I've uploaded some images of the control panel on the door pillars of DLR trains (as I wasn't able to find any anywhere online!). The one displayed here is labelled, but I don't know what all of the acronyms mean or what all the controls do, so there are blanks. If you can help, please edit the file description on Commons. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think 1 is the activation switch, the train captain turns this with their key to activate the panel. RTD might be Ready to Depart, ADC Automatic Door Control, the rest I have no idea for other than PA is Public Address.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
ROD often means Remotely Operated Door. In which case COD might be Conductor Operated Door or Customer Operated Door, but I don't know what CTD would be. Johnlp (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The I-N-E switch is the one used to activate the panel, easily observable on any trip. It has been suggested elsewhere that these stand for "Inhibit" (and that the "I" indicator is "inhibited"), "Neutral" and engage. Likewise "RTD" (ready to depart), "ADC" (all doors closed), "COD" (close other doors) and "CTD" (close this door) are dead simple to work out when you see a PSA working. "ROD" is logically "re-open doors" or "release other doors". 1 is not routinely used while in passenger service, being near roof level it's not easy to reach, which is why I'm wondering if it's an isolation switch. Someone else guessed that 1 is a lock to access the electronics behind the panel, which seems equally plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
1 looks like a lock operated by a key with a triangular recess, similar to panels on roadside boxes for telephones etc. Ning-ning (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
If the functions are only described by acronyms should we make this information publicly available, as the shortening of the instructions may be an attempt to prevent this from happening? Britmax (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it's just for reasons of space, and really just an aide memoire for the operator. If you haven't got a key in the panel and the key set to the right position, the buttons don't do anything. The indicators are in full view and even without the initialisms the meaning of RTD, ADC, COD and CTD are very obvious from just seeing the operator doing their job and the meaning of the ROD only slightly less so. I guess we could put in a FOI request to TfL and if they redact anything then we'll know it's not for public consumption, but I'd be amazed if any of this was. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Simple ergonomics gets you most of it, without needing to know the acronyms. Working from bottom to top: [Local Door Open], Public Address, Microphone, Close Other Doors, the most fingered, Close This Door, small gap, [Re-open Other Doors], Speaker, Alarm, Inhibit/Normal/Engage, Inhibited, All Doors Closed, Ready To Depart/Ready For Driving, Local door isolate. The PSA will hit these bottom-to-top after inserting the key: PA (ThisTrainIsReadyToDepart), Close Other Doors, then Close This Door. Click-click on the keyswitch, remove, and off it goes. —Sladen (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
SPAD and catch points
This video shows a SPAD and catch points doing what they are designed to do (protect a main line). Would either article benefit from a link to the video. It would seem to be allowable under WP:YOUTUBE as there is no infringement of copyright by the uploader. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops - someone will be on the carpet for that, though I concur with the commenter who stated that we shouldn't apportion blame until it's been officially investigated. Just a point of note - these are trap points not catch points, as they are there to protect the main line against such an occurrence, whereas catch points are usually placed at the bottom of gradients, in the wrong direction, to derail runaways. I don't see any problem with a link to Youtube in the circumstances - particularly the catch point/trap point article. An optimist on the run! 19:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand (though it's not officially confirmed) that the driver had been authorised to pass the signal in this case, though obviously the points had not been set. Therefore it's not a SPAD. An optimist on the run! 06:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I think {{WCML}} was mentioned at the time; it's clearly unfinished, and doesn't go into as much detail as the new maps we've been creating in my name space. As far as these go, I've been side tracked on to other things recently, plus being busy in real life, but hope to get back to completing these in due course. An optimist on the run! 06:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Colored link text
Interested parties, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template:Rail text color, where a discussion has been going on about the practice of changing colors on links (which is discouraged by a Manual of Style guideline) in running text and in "Station layout" tables. I don't know how many, if any, articles under this project contain such links/tables, but folks here might have opinions or additional information they want to offer. - dcljr (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems very likely that a new station will be opened to serve Ilkeston and that it will be located on or very near the site of Ilkeston Junction and Cossall. Our present page for Ilkeston is currently a (recently created) disambiguation page. Are there any views on how an article for the new station should be presented? Possible options include moving the Ilkeston Junction and Cossall page to Ilkeston and using a hatnote to disambig Ilkeston Town and North, or creating a new page along the lines of Ilkeston (New). Lamberhurst (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The new station will become the primary topic and we'd move the disambiguation page if that would be in the way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
If the sources are referring to it without any specific name, I'd write the article at Ilkeston as that is most likely location. It can always be moved if the name later turns out to be different. Thryduulf (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Surrey Border and Camberley Railway
We don't appear to have an article on the Surrey Border and Camberley Railway, a 10¼" gauge railway that opened in 1938 and closed in 1939 due to the war. Obviously something similar to the RHDR was envisaged. Some of the locomotives from the line survive at the Eastleigh Lakeside Railway. Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Have we got anyone with sources for this railway (or do you have any)? The fact it only lasted a year makes it unlikely to have many, so writing an article may be hard. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Heritage Railway magazine posted this video on their Facebook page, so I think we can be pretty sure it existed. A book has been published on the railway too. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Lack of longevity isn't usually a problem - in proportion these obscure railways often have more information written about them than longer established ones. See Llangurig branch for example. An optimist on the run! 22:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Not as a general rule for individual stations, no. But I think it is legitimate for instance to say of a particular route that infrastructure project X has reduced the journey time between A and B from Y hours to Z hours. I think I once added some such information to the WCML article. -- Alarics (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
