User talk:Geof Sheppard

Hello, welcome to Geof's talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom and start with an appropriate heading, for better formatting. You can just press the plus sign (+) on the top of this page to do that. Don't forget to sign it by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

To avoid fragmented discussions, if you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, on my talk page, in an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember we can use our watch list to keep track and know when each other respond to each comment. Thank you!

Moretonhampstead

Thanks for putting me right. I purchased this photo years ago in Teignmouth. I always thought that a pixie was standing against the fence in the foreground!! Computer magnification dispels that belief. I am glad you like the photographs of the last train - one (Heathfield) was wrong & is now corrected. I am writing an article on the Haytor Granite Tramway at the moment.

Rosser1954

Falmouth Docks railway station and friends

There are a couple of places in these articles where you got your Wiki markup wrong:

=History=

should be

==History==

since headings are meant to start at the second level (the first being reserved for the page heading), and

[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk| The National Archives]

should be

[http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk The National Archives]

since external links use a space to separate the target from the text, not a pipe. Still it's nice to see station articles that do more than describe the current train service. I'll tidy them up when I add pictures to them. --bjh21 11:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of railway viaducts in the United Kingdom

I need some help with the expansion of this list. I hope to this will contain all the railway viaducts and bridges in the UK. Simply south 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Viaducts list

I will move the page in accordance. Simply south 12:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents

Another editor has listed an article that you may have an interest in, South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Devon Sea Wall Rail Incidents. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. -- Eastmain 19:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

China Clay Railways

I was thinking "Cornish China Clay Mining" or "China Clay Mining in Cornwall" would be a good title for the main article (other potential names could be redirects), as it is the origin of the freight on the railway anyway, and in that capacity the article would serve as the "origin" of the railway articles (albeit created in the wrong order), almost like a start page where users can follow the process from the pit to the railway to the port, or back the other way. It would basically be the tree trunk from which other articles branch out. I was thinking that to coordinate our efforts we might want to start a wikiproject to perhaps encourage others to participate in areas needing attention? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 15:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Inviting contributions through the Cornwall wikiproject sounds like a good idea to me. The subject is within the scope of the project, and as a standalone topic probably isn't large enough to make the grade for a wikiproject - I was mainly thinking in terms of ways in which we could bring attention to this overlooked area. Cornish mining in general is probably a better bet for a wikiproject, but at the time I was fresh out of ideas.

As for the title of the article, whichever title is chosen we must be mindful of all potential search strings, and make allowances for these by the provision of redirect articles for as many variations as we deem most likely. Also, a link/disambiguation to the Cornish China Clay page on the Kaolinite article, and vice versa, may also be helpful to people interested in the subject. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cornish Riviera Express

Geoff - re your edit to Solihull - I have no doubt that you are right that the Cornish Riviera Express ran from Paddington and therefore not via Solihull. However...... as a 10 year old train-spotter, spotting from a bridge over the line just above Solihull station, we used to see Kings and Castles wearing the Cornish Riviera Express plate hauling long passenger trains out of Snowhill. It is possible that they may be been out of service or in transit but as a 10 year old the only way that I would ever have known of such a service was to see the trains themselves. Any explanations would be very welcome. Velela 14:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - you are probably right - I can only blame ageing brain cells !Velela 16:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Navigation template formatting

This is fixed now... I put   (non-[line]-breaking space) between the two words to prevent it from line wrapping there, and forxe the table's colun to be wide enough. By the way, when doing templates links using {{tl}}, use curly brackets, not square ones :-) Tompw (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Highbridge railway station

Thanks for putting the picture up on this page, I've always wondered what the station looked like during the Somerset & Dorset days! PiffPuffPickle 11:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Camping Coaches

Having added the list of stations from the 1957 leaflet from BR I intend to work through the links etc when I have the time. Please feel free to add comments particularly re the format; I feel that a single column would look simpler but leave a lot of white space and little content. The next job is to ensure that all links go to the stations not the towns - do you think that putting in red links for stations would encourage people to write more station articles? Britmax 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Railway stations on the South West Coast Path

Hi there. I've made some modifications to your table of distance to the path on each railway station article and changed it to a template, Template:Swcp. Hopefully this will make it easier to maintain and ensure consistency across the articles. I've added Category:Railway stations on the South West Coast Path to the template so it doesn't need adding manually. Regards. Adambro 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bristol stations

Should i make the older template a redirect to this one?

Secondly, instead of the name Bristol railway stations, i think it would be beter called Greater Bristol railway stations as it does not just serve the Bristol area. Simply south 16:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Closed stations (general comments regarding grouped pages)

The Disused railway stations (Bristol to Exeter Line) article is definitely the way to go regarding closed stations. It should address the majority of concerns about their inclusion in WP. Do you think the article would cope with the addition of station photos?

Main reason for writing is that when I was proof-reading, I checked that Hele was correct (it was, but there is a Hele Bay in North Devon, isn't there?) and noted that that article referred to its railway station. So, I created an anchored link back to your article. And the thought struck me: shouldn't we do this for each of the stations mentioned?

My initial thought was that it should be the article creator who does this linking ( :o) ), but I've since realised that there's enough work to make it into a mini-mini-project for each page – it would be enough to have a talk page list of the stations to link and some means of indicating which had been done, and any editor could then work their way through the list....

Just a thought!

(It's surprising what these routemaps have unleashed, isn't it?)

EdJogg 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is always my intention to wade through station and route articles, checking that there are working links both ways between the railway and topgraphical articles. As you have noticed, there can be a lot of these. Sometimes I get bored with clicking on all those links so I go off and write another article instead! (Exeter to Plymouth is on the way - most of it is merging the old individual pages)

I love the way that Wikipedeans tend to smooth out most of these blips (and the proof-reading - thanks for yours). Geof Sheppard 15:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. The pages would be improved if there were photographs of the stations - both as they used to be and also as they are now where there are visible remians. Geof Sheppard 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line)

Just completed my proof-reading of Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line).

Not many problems to fix, and just a few requiring consultation:

• Wrangaton railway station would appear to be redundant now. Redirect required?
• Exminster and Cornwood both use the phrase "station staff master", which I don't recognise. Do you mean "station staff", "station master" or "station master and staff"? Or something else?
• Route-map contains a few omissions/anomalies:
  • Kingsbridge Branch Line is not shown, although mentioned in text. (Incidentally, trying to include links to both "Kingsbridge" and "Kingsbridge Branch" in such a short space is tricky, isn't it? I hope my revised text is still OK with you!)
  • Cornwall-bound trains would appear to have to reverse at Plymouth Millbay, which I didn't think was the case...

Keep up the good work! -- EdJogg 13:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I take a few days off, come back to finish editing the new page and you have done half of it for me. And someone nominated for the Main Page DYK!

I think I have finished the merges, but there is still the links to and from the topographical pages relating to all these towns that need to be added. (BTW - Cornwood and Exminster never had station masters based there, the accommodation was for "the person in charge")Geof Sheppard 13:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Having just proof-read Disused railway stations (Newton Abbot to Kingswear Line) and subsequently looked at Riviera Line, I couldn't help feeling that there was a certain amount of overlap between the two routemaps. Indeed Riviera Line's map seems to duplicate quite a few other maps' features, and still contains some closed stations, although there were some features (eg crossings and tunnels) that appeared to be unique. It just occurred to me that you might care to consider all this during your rationalisation process. (I think I found at least four pages containing maps which showed all or part of the Painton to Dartmouth Steam Railway, and each showed a slightly different set of features!)

EdJogg 12:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We are both thinking along the same lines. My gut feeling is that the disused stations with little or no remains should disappear from the route articles, and the historic company articles should only show features open before they were taken over by the GWR/LSWR/whoever. I'm holding back for a few days in case the discussion at UK Railways throws up any extreme views. Somehow, I doubt it!

The station articles have very few non-station features on purpose - they are about stations, after all! I'm not sure that the "LUECKE" icons are relevant on these, or else the links could be changed to be like "Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line)|To Exeter"? Geof Sheppard 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem about the 'non-station' features, although I would have thought it helpful/appropriate to include links to the main 'line' article. As for 'LUECKE' icons, I think they make it clearer where a line continues, and look more natural than an abrupt end. In general I have avoided adding them to branch lines (although that would be a natural progression!) as I anticipate they would become overpowering -- maybe something a little more understated is required for these?

EdJogg 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line)

On 19 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

But I hadn't proof-read it yet!! (It was on my todo list, honest.)

Have done so now! (reactive editing :o)). Fortunately, not much needed doing.

You're doing well with DYKs, aren't you?

--EdJogg 08:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the discussion we had regarding map rationalisation (see above), but having just compared this route map with the Cornish Main Line map, it is clear that they both need some attention. It is surprisingly difficult to compare the two! Listing the many differences would be unhelpful here, so I won't. But if you take a look you may agree, for example, that the various branch lines should look the same (I love the Gunnislake branch loop on the CML page!) and that there should be similar 'features' on both maps to aid navigation and context-setting.

(This is not intended as a 'nag'. Rather it is that I had made a note to do this comparison and thought I'd mention my conclusion here for your future reference!)

EdJogg 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Route over the Treffry Viaduct.

Hello Geof.

I've just noticed a small inconsistency between the excellent route diagrams that you have created for the articles on the Atlantic Coast Line, Cornwall and the Cornwall Minerals Railway.

• The ACL article shows that the former tramway that ran over the Treffry Viaduct had a direct route from Pontsmill to Luxulyan without reversal.

• The CMR article shows a reversal being needed at a point marked The Treffry Viaduct, Colcerrow Tramway.

I've no idea which is correct. It is possible both were true at different times. But equally one might be a simple markup error with the rather fiddly graphics, so I thought I'd best point it out. Any thoughts?. -- Chris j wood 17:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! it is a complicated location and I got my right mixed up with my left. I think the CMR map is now essentially correct, although I have a nagging doubt in the back of my mind that the Colcerrow branch was actually fed off a kick-back siding as the curve is so tight at the end of the viaduct. Geof Sheppard 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes Hello, as a fellow member of the trains wiki-project, is it possible that you could give a run-through of the above article, as it is up for FA status. Any feedback you give would be gratefully received, and taken onboard on improving this article for FA status. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway‎

Hi, I see that you removed the 'Broad guage' cat from this railway - ISTR reading somewhere that the lines were actually a mix of guages at one stage, as at least one of the constituent railway companies used broad guage, but I can't recall or find out which one, off-hand. A couple of the stations look like they were once broad guage. I'm travelling for the next few weeks so won't have a chance to track down the reference, but you might want to keep an eye open for this. Best regards, Ephebi 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

? Wikiproject Somerset

Hi, Have you seen the proposal to create a Somerset wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals ?— Rod ^talk 17:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rail Templates

I still prefer the old ones Mark999 13:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC) can i have a say in something Mark999 22:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs)

Experiments should not be put on live pages - they should be for talk and project pages. And I've been through the discussion and can see no evidence of any agreement for changing infoboxes. Besides which, the emphasis should not be on the route but the operator, and your experimental ones do not give this emphasis. Unless there is agreement that infoboxes across the entire network be changed en masse, then they should be left alone. I will be changing them back at the earliest opportunity. Hammersfan 02/10/07, 14.20 BST —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 13:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Devonport railway station

Hi, I've just realised that we have an article on the GWR Devonport railway station but not one on the LSWR station - would you be able to start one? The reason I'm asking you is that you seem to be highly knowledgeable and productive about railways. Thanks. DuncanHill 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is on my "dreckly" list! Right now I am trying to advance all the stub status open railway station articles, but at some point I need to fill in all the gaps for the closed lines and Kings Road and Friary are both important ones that are currently missing. In the meantime, I am watching the slow advance of the West of England Main Line and the associated routes, so someone might beat me to it! Geof Sheppard 13:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, cool - I must say I really appreciate all your contributions, I've learnt so much through reading them. Best wishes, DuncanHill 13:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

All done now – Devonport Kings Road railway station and Plymouth Friary railway station, with Railways in Plymouth as a bonus! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You deserve one of these

		The Original Barnstar
		for consistent hard work on railways in the West Country DuncanHill 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Franchise changes

Please can you leave them, its only 5 days and there are so many about, think it would be easier to leave them Mark999 14:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject UK Railways has always followed the WP:CRYSTAL process of not including future events unless they are notable, hence it is okay to create a page for a new franchise when it is awarded, but this information is not put into the station link boxes of individual station articles until the actual change. With the Virgin CrossCountry franchise changing to Arriva on 11 November 2007, that is when the changes should be made. Newquay railway station in particular does not need to change so early as Ariva does not Arrive there until next summer.

