User talk:WT79

December 2019

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Rhydyronen railway station. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bryn Eglwys (disambiguation) has been accepted

Bryn Eglwys (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, WT79 The Engineer! Thank you for your contributions. I am CAPTAIN MEDUSA and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 19:24, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skarloey and Rheneas

Hi, WT79. It has come to my attention that you added the parenthetical disambiguation "(locomotive)" to the character articles, thinking that readers would somehow confuse them with the locations. This was 'not' a "really useful" decision; Unlike other Thomas names, "Skarloey" and "Rheneas" were specifically coined in The Railway Series and never went on to appear in unrelated contexts; As such, the characters should still be the primary topics for those titles. Only (very few) select individuals would be likely to know that Skarloey and Rheneas are also names of stations, whereas the characters still have exposure through merchandise, TV and the Web. Even Sir Handel (which sounds more generic) doesn't need a disambiguation since it's too specific and no one would ever look for Sir Handel Brown. Hope you understand. TheIsraeliSudrian (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheIsraeliSudrian:Yes, I understand and support this change. Even in the books, the station names were never used in the main books (apart from in a very few forewords); they were only used in complementary books and the Sodor Maps. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Fuel bunker

Hello, WT79 The Engineer, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username North8000, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Fuel bunker, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuel bunker.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AddNewSection/sandbox

Your edit of 09:02, 20 May 2020 of Template:AddNewSection/sandbox resulted in Self-closed tags lint errors for Template:AddNewSection/testcases. Please take care of this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Move log

Template:Move log has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

WT79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "The cracked mirror". The reason given for The cracked mirror's block is: " Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia with this username. This is because your username, WT79 The Engineer, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below) and continue editing. A username should not be promotional, appear to represent a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. However, you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87". You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by: Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" on their talk page. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username. If you think that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} on your user talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ".

Blocking administrator: ‪Voice of Clam‬ (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Autoblock lifted, but please do not use your old account again. You may need to log out and in again. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used my old account to identify on my old userpage that I was not a sockpuppet, so I get autoblocked for being a potential sockpuppet! Please, help me! WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 07:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Voice of Clam. I wasn't meaning to do more than a one-off edit to identify my old account as being legitimately linked to my new one, so I don't get accused of potential sockpupperty. I thus was slightly alarmed when I found myself already blocked as a precaution against sockpupperty, when I went back to my new account! Anyway, It's all sorted now, so thank you. WT79 ^{(Speak to me | account info)} 08:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi WT79 The Engineer! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 15:49, Wednesday, June 10, 2020 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Bletchley flyover

Thanks for restructuring the section, it is clearer now. However I deleted your running total of sections replaced because we don't have access to that level of detail and in any case, it really seems to me to be too much detail for an article about a station. It might have gone in East West Rail but that already suffers from WP:TLDR due to the years of political on-again/off-again. BTW, there is no bridgework east of the WCML, it is solid concrete 'embankment' curving and sloping downhill: this is where the new "Bletchley High-level" is to be built. West of Buckingham Road, there is a (high) conventional earth embankment. A picture is worth a thousand words: google maps or bing maps provides an angled ("3D") aerial view. Hope that helps or at least is of interest. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your user page that you are based in Bletchley not Wales, so sorry for trying to reach granny to suck eggs. So now I am confused... am I really wrong in my belief that the April/May work was to remove/replace the spans over the WCML? (and not 'east of the WCML' as you wrote. What made you think that?). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant West not East; sorry for confusion. [1] is a fairly good image showing the three spans of flyover removed. It clearly shows the WCML, in the bottom-right of the image, and the missing spans, the piers for which have been taken out now also. Two of the spans are laid out for breaking up in the top-left of the image; the other one waas taken away, for testing (it was the first to be removed). WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 13:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2]. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great image! So what I believe I've read (also in the Rail and Civil Engineer mags via Google News as well as the Citizen) is that the spans over the WCML were removed during the Easter closure and reinstated 'as new' during the May bank holiday closures. But now I'm concerned that only one of

what I think must have happened (as in "stands to reason" and therefore false);
what was announced in early April as the programme but Covid19 put paid to that notion
what was actually achieved

is true. A little bit of WP:OR is justified in the circumstances: what can you see from where you are? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easter engineering works complete says "We prepared to remove sections of the flyover across the West Coast Main Line." Strike one. But Passengers who need to travel urged to plan ahead over early May bank holiday shows that removal was planned for 5 May and it is not mentioned in Late May bank holiday engineering works complete which could mean it had already finished before that weekend or that it didn't finish. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have the geometry of the area a bit confused; sorry if the following description of the site is unnecessary.