in my view: residents and businesses in the London Commuter Belt (a term I abhor but can do little about) find time to to London pivotal, c.f. a stagecoach (or motor vehicle) in Reading railway station; accounting for the towns' stand-alone development, vast compared to for example, closer but much longer-journey Chertsey. If a compromise could be reached to just as you say limiting it to the main destination, then it should be in the station article not the railway line article. For example a few towns have two stations on perpendicular lines and a quick mention of the largest settlements accessible by trains appears, but often no indication as to which is the more convenient in journey time. As Chertsey amply demonstrates, and is a well-known pitfall of the railways in general, lines exist to theoretically take passengers to the regionally largest city, but may take far longer than a direct service (or road) could provide. In all other times an impressive car-beating time backs up a station's raison d'etre and many of the other facts and statistics provided. As mostly unverifiable consequences of slow rail cannot be listed in rail articles: fewer major companies, higher proportions of retired people, larger plot sizes etc. it at leasts points the railway-unfamiliar in the right "direction" if you'll excuse the pun. And in a similar way to tph which is another dimension of the form of transport, a little after-the-facts of journey time and economic activity as the studies show. —Adam37 (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As many of you will know, tomorrow (July 3) marks the 75th anniversary of Mallard's record-breaking run down Stoke Bank. Unfortunately the article isn't quite up to standard for tomorrow's WP:OTD, as it needs more in-line citations (see staging area of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/July 3). Anyone have the time and resourses to look at this today? I'll drop a note on Howcheng's talk page to ask if he'll consider doing a swap if it can be improved. An optimist on the run! 10:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I've done what I can, given that I don't have any of the books in the bibliography, and taken the liberty of removing the {{more footnotes}} tag. Whilst in-line refs are preferred, they are not essential, and for the purpose of OTD (which only requires a lack of maintenance tags, not to be GA or FA), I think this is sufficient. If anyone else would like to make further improvements though, it would be appreciated.
As I have commented before (without positive feedback), this highlights the lack of leadership and organisation within this group. The inability of the group to get this article improved before it is "showcased" for WP:OTD is just typical. It is also interesting that despite this project being about creating an encylopedia, it also amuses me that we still scramble about trying to make Wikipedia current and up-to-date, despite the general policy of WP:NOTNEWS. Yet when there is the opportunity to get an article into the spotlight it becomes 'URGENT'. As one of the previous sections explained, there is probably more written on some obscure and undistinguished railway line that closed decades ago than there is on what ought to be an article of high-importance. That there are few articles on some of the past Chairmen of British Rail is my favourite comparisons. So my advice to this group is to get organised and prioritise the articles that the group feels to be important. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, I did leave it rather late before asking for help. If I'd thought about it earlier, I'd have requested assistance a couple of weeks ago, and we could have got it into reasonable shape in plenty of time for today's anniversary. Unfortunately it wasn't to be. An optimist on the run! 10:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Primary/Secondary
Please look at Template:Railway lines in London and defend why we are keeping to an official classification that has primary lines allegedly covering a tiny amount of the country and negates a few main lines in the catch-all secondary class?
Specifically I am proud of the history of the London and South Western Railway sharing the busiest station in Europe by railway traffic and to classify the line it built, the South Western Main Line as secondary seems a most unsatisfactory taxonomy (system of classification). You are invited to present arguments for and against "Long Distance" and "Medium/Short Distance" categories (ie have 2 or three of these instead) in the London's railways talk page under my point. I hope to read some interesting arguments. Adam37 (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Multilingual signs
Wallsend Metro station claims it is one of only three stations in England with signs in a foreign language, the others being St Pancras and Southall. Is this really true? I am sure that York has, or anyway used to have, some signs in other European languages (French and German? cannot remember) and I should have thought there might be others in similar places popular with foreign tourists. Does anyone know? -- Alarics (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
There is bilingual English and Welsh signage at Knighton railway station I'm not sure about Finsbury Park, but there is (or was) some French at Waterloo Underground, almost certainly there will still be some around the former International station too. There is bilingual signage at Knighton railway station, which is in England by a matter of yards, but it could be argued that Welsh is not a foreign language. I think Wallsend is the only one with Latin though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all. So clearly the assertion in the Wallsend article is wrong, and I have now changed it to be less specific about how many stations have such signs. If anyone would like to amend it more aggressively in view of likely OR, please do. -- Alarics (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that the "one of only three" (now changed to four) claim has now appeared in the much more important St Pancras article, sourced to the Southall station article at disused-stations.org.uk. Whether disused-stations.org.uk is a WP:Reliable source I don't know -- it does not itself cite any source -- but it is clearly incorrect (or at least out of date) in this instance, because it says there are three when we are already saying there are four, and according to Edgepedia above there is also Ashford, so that is at least five. (And if Ashford and St Pancras, maybe also Ebbsfleet?) Clearly this will not do at all. I am minded to make the statement in the St Pancras article less specific about how many such stations there are altogether, as I already have for the Wallsend article. -- Alarics (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much all stations in Wales have bilingual names. What may be unique however about Wallsend, Southall, Ebbsfleet, Ashford International and Moreton-in-Marsh may be that they have signs that are not in the official main languages of the UK. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt.12:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Cornish at Penzance The claim was stations in England, as bilingual signs are standard in Wales and also appear at some Scottish stations (list). Pictures on Commons suggest that neither Ebbsfleet nor Stratford international stations have signage in anything other than English. I don't know whether the stone sign at Penzance counts or not, but if it does that's another to add to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Are there several of these at the station, or just that one? Bilingual signs usually have the English as well - this seems to be Arabic alone, so it may have been a one-off special, maybe a home-made sign that somebody put up. What does the Manchester Evening News say? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are a small number of signs at the station in languages other than English. There are also signs in Gaelic[1] and Sign Language (British Sign Language I presume although I didn't see that particular sign first-hand myself). These signs are not bilingual as you correctly point out as each one only has a single language on it. I only mention them in response to the original post in this thread, which mentioned just "signs in a foreign language". Alas I have so far failed to find out any info on who put the signs there, or the official/unofficial status etc.. They don't look very official, but I guess with a few of them being there for some time now and not being taken down, there must have been some sort of official authorisation? But it certainly would be interesting to find out! Rept0n1x (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it may be somewhere between Gobowen and Wrexham, possibly near Cefn Mawr. It is only a guess though. Simply south......fighting ovens for just 7 years19:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
After editing the Varsity Line I just wondered, seeing as its being reopened is there any need for three articles for which is essentially the same railway line? I would merge the Oxford-Bicester and Marston Vale into the Varsity Line but clearly state that one section is branded as Marston Vale. What do you think? Likelife (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The Varsity Line is some way from being reopened. Although the Bicester to Bletchley section should reopen in the next few years, Bedford to Sandy/Cambridge has not yet been decided and may not even reuse the original formation. If the Bicester/Bletchley section reopens, there may be an argument for merging Oxford to Bicester into Marston Vale. I would propose keeping Varsity Line as it is now as a historical record of the original route. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. The Varsity Line has been closed for decades. In fact it was probably had even less weight than the Marston Vale line in terms of being a marketting tool. It was really a collection of railways, and so it could be a "holding" article for the various sections of the route (that were built by separate railway companies). But as for merging the other articles into the Varsity Line ... forget it. I would strongly oppose. Bhtpbank (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Bhtpbank, you may strongly oppose, but there are many lines built at separate times by different companies which are in one loan article - the Cross-City Line springs to mind. It was only built by two companies - one for whats now known as the Marston Vale section and the Bucks Railway built the Bletchley to Oxford, and like pretty much all railways in the UK it opened in stages (just 5 years apart). I could see the argument for two articles but, I don't see any need for the Oxford to Bicester Line as a loan article. Additionally, the Oxford to Bicester Line isn't even the Oxford to Bicester because its open all the way to Clayton Junction, which is quite a distance from Bicester. And remember, the line from Clayton to Bletchley isn't technically closed like the Northampton and Peterborough Railway for example, as its officially mothballed. I take User:Lamberhurst's point on keeping it for historical reference. Likelife (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Overlong infobox
NO CONSENSUS
I'm closing this thread as it is clear that there is no consensus one way or the other, and it is just deteriorating into a slanging match, which is not conducive to a good editing atmosphere. An optimist on the run! 11:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Talk:London King's Cross railway station#Overlong infobox of triva and data points. Also read the recent Signpost article Infoboxes: time for a fresh look?. I strongly encourage this project to move away from listing these data points in the lead of station articles. These articles need prose indicating how busy the station is, comparing it with other stations, and noting any general trends. Articles aren't a collection of data values and info boxes aren't a dumping ground for whatever data values we can generally find. Please find an alternative solution than cluttering up the lead with this -- it wrecks the article layout and is just noise the general reader could do without. Colin°Talk17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I don't agree that rail exits are "trivia" in the context of an article about the station to which they refer, I can see a case for adjusting the infobox to incorporate a "hide" button allowing all but the most recent years' worth of data to be hidden. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing sections is a perennial suggestion for info boxes but is rejected because it affect web-accessibility, it doesn't necessary port to mirror sites, and it doesn't print. Facts that are held important to mention at all but aren't key should not be in the lead. The last five years entry/exit stats are far from being key: they are data from which someone might derive information. At most one could make a case for the current entry/exit stats. That is all. If you must show these values, put them in a template further down the article: they simply aren't important enough for the lead. There are probably other values in your infobox that aren't key either. However, we would do our readers a much greater service if the information was explained in context (both against other stations and historically). A list article is also one way to present such data, where uk stations could be listed with their entry/exit stats sorted and tabulated. Colin°Talk18:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The piece in the Signpost is one person's opinion (although several other people have commented below, it's still an opinion piece), and in no way constitutes a policy change - or even a majority decision. I would argue for consistency, and until there is a clear consensus to the contrary, I don't see why King's Cross should be treated any differently from the 2500+ other stations in Great Britain. If some stations have usage figures, and some don't, then somebody is going to go around adding usage figures to those that don't. That said, there was a decision a few years back that the usage figures should be limited to the most recent five years. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