Similarly, I notice that the planned december changes to the First Great Western local services pattern around Bristol have started to appear. (Groan! I thought they had settled that last year!). IMHO this just confuses the station link boxes. Remember, Wikipedia is not a timetable Geof Sheppard 08:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment desired

Your input would be very much appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#S-rail redux. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Penwith Wikiproject & Cornwall Wikiproject

Hi, I see you are a member of the Cornwall Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge the Penwith Wikiproject into it. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lostiwthiel

Ummm.... this diff [1] - spot the deliberate mistake? DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it starts with the right letter...! Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

Geoff, re: [2]. There you go, you really do learn something new every day. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Gwernol 14:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A question for you

Hi Geoff, I hope you are well. I asked a question at Template talk:Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line), which I then thought would be right up your street - hope you can answer. DuncanHill (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Well spotted! That's the problem with laying in redlinks months before the article actually gets written! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - and thanks for all you've done on railways in Cornwall. There is a new article at Transport in Cornwall which needs expansion - fancy taking on the rail section? I can't think of anyone who could do a better job. DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Back to Bristol stations

With the template mentioned above, i'm not sure what to do with it so i have left a note on WT:Rail. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Devon Belle Observation Coach

A picture at last!! Thank you! EdJogg (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Culm Valley Light Railway

I would query your removal of Tiverton Parkway, Tiverton station and the Exe Valley line from the diagram here. My thinking was that in its previous form the diagram informed the uninitiated that the current Tiverton Parkway is neither the station in the town, nor on the site of the former junction station, and showed what the relationship of these railways was: and for very little diagram space used. Thoughts? Britmax (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I always thinks that an article's diagram should reflect the article. As the subject for this one is the Culm Valley line then Tiverton Parkway is certainly outside the scope (both geographically and historically) and Tiverton railway station itself is only relevant as to show where some of the through trains ran to, but that line too should just be the subject of a separate article (I was originally thinking of creating the Tiverton branch as just a sub-heading in the histroy of Tiverton station – see Clevedon railway station for the nearest west Country equivalent. After logging off I thought that it might make sense to leave the LUECKE for the branch but show an exBHF for Tiverton station (a similar thing happens on the Reading to Plymouth Line diagram to show Paddington and Penzance).

A thought for the station articles... rather than create a series of stubs that are unlikey to ever become fully-fledged articles, why not add the stations to the exisiting Culm Valley article and just create redirect pages for the individual names? (As was done for Castle Cary Cut-Off).

But thanks for working on the articles for this area - I can cross them off my to do list! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great Western Railway

Keep up the good work with this. I'm making proof-reading your changes a priority, as you make them, but only to a 'normal' level. Once we actually try for GA status it'll need a more serious proof-read, but you need a 'complete' article before doing that really.

Anyway, the reason for dropping by was to suggest that the history in the infobox should include a reference to The Grouping. Was there any change of status to the company at this point, or did it simply inherit a number of smaller railways? (The latter is all I am aware of, and I couldn't think of a 2-3 word description for the infobox!) Of course, it may be sufficient to mention the 1921 Railways Act at that point and be done with it!

EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to drop by! I'm particularly interested in seeing how the GWR fits into the semi-standardised layout that has been suggested for the Big Four as its continuity through the Grouping makes it a rather more complex beast than the other three. I think that it was legally the same copmany, and anyway the merged railways were spread over about 30 months so there was not one simple date. I'm mulling over the Infobox and will put some comments on the UK Rail project talk page sometime next week (I'll be off network for a couple of days now).

I am thundering through all the likely sections so that we can get a proper feel for what the finished article will look like, and going back to do a rewrite on the History and Locomotives sections will almost certainly fall at the end of the To Do list (you never know, someone else may get there first:-)

The next things to tackle are the People and Operations sections, then I want to finish the Further reading, See also, and External links. If the sky stays blue I'm off with the camera tomorrow to try to fill a couple of gaps in the images. Meanwhile, there is also Bristol Temple Meads railway station which I satrted doing a rewrite of before this turned up in the project "goals", and I am hoping that thinking through the GA process will help me clarify how to finish the job on GWR. My guess is BTM can be nominated in June or July if the locals don't revert the Services or Description section, and then GWR about August.

More power to your dictionary! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion. In the "Heritage" section should we mention the 'heritage' which is still in daily use? For example, that many of the structures and stations have been individually Listed? I was thinking of continuing by saying something like: "...stations such as Paddington, Hanwell, Slough, and Windsor & Eton Central – despite later modifications to reflect changing traffic patterns – clearly show the varied architectural heritage handed-down from the GWR." I'm quite happy for you to work-in the paragraph yourself and re-word it as you see fit!

I must try and do another proof-read, as it is a while since I last did so. At present I'm still tackling the watchlist backlog from my two weeks of holiday! (And there's also Bulleid Pacific tackling the Southern counterpart article to proof-read -- but that's my fault as I put him up to it!) EdJogg (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done that – and I thought I had covered all the angles! I have left it alone for a few weeks so that I can come back to it with a fresh pair of eyes. I won't have much time for editing over the next couple of weeks, but then I think it will be time to give it a final push on to GA.

Not that I've been taking it too quietly. I've been working up Royal Albert Bridge and Plymouth railway station with an eye on GA status for both of them. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi - just a little request. When you change the order of sections, could you do so in a separate edit to any text changes (and indicate so in the summary)? I try to remember to do this myself, although I don't always succeed. The reason for asking is that it makes proof reading the differences that much easier. (Your recent edits to GWR showed the entire Passenger and Freight sections in red, in the diff window. I managed to check the text by copying the previous text into the current article and examining the changes.)

Cheers - EdJogg (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean! I moved the two tables up to the top of their sections (in two separate edits) to get rid of the white space at the end of the sections. Wiki's 'history' treats each line of the table as a paragraph and got rather confused. I'll try to remember that if I need to do something similar in the future. Thanks for keeping an eye on this one - at this rate it will be Christmas before I get to the bottom of it all! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is so easily done. Simply adding/removing a line break can throw the system -- I don't think the diff tool is very advanced.

'fraid I keep getting side-tracked from the GWR task. First Manchester Bolton and Bury Canal (now at FA, although my contribution was small, and 50% late!) and more recently Bridgwater and Taunton Canal (currently up for GA)...the second of these was a response to a personal request for help proof-reading.

Let me know when you think you're in a position to submit the GWR article. It is on my ToDo list as needing a full re-read, but it's probably best if I just keep monitoring changes for now and leave the full review to be fresh for GA.

EdJogg (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Monarch's Way

Hi Geof, Ages ago you did some great work on South West Coast Path & I wondered if you would be interested in helping with the Monarch's Way article. I've started using the talk page as a sandbox in the same way you did & any contributions would be great.— Rod ^talk 22:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ashburton railway station

Having seen the tweaks you did to this article after I passed by I'd say thanks for pulling me back to it, I'd forgotten to do a routebox. And why I didn't think of putting one of the pictures in the infobox I don't know, good idea. Could I ask, though, why you rounded off the dates in the infobox to years when both Butt and Karau have the same days and months? Britmax (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Some Infoboxes have full dates and some just have years (clue: parameter is "years"...). I tend to use just the years now as (1) the Infobox is a summary of the more complete data that is found elsewhere in the article, (2) some cited dates (not here, but at other places) are just months or even years, and (3) since the automatic date formatting is no longer used in Wiki, just having the year makes for a tidier list. Of course, other people have other views! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of railways of Cornwall

Hi Geoff, I notice that you have contributed to many railway articles. I have drawn a map of the railways in Cornwall (for another project) which I have uploaded to my talk page. I would be very grateful if you could check the map for accuracy, add any comments if you want, and (once it is corrected) suggest suitable deployments. Please reply to my talk page. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, Geoff. Thanks very much for your constructive comments on the railway map of Cornwall. I have incorporated your changes and you may wish to check the revised map on my talk page. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

And 'hi' again! I have uploaded another map on my talk page. This one shows the (major) closed GWR lines, the former LSWR system in north Cornwall, and the existing lines. Please have a look and leave any corrections and comments on my talk page. Thanks very much, Andy F (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

PS I have now added the original map to the page List of railway stations in Cornwall. Andy F (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Transport in Cornwall

Hi Geof, I have been working on the Transport in Cornwall page and today I have uploaded a substantial expansion of the article. As you have been a major contributor to the article, I would be very grateful if you would have a look at what I've uploaded. Please expand it and/or edit it as necessary; you can also leave comments and suggestions on my talk page, of course. I intend to add a section (which I am researching at the moment) about Cornwall County Council's transport policy and plans. Also, I feel the article needs further expansion of the sections on bus travel and air travel. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

BRNC

Hi there - I've changed your edit at Dartmouth railway station. The naval college was originally BRITANNIA, but no longer holds the name - it was re-named to release the name for Royal Yacht. It's listed in the Navy List as DARTMOUTH BRNC. Only the ship's company - that is, the staff at the college - use HMS DARTMOUTH. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I belive that "HMS Britannia" is the correct name to use in this article due to its historical context - "HMS Dartmouth" has only been used since 1953 whereas the station master was paid his higher salary a long time before that. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. Might I suggest that we reword the sentence slightly to make it clearer? You've already done it - thanks, brilliant wording :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cornish Main Line

Hi Geoff, hope you are well. I don't know if you have noticed it yet, but there is something wrong at Liskeard on the template - the red lines don't line up! As I have no idea whatsoever about how to fix it, I thought I should let you know. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange, {{Cornish Main Line}} looks okay to me. Can you describe which lines are wrong and where (use the text alongside to tell me which row you are looking at). Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

thumb|This illustrates the problem as I see it.

In line with "243.50 Liskeard" - the outer two red lines don't line up. DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the central redline (the mainline itself) is not appearing, and to the left of that I suspect something is missing from where the branch loops around into the station. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two icons not displaying in your browser – there should be a red dot on the left line for the Looe Valley Line terminal station, and the main line should run through with another red dot, the two looped around by a black line to show them as one station. Can you tell me what browser you are using? I may be able to find a technical expert on this diagrams who can do something about it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Safari on WinXP. The thing is, if I click on the individual icons, the ones which are not displaying when I view the whole template are clearly not correct (the shew as grey curves on a white background). DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For example, where there should be a symbol for Liskeard Station, it is File:BSicon HUB82.svg. DuncanHill (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have found the diff where the error is introduced, it is at [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you are not the only one who can't see these overlays, so I've taken them out of this diagram and simplified the layout a bit. Hope it all makes sense now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for Gribben Head, a landmark of my youth :) DuncanHill (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mutley station

hi Geoff, the coordinates for Mutley on Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line) seem way off. DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorted! Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GWR GAR??

I noted your comment elsewhere. I have been catching up with a 'watchlist backlog' that built up over Christmas (I was busy doing non-WP things -- they do exist!) and pages that were subject to major or frequent changes tended to be put 'off-watch' until I could give them the time they deserve. The GWR, SR and LMS articles all fall into that category. (Sorry.)

Now, however, I am once more tackling stuff on my extensive ToDo list. But priority is usually given to articles in the process of GA or FA reviews. So, where are you up to with this article? How close do you reckon you are to submitting it for GAR? (I ask mainly to gauge how long I have to do my own review for you!)

EdJogg (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With the Coaches of the Great Western Railway in place I don't think there will be any more major changes to the text right now; I can't find any more images that would improve things right now. That just leaves the lead to be brought in line with the current article, then I think we're ready to go. I will be short of editing time at the end of the month, so it will either be next week or early March. I guess! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As these things can drag on a bit, March might be a better bet, but it's your call!

I'll try to keep hold of the mental note that this is now more urgent, and spend some time reading it...

EdJogg (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

BulleidPacific has asked me to check over another Southern loco article, so I thought I ought to finish off examining GWR first. I've now made it to the end of the article, although I haven't checked the spelling/formatting of the references very closely -- since you have added most, perhaps its best if you re-visit this at some point.

You are already well aware of the comments I have left on the talk page, so I'll leave you to it for now while you tackle them (although obviously I'll be watching changes as they occur). Feel free to ask if you need to discuss anything further.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A little diversion for you

Hi...thought I'd ask you this as you'd be likely to know the answer, or where to find it quickly, and might appreciate a 5-minute diversion.

To cut a long story short, I've just added station links to Wilton, Wiltshire. I'm not sure that I've stated the correct names, since neither station yet has an article. There was a GWR station and an LSWR station (which would appear to have been called Wilton South). List of closed railway stations in Britain: W-Z lists them as Wilton North and Wilton South; but there appears to be no agreement on the maps as to what the GWR station was called - although the name 'Wilton' has been used, I've seen plain 'Wilton', 'Wilton North' and 'Wilton...(GWR)' in the links underneath.