From north-east to south-west:

The flyover begins, to the east of Bletchley station, at the end of a concrete embankment. (51°59′42.5″N 0°44′06.6″W / 51.995139°N 0.735167°W / 51.995139; -0.735167)
There are then eight spans south of this, the final of which is a half-arch.
There are then two concrete arches, each made of 16 'slices' running pier-to-pier. The first (northern) arch (51°59′38.6″N 0°44′06.9″W / 51.994056°N 0.735250°W / 51.994056; -0.735250) crosses Buckingham Road, which runs east-west. The second (southern) arch (51°59′37.6″N 0°44′07.1″W / 51.993778°N 0.735306°W / 51.993778; -0.735306) (removed a couple of days ago) crosses the end of Duncombe Street, and the former alignment of Buckingham Road, before the rebuilding of its bridge under the WCML. [3] shows the former alignment, from the east; compare with [4] taken shortly after re-alignment. [5] shows the span in 2015.).
Following this, there is another half-arch, and then two more spans.
The WCML is crossed on 5 spans (unclear in aerial photos – will go round later to confirm), with piers which are non-standard compared with the rest, because they have to fit round the WCML tracks. I think a concrete tunnel-like structure is planned to be placed under these spans/the replacements for these spans. (51°59′34.2″N 0°44′07.9″W / 51.992833°N 0.735528°W / 51.992833; -0.735528)
The next two spans formerly crossed the lower-level Oxford Branch track, which was removed when the line closed ([6] and [7] show the line in place; [8] shows it not; [9] shows site of former platform 1 in 2011). These 2 spans were removed in April/May.
There is then another span which has also been removed during April/May.
There are three more spans before the bridge over Water Eaton Road.
Water Eaton Road (which runs north-south) is then crossed by a single span (from north, with the former low-level bridge in foreground). (51°59′30.0″N 0°44′09.8″W / 51.991667°N 0.736056°W / 51.991667; -0.736056)
There are then 8 more spans before the end of the flyover.
The flyover then ends onto an earth embankment. (51°59′24.6″N 0°44′16.2″W / 51.990167°N 0.737833°W / 51.990167; -0.737833)

Hope that might clarify a little? A svg image would be easier to understand, but I havn't got time to draw one. Regards, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As regards to what I can see, not a lot. I am fairly confident that the spans over the WCML have not been removed; they weren't a couple of days ago and I don't believe there is a crane with sufficient power there at the moment to lift them. As regards to this, I can provide a ref (although not a very reliable source); ^[1]. How I last saw it was pretty much exactly as it is in that video (except I wasn't in the air). Thanks, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeXbcqh-j3s

So it was Option #1 them. As I might have guessed. Presumably that means that the spans over the WCML won't get swapped out before the Xmas closure at the earliest. There is no way that such a high risk job would be done overnight. Surely?

Yes, your description of the layout matches my memory, just that I described it from west to east as a mental "artist's impression" and you've done it from east to west as a mental engineering drawing :-) But I hadn't spotted how far west the elevated section started though.

I still believe that it would be overkill to put this detail in the article all the same. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of spans over the WCML has not been done yet; that's all I can say. I do not feel that any degree of prediction of when it may happen is suitable, or particularly relevant, to the article. Predictions are often failed at the moment, given the nature of this unpredictable stituation we are in.

I think we both got East and West confused originally.

Yes, of course it would be overkill to describe the flyover's constructional details in that much detail. Just wanted to clarify. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 21:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed

Based on the above, this bit from the Bletchley article is clearly false.

In April and May 2020, the sections of the flyover crossing the WCML were removed and replaced.^[1]

Could you revise to match reality? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But then again... The EWR Alliance progress report for July says that the span over the WCML has been replaced.

