?

Best wishes Quackdave (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Quackdave. I would have no objection to the re-naming of the Nottingham Tunnels article. The reason I haven't used a specifically Railway Tunnel title is because Park Tunnel is not and never has been a Railway Tunnel therefore if a title like this were used it would no longer fit in the article. The last two options would work though. I will leave this to your judgement. Good luck with the photo hunt. Yours Sincerely Tina Tina Cordon (talk)

I finally got round to doing this - I went for Tunnels of Nottingham in the end. The main part of the delay was because I felt I ought to give Nottingham Suburban Railway its own article whilst I was at it!

No luck with finding the photos unfortunately - I can't believe I would have disposed of them so they must be somewhere!

Cheers, Quackdave (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:A Pair of M60 Powerizers.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Boshboil Arm Bridge with Boshboil Arm beyond.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of your uploads, File:Box Fruit small.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Cordon

Hi Tina - I was moving images to Wikimedia Commons and noticed the discrepancy between your username and the attribution on the photos (Martin Cordon). Are you the photographer, or were the photos taken by someone else? An example would be File:Netherton Tunnel South Portal.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kelly. I have attempted to deal with this but I am not sure of the proper solution. I changed my name by deed poll when I began gender reaasignment. My name was Martin Cordon, it is now Tina Cordon with a gender to match. I haven't tracked down and changed all my original edits. If you know of a way in which this can be done please let me know. Yours Sincerely Tina, Tina Cordon (talk)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tina Cordon. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tina Cordon. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tina Cordon. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]