Can you shed any light on this? EdJogg (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like both were just plain "Wilton" until 1949, so I have been through the obvious pages and made the links consistent with the North/South names. If it stays wet over Easter I will probably write some articles to get rid of the redlinks! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh to have so much time on my hands! -- EdJogg (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Looe Valley Line

You did not restore a lost tag. You added a back dated tag to a completely new piece of information (the original contribution was incorrect). That the Coombe token machine is unstaffed is not in doubt as it is in a small locked hut by the side of the track (as stated elsewhere in the article) which is seldom (if ever these days) used. In any case you can go and see for yourself, if you travel the line. 86.133.11.175 (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute the existence of the signalling equipment - I took most of the photographs that illustrate the article - but Wiki has a no original research policy which means that the detailed information about how it is used needs to be backed up by citations. Do you know where we can find these, other than in "private and not for publication" railway rule books? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to the Looe Valley Line talk page. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

London to Penzance Line

I note you have added London to Penzance Line to a number of articles. As all this does is redirect to Reading to Plymouth Line (there is support for this article to be split) and the fact that London to Penzance is just one route by one TOC (I don't see anyone suggesting Birmingham to Plymouth Line even though that is as much a route as London to Penzance is) I find this a bit pointless. ZoeL (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I created that redirect to save typing [[Reading to Plymouth Line|London to Penzance Line]] into so many articles – it is mainly found in the "services" summary of station articles. I started this before the discussion to split the article (which has never been concluded) and it will need to be addressed if it does become split. As for the Cross Country Route, that is a whole different - and longer - discussion!Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

File talk:Judyatbodminandwenfordrailway.jpg

Hi Geof. I just noticed your comment on the above image - I agree completely that it's a likely copyright violation; and I have tagged it as having no evidence of permission. Just to let you know that talk pages of images generally aren't great places to draw attention to this kind of thing - they tend not to be watched by anyone. If in future you run into problems like this, you're better-served asking at media copyright questions. That way you're likely to get a quicker response. Thanks! ~ mazca ^t|c 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Ledbury & Gloucester

Did the Ross and Ledbury company actually build the Dymock to Ledbury section or did they have troubles before that stage. And was the Dymock-Ross section ever built? Eldumpo (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Codford railway station

Thanks for correcting the route box for Codford. Is there a style guide for which box to use or is it just something you pick up as you go along? Scillystuff (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Postcards

Thanks for that. I'm having a bit of a purge on a number of websites which are setup to sell photos. Most are owned by the same person and are peppered across Wikipedia, mostly as external links but occasionally as references. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the better link, I'd forgotten about that site. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Transport in Somerset

Hi as someone who knows more about railways in south west England than anyone else I know, would you have any time to take a look at Transport in Somerset a new article by a new editor, which could do with some help?— Rod ^talk 12:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I just spotted that and added it to my watchlist ten minutes ago! It's on my "to do" list for September. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Taunton tramway

Thanks for your edit to Transport in Somerset. I was just adding bits from it to the town articles & noticed Taunton "double deckers were sold to Leamington". I presume this is Leamington Spa but it links to a dab page so I thought I'd better check with the expert.— Rod ^talk 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've corrected it now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Usage

Thought you might be interested in WT:UKRail#Line usage. Simply south (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Chard Branch Line

Hello, you added a cleanup tag to the article Chard Branch Line, I've found one or two minor issues with it which have been fixed, but can't see why the article has been tagged. It seems a fairly good article in comparison to many...

A message has been left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Chard_Branch_Line requesting help - so it would be useful if you could clarify general what work needs doing on the article, either there, or on the articles talk page. Thank you.83.100.251.196 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Broadclyst

I see you've moved Broad Clyst to "Broadclyst" as per the locality, although my copies of Butt and Clinker both indicate that it was only ever known as Broad Clyst. Could you please either revert your change or let me know where you have found the alternative name. Many thanks Lamberhurst (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My references are evenly split on which name to use, but having dived into some 'primary' resources, I think that "Broad Clyst railway station" is probably the better name to use. "Broadclyst railway station" is now the redirect page. Interestingly, I even found a map that showed the village with the "Broad Clyst" version.Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Somerset Bridge Bridgwater

Hi, Do you have a copy of MacDermot, E T (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, volume II 1863-1921. London: Great Western Railway.? It was used as a reference for Bridgwater railway station#Somerset Bridge but without a page number & I've just reused the info on the bridge on River Parrett which we are working on nominating for FA (again). I can image them asking for the page number & I don't have ready access to the book. If you had it & were willing to look up the page no that would be great.— Rod ^talk 07:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Geof, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2006 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wanderer returns

Hi Geoff, just a quick note to say hallo and tell you that, after an absence, I'll soon be editing Cornwall and railway articles again. Meanwhile, I've started work improving this article Leamington_to_Rugby_line and I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions you may have, either on the article's [page] or on mine. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Rail Ale topics

Thank you Geof for reverting the merger of Rail Ale Ramble and Rail Ale Trail. Let's hope that now user:SilkTork will now think about the difference between a set of geographically fixed entities and the concept of a tour to a number of variable geographic locations... Best regards, --Weydonian (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Angarrack viaduct

Hi Geoff, I've written a new article about Angarrack viaduct to separated references to the viaduct from the article about Angarrack village. The new material references John Binding's book (see page 106) and also links back to your Cornwall railway viaducts article. I'd appreciate you giving the new page a quick look. Andy F (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Geoff, many thanks for sorting the refs and linear conversions. Andy F (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Doublebois

Hi Geoff, hope you are keeping well. I just noticed that Doublebois station is shewing in red not pink on Template:Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line). DuncanHill (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeovil stations & lines

Can I ask for your help with sorting out my confusion with stations & lines in Yeovil. I put the article up for GA & the reviewer said "The article vaguely states that in 1853 Yeovil was "connected to the rest of Britain via railway", yes but what railway company?". I've tried to do a paragraph (middle of the history section) including Yeovil Pen Mill railway station, Yeovil Town railway station & Yeovil Junction railway station with their various lines & dates of opening etc, but I've confused myself, so if you could clarify it (& possibly add some references) that would be great.— Rod ^talk 15:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line)

Hi Geoff, thanks for fixing the Doublebois icon on this. Just noticed another which is red but should be pink - Chacewater. I'm pretty sure all the others are right. DuncanHill (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

GWR Iron Duke Class

I shifted and updated info on the naming of this class into a table because the GWR 3031 Class already has a table, and is much more readable that way. It condenses the information and makes it more accessible. The only significant change is shifting the order from being an alphasort list to ordering by year (retaining alphasort within year unless info is available which were the first built). This way the list takes up less space and the information is more accessible. I was drawn to this when there was some disagreement as to where the names of the GWR 3031 Class came from, as the names themselves were wikilinked to inappropriate pages. I went to some length to re-work the information in the table to avoid WP:OR and inaccuracy - specifically by pointing to the previous class where the name had been used, and which would indicate the origin of the name there. I am now working on the 0-6-0 broad gauge class, as some of the 3031 Class names were derived from there also. I would like you to consider that transposing this information into a table improves the article, and thereby the encyclopedia, and that by ordering by year the connectedness of the names in time becomes more apparent (without being drawn attention to, which would be WP:OR). As an alphabetical list, it does not serve the reader well. Mish (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

St Blazey / Cornwall

Hi Geof, how are you? Thanks for sorting the lead on St Blaise – it now reads more clearly and looks cleaner.

I'm not sure if it's up your street but you might have some comments on this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cornwall#Updating_parishes_and_local_councils. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Great Western Railway

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Great Western Railway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And its now passed. Just to let you know that I should encourage you to review another article as a "swap" for your article being reviewed :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Belated congratulations. A long slog, but, I hope, worth the effort. A little icon showing 'GA' is scant reward for the time and effort you've put into this! Sorry I couldn't contribute more in the final stages.

Now we just need some willing volunteers to drag the LMS/LNER/and SR articles to the same standard!

EdJogg (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

New railway article

Hi Geof, how are you? I realise that East Anglia may be the wrong end of the country but I thought you might be kind enough to cast your well-informed eye over a new article I've added – Railways in Ely. Thanks and best wishes Andy F (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall Railway viaducts

Hi Geoff, I feel the lead to this article is too short, rather bald and does not summarise adequately (to quote WP:LS it should ... serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects ... and ... be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article...).

So I have expanded and re-written the lead but I'd like you to take a look at it before I insert it in the article - it is at User:Andy F/Sandbox2

Best wishes and keep up the good work Andy F (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested some changes. The only serious one is a mater of scope – this article covers Plymouth to Falmouth so there are only 42 viaducts, but Bindings' book covered Truro to Penzance too so the total given looks odd. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Doh! I've been thick! It has only just dawned on me what the article title means! It doesn't mean "Viaducts on GWR lines in Cornwall""... it means "Viaducts on the line built by the Cornwall Railway (precursor of the GWR)". That's why it doesn't include those on the West Cornwall Railway! So your changes to the text are absolutely necessary. If you're happy with it, tip me a nod and I'll add it to the article. best, Andy F (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with you moving it to the article as it stands. I'll have a look through my references and see if I can find a quote for you that is a little more specific about the Cornwall Railway, but that won't be until sometime after the weekend. As for the missing "West Cornwall Railway viaducts" article, that might not be for a few months yet!! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I could make a start on "West Cornwall Railway viaducts" as I have the John Binding book to hand? Andy F (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Railway museums in Somerset

Can I pick your brains again? I've been doing some work on List of museums in Somerset and I'm hoping to get this to WP:FL at some point in the future. There are various heritage railway museums in the list & I wonder whether these deserve their own articles or should be added as a sub head within the station article & red links direct there. What do you think? Currently:

• Blue Anchor Railway Museum is directed to Blue Anchor railway station
• East Somerset Railway is a link to the general article
• Somerset and Dorset Railway Heritage Centre could link to Midsomer Norton railway station but doesn't have much about a museum
• Somerset and Dorset Railway Museum could link to Washford railway station but doesn't have much about a museum
• West Somerset Railway is a link to the general article
• Yeovil Railway Centre is a specific article

Any thoughts appreciated.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't count the East Somerset as a railway museum, rather as a heritage railway. But if that is the case, then the West Somerset is probably one too. The musuem at Bishops Lydeard would then need to be listed seperately (it is officially known as the 'Gauge Museum').

Blue Anchor would not merit a seperate article, although Washford might (is this more correctly 'Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway Trust Museum'?). Yeovil is okay as it is. I'm not sure about Midsomer Norton so would tend to leave well alone for now.

If you are going to perpetuate the defunct museums, then you should add the one at Bleadon and Uphill railway station.

Thanks I've tweaked a couple of the articles, adding some stuff about museums to get rid of the red links.— Rod ^talk 15:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oakley, Mike (2006). Somerset Railway Stations

Do you have a copy of Oakley, Mike (2006). Somerset Railway Stations. Bristol: Redcliffe Press. ISBN 1-904537-54-5? if so could you look up a page number for me? It is used as a reference on List_of_museums_in_Somerset (No 160) for the claim "This structure now houses a recreation of the interior of the S&DJR signal-box at Midford. A second signal box is used as part of a signalling display in the yard and was formerly used on the S&DJR at Burnham-on-Sea." - if you could help that would be great as this book is not available in my local library.— Rod ^talk 16:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The same book is used on Chard, Somerset which I've nominated for GA to support the claim that the line to Chard closed in 1965, but without a page number. Also would you have a copy of MacDermot, E T (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, volume II 1863-1921. London: Great Western Railway which is used to support the claim "Chard's railway was created in 1860 to connect the two London and South Western Railway and Bristol and Exeter Railway main lines 'cross-country' connection through Chard. The line's first traffic came in 1866 when the railway and major stations were completed" but also without a page number. If you have access to these books - could you look for page numbers for me?— Rod ^talk 08:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tidied up the article so that it now matches the "main" branch line article. I've also taken out the bits that were removed from that article some time ago becasue they were uncited and/or lacking NPOV. I'll need to find some page numbers over the weekend for the new references that I have introduced. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the excellent work. I don't suppose you'd fancy looking at the transport section of Nailsea which I'm working on as part of my crusade to get all settlements with over 5,000 population in Somerset to GA.— Rod ^talk 18:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

More page nos for Somerset railways, stations etc

Hi again, After you previous help I'm trying to get some more Somerset articles to GA standard & noticed several have books supporting claims about railways & stations but lack page numbers:

• Minehead

• "The Minehead Railway was itself absorbed into the GWR in 1897" is supported by MacDermot, E T (1931). History of the Great Western Railway. Vol. 2 (1863-1921) (1 ed.). London: Great Western Railway. ISBN 0711004110.
• which in turn was nationalised into British Railways in 1948.Coleby, Ian (2006). The Minehead Branch 1848-1971. Witney: Lightmoor Press. ISBN 1-89988-920-5.
• It was closed on 4 January 1971 but has since been reopened as the West Somerset Railway.Oakley, Mike (2006). Somerset Railway Stations. Bristol: Redcliffe Press. ISBN 1-904537-54-5.