Since our last newsletter in April, the team has successfully lifted three of the 17 concrete decks (spans) that need to be removed from the flyover, including one deck which was previously located above the West Coast Main Line itself.^[2]

I have just updated the EWR and BF articles accordingly. BTW, the report has a nice VR visualisation of the work. The report describes lots of prep work going on down the line, which may be of interest? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe not! Same report says

All three cranes will be used to lift huge spans off the Bletchley flyover as we continue to dismantle the structure. The AK 680-3 will be used to remove the spans across the West Coast Main Line, while the two LTM cranes will be used to remove the spans across Buckingham Road in sections.

So it must be that only one of the spans over the WCML was removed in April and there are more to be done. True? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kevin Nicholls (4 May 2020). "Biggest cranes in Europe spotted in Milton Keynes ready for 295-tonne upgrade [as] 60-year-old Bletchley Flyover gets a makeover ahead of Milton Keynes's new East-West rail link". Milton Keynes Citizen. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
^ Mark Cuzner (July 2020). "EWR2 Project Newsletter - July 2020". East West Rail Alliance. Retrieved 7 August 2020.

It depends on how you define the limits of the WCML. If you assume that the WCML only "is" where the tracks are (as I have been doing), then none of spans removed in April were over it. However, I suspect that the clearances for the crane combined with the OLE mean that the easternmost span they took out in April/May was over the WCML.

In summary, yes, you are correct. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 20:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Just an update: went round earlier and found another one over the WCML has been taken out. So that makes it 2 gone over the WCML, 4(probably) more to go. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I knew it crosses at a very tight angle hence many spans so slotting in the supporting piers must have been entertaining in the 1950s. EWRA are v lucky not to have had to replace those too! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last I saw they were planning to replace the WCML crossing with a box-shaped concrete tunnel, which the spans would sit on top of (not quite sure of the details). All the piers are specially designed to be in the right place across the of the joint, they're not the same shape as the others. When the flyover was built, the WCML track was temporally slewed away (in two halves), but, even with the current decreased traffic due to COVID-19, the railway it a bit busy for that nowadays. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 11:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EWR2 Alliance report, Autumn 2020

has finally come out. See EWR2 Project Newsletter - Autumn 2020. Lots of stuff about the flyover, I think maybe you are better placed than me to summarise it? If I do it, you'll only have to correct it so best cut out the middle man :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Longville

Last I saw, EWR Ltd had dropped the station (halt) at Newton Longville, but I see you have been putting it back in. Has there been some recent developments to bring it back on the agenda again? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know they had dropped it. I can't find any articles which clarify much; could any sources be offered to expand on this? WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 10:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they were ever explicit in dropping it, just that it no longer appears in anything they publish. The promoters of Salden Chase had it, as a makeweight to get planning permission ("sustainable transport"), but that has gone quiet too. Last I heard, MK Council (and esp. West Bletchley PC) were having a set-to with Bucks Council about the latter's plans to meet their housing obligation by wrapping development around the MK boundary – so that they help themselves to the S106 levy and ongoing council tax but MK has to absorb the long-term increased costs. In the meantime, I feel that we should not show it because we can't cite it as a serious proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, makes sense. Thanks for the corrections, WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Plynlimon and Hafan Tramway

A tag has been placed on Category:Plynlimon and Hafan Tramway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the wikilinks for the locomotives "Victoria" and "Hafan" that simply return you to the original article ? RGCorris (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. Wasn't quite thinking. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 08:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Arlesdale Railway RDT

Template:Arlesdale Railway RDT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template : Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway

Can you give the reason for amending the names of certain railway stations on Template : Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway in June of this year?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are the correct period names. See Aberystwith and Welsh Coast Railway#Station list. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Module:User contrib/sandbox/testcases

Module:User contrib/sandbox/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of slate quarries in Wales

Hello, WT79. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of slate quarries in Wales".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Slate quarrying at Cilgerran

Hello, WT79. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Slate quarrying at Cilgerran".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bletchley Flyover

I tried to set the zoom level to go right onto the bridge but someone working to rule at openstreetmap.org has deleted it. Well obvs, it has been demolished so map shouldn't show it. Sigh.

Btw I was amused to see the Minister announce funding for Bicester-Bletchley yet again and being a**e-licked by ewrl. If I was them, I'd be a lot more concerned that he didn't confirm funding for BED-CAM. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman:I can't see your issue on OSM. As far as I can see, the relation still shows it full length, existent. I can appreciate that it in a way should have be deleted, but hasn't been yet.