This should be removed from the other stations too. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes is the guideline. Infoboxes are for key information only. Not the raw data from which one might plot a chart or analyse a trend. The lead is too important for that. And the long box ruins the article layout. That same guideline says the "which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". So while I appreciate the aims of consistency, if something is bad we don't keep it just because that badness has been repeated. That Signpost article reflects a growing consensus away from non-key data in infoboxes. Please consider a better place for this data, or better yet, interpret it in prose. Colin°Talk19:00, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Colin is correct about this. Wikipedia articles are intended to be mainly in prose and aimed at a general readership. The Signpost discussion shows that the wider editorship of Wikipedia is averse to this kind of bloat in infoboxes. It is inevitable that enthusiasts for any particular subject will always tend to include details that are just a turnoff for the general reader. MoS is a bigger consensus than anything that may be decided by a few editors on a WikiProject.--Charles (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing the exit data from the infoboxes. The consistent location and presentation of this information is unique on the internet and therefore a significant resource for our readers. The Kings Cross infobox needs expansion with more key historical dates, but the lists of stations, external links and links to portals all belong in the see also or external links sections and/or in navboxes. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I would agree with Thryduulf and Redrose, that signpost article is not a policy it's just someone's opinion piece, and has no weight at all in this discussion. I agree with putting the information in the box. However, maybe the text could be made a bit smaller or something to reduce the ammount of space it takes up? G-13114 (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Thryduulf, Redrose and G-13114. This kind of info is (a) useful and (b) more digestible to the reader if presented in this way, rather than in prose. If necessary, reduce the text size, and maybe make the list three years' figures instead of five, since there is nothing magic about five years. However, it would be absurd to do this for just one particular article. We need to agree on a standard policy for all GB station articles. -- Alarics (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Alarics claims (on the article page) that usage figures are "probably the most objective way of distinguishing between important stations and relatively unimportant ones". Ok. So show the current figures. I'm happy with that. There is zero relevance to showing anything older. If the station has become more or less popular then that should be noted in the body text. The stats for the last 5 years are data points, guys, they aren't information. Do you understand the difference? Colin°Talk07:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
They are data points that provide useful information - i.e. they inform the reader. They show the trend of passenger usage over recent years in a consistent location and consistent format that can be taken in quickly - having to hunt through prose to find this information (yes, that's what it is) seriously devalues its usefulness. Information about any significant changes in the figures, including explanations of it do belong in the prose but they are not a replacement for the figures in the infobox. I agree with removing unnecessary things from the infoboxes, but the exits figures for the past few years is important and useful information for articles about railway stations. The reason WikiProjects should be and are responsible for coordinating infoboxes is that they provide a central space where editors who grok the topic can collectively determine what information is useful and important. What is important information about a railway station is different to what is important about an airport, actress or amphibian. Thryduulf (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
If this data is really that important, which I doubt, have a standardised section for it in the body of the article. I suspect that those to whom it actually is interesting will be able to find it elsewhere for themselves. There is no excuse for the "see also" and the external links being in the box. That is against policy.--Charles (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You guys have to appreciate there are readers of train station articles other than rail enthusiasts on a wikiproject. Look at the Kings Cross entry/exit data section. It is a huge block of data. The info box is so long it goes down into much of the next section and if one hides the contents box it is even worse. The current year's values are fine. The previous years data should be plotted on a chart if they are interesting and described in prose if they are notable. Don't stick raw data points in the lead section infobox. Perhaps you should ask for opinions outside of your project, as I think you aren't seeing it with fresh eyes. Colin°Talk10:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Exit data is not interesting or useful only for rail enthusiasts, and our articles serve them just as much as the non-enthusiast. The formatting could definitely be improved, but that is an entirely different proposition to removing the useful data. You can't just say that you are right because you have an outside view any more than I can say that as a non-musician I don't understand the Hornbostel–Sachs classification part of the Violin infoxbox therefore it should be removed. The solution to an infobox that is too long is not to just say "you need to remove this" and then repeat it when people object. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
We can argue and disagree with each other about how useful this is and whether it belongs in the article at all. IMO only the current figures belong in the article. Historical data should be interpreted as it isn't encyclopaedic information - just data. But even if you all decide that five years figures are useful enough for the article, they most certainly do not belong in the lead. The only reason they are in the lead is the enduring problem of infoboxes as a repository for every fact anyone finds remotely interesting and is valid for most articles that use it. We need to get out of that habit. The guideline is quite clear. The lead info box is for key data. Historical numbers to five significant figures are not key data. Move it elsewhere. Colin°Talk12:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The numbers do not belong in the lead section, you are correct as that is for the introductory prose, that's why they are in the infobox which is for structured factual information presented in a consistent format for easy reference and comparison. If the only purpose of the figures was to compare them between articles then yes arguably only the most recent figures would be useful. If the only purpose was to inform the reader about the changes in usage over the past 5 years then a graph might be better. However neither of those are true - the exits information is there to serve both those purposes and also compare changes over time between different articles - for example it is easy to see that three stations in the same city had similar usage figures in 2007-08 but in 2010-11 one experienced a signficiant spike in numbers. You can't do that better than the current system. The precision argument is also irrelevant - different people use the data in different ways, either comparing in detail or taking a broad overview, and neither is more or less valid than the other. The precision allows the detail without materially hindering the broad view (e.g. reading only the millions). If we don't have a list article that can be structured by exit levels we should have one, but that would serve a different audience than the infobox. I agree that infobox bloat is a problem, but you seem unable to grasp that station exit data is not an example of someone's idea of marginally interesting information - it is significant information and only causes any problems with formatting when the interchange data is included to - see Durham railway station for example. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've already accepted that current exit numbers are valid. There is no case for historical values in the lead. That is raw source data. I understand resistance to change but the above is a first class example of someone who has made up his stubborn mind and determined to find reasons (however grasping at straws) to justify that position. If you start with nothing and consider rationally what information is relevant to stations, the degree of importance of that information, how best to present that information and where to put that information into the article, one would not stick ten five-significant-digit data values into the lead of an article. The infobox is not the only way to do this. But since you are all so resistant to change, I'm going to unwatch. Go ask some other people. Your friends, or people you know on other projects. I guarantee you nobody will support putting raw historical data in the lead infobox. Not one. Colin°Talk14:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not resistant to change, I'm just resistant to people justifying their arguments with "you are wrong". The lead section and the infobox are not the same thing, and serve different purposes, and I can think of nowhere better to put structured factual information about the subject of the article other than the box designed for the purpose of displaying structured factual information about the subject of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting there is a closed shop for editing railway articles Redrose? How is editing history relevant?--Charles (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting that somebody who has edited a number of different railway station articles is more likely to be aware of the normal format. Imagine what would happen if I went to WT:MILHIST and told them that the |awards= or |battles= parameter of {{Infobox military person}} was henceforth to be omitted. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
What a group of enthusiasts on a minor WikiProject regard as "normal" may not be in line with the wider consensus of community policies. Colin has made valid points and is now basically being told "Bugger off. You are not an expert." He deserves better. WP:Milhist is a huge worldwide effort and seems to keep its infoboxes to the essentials as far as I can see. No valid comparison there.--Charles (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Colin, surely by now you must see that this proposal isn't going to gain traction? For example, I don't edit this area of the WikiProject's spectrum, and I personally support the inclusion of the data in the lead infobox. So that's your argument of "not one person will agree with you" proven invalid. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)19:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I would say that the information of how much usage a railway station gets, is probably one of the most important pieces of information about it. There might be a valid argument that having usage figures from ten years ago in the infobox isn't necessary, and a lot of people might have sympathy with that. But to call it trivia is absurd. The usage figures are a good way to gauge the importance of a particular station at a glance. For example, you can tell at a glance that Birmingham New Street station is far more important than Birmingham Snow Hill station. Perhaps one possibility would be to have an article called say List of British railway stations by usage, and all of the historical usage date could be put there, and a link could be put to that article in the infobox for anyone who wanted to look it up, and just the past five years of data could be put in the infobox. That might be a satisfactory solution perhaps? G-13114 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The previous year's figure is all that is needed in the box to show how important a station is. Longer term trends can and should be discussed in the body of the article to avoid clutter. Nobody has produced any convincing argument why this should not be done.--Charles (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean other than being able to see the trends at a glance that I mentioned? Presently I can see at a glance whether the relative importance of two stations is changing, which I can't do if I have to hunt down relevant prose that may or may not exist - there is little you can say in prose about the usage of the station has remained stable for the past five years, but that is easily shown with the information in the infobox and is just as valuable as where usage has dramatically changed. If in the infobox figures I see that there was a dramatic usage change (e.g. as at Canonbury railway station) which tells me more about the station than just a single figure would - I wouldn't know to look at what significant changes were. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Charles, what is the difference between the approach here and infoboxes about footballers and cricketers which list in detail their career stats? Surely these could also be re-written in prose form? Ditto infoboxes about ships and tanks which go into great detail about their dimensions. Just looking at HMS Victory, far more technical information is presented in the infobox than is the case with King's Cross. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There are no doubt many other examples of infobox bloat which need to be addressed. Have you guys ever noticed that blue thingy to the left of the infobox? It is called the Table of Contents. See it? Good. Now just suppose there was a section listed there called "Passenger numbers" or "Usage". Click on it and you could find much more than the last five years of raw data. A table of the same statistics, but going back further into history if needed, supported by some prose about reasons for changes in usage. A particular station might have been important during wartime for instance or there may have been new developments in the area. Not hard to find and much more interesting and encyclopaedic than five year's raw data in the infobox. Wikipedia articles are intended to cater for the reasonably educated general reader, not for specialists in a subject. I doubt if many of those readers will be so desperate for data on usage changes over time that they can not scroll down the page to find it. Infoboxes are intended for key facts only. Current usage may be a key fact but the history of use is not.--Charles (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Charles clearly has a bee in his bonnet about this really very narrow point. He has evidently not persuaded the rest of us of the case for altering 2,500 articles, and if you are not going to change all of them there is no point in changing any of them. I along with Lamberhurst, Thryduulf, Redrose64, G-13114, and Lukeno94 think there is nothing wrong with the system as it is. Leave it be. -- Alarics (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually looking at it, the amount of space you would save by removing the usage data isn't all that great tbh. I hardly think it's worth re-editing 2500 articles for such a minor benefit. G-13114 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we should all obey the commands that Charles has issued. He is a Senior Editor on Wikipedia, and has a Rhodium star to prove it. Well done Wikipedia for creating a clique that does everything to ensure that the "Oh Shit!" graph continues its downward slope. Bhtpbank (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I know (hope) that comment is tongue-in-cheek, but by that system as master editor I out-rank Charles and could have a platinum star on my userpage if I believed in it. Thryduulf (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Rankings based on edit count mean very little as some editors do hours of research to make one edit while others almost mechanically transfer primary data into tables all day long. When editors have to resort to the kind of sarcasm above it implies that they have no reasoned argument. So it seems that the only substantive objection to Colin's proposal is the number of articles to be changed. Nobody is saying it can or should be done all at once but it would be something worthwhile for the project to aspire to in the longer term.