• Clevedon

• Another railway also served the town, the Weston, Clevedon & Portishead Light Railway, which opened in 1897 and closed in 1940.Strange, Peter (1989). Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Railway: A Pictorial Record. Twelveheads Press. ISBN 978-0906294192.

• Crewkerne

• The station was opened by the London and South Western Railway on 19 July 1860.Nock, O. S. (1971) The London & South Western Railway, Ian Allen, ISBN 0-7110-0267-3

Any help you could offer with any of these would be great.— Rod ^talk 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again fro your help on these. I noticed your comment on Clevedon "branch line from the main railway at Yatton, opened in 1847, six years after the main line itself. This continued in operation for passengers until 1961,Maggs, Colin G. (1990). Weston, Clevedon and Portishead Light Railway (2nd ed.). Oakwood Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0853613886." That "This book is about the WC&PLR, not the GWR branch line." do you have an alternative that could/should be used - or any other way of improving it. Or should we just remove that ref & rely on the BBC one.?— Rod ^talk 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm already on to it ... but I had to go and find a decent reference. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

North Devon Railway Creedy Photo

Hi Geof,

I am new to this. I would like to ask your advice. My 2nd Great grand father worked for many years between 1850s and 1880s on the Railway based in Crediton. There is a slim chance that he is one of the people on the North_Devon_Railway_Creedy_at_Barnstaple picture that has your name by it. Might you per chance have a high quality version of this picture?

Best regards Jeremy —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiReseach (talk • contribs) 08:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with pictures of this age is that most are copies of copies ... the original often being lost or perhaps a por print to start with. The largest copy that I can find is in The North Devon Line (Nicholas, John (1992). Sparkford: Oxford Publishing Company. ISBN 0-86093-461-6. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)). Which man do you think is your relative? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Somerset Space Walk

Thanks for taking the missing pictures to complete the set. I know the gallery looked a bit odd before, but I thought it wouldn't be right to not have a complete set of planets.

The new Bathpool image is useful for showing the size of the plinths, which isn't really apparent from the other pictures. When you do manage to get a picture of the other Neptune, it would be worth moving this pic into the article body for that purpose.

I take it that the stainless steel plaque has been removed from the plinth, which is a shame. Do you know if the Council is aware of this vandalism?

(One day I'll actually manage to schedule my summer holiday journey to allow me to visit the Space Walk. It hasn't happened so far!)

EdJogg (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The plaque's been missing for years now. I'm tempted to jam a football or something in the hole! I keep meaning to pop over to the Bridgwater end to photograph their's, but the last twice I've been there it's been raining! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Somerset pictures

Hi Geof, I've noticed that you've added loads of great pictures to Somerset articles & I've reused some of them on Portal:Somerset which I've been trying to improve - hope that's OK. If you have or know of others which would be suitable for the Portal:Somerset/Selected picture section could you let me know or add them? Also I've been working my way through Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Somerset and wondered if you might have any suitable photos for those articles which are missing them?— Rod ^talk 09:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantock Motor Services

Hi Geoff, You are right about the Trident ref. I went too quickly & found both ALX & Quantock within it but it doesn't actually support the claim "including an Alexander ALX200-bodied Dennis Dart" - I will remove it & put Citation needed back- if we can't find a ref to support it perhaps we should take it out. I'm working my way through the Somerset cleanup list - any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Lynmouth Lifeboat Station

Hi, You might want to look at these pics for Lynmouth Lifeboat Station.— Rod ^talk 14:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lifeboats etc.

Nice work on the lifeboats and BARB articles. I've been thinking about creating the latter for ages and I'm very happy to see you do it. --Simple Bob (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem - they got to the top of my "to do" list so I thought I'd see how much I could whip up before Christmas. Feel free to find those better references - and keep your eye open for the techincal specifications for Light of Elizabeth.

I'm going to have a look at that archive PDF of The Lifeboat at sometime because I think it can fill in a lot of gaps in my own research for the early lifeboats. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Penlee

Dear Geof, I hope you don't mind that I undid this revision. I see what you meant, but I don't think it quite works either as (to some eyes at least) it has the potentially odd effect of having a missing person turn the lights on. On the other hand it would be horrendously clunky to have some formula like "... who was to go missing ..." or whatever, anticipating the disaster ... hmmm. It is giving me a slight headache trying to see a good clear and concise formula for this - what do you think? Cheers, DBaK (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

By George I think you've got it! - Yup, that's the one - very nice rephrase, total horses frightened = 0. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

GWR Pyracmon Class - Caliban?

Hi Geof. This is a bit hit-and-run, I'm afraid. (Page was on my watchlist having added the TWP banner or the GWR navibox, or something, way back.)

Just about to 'unwatch' page and noticed the entry for Caliban. All the other names in the class relate to animals/mythical monsters, but you have noted this one as a sword (actually links through to Excalibur!), yet 'Caliban' is a Shakespearean monster, which would seem the appropriate meaning. Any thoughts? (BTW none of it is referenced.) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any idea about Nora Creina? Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Redrose64 got to it (Caliban) first, and presumably has the references available for elsewhere!

As for Nora Creina -- have you Googled it? A most strange name for a steam loco. Seems to come from a poem by Thomas Moore (see here, and related link Lesbia), about which there was later a novel written by a Margaret Wolfe Hungerford (digital copy here), and there was a migrant ship (went to Australia -- list here) and later still, a settlement in Australia (which has significant internet presence, but almost none on WP). Take your pick...! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did Google several years ago but it drew a blank. As Hungerford's novel was published in 1892, it looks like Moore's muse is the source. These early locomotive names show how different people's education was 150 years ago - but no Google then!

This seems to fit well with Dido and Hero, so now I'm wondering if Florence isn't actually about the city? Reviewing and revising the broad gauge locomotives is on my "to do" list, but it's below a push to move the Cornwall Railway and it related pages a bit further up the quality scale. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

These edits are just being done in passing. I've ended up with a large number of GWR loco classes on my watchlist due to adding navi boxes or TWP banners, and I'm now trying to rationalise a bit as other editors (such as yourself) are keeping an eye out for random article vandalism and my watchlist is much too big. At least there seem to be some good reference books available for some of them, so your job should be easier in future. EdJogg (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Refs in Dunkirk evacuation article

Hello! One of the refs you have added here gone red (named ref with no defenition). I guess you care, and hopefully can find time to re-add it. Thank you, --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out - that page isn't on my watchlist. All sorted now! Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading to Plymouth Line

After several years of discussion the consensus was to split the Reading to Plymouth Line article into three articles - Bristol to Exeter line, Reading to Taunton line, and Exeter to Plymouth line. The split has now been done, though fairly crudely as I am not an expert on the subject. It will need an expert eye to look at it and smooth out the edges. SilkTork *^YES! 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gateway Project

Thanks for taking the time to work on the DYK. I have added second citation to article which supports statement in hook and mentioned at nomination page. Hope that is acceptable. I have a question, if you don't mind, to which you may know the answer. The map image: Project Map from Gateway Project appears to be a Google-made map, used in official Gateway Project announcement website (represented as Amtrak w/ senate.gov url), which then it appears have been downloaded to Flckr. What do you think are the rules regarding its use? Thanks for your help Djflem (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

West Somerset Mineral Railway

Hi, I don't know if you have West Somerset Mineral Railway on your watchlist? Another editor has added some tags eg Clarify (0-6-0ST "Atlas" Sharp Stewart), By whom (LNWR 1873) & Prose (for the list of engines). I was wondering if you could look at & help out with any of these as you know more about such topics than I do (or ever could)?— Rod ^talk 14:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It clearly needs some work. I'll put it on my "to do" list, but I'll finish sorting out the mess on Transport in Somerset first. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK issues for Open top buses in Weston-super-Mare

Hi I didn't know if you had spotted an issue raised about the wording of the hook at Template talk:Did you know#Open top buses in Weston-super-Mare which is stopping it appearing at present?— Rod ^talk 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? No one's tagged the article, and it's in the queue for publishing right now. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Its obviously been resolved in the last couple of days - the argument was about whether they were real criminals or not. See the diff when it was moved to the queue.— Rod ^talk 12:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what the {{DYKproblem}} tag is for!. Anyway, I agree with the user who wrote:

Personally, I don't see a problem. The idea of a hook is to entice the reader to read the article.

I try to create interesting hooks to support my new articles, so I'm glad that some editors appreciate that. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

National Railway Museum

Hi Geof, your DYKs above are ample evidence of your suitability to help the NRM. As usual there will always be probs with releasing images but I have met 3 NRM staff who want to work with us and two (3?) of them just need some assistance. We plan to hold a meeting there around June 22 which you may like to attend as well. As you are not close then can I suggest that I put you in contact with these people. If you could "adopt them" and look over their edits then I think they will make a useful contribution and I'm sure you will get an inside track on this interesting work. T|hey intend to write a lot of articles about railway based paintings, but the first hurdle is to learn how to edit. Wikimedia UK (Who raise money and pay for Wikipedia etc~) are enthusiastic about the NRM and we really appreciate your off er of help. Do write on my talk page if you need any assistance to make this work. Thanks again Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats very good news Geof, I have asked Tagishsimon if he will contact the NRM as he appears closest. There appears to be four editors interested. Yourself, Tagishsimon, an archaeology person, and Zeyi who is a former UK board member (maybe). As I said we are very keen for this to happen and your background looks very useful. I'm hoping that by the time of the meeting we have started to work together. The NRM contact is Mark Green, their web manager Victuallers (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tags on WSR stations

Hi again. On my regular review of the cleanup listing for WP Somerset, I noticed that, about a month ago, you added citation needed tags for edits (by an IP) on Bishops Lydeard railway station, Norton Fitzwarren railway station and Taunton railway station. The edits all seem to imply through trains on the West Somerset Railway to Taunton. Having done a bit of looking I'm unable to find any evidence, but wanted to check with you as you have more expertise than me in this area. If there are no plans or sources for this should we just revert back to the version before the IP edits?— Rod ^talk 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. They're running services from Taunton to Bishops Lydeard this weekend but they won't call at Nortn Fitzwarren. There was a single service in January from Taunton to Minehead (again, not calling at Norton), but apart from that there have been no passenger services over the connection since 2007 except for excursion trains. These aren't advertised as calling Taunon and other station articles don't include ad hoc excursions as "services", so all in all I don't think they should be included. The West Somerset Railway officially abandonded plans for a regular service to Taunton many years ago. Now, if someone can find reliable references then they are welcome to add some information under another section. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

NRM Meeting - 22 June 2011

It's 10 'til 4. You'd be welcome to turn up at whatever time you choose. Numbers are limited, but you're clearly #5 on the list. It would be helpful to know if you will come, lest we save you a place when you cannot turn up. I'll do some more write-up on the shape of the day, in the next 24 hours or so, but in short, GLAM type presentations in the morning, and we drift into who knows what in the afternoon. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup

Hi Geof Sheppard. I see you are attending the National Railway Museum event on Wednesday. I just thought I should let you know there is a meetup event the night before. Sorry to repeat this if you already know, and I hope you have fun on Wednesday. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

GWR edit

Hi. You're in a better position to check this edit than I am.

If the edit is incorrect, it may indicate that additional explanation is required. -- EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Share your photos

Hello, Geof! I know that I am free to share (to copy, distribute and transmit) your works published at Commons due to free lincences. And I want to upload you photos of buses to the BUS TRANSPORT united photo gallery, but administration of this site requires the consent of the author to publish his photo there. If you agree, just write about it here or you can register yourself there and spend uploading from first-hand. Yours sincerely, Sidik iz PTU (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Commons cat placement

Hi Geof; please don't move the {{commons cat}} to the lead section, as you did here: it goes against MOS, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#External links where it states "InterWikimedia links to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should only appear in this section." Although it may fix blank space issues in Internet Explorer, it can cause other problems with other browsers: in Firefox, for example, if forces left-aligned images down the page so that they no longer appear in the sections to which they are related. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the problem with Firefox - my browser displays the elements correctly. The MoS recognises that there can be exceptions to the layout of a page, and I was just Being Bold in thrying to create pages that look informative to readers. (Or which they might actually read right to the bottom.)