* On that note (just a technical note about OSM rules): even then, they ought to only trim off the eastern/northern section, as the other bit isn't affected by the current works. Also, I thought there was a bridge:demolished type or somthing like that which would be more suitable? I'll have to check, I haven't done much on that website recently. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How odd. When I maximise the map and zoom in, the black line showing the line from Winslow is completely missing? I'm intrigued as to how you can still see it. Btw, I stumbled over a Facebook page that shows that the old track has been removed all the way back, various cuttings and embankments being reprofiled, drainage channels cut etc. So right now, OSM is correct if pedantic to show nothing there. Tbh, I don't really think it worth pursuing as it'll be resolved in a couple of years.

Re the MK Stations RDT, it looked fine to have one column of citations and one column for the RDT. If and only if the RDT is expanded. Something must have changed somewhere, I can't see how to set it to expanded but don't want to change the default because in every other article where it is used, compressed is the correct setting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that it might be considered 'correct'. I have personally seen the lack of track from walking. But on OSM as I see it, the railway leading up to the bridge is all 'railway under construction' ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], &c.), but the bridge ([16]; made of [17] and [18] for each track) is entirely there, although it's marked as railway:disused and passenger:no but proposed passenger:yes. With the disused/proposed tags, its not that they've been removed the features, just they appear dotted and have different metadata. But that shouldn't matter for zooming, where all that matters is their geographical location and extent. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I might see the problem. Wikimedia maps doesn't show the flyover, but OSM does. Presumably this is an issue with Wikimedia Maps – it ignores features on OSM marked as 'disused' or 'under construction'. Not much we can do about that. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE the RDT, I remember spending a fair bit of time on this a few months back; it just doesn't work. Its something about the reflist I think, but it seems much simpler to not bother about it and put it in external links. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sleepy Wikipedians has been nominated for discussion

Category:Sleepy Wikipedians has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EWR2 project report

Thanks for the thanks. It was issued a couple of weeks ago I think but it was well hidden. I wonder if the local Parish Councils were told to keep it under wraps to keep the rail fans at bay for a while. If that is the case, I had better keep schtumm about where I found it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ThomasEp

Template:ThomasEp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS8text

Hey, I saw you requested that Template:BS8text be undeleted. Could you explain the reason behind this? Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Thanks for noticing. My nomination was because, per a 2019 TfD and a 2016 RfC, {{BS-map}} has been retained, and these were both meant to apply to all supporting templates. Hope that clarifies — WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 15:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-link at Template:Redirect-synonym

Just a heads up, I had to revert the changes you made to {{Redirect-synonym}}, as it was breaking links for congressional districts from highway pages like Interstate 5 in Washington and Interstate 15. Sounder Bruce 23:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird — I thought I'd put in enough parser code so it should work whatever. I'll do a bit more in the sandbox to try and find out what's wrong. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, if you provide a link-generating template then it evaluates the outer template first when loading the page, which sees wikitext for a template, not for a link. Thanks for spotting. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 19:19, 19 October 2021 (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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Electric transmission (propulsion)

The article Electric transmission (propulsion) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic lacks in-depth coverage to be independently notable from Diesel-electric transmission, Turbine-electric transmission, etc

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:22, 21 January 2023 (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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Slate Quarries template

I assume this edit from two years ago was a mistake? Please take more care not to save edits that contain errors like this. Thanks, Opolito (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Opolito: Gosh, thank you for noticing. Absolutely a mistake. I hope there aren't too many of these out there! This type of mistake was caused by me overreaching the trackpoint on my laptop (scrolling down too fast). Mostly, I'd notice, because the text would jump up when I started pressing the key. Clearly this escaped. WT79 ^{(speak to | editing analysis | edit list)} 07:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeXbcqh-j3s

[CitizenMay2020-2] Kevin Nicholls (4 May 2020). "Biggest cranes in Europe spotted in Milton Keynes ready for 295-tonne upgrade [as] 60-year-old Bletchley Flyover gets a makeover ahead of Milton Keynes's new East-West rail link". Milton Keynes Citizen. Retrieved 5 May 2020.

[3] Mark Cuzner (July 2020). "EWR2 Project Newsletter - July 2020". East West Rail Alliance. Retrieved 7 August 2020.

[1]

[1]

[2]