--Charles (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Rankings based on edit count mean very little as some editors do hours of research to make one edit while others almost mechanically transfer primary data into tables all day long Indeed edit counts mean very little, which is why I don't have an editor ranking on my page at all. It would have been better had you made your point without resorting to slurring editors who compile data from tables though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
No, it is very clearly not the only "substantive objection", given that several users view the information as relevant, and various people seem to object to someone with little, or no, experience in this field demanding changes. Have you actually read the comments at all? Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)09:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Substantive objections that have been made in no particular order:(1) number of articles to change; (2) no significant reduction in infobox size; (3) the information is useful for at least three distinct purposes; (4) the same information would be less useful presented in another format (e.g. as prose or as a graph); (5) the information placed elsewhere in the article would not be consistently located; (6) the layout is only an issue on a tiny number of articles and fixing that doesn't require removing the information; (7) this is the sort of information infoboxes are designed for. And that's conservatively numbered and just the ones I remember off the top of my head. Compared to the reasons for the proposal: (1) The infobox is too long; (2) This isn't useful; (3) this is primary data. (1) Does not require this information to be removed, the external links etc would reudce the length far more for example; (2) It has been demonstrated that it is useful for at least three different purposes; (3) This is irrelevant to whether the information it provides is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
@Thryduulf. I request that you strike through your accusation of a "slur" above. There was no slur but merely a factual comment on why edit counts vary and are of little importance. I still believe the proposed changes would be an improve ment as far as the average reader is concerned but we will just have to differ on that.--Charles (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I vote we wrap this discussion up now, as it obviously isn't going anywhere. And spend our time on something more productive! G-13114 (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
You can take raw data and turn it into useful information. See the chart below. The chart could show other series too such as turnover. Raw data does not belong it the lead. Colin°Talk10:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Waterloo National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Durham National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Thurso National Rail annual entry and exit (thousands)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Homerton National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Dovey Junction National Rail annual entry and exit (thousands)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Teeside Airport National Rail annual entry and exit
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
While that is interesting, it is actually less useful than the way it is currently presented. At present I can see at a glance the actual figures for each year and the increase or decrease, at a glance in every article that has the data. With the graph I first have to work out the scale, then take an appoximate reading for each value. I cannot use it to tell at a glance whether Kings Cross was busier than Waterloo in a given year. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't tell "at a glance" from the info box data either unless you are above average mathematically. It is just numbers. People are remarkably blind to numbers and can't hold more than a few digits in their head at one time. Showing these figures to five significant figures just causes viewer fatigue. If you think comparing station is encyclopaedia interesting, then create list showing stations by entry/exit figures. The user can sort them and you can plot a chart of them all on the same scale. If you want the charts below to be comparable, then use a consistent scale. It isn't hard. The point I keep making, and you aren't addressing, is that five years worth of data points does not belong in the lead. Colin°Talk12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't use a consistent scale when you're dealing with numbers the range of single digits to tens of millions. The numbers are comparable because the length changes and there is only two separate scales - millions and units. See above for more. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
As an example, look at the following graphs and see how difficult it is to compare at a glance the different scales, ranges and units involved:
example graphs
Waterloo National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Durham National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Thurso National Rail annual entry and exit (thousands)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Homerton National Rail annual entry and exit (millions)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Dovey Junction National Rail annual entry and exit (thousands)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Teeside Airport National Rail annual entry and exit
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Identify the LU Stock
[2] - I think it's 1959 stock, on the basis it had Piccadilly and Central writing on it, but can't be sure. Can anyone confirm/deny? It was at Acton Works. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The 1959 and 1962 Tube Stocks were very similar externally (although there were several internal differences); numbers are the best means for identification. If the second digit is 0 to 3, it's 1959 Stock; 4 to 7 is 1962 Stock. The 1959 Stock was ordered as 7-car trains (one 4-car unit and one 3-car) for the Piccadilly Line; the 1962 Stock as 8-car (two 4-car units) for the Central Line. However, in the early days, 57 of the 1959 Stock trains ran as 8-car trains on the Central Line, and in the 1970s, some 1962 Stock trains were reduced to 7 cars and sent to the Piccadilly. From 1975, the 1959 Stock was transferred to the Northern. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Longest journey non-stop?
I went to the Lake District last month, travelling Euston to Crewe non-stop. I wondered if this was the longest non-stop distance operated by any operator, until on the way back we non-stopped Warrington to Euston. So, what is the longest possible distance a train in the UK travels between station stops? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC).