Of course, it's only a problem on stub pages with long infoboxes. Exapnding the text is probably the best solution! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Devon and Somerset Railway

Do you have any sources relating to the Devon and Somerset Railway? The article has been tagged as needing additional citations and I don't have anything suitable, so I thought of you.— Rod ^talk 10:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not a particularly well documented line, but I've put it on my "to do" list. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Exe Valley Railway which has a junction with it is in the same state.— Rod ^talk 13:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

And is even less well-recorded! But the article is only a stub with three paragraphs, one of which is cited. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

True but that banner means it appears on the Somerset cleanup list where I'm trying to deal with some of the issues.— Rod ^talk 15:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Go! Cooperative

Hi thank you for your help! I will put a short paragraph on the new route, and add more to services but not do the service box chip123456

a heads-up

I missed the {{mergeto}} tag. I guess all of us who worked on the article did. I offered some reasons why I thought the the merger of Canadian Coast Guard Arun-class lifeboats to Arun class lifeboat was a bad idea. Geo Swan (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Paulton Halt railway station & Paulton Radford and Timsbury Halt railway station

Hi & happy new year, a couple of new articles Paulton Halt railway station & Paulton Radford and Timsbury Halt railway station in Somerset on the Bristol and North Somerset Railway have recently been added. They contain some uncited claims & bits seem to be more about the railway rather than the halts themselves. Would you be kind enough to take a look at them?— Rod ^talk 10:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Rod, glad you spotted them. I've corrected one and proposed the other for deletion now that I've created the correctly named (and accurate) version! Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed details on the route from the Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway article, but it wasn't entirely clear why. That information should almost certainly be included in the body text, and so I have reverted for the time being. If you disagree, feel free to message me or discuss on article talk. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Kyle of Lochalsh railway station

Re this edit - although I can see why you are put surplus images into commons, why did you change the infobox image? In some of the other stations you have been working on the images (such as Plockton) the new infobox image may be better, I can not see this as the case in Kyle. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that upright-format images can overpower infoboxes (especially when there is very little prose on the page) so I chose what I think is the best landscape format image of Kyle instead. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

For portrait [upright] format images in {{infobox GB station}} I normally use |imagesize=x265px which makes them the same height as the default width of a landscape format image. This does tend to give broad white margins, but I think that's preferable to an in-your-face image. Compare an old version of Reddish South railway station with the current version. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Taunton residents

sorry if i dont do this right, not sure where the + sign is you mention. i notice you removed william crotch from taunton residents. someone already did this twice, why is that? he has after all spent more time in taunton than anywhere else, being buried in bishops hull churchyard. but even if posthumous residence weren't good enough, he also lived in taunton for several years before his death, as is clear from a cursory google search and as it actually states in the wiki article on him - this fact has never been removed there, what sucks about my addition? cheers PhilosophyofLaw (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The "+" is one of the tabs at the top of discussion pages (such as this one), but it only appears in precisely that form if you have your language set to "en-GB - British English" (see Preferences → User profile → Internationalisation) and are also using the MonoBook skin (see Preferences → Appearance → Skin). For language "en-GB - British English" with Vector skin, the same tab is shown as "Add topic", whilst for language "en - English" with either Vector or MonoBook, it is "New section". Be careful about selecting "en-GB - British English" as a language (even if you are British), because it's not always kept up to date when interface features are added or amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The citation that you put on the Taunton page said that he died while visiting Taunton. His own article says He spent his last years at his son's house in Taunton but doesn't give a citation for this fact.

If he did indeed live at Taunton, then please include him in the town's residents along with a supporting citation; and put this on his own page. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Stub templates

Hi Geof, re this edit: please note that per WP:FOOTERS, stub templates go after the categories, but before the interlanguage links. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Station article order

I noticed this edit to Nailsea and Backwell railway station, which I rewrote a few days back. I find this ordering rather illogical. Surely the most important thing about a station is the description, which provides a context for all that follows, and the current service pattern. Then history and future become relevant. I was going to rewrite Parson Street in the same style next, having done Flax Bourton and Long Ashton, but I got a bit stuck on some LA details about quite when it was open. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Personally I prefer the chronological approach: what has happened, then what it is currently like, then (if applicable) outstanding plans. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem is then you remove descriptive parts from the description, because they have to appear in "history" to make the whole thing make sense. The most important thing about an open station is that it is an open station, that it was opened by Jesus Rail Inc is great and all, but not the most important aspect of it if it's currently sitting in a lake of fire and the PA system continually warns people to use the handrails. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the history-description-sevices order as this seems more encyclopaedic to me: why is this here? what does it look like? what does it do? If this was a travel guide then I would plump for services-description-history.

I tried looking at the Stations Project but the little that they had to say on this matter seemed muddled and geared towards Amrican articles. The UK Project puts history at the top of settlement articles and its equivalent to description third (after governance).

And finally, our nearest GA station is Bristol Temple Meads which has history at the top.

As for what goes where, if it is needed in the description then it should be there, but if it is a major change then it should be in history too, provided the wording is in context. "A bay platform came into use on 1 April 1966 where trains from the south could be reveresed" needs to be said as much as "The bay platform at Sodor Central is used by tains to Nowheresville.". Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Gardner Enigne in LH?

Sorry but I just do not buy it; Gardner did not have an engine suitable for horizontal mounting in the same weight class as the Perkins H6:354 or the Leyland O:400. The SC had a Gardner 4LK, but there was never a 4HLK, which is one of the reasons the SU used a Leyland-Albion powereplant, the 5HLW was out of production and would have been too heavy; I'm interested where you get the idea of a Gardner powered LH from?

Stephen Allcroft (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft

It's not my edit. Try this one. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies then, at least that ghost seems laid now. Stephen Allcroft (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the editing you have done on the Felixstowe Branch Line page. Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Birnbeck Pier

I've been doing some editing on Birnbeck Pier in the hope of getting it up to GA standard. I see you've edited in the past, particularly related to the lifeboat station. Would you be willing to take another look and see what else you think needs doing to the article?— Rod ^talk 09:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and corrections. The GA review has now started & the reviewer is querying whether the information on the lifeboats is needed. Could you comment as I'm going to be away for the next few days.— Rod ^talk 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Catch those BRUTEs

Hi Geof - one of my mother's friends subscribes to Modern Railways and sometimes passes them on to me after he's read them. I've just received the January 2013 issue. Flicking through it, I see on p. 36 a photo of a row of BRUTEs - credited to "Geoff Sheppared" [sic]. I guess this must be you, because the pic looks the same as File:BRUTEs at Newton Abbot market.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd be suprised how many ways it can be (mis)spelled! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk

Hello Geof
I have noticed that In the past you created a similar template for Cornwall, as the one above. There is a discussion going on here about an attempt to delete this useful template which is in its early stage of development. you may be interested in this discussion and wish to give it your comments to reach a consensus.Cheeseladder (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Helwell Bay 4160.jpg

Geof,

I am quite simply breathless each time this matchless photo of yours (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Helwell_Bay_4160.jpg) comes up on my PC as a background image (I rotate the images every 30 minutes). An impeccable photo!

I am sure it will not be a problem on the Commons licence (or with you), but I intend to post it with full description and attribution to a Trainz (Railway Simulator) forum.

Forum - Mainline - Trainz Discussion - Prototype Talk

under the thread
Thread: Post your Steam Train Locomotives!

and wanted to let you know. I hope to get other (virtual) railway modellers using other photos of yours as sources (for buildings, coaches, locos etc.). (I know several are actively modelling routes in the south-west of England at the moment) and there are always more GWR and LSWR/SR locos and rolling stock coming out (freely available for download) to a higher and higher standard. So your photos would be most helpful, so I will give links to your 'commons.wikimedia.org' pages.

Had you ever considered joining the Trainz community and modelling yourself?

Anyway, truly excellent work! Well done.

Peter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWise9 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. It took me several attempts to get that - either the engine was 'back to front' or the weather overcast. The sun only shines on that spot for a short while each day in the late morning and so the number of trains that could possbily produce all the right elements are quite small!

You are welcome to repost my images provided you follow the licencing rules - in particular that they are attributed and the licence conditions are replicated on the new copy. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk

Hi. I have nominated Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk for deletion. As you were a particpant in the previous deletion discussion, you may wish to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 August 14#Template:Lifeboat Stations in Suffolk. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hello Geof Sheppard
I have tagged text which you added to Mersey-class lifeboat article on the 2 December 2010. The text in the article matches that in [4]. If the Text you added back then was in fact cut and pasted from that site it will be in copyright violation and will need to be removed or re-written in your own words. You can always reference the page as the source of your work. Assuming good faith, your text may well have been copied and placed in the Newcastle Lifeboat info website, in which case it is not a problem, you can leave the text and you can remove those tags.Billhob (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That site is clealry mirroring Wikipedia. My text was written using information in the printed sources which are cited in the article. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification on West Somerset Railway

Hi, I don't know if you spotted it but a "clarification needed" tag has been added to West Somerset Railway. The sentance is "A single-line section ran from here, utilising what had been the Up Relief line, to Williton" (particularly "Up Relief line"). Does it make sense to you? Is there any way to improve the wording for non specialist readers?— Rod ^talk 11:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been rather busy on some articles further west and forgotten about this one. The clarification needed is because this paragraph has recently been edited so it appears to give a different date for singling the line to the following paragraph. I need to go and find some esoteric but reliable sources to work out which is correct, or work out how to explain it better if both are! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't find any source that suggests the line was singled between Taunton and Bishops Lydeard in 1966 so I've reverted to the cited version which gives a 1970 date. The suggestion by an anonymous editor that trains were worked in both directions along the up relief line would have entailed serious signalling alterations at Taunton to allow trains to run down that line towards Minehead. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks— Rod ^talk 13:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Fowey

Hey friend, no offense, but it took me 30 seconds to find a reference for the info you deleted from the Fowey article. Richard Apple (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No offense taken. It had been tagged as needing a citation for more than six months... Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Image gallery on the Tyne-class page

What is it you do not like about my edited starting an image gallery for Tyne-class lifeboats? My intention was to include other images as and when they become available.Cheeseladder (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki's image use policy says (amongst other things) that

'Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text. However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject...

'However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons.'

So in my view a single image in a gallery doesn't meet the criteria. If you want to introduce one that meets the criteria then fine, but otherwise I'd suggest you focus on individual images that illustrate points in the article. We don't need lots of pictures showing the same thing - that already has a home in Wiki Commons. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Railway Company Histories: stations opened later

Geoff,

You have done a lot of good work on railway histories, well done. You have recently deleted from the list of stations on the South Devon, the stations opened after the SDR amalgamated with the GWR (or was absorbed by it). I see exactly what you mean, and some situations like this jar considerably. I should mention that this list on the SDR is not my doing, so I'm not being defensive, But:

A difficulty, is the question as to what the home for that detail is? In most of these railway histories there are a couple of separate articles, 1) a scholarly history of the original railway company, and 2) an article about the present-day railway line. Of course the geography of these may not coincide, e.g. Exeter and Crediton versus the Tarka line.

Usually no 2 includes present day passenger services (rarely freight), present-day stations, current traction types etc. These pages are mostly of interest to modern traction enthusiasts, and usually include a very cursory summary of the history.

This seems to leave stations opened, say, in the 1920s and 1930s without a home. I tend to feel that it is proper to put them in option (1), but of course with a note saying "Opened by GWR in 1923" etc etc. I am hoping to expand the SDR article further and I was planning to make that kind of alteration when I come to it.

Incidentally, what do you think about Exeter SD and Plymouth being "joint"? If it's not splitting hairs too much, I thought these were owned by the B&E and the SDR respectively, not jointly, and working arrangements were agreed granting access (for a fee) to the SDR and the Cornwall Rly respectively.

Interested in your comments. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In my mind there are three types of articles that are relevant.

• • Railway company articles (such as Cornwall Railway) should deal with the company; when we describe that company's operations that should cease when the company is sold or closed. It is perfectly okay to include a section that covers "changes after 1882" or whatever if necessary, for example with the Cornwall I think a brief mention of the track doubling, viaduct replacement and Saltash-St Germans deviation would be very relevant.
  • Line articles cover the geography and history of the railway lines, both opening and closures, as well as operations - and these shouldn't be just today's operations.
  • Station articles - the ultimate deatil here. I'm sure that we have a page for every station on the open lines. Closed stations may have individual articles or one catch-all article headed "Disused stations on...".

Careful use of 'main article' links can take people to the most detailed article for their needs, but creating the same detailed information in two or three places just gives a maintenance nightmare as they each need to be updated when a change is made. Madness!

If the list of stations is in a route diagram template it also helps to keep these down to a workable size if the stations opened later are excluded. Long template can cause problems when they overlap subsequent sections as not everyone uses the same screen width. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you help with page numbers?

You wouldn't by any chance have a copy of either of these books:

• Awdry, W. (1990). Encyclopaedia of British Railway Companies. Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 978-1852600495.
• Carter, E. (1959). An Historical Geography of the Railways of the British Isles. Cassell. ASIN B000WSRHU6.

They are both mentioned on Leigh Woods National Nature Reserve in relation to Portishead Railway, but without page numbers. If you have copies could you look up the relevant info, as I'm hoping to get the article to GA standard?— Rod ^talk 13:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

General titles such as those aren't really the best references, especially for a GA. I've replaced them with more local and relevant ones. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again.— Rod ^talk 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

List of British Railways shed codes

Hi Geof... Been a long time!

Could you please try casting your mind back to an edit you made five years ago? :-)

To help you... In List of British Railways shed codes you created the section on Locomotive Allocations, way back in 2010 (see diff here).

It includes this sentence (my italics):

"For instance, the 309 Western Region diesel-hydraulic locomotives 74 Class 52 diesel-hydraulics were only ever allocated to six depots."

I can't decide what you intended to say here. As-is, it would make sense if you mentioned either the 309 diesel-hydraulics, OR the 74 Westerns, but not both; or else there is some text (or an apostrophe?) missing between 'locomotives' and '74'. Either way it's a bit hard to read at present.

Is this still correct?

"For instance, the Western Region's 74 Class 52 diesel-hydraulic locomotives were only ever allocated to six depots."

I know this isn't a huge deal, but I bumped into it while using the page for reference, which I do rather more than editing these days.

Cheers -- EdJogg (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I wondered where you'd been hiding! Myself, I put in a lot more time sorting badly classiifed images in the Commons now.

Your suggestion makes much more sense; a little proof-reading goes a long way! Take a look at my revised version and see if that's better. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. And I've fixed the tiny typo you left so that I could thank you publicly!

I mostly try to avoid reclassifying pics on Commons these days. I know from experience that for every one that you fix, you find two more that need doing. I have lost too many hours doing this worthwhile but ultimately thankless task.

-- EdJogg (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway & lack of sources

Hi again, I wondered if the Somerset and Dorset Joint Railway falls into your area of interest? As you have much better knowledge & sources on these sorts of articles than I have, I wondered if you could take a look and see if you could add any references (or any other changes needed) to address the banner at the top of the article saying "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources."?— Rod ^talk 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

References on Open top buses in Weston-super-Mare

Hi Geof, Can you help with the references on Open top buses in Weston-super-Mare which I believe you have done most of the work on? Curtis, Martin; Walker, Mike (2007) is cited several times but no title for this book is given (although other sources by Curtis are given) - do you know further details?— Rod ^talk 18:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Heart of Wessex Line

I don't know if the Heart of Wessex Line falls within your area of interest? If so... it has a banner saying that it needs inline citations and, as you know the sources much better than I do, whether you could add some?— Rod ^talk 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a rather patchy article at present, almost a stub. There's a list of places served which could be verified from a timetable, and a list of rolling stock which, although broadly accurate, I can't think where to get a citation to support it. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Bathampton railway station

Do you have any sources about Bathampton railway station? It has recently been tagged as unsourced & you know a lot more about these topics than I do.— Rod ^talk 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

? GA nom for West Somerset Mineral Railway

I have been discussing with User:DavidAHull nominationg West Somerset Mineral Railway for GA. As you have done significant work on the article I wondered if you had any thought about anything else which is needed to meet the good article criteria or anything else you think needs doing before a nomination?— Rod ^talk 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Bristol and Exeter Railway

Thanks for these page numbers, I guess you've been busy since I posted here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Devon General

I see that an ALX400 bus in Devon General livery isn't really enough for you. I'm very, very sorry! Gwrhst (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the picture but it is a Stagecoach Devon bus whereas the article is about Devon General and pictures of their buses should take precedence unless we are recording the cultural impact of Devon General on modern day operations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeremiah Dixon

I added a photo of yours to this article. I captioned it with info you added to commons, but it doesn't exactly match the info in the last paragraph of the article (e.g. railway name). I'm not familiar with this. Could you make whatever clarifications/corrections are appropriate and add a source. Thanks. MB 01:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The locomotive is operated by Devon & Cornwall as that is the mainline-registered TOC but its parent (BARS) operates both the Weardale and Dartmoor railways. It's all so complicated! Anyway, I certainly haven't photographed it at either Waerdale or Willesden, despite what the article says! Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Newton Abbot ticket barriers

Hi just can't but notice you changed that Newton Abbot ticket barriers where reintroduced in 2017, yet before this the station was open plan, and they where installed for the first time in 2017. Just thought you should be aware of this to avoid any confusion.146.198.36.221 (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but there used to be ticket barriers before it became an 'open' station, something that I think happened in the 1980s. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

146.198.36.221 is probably thinking of the modern electric ones where you post your ticket in the slot. They may not count the old way, where a man in a uniform snipped a notch out of the edge of the ticket, as a "ticket barrier" - but that's what they definitely were. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Filton Abbey Wood station

I notice that you replaced the infobox image of Filton Abbey Wood station on 23rd December 2018, removing the existing image from the article. Can you explain why you think the new image is an improvement? RedSquirrel (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The previous picture only showed a low-level view of part of the station. I replaced it with one that shows the whole four-platform arrangement. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous photo very clearly showed the whole four-platform arrangement, from the viewpoint of a passenger, and was taken in much better light. All a matter of taste, perhaps, but still surprising you thought it necessary to completely remove it! Even if you don't accept that it's a better overall view, it's certainly a better picture of Platform 4 than the one captioned 'Platform 4 which was added in 2018'. RedSquirrel (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In my mind the difference is that the picture which was in the infobox only shows a long expanse of empty platform, whereas the one that I have put in the 'third station' section shows the facilities on the platform (such as they are!).

The view from the footbridge remains higher up the page in the description page, although that too was taken on an overcast day.

• 
  Current infobox picture
• 
  Original infobox picture
• 
  New platform 4 picture

Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Plymouth Friary railway station

Could you please correct what looks like a typo in the date "was replaced on 1 July 1981" at Plymouth Friary railway station? Jamesday (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Jamesday (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Dartmouth Station

Eureka! That adds up now. Britmax (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Severn-class lifeboat

Hi Geof. Darren Scott here. I edited the information for the Severn class page, I added myself as a citation, but you removed it. Along with some of the ownership details. As skipper and management agent for the vessel I can assure you the information is correct. Can I ask why you saw fit to remove the information. My email is theeileenmay@gmail.com Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.150.240 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Presumably you refer to this edit. It wasn't a reference in the accepted sense, see Help:Referencing for beginners; and even if it were formatted as a reference, it wouldn't satisfy the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plymouth Lifeboat Station

Hello! Your submission of Plymouth Lifeboat Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Plymouth Lifeboat Station

On 10 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Plymouth Lifeboat Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the crew of Plymouth Lifeboat Station saved a flying boat during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Plymouth Lifeboat Station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Plymouth Lifeboat Station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Lifeboat classes

Hello Geof - please see Template talk:Lbc#Italics. Thanks, Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It didn't have italics when I created it. I think I've managed to remove them again. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bridgwater bridge

How was this a "swing bridge"? I've never found much on the bridge, and there's not a great deal on the site to look at, but I can't see how it can be described as a swing bridge? [5] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No citation on livery on South Devon Railway

hello you undid my edit saying there's no citation on the livery the picture says all in my case and ive seen the loco recently in the same livery so there fore its in the livery I cited in a result ive changed it back please visit the sdr to actually see the livery in person thanks Motodragon2044

The citation you gave made no mention of the livery (a second one has now been provided that includes a picture so it does). While Wikipedia encourages editors to keep articles up to date, it does need statements to match the citations that you give. This isn't a place for original research so, just because you have seen it painted green, you should still provide a reliable third party source for the information. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

no citation on South Devon Railway stock page

hello Geoff the cite was the same as before I just put it back to how it was ive seen it in the livery as I helped paint it !!!!!!!! thank you Geoff so please don't make things complicated. I would never cite something wrongly I do recall you citeing wrongly in the past do I not ? anyway im out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motodragon2044 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Taunton bus station

Hello! Your submission of Taunton bus station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yakikaki (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Taunton bus station

On 16 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Taunton bus station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Taunton bus station, built in the 1950s, was described as "a rare survivor" just five years before it was closed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taunton bus station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Taunton bus station), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodmin and Wenford Stock List

Hi

Why have you messed up the Rolling stock of the Bodmin and Wenford Railway page by reverting it to a out of date and incorrect stock list which for the people who will read that page will make no sense.

I am a member of the bodmin railway and that is why I updated the stock list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clay Wagon Project (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed citations for many entries but did not explain why nor provide citations for your new claims. As the old citations seem reliable, you really need to explain why your new information is true. You might want to take a look at the no original research policy: all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source.

If these changes to the stock have been documented on, say, the railway's website or have been published in a magazine then we'd love to see them on Wikipedia along with citations to match. Geof Sheppard (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Bridge rail for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bridge rail is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge rail until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bruno Langley

You'll like this one! First it says he was born in Devon, then a few lines down that he was born in Norfolk. [6] Bmcln1 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Class 59/1

Hi Geoff, I see you have changed the 59/1 image to show the "current" livery, believe it or not both images are the same livery, but the picture of 59 104 is a lot more saturated and the lettering, ARC, on 59 101 is not readable from the angle the photo was taken. I suspect we need a better photo if we can find one,. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not the current livery - it would be so much easier if we could go down to Whatley and photograph one today! The Southampton image has a wide grey band wrapped around the lower body including the cab front. I don't remember this and none of the other images on Wikimedia Commons have it. The Kenilworth one is rather saturated, I agree, and the roof is over exposed, but all the others are in station platforms so I'd rather use the one that shows the bogies too. I've cropped the Kenilworth one to bring the loco central and tried lightening it a little. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

More subtle than I thought, I've a photo of 104 at Reading, taken later, I'll have a play wth it and see if I can get a better result. Unfortunately we don't get many 59s through Guildford! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

OK try this version, if you don't like it feel free to revert. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That's better - that's how I remember them and I can see the roof of this one! Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Something else, I see in your recent update you refer to the locos having the number painted on the left hand cabside. The photos show they carried cast numberplates, as did the other 59s. Regards. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! For a small fleet they have very complicated histories! I'll fix that but keep an eye on my other edits as they deserve a second pair of eyes as I work through all the uncited and incomplete sections. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Willdo Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bit of trivia for you, the loco that hauled the first batch from Southampton to Merehead was 33018. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The 33 hauled them out of the docks. 47294 took them to Westbury and 47159 moved them in pairs to Merehead. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Station rename

Hi Are the brackets part of the name of Totnes Riverside? The station's signs don't appear to use the format neither does the operator's website. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Totnes_(Riverside)_railway_station&diff=766668839&oldid=766668195

https://www.southdevonrailway.co.uk/our-stations/

After a google search the only reference to them I found was wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave F63 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think they are bracketed. The big running in board used to be 'TOTNES LITTLEHEMPSTON' but now appears to be 'TOTNES RIVERSIDE'. There are no brackets used in the Wikimedia category.Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia style requires that the bolded name in the lead paragraph must match the page title, which is why I left it in brackets. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

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) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Duke of Cornwall Hotel:

Hi Geof, I went round the houses a bit on this but did not want to lose the sensible edition of the closure section and repositioning of the Famous Guests section. Springnuts (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Template : Launceston Branch Line

I saw that you reverted the opening date of heritage usage of Plym Bridge Platform on the template, stating no other stations had dates shown. That is because none of the other closed stations on that branch line have been opened by the heritage railway and the reason why you will note the open station icon is shown now against it.

Please be so kind as to reinstate the information that you reverted, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that it is too easy to overload these simple diagrams with information that is better placed in the text of the article. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

That information is already shown in the section of the body text matter of the Wikipedia article on the Launceston and South Devon Railway. I just thought by entering the reopening information of Plym Bridge Platform on the line template, it would be the same as has happened on other line templates where reopenings had taken place.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

GWR image

Thanks for fixing. I reverted a couple of the images changed by Chong Yi Lam. Might be worth look at his/her other contributions as there were some bizarre choices. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Table row anchors

Just wanted to let you know that this edit removed an anchor to the "BFK" row of the table. Please make sure to preserve any occurrences of id="foo" in tables, they are almost always redirect targets. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Umberleigh railway station

Hi Geof, I see you reverted how I separated out the hatefully vague "Description" section into facilities etc - is there a reason for this? I think it works better as "description" is incredibly vague. Indeed, for a couple of weeks now, I have edited almost all the articles in the south west of England to get rid of all of the "Description" sections! Still a lot to do though! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Small stations like this struggle to justify the term 'facilities' at the best of times! There is no agreed convention for 'facilities' or 'description' in UK stations but having a section with a single sentence (and leaving most of it orphaned from its citation) is counter to WP style guidelines so I put it back the way it was.Geof Sheppard (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Commons cc-by-sa at work!