I think the longest are East Coasts 05:40 Flying Scotsman service from Edinburgh Waverley to London King's Cross. It calls at Newcastle Central and then non-stop for 2:37 mins to London. The second is Virgin's 16:30 London Euston - Glasgow Central which calls at Preston only (London - Preston 2 hours & Preston - Glasgow 2hrs 8 mins). The third is probably East Coast/Grand Central York - London (1hr 50min non-stop). I'm not sure the mileage though. Likelife (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The Glasgow sleeper [4] has no scheduled stops between Carlisle and Watford Junction (5 hours up, 4 hours 42 minutes down) and the Inverness sleeper between Falkirk Grahamston and Preston (4 hours 17 down). Do these stop for crew changes? Edgepedia (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The up train stops for crew change at Warrington Bank Quay 03:09 to 03:11 ... but for mileage it's King's Cross to Newcastle per Redrose below. Edgepedia (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Mileages (to nearest quarter mile) are given in the left margin of the Complete national rail timetable - Network Rail. Table 26 has Kings Cross-York 188+1⁄2, Kings Cross-Newcastle 268+1⁄2. Table 65 has Euston-Warrington BQ 182, Euston-Preston 209. To compete with these, the Western Region would need to run non-stop from Paddington to at least Truro 279+1⁄2; but I don't think that there are any trains that skip Exeter St Davids 173+3⁄4 let alone Plymouth North Road 225+3⁄4. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The Inverness/Fort William/Aberdeen sleepers combine at Edinburgh Waverley, and although there are no passenger stops between Edinburgh and Preston, this train (the 1M16) departs Edinburgh Waverley at 01:22 (01:06 Mondays only) and is booked to stop at Carlisle (arr 02:49½, dep 02:51½) to change crew; see Working Timetable Section CE02, page 121. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Whenever I read publications talking about the line between Settle and Carlisle, it's always referred to as the "Settle AND Carlisle". Yet our article is "Settle-Carlisle", which conflicts with our general preference for line names of the form "Settle TO Carlisle". Should we move it? If so what to? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I live locally and all three Settle-Carlisle, Settle and Carlisle, Settle to Carlisle are all used fairly indiscriminately in the press etc although the first two are more frequently used that the last. NtheP (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Yonge, John (2005) [1990]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 4: Midlands & North West (2nd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 34. ISBN0-9549866-0-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
This uses "Settle and Carlisle Line" throughout; and the engineers' line ref is SAC - Settle And Carlisle.
The conjunction has been "and" for as long as I recall (30+ years). I believe that it's to do with how the line was financed and constructed - perhaps there was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Midland Railway like a "Settle and Carlisle Railway"? My father once explained it to me that railway companies are always "and", never "to", because when you raise the money, you don't want to give prospective shareholders the impression that having arrived at Carlisle, they can't get home again. AFAIK there is only one one-way rail line in Britain - Stockport to Stalybridge Line. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Midland Railway System Maps (The Distance Diagrams), volume 1 - Carlisle to Leeds and Branches (The Settle & Carlisle Line) (1913-1920 ed.). Teignmouth: Peter Kay. 1998 [1992]. map 1G, 2, 3, 4. ISBN1-899890-25-4.
This series of maps - prepared by the Midland Railway circa 1914 - uses "M.R. Settle and Carlisle" throughout. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Please help get rail-related listed structures ready for the start of the Wiki Loves Monuments competition on 1st September
In September the UK is taking part for the first time in the international photography competition Wiki Loves Monuments. Participants will be invited to submit pictures of listed structures of significant importance (eg grades I or grade II* or equivalent), as recorded by English Heritage, Historic Scotland, Cadw and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency . The main external website for competitors can be found here, and you can leave a message there if you have queries about competing. Do please join in, and let people in your local area know of this excellent way in which both existing and new Wiki users can help improve the encyclopaedia by contributing photographs of local listed structures. What about organizing a local Wikimeet to attract new people?
In preparation for the start of the competition on 1st September there is still quite a lot of work to do, and we would like to ask for the help of members of this wikiproject. Many of the listed structures are residential or other buildings, but there are a significant number of rail-related listed structures that may be of specific interest to members of this project. Your local and expert knowledge will be invaluable in ensuring that the lists of eligible structures are up to date and correctly formatted. If you look at Listed buildings in the United Kingdom you will see how many structures are included. If you then follow the links, you can get to the detailed lists for your area. Alternatively have a look at the WLM planning table. Can you help to ensure that the lists for your area are up to date and well presented?
Some of the lists have been semi-automatically generated from data provided by the official listing organizations. These use pre formatted templates (eg EH header) which will make it much easier for competition participants to upload their photographs to Commons as an automated process. Please don't change the template structure, as we need to ensure that the templates are properly compatible with the WLM standards that are in use worldwide. The format will allow a bot automatically to collect the information and to put it into the international Monuments Database.
The data still needs the attention of local editors:
The "title" may need wikilinking to a suitable article name (whether we currently have that article or not). If there are several buildings in one street all of the wikilinks point at an article about the street; however each entry has a separate line in the list.
The "location" column looks and sorts better if just the parish or town is included (& wikilinked).
The "date completed" column sometimes has eg "C19" for 19th century, and "C1850" for c. 1850 when the date is uncertain - these need to be corrected manually.
The "grid ref & lat & long" (which is occasionally missing) may be given to 8 characters — only 6 (grid ref) or 5 (lat & long) are really needed.