158887 at Southampton

See https://www.southwesternrailway.com/travelling-with-us/our-trains/class-158-express-sprinter

Recognise the header image on the page? See the credit at the bottom. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Good spot! It is nice to see a proper credit (I think it happens for only about half the copies that I am aware of). Interesting to see them still using British Rail's old 'Express Sprinter' name. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

I had to check back on several railway station articles you edited after I added to train company categories. While I do question the verifiability of some of the category and service additions, I only added what I knew based on what was serviced according to SWR's and other train company's timetables, despite how rare some lines are used by them. Thank you for any follow-ups you may have made. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

SWR keep changing their West of England services. The Bristol route definitely finished last year (I didn't put the category on the Bristol Temple Meads page - it must have been a hangover from before), but the Frome services currently seem to be mostly Basingstoke to Yeovil Junction - I double checked on random services and dates using Real Time Trains to make sure they are really running! Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Dawlish railway station

FYI, the station is actually getting a rebuild. The platforms have been extended, slightly raised, and resurfaced; new lighting and loudspeakers have been installed, and a new lift and stairs go in later this year too. The new sea wall is just a part of the works going on. --AlisonW (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I would call that an evolution rather than a rebuilding. Rebuilding a station is normally much more disruptive and generally means a new building or extra platforms - I don't think we can compare Dawlish with Reading in 2015 or Plymouth in the 1962. the really were rebuilds! Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

GWR Rejected Fleet

It was not just the 769's which were rejected, it was also the 230's which make it two fleets rejected, so it should have a table.

It isn't about the number of rejected fleets, it is about the amount of useful information that is available and the disproportionate space given over to failed experiments.

P.S. Please sign you messages. Four tildes like this ~~~~ does the job. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Bristol & Exeter convertibles

Hi Geof, you're our broad gauge expert. According to MacDermot (1931) pp. 521-2, 549 also RCTS pp. B36, C62-3, the six Bristol & Exeter 0-6-0 nos. 77-82 built 1867-68 for the standard gauge included five that were converted to broad gauge in 1870/71 and reconverted in 1875. None of these three books show which five these were - do you know which one was always standard gauge? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I've never seen anything that says which was the odd one out. Frustrating, isn't it? Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like someone needs a trip to Kew! Although that will only show how they were specified not subsequently modified... 10mmsocket (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The locos in question were built by the Worcester Engine Company in 1867, not by Stothert & Slaughter in 1847. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've already got a long list of things to look at next time I visit Kew!

I spent many days there a few years back digging out locomotive records from all the broad gauge companies but didn't come across anything that would answer the question. There might be something buried in a minute book or some more obscure records but I wouldn't hold my breath. The NRM's archives might be more profitable but it is still a long shot. McDermott and Reed both failed to find anything in Swindon's records. Perhaps Brain Arman will find the missing link when he gets around to writing his volume on the GWR's absorbed broad gauge locomotives. Geof Sheppard (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Station mileages

Hi, I see that you have completely removed the mileages for stations on the Falmouth and St Ives branches on the grounds that they are irrelevant as there are no through services. However, there have been through services in the past (by detaching coaches from Penzance services, such as the Cornish Riviera Express), and if they introduce IET-type trains with three-car portions, there could conceivably be through services in the future. Also, the stations still have mileposts - including 312+1⁄2 at Falmouth Docks, and 325 at St Ives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Three-car IETs? Now that really is crystal ball stuff :)

Those of us who are deeply interested in British railways have mileposts engrained on our consciousness, but for the average reader they aren't a major feature of a station and don't help locate the station on their world map. The route from Paddington to Penryn is far from a straight line so the 'distance' from London is much less than 312+1⁄2 - it is more like 240. I think it would be more useful to describe the distance from the services normal starting point or last major city - so Truro for the Maritime Line or St Erth for St Ives. Perhaps we should consider this in the services section?

Falmouth Docks: All trains are operated by Great Western Railway to and from Truro which is 11 mi 68 ch (19.1 km) away.

If we want to mention a milepost then perhaps it would be better in the description or location section?

The station is 11 mi 68 ch (19.1 km) from Truro. A yellow milepost shows 312.5 mi (502.9 km) which records the distance from Paddington measured by the original route via Bristol Temple Meads. It is located at the south end of the town on the hillside above the docks...

Geof Sheppard (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Looe valley Line citable information

Hi I want to discuss the edit just reverted on the Looe Valley. I think the information is citable, as the Sectional Appendix shows the method of working for each section in the table A,and the special instructions supply extra information. Techie3 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If it is in the Sectional Appendix then that is fine, but most of what has been deleted isn't.

The relevant words in the Sectional Appendix are:

• (At Liskeard, page 271) 'Token released by Liskeard Signaller'
• (At Coombe No. 2, page 273) 'Line under control of the Shunter'

Nothing about a wooden train staff. Nothing about the shunter being at Moorswater. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, I will edit it acordingly. Do you agree that the Looe section has a train staff, the Liskeard section is token block, and the Moorswater section is controlled by a Shunter? Techie3 (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is better now that you have identified additional pages in the citation. I still can't find any reference to a token instrument for the branch being in Liskeard Signal Box. Where exactly does it say that? Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Does not explictly say that,but with NST working there is generally a token machine at the signalbox to allow the signaller to release a token for the other. Have added images to also clarify. Techie3 (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lifeboat Fleet pages

Please message on my Talk page. Need help, advice, discuss. MartinOjsyork (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time recently working on lots of RNLI / Lifeboat fleet pages, bringing them up to date, deleting dead links, and making sure they are all very similar format. Very much appreciate your input correcting the minor errors I have made, but I'm not too happy to see you have changed all the formatting for Oakley and Brede Class lifeboats, making it nigh on impossible to work out how to update in the future. I'd really rather you undo all your reformats please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojsyork (talk • contribs) 15:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

WT:UKRAIL#User:Mattdaviesfsic/Station editing

Hi Geof, given you added the passenger volume table over at Falmouth Docks railway station, you may be interested in the discussion at the above link. Thanks, Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lifeboat pages

Geof. Tell me, I've tried to be very respectful updating Lifeboat pages. Might change the fleet table layout so they're all the same, but basically, I'm adding stuff and doing corrections. When you've finished destroying all the lifeboat table formats, making them impossible to update, and changing ALL my text and formatting just because you don't like it, are you going to do the updates? I'm sure we would be better off working together constructively rather than pissing each other off. Ojsyork (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Martin, as I've explained before, the way that many of the tables are laid out is just impossible for people to use with assistive technology. Using all those line breaks causes many problems that can be resolved by split rows. This does not make the tables uneditable. I've been impressed by the speed that you picked up Wiki editing skills and I'm sure you will be able to edit split rows when you need to.

I've been concentrating on the older lifeboats; updates to these are nearly always just in the comments column. This doesn't need to be split so editing that won't be any different. At some point the newer lifeboat tables will need to be done. I appreciate that means a bit more effort to add extra split rows when a lifeboat is moved to a new station, but you just change the 'rowspan' figure from, say 2 to 3, and add in the extra couple of cells below the current last row.

If I'm doing anything that is against Wiki policies, or which could be done better another way, then please let me know how.

While I am editing the tables I am also making some changes to the comments. I add links that will be helpful, and try to improve the prose if I think that would help. If I make a mistake then please put me right - sometimes places or dates aren't as clear as they could be. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I really don't understand the issue with assistive technology.

I can't see what is wrong with it being simple, both to read, and to edit, and its neither with your way.

With all the Rowspan stuff, its just incredibly difficult to update.

I look at the second half of the Norfolk and Suffolk page, and its now all over the place. I can't see that you have improved it any way for anyone.

The formatting has gone. There's stuff in small boxes, large boxes, its really bad.

Also, I had got half way through the updates on one of the Watson pages when you jumped in and changed everything, so I just gave up. It's sitting there half done.

I would hope that with all your formatting, you would then carry on with the updates, and I won't have to worry... but I don't think you will. You would have it all spot on by now, if that were the case.

So how about this...

I'm happy to keep these pages updated going forward, but only if you stop messing with the format.

I'm working through the station pages at present, just bringing up to date, adding missing fleet details, and adding station honours.

I then intended to return to some of the main fleet pages, such as Norfolk and Suffolk, as there is so much missing, its ridiculous.

But I can't do that with if everything is difficult. I just don't have the time to work it out.

I have no experience of creating pages, which is what you seem to be good at.

But I'm quite happy filling in the details, adding fleet info and station honours.

So I was really hoping you might turn your focus to some of those stations that are completely missing, instead of messing with ones that are done, and I'll help finish them off.

Is that being unreasonable.?

MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, the good news is that I have started to 'fill in the blanks' on the station pages. Newquay was done last week and I hope to do Bude this week. I would like to do all five that were missing in the South West by the end of next month. It gets a bit more tricky then as I don't have so much off-line material for stations further afield. This means that I will be more reliant on the station's website.

Getting the balance right for the honours is difficult. I think that all the medals should be covered and they often deserve some short explanation of why they were awarded. I'm not sure that is helpful or necessary to list each recipient of a vellum or letter of thanks. The services are often less notable and there is a danger of creating a long list of names which then gets removed because someone thinks it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE (not by me, but I've seen it happen to other articles with long lists).

But I'm not going to stop working to improve the work that you and others have done. That is the whole point of Wiki being a collaborative space. Sorry about the Watson page. It's frustrating when that happens I know, but don't let it put you off.

I did try to explain the assistive technology problem on your talk page, but I'll try again.

A screen reader will read each table cell before moving onto the next one. So if you have more than one piece of data in a cell, it will read all those data before it moves on.

So it will read something like this:

• Row 1
  • Cell 5: 1948-1968 1968-1970 1970-1975 1975-1982
  • Cell 6: St Ives Reserve fleet Blackpool Reserve fleet

When what you want it to read is:

• Row 1
  • Cell 5: 1948-1968
  • Cell 6: St Ives
• Row 2
  • Cell 5: 1968-1970
  • Cell 6: Reserve fleet
• Row 3
  • Cell 5: 1970-1975
  • Cell 6: Blackpool
• Row 4
  • Cell 5: 1975-1982
  • Cell 6: Reserve fleet

It would be a shame if all your hard work was wasted because some users can't understand the unpunctuated string of dates and stations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geof

I appreciate what you're saying about assistive readers.

I really don't like how it looks, but I feel I'm fighting a losing battle. Do we worry about a few folks needing assistive readers, or try to make sure its correct and upto date?

I had a look at Newquay. Great Job. I'll tidy up some, to match convention if thats OK. Add D class types, etc. I have a list.

I wonder really how valid it is putting a link to each page of the Denton handbook, instead of just putting one reference in the comments box to cover all, as I have been doing with fleet service dates.

And clearly, what we need to do is get you an upto date version!

If we knew where to send one.?

Oh - ref Lists of Honours. These days, Thanks on Vellum and Framed Letters are nearly as important as medals, as few medals are issued these days. Its difficult to know where to draw the line; when I started, some stations had relatively few, but then you find one with loads, and feel obliged to continue etc. Regarding content, I was badly shot down regarding Copyright, so I'm avoiding all conflict by not adding details.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Newquay Lifeboat Station

On 2 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Newquay Lifeboat Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that with an inclination of 1 in 2.5, the slipway at Newquay Lifeboat Station was one of the steepest in England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Newquay Lifeboat Station. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Newquay Lifeboat Station), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Lets not be at War!

Geof I don't wish to be at War. I haven't got the time or the patience. So I need to say a few words, in the hope that things improve?

You would think someone with a vested interest in lifeboat pages would be pleased that someone comes along and doesn't just nit-pick, but does something positive.

Adding Station Honours is a positive. I got badly shot down for copyright when I started, despite the coding on the RNLI pages saying they are to be freely distributed, so I now stick to the absolute bare bones. I have come up with a format which may not be conventional, but it works for me. Its clear. And easy to read. | You may not have noticed, there is a logic to it. All the medals from one service are grouped together. Changing it upsets all the format. I can live without the BOLD, but don't create bullet points on bullet points. You may say it isn't to Wiki standard, but that is only a guide. Wiki also states, There is no wrong way! The only person upset with my formatting is You!

You may realise by now that I'm serious about my updates. I try to go along with what went before, being really careful not to be too heavy handed, but also rejig some pages to keep a level of consistency.

I don't understand ....why you feel it necessary to change everything I do, often within hours? I find it incredibly insulting. I've changed some of the fleet tables to match some of the others, usually adding missing data as I go, so that they are all the same style. The same style you have done with Port Isaac and Newquay, with the ON and OP numbers first And then out of the blue, just for Plymouth, you revert back to the previous style, with the dates first. Is it just to make a point because I'd set it up? I don't understand why you need to do that??

I don't understand... your inconsistency? You tell me that its important to you for a certain format for assistive readers, but then you're not consistent. You do half a page, and forget the rest. The work you did on Norfolk and Suffolk Lifeboat is absolutely all over the place??? And its REALLY difficult to update - I'd guess you struggle with it like me.

I don't understand why you find it necessary to tag every line to an individual page link of the LBES Handbook. (and for goodness sake, let me send you a new one). Tagging every new line with a 2010 reference is really quite ridiculous, and Who Cares? You end up with a whole page of one line tags in Reference, which looks stupid.

And I don't understand the need for sortable tables, esp when they are only a few lines. Is it just because you can?