Clicking on the "list entry number" should take you to the data sheet for that entry on the official database which can be checked if needed for details.
The image column should have a picture added if we already have a suitable image on Commons. (N.B. if you are going to be taking photos yourself for inclusion in the competition don't upload them until September)
References may be added according to normal WP practice.
Something more enlightening to talk about. I've come across this picture of a class 33 which is obviously lost. It is claimed to be Exeter St Davids but the extra tracks and the double goods shed don't look right, and I'm not convinced that the lamp posts are either. Its carrying a 62 route code which I'm sure was the Waterloo to Exeter line so its probably not too far away. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
According to
Bailey, M.R. (1968). British Rail Headcodes (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 59. ISBN0-7110-0000-X. 458 GEX 268. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
code 62 was Waterloo & Woking, Basingstoke or Salisbury (semi-fast). That book is from 1968, so may be out of date considering that the loco has a TOPS number, these being applied from January 1973. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Bradshaw
There is a very early Bradshaw on Wikisource, I'd like some assistance in
i)getting it transcribed.
ii) Adding appropriate cross references on Station / Company names Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
What's the purpose? If Bradshaw exists as a scan, then surely that's enough. What value does Wikipedia gain from having it transcribed??? Bhtpbank (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Cross-referencing , as I;ve attempted to do with some of the better scanned pages
Thanks. Just looking at that page, clicking on the redlink for page 33 brings up a deletion message from 17 December 2012 that the text is "Incomplete, broken in numerous places and has scan issues". Has this been fixed? Lamberhurst (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC).
That deletion message was in respect of the specfic page, since then I've asked someone else to have a look at 'cleaning' and rotating the scans. If anyone can find better scan, feel free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Is it definitely the same loco? There are at least three 0-6-0T masquerading as Thomas; they're moved around the country for special events, etc. There's one that visits Didcot two or three times a year. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure that's the same- it's mentioned in the list of preserved Hunslets, no. 3781 of 1952, previously named "Linda", changed sex in 1994, and now in a civil partnership with "Sandy" the well-tank. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an Austerity cab, running gear (look at the square-section spokes) and the extra-long safety valves and dome usually indicate a conversion from a saddle tank. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Next and Previous conflicts
I was hoping someone could give me some guidance for next/previous stations in the Bristol area. The following are the lines involved:
Great Western Main Line has Paddington as the beginning, next moving west towards Weston-super-Mare.
South Wales Main Line has next moving east.
Cross Country Route has next moving north, with the exception of the Patchway/Filton CDF-MAN via BRI service.
Severn Beach Line starts at Severn Beach and moves towards Temple Meads by next
Wessex Main Line and Heart of Wessex Line move east/south by next.
I am particularly interested in changing Bristol Parkway and other SWML stations to match GWML standard, although this will conflict with the XCR between BPW and BRI. But anyway, thoughts....
My normal practice - which I got from Lamberhurst (talk·contribs) is to put west (or north) to the left - |previous= - and east (or south) to the right - |next=. For east/west, this has the advantage of being the same as a map. So:
Great Western Main Line: |previous= is towards Weston-super-Mare, |next= is towards Paddington
South Wales Main Line: |previous= is towards Carmarthen, |next= is towards Paddington
Cross Country Route: |previous= is towards Newcastle, |next= is towards Plymouth
Severn Beach Line: |previous= is towards Severn Beach, |next= is towards Bristol Temple Meads
Wessex Main Line and Heart of Wessex Line: |previous= is towards Cardiff, |next= is towards Weymouth or Southampton
Redrose is quite right, I've always used north/south and west/east with routeboxes following the general logic of the Up/Down approach. So for the routes in Mattbuck's example, the CCR and GWML should be reversed. If we could agree on this approach, perhaps the convention could be updated? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and FWIW, if we were to go with a solution like that, I would personally have next going north, and we would be screwed (if next were north and east) if a line went south-east. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
If you put north to the right but west to the left, which way around would the WCML and Chiltern lines go? Both have a strong north-westerly tendency. A check of a GB rail map such as this one shows that the number of main railway lines whose prevailing direction lies between north and west (or, between south and east) is somewhat greater than those whose prevailing direction lies between north and east (or, between south and west). So, by placing north to the left, we get the ECML, Midland, WCML, Chiltern, Great Western and South Western all with London to the right. The main difficulty is which way to put the London-Norwich and London-Portsmouth lines (local lines would be decided case by case). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd say all those lines go a lot more north than west, but you get my point it seems - geography is an awful way to determine next/previous. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered using either the Up/Down direction (from the Working Timetable)? Makes sense as this is not really geographic, but based on actual service patterns. Bhtpbank (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Help with fixing template
Hello there, I tried to update this template Template:GBsta-u to include the figures for 2011-2012. But for some reason it doesn't work properly. I wondered if someone here could take a look at it. For some reason no column shows up under 2011-2012. This is what I get:
The annual passenger usage is based on sales of tickets in stated financial years from Office of Rail and Road estimates of station usage. The statistics are for passengers arriving and departing from each station and cover twelve-month periods that start in April. Methodology may vary year on year. Usage from the periods 2019-20 and especially 2020-21 onwards have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic
Done but looks like we're blocked on Ilkeston until we know for sure what will be its name. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.levyboy.com/2340183469_8dc4b57cef.jpg){kind=link}