I don't understand why you don't stick to creating new pages, because you're bloomin good at that (apart from you living in 2010!!)

MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I really appreciate the time you are putting in to update and improve the lifeboat pages. My Handbook might be out of date, but it is what I have got here and has been used as a basis for most of the West Country stations. If you can improve the information, please do.

Wikipedia is a collaborative space. Once something is published it is open to other editors to work on it. Whether that is 5 hours, 5 months or 5 years later doesn't matter. It is the collaboration to continuously improve things that counts.

Okay, so here is what I am thinking right now:

• MOS:BOLD - bold text should not be used within an article text except in certain situations. The first line of a list is not one of those.
• WP:BULLET - bulleted lists are preferred. Don't swap between a first line bullet and then a second line plain (unbulleted). And never double space or put a blank line in the middle of a list.

I find sortable tables more useful. We usually put the station fleet tables in date order, but being able to change that to date built, name or number might suit some users. The change to put the date in the first column makes more sense if that is the order that we are writing the table. (Actually, this isn't new thing. It has been around for a while but not used consistently).

P.S. Lyme Regis will be the next new station article - I've started the draft.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geof

Firstly, Wikipedia is a collaborative space. Once something is published it is open to other editors to work on it. Whether that is 5 hours, 5 months or 5 years later doesn't matter. It is the collaboration to continuously improve things that counts.

Yes, I agree.

BUT - I hope you will agree that it feels rather malicious to be doing this only days after someone has done a load of work, when you haven't created that work, and haven't touched the page for 5 years. Its just unneccessary.

Secondly, I have put a lot of work in, at nearly all station pages, to try to make them in some kind of similar format, esp to make the tables the same format. AND made a point to 'Add Value', usually updating, adding missing numbers, etc etc.

I do not think is a collaboration to continuously improve things if you just delete or change what I did only days earlier - and to add insult to injury, in a way which is inconsistent. You do it one way on one page, and another way on another page. ????

Thirdly, I have created Station honours for most pages. I accept it may not follow some convention, but its done, and its clear, and they're all the same. The bullet points don't need sub-bullet points. So I would appreciate if you didn't mess with them all.

I can fully understand sortable tables when there is a huge list, but I still don't see the point when there are only 5 things in the list. But then I still don't see what it achieves anyway.

It does seem to me that anything I raise is just ignored, and it has to be your way or no way. Did you look at the Norfolk and Suffolk table? Its still a mess.

Can I just say, that I'm not getting this stress from anyone else. Yes, there are one or two who have got in touch about odd changes, but NOBODY else is changing what I've done except you, and I just don't see why you feel the need??

Is what I'm doing so badly wrong?

MartinOjsyork (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't take my edits as malicious. They are done when they are done. The only things I tried to remove were where you duplicated information that was already on the page. The majority of my edits have been about formatting, adding links, and making the prose easier to read.

When you started editing it reminded me that there were things that needed doing on the lifeboat pages which had slipped off the top of my 'to do' list. I don't want to wait another five years before you will allow me to edit them. My way of working is to do one or two pages at a time; I am not going to stay up all night working through every article at once.

I tried to tidy up the lifeboat pages. You complained so I switched my attention more to the station pages. You complained about them too. What does that leave me? I still want to work towards filling in some of the blanks, but that needs collaboration.

I'm sorry that you don't want to follow convention with bulleting lists. As for the Norfolk and Suffolk-class lifeboat, as far as I an see the tables are correct. If you can see an error, please tell me which boats need correcting.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geof

Did I not do things well enough, that you feel the need to meddle with everything I've done? This is just ridiculous. You're not contributing, at this point, you're absolutely being malicious.

I was complaining because you are systematically rearranging everything on existing pages that I've literally just updated.

I've spent hours adding details, reformatting tables to present well, and you just change them.

I've created from scratch, and after much deliberation about how to format I may add, a list of Station Honours, and you just change them.

I added updates to fleet pages, and you re-wrote them straight away.

And in the process, you seem oblivious to the table formatting, so that stuff that was set not to overlap, now overlaps.

Port Isaac, I didn't change what you did. Added a missing boat. Format not quite as I'd like, but it was left alone and treated with respect, as you had just done it.

Now I see, just to be bloody minded, and to prove your right, you've rearranged the fleet page on Port Isaac again, that you only did last week.

Do you not think all that might make someone cross.

I'm just wondering what its all for, or what you are now achieving.

So I'm done for now. I'm not here for arguments and battle, or to deal with some crazy bloke who is changing all my work, just because he can. I won't say any more.

I started to edit Lifeboat pages to make things better than they were. I've worked my way through most of them.

It's no wonder folk lose heart and stop contributing if someone just jumps in and changes what they just did straightaway.

So crack on, spend the next few months changing stuff, because apparently you have nothing better to do.

I do.

Norfolk and Suffolk - check out ON 663 boxes.

(And for goodness sake, stop referencing everything to a book 14 years old. That's just madness. Especially when its only just been referenced to 2024!)

Ojsyork (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to be in touch again.

But every night I see you still redoing what has only just been done, so I would appreciate if you would explain what is so wrong?

I did think it was me that had been wrong, but now I see you changing stuff you did years ago as well??

I am glad that you're leaving Station honours alone.

Convention on all RNLI pages is to mark unnamed boats as Unnamed.

Convention on all RNLI pages is to use the efn link for ON and OP numbers.

You keep changing boats to Peake class, but there is no definition anywhere of what this means?

And all the fleet tables were all in the same format, until you started changing them again. You have a long way to go!

I am just wondering what its all for?

MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Martin. I'm not sure what I've been "redoing what has only just been done" this week, but there is no time limit set for when people can edit. If something could be improved, let's do it.

Just because something was considered a good way to do things five years ago doesn't mean that it can't be bettered today.

I'm not aware of any policy to say that footnotes are an agreed way of doing things, or that 'unnamed' is preferred over '(no name)'. I've also seen examples where it has an M-hyphen — or where it is simply left blank.

As for the Peake-class, it is a term used in some books and even on some RNLI station history pages[7]. There is a plan on page 59 of Riders of the Storm if you have a copy. The class is, admittedly, rather varied but no worse than the Watson-class. It is definitely less vague than plain 'self-righter' which covers a huge range of boats. Peake developed Beeching's design towards the end of the 1850s to make a lighter, self-righting boat. When Watson came along he favoured non-self-righting boats but some stations still wanted self-righters so they continued to be built. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Geof

Over the last two months, I have rattled around ALL the available station pages, adding info, ON numbers, Op numbers, dates, Class types, and in the absence of any other available information, "30ft Self-righting (P&S)" and similar references, as per the LBES Handbook. I have also rearranged (if necessary) all the tables to match RNLI Fleet pages, with the ON and OP numbers first, so that they're all the same.

I have added in OP and ON references to match all the other page, so that there is some uniformity. Might not be perfect, but at least they were all the same format.

I'm afraid I'm not inclined to believe you when you say I'm not sure what I've been "redoing what has only just been done" this week. It is perfectly clear who's been where, what they did, and you're smart enough to work it out.

So I shall list the following stations, the date I was there, and the date you decided also to do a wholescale reformat, you having not been there or contributed greatly on these pages for many years.

Exmouth, 6 Feb, 19 Feb

Looe, 7 Feb, 21 Feb

Fowey, 7 Feb, 21 Feb

Teignmouth, 16 Jan, 18 Feb

Dart, 6 Feb, 19 Feb

Torbay, 16 Feb, 18 Feb

Plymouth, 7 Feb, 8 Feb

Salcombe, 11 Feb, 14 Feb

Maybe now you will understand why I'm completely frustrated with this.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading your list correctly, in the last week (16-22 February), I have edited 6 of these pages, only one of which you had edited this week. To complain about me redoing Teignmouth more than four weeks after your last edit does not seem reasonable. As I've said before, there is no time limit set for when people can edit but surely a whole month should be okay? You complain if I don't edit a page for five years.

So let's look at Torbay Lifeboat Station more closely. Your edit was mainly to change Lbc templates in the tables of lifeboats to the better Lbb template. This is exactly the sort of thing that I have been doing as I work through the local lifeboat stations. Yes, I changed the order of columns (as explained earlier in this thread) and made them sortable, but I did not change your templates as you had saved me having to do it. While I was reviewing the page I also updated the citations to make sure they use the Sfn template.

I would have done all that when I reviewed the page whether it was last week, next week or next year. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Geof

I do not have a problem with you editing at any time. Adding, correcting citations, is all fine. Correcting my typos - I know I put extra spaces, using too many capitals, all kinds of errors - is all perfectly acceptable.

Adding value is always good. Thats all I have tried to do. And to create some level of uniformity across the RNLI pages.

I have never complained that you haven't edited for 5 years. What troubles me is that having not edited things for 5 years, you are choosing NOW to make edits, and specifically, re-arrange what I have done, within days of me doing it. I'm sure if the boot were on the other foot, you too would be mightily hacked off.

Not only that, you are now changing format protocols, unofficial or otherwise, and for why?

Rearranging tables so that they no longer conform to usual fleet tables. (and there's at least one with an extra error box).

Maybe you don't realise that the formatting - nowrap etc, is set so that the pages can be easily read on a mobile phone, without too many overlaps...which you happily just delete.

You changed all the Unnamed entries to (no name), for God's sake, what is that achieving?? 100's of pages with Unnamed, and you have to change all yours???

You are changing the OP and ON number links, when it was all just fine as it was.

And then adding to "comments" with information 14 years out of date!!!

You still haven't sorted out the mess that is Norfolk and Suffolk-class. ON663

You insist on putting Peake class - and the problem I have with that - is that unlike putting some useful information, 30ft Self-righting Pulling and sailing (which gives at least 3 definitions), and which can be verified via LBES handbook, Peake Class doesn't mean anything to anyone, as there are no references. Shall I go through all your listings and put "citiation required"

I would suggest that you're not adding any value, and just undermining the good work done before, by many other folk, not just me.

I've now created Blackpool, Peel, Port Erin, Port St Mary, Ramsey, also Steam-class lifeboats, and Civil Service lifeboats, D-classes RFD PB16, RFD320, Dunlop, Humber, Avon650, completed EA16's, Updated IB1, all Atlantic's, updated most fleet pages, and updated nearly all the Station pages. I think I'm doing a fair share of creation now.

I just wish you would stop fiddling with stuff that is perfectly fine, and be creative like you're good at, Bude, Rock, Newquay, Lyme Regis etc.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

PS:

I can send you an up to date LBES handbook if you want one if that helps.

Ojsyork (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No wrap

It isn't just mobile phones. Lots of computers have smaller screens too, and different browsers can display things in unexpected ways. I regulary use two different screen sizes and different browsers and even scrteen readers. If I spot something that doesn't display the way that I expect, I look closely at the way the page is written to understand why and fix it if possible.

If I delete a 'no wrap' template it will be because there is another one in the column that is better placed. We shouldn't generally need to of them in the same column. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

ON663

I've looked at Norfolk and Suffolk-class lifeboat several times and can't see any error.

This is what it looked like when it was formatted as a single row, but which was nonsensical to a screen reader:

ON	Name	Built	In service	Principal Station	Comments
663	John and Mary Meiklam Of Gladswood 1921– Agnes Cross	1921 S. E. Saunders, Cowes	1921 1921–1939 1940–1941 1941–1952	Gorleston No.1 Lowestoft Dover Relief fleet	Sold October 1952. Last reported as workboat Wimp in Aden, 1955

This is how it looks now, with separate cells for each date and station:

ON	Name	Built	Builder	In service	Station	Comments
663	John and Mary Meiklam Of Gladswood	1921	S. E. Saunders	1921	Gorleston No.1	Renamed in 1921, the name was later transferred to ON 670. Sold October 1952. Last reported as workboat Wimp in Aden in 1955.
	Agnes Cross			1921–1939	Lowestoft
				1940–1941	Dover
				1941–1952	Reserve fleet

The two names are clearer and it still has the four stations. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Geof

My biggest complaint about using rowspan, is that it makes editing afterwards really difficult, trying to work out what goes where. Maybe its just an acquired skill that I haven't acquired!

Much as I'm not a fan, I guess I can live with it.

As for the table, my issues are only in presentation...

I would expect the boxes in a column to be all the same size, so John and Mary box should be same size as Agnes Cross box.

OR!, I can see that Agnes Cross may get 75% of the space because there are 3 stations associated with Agnes Cross, which would make sense, but then why aren't the three station boxes (Lowestoft, Dover and Relief) each given 1/3 of Agnes Cross box size, and be all the same size?

"Renamed later as ON 670" doesn't make sense as a standalone comment, - which one???

I agree splitting Built and Builder is better.

Something I tried, to give more space to everything else, but it didn't look right.

Actually, now I'd get rid of both columns from the main table. I'm finding I much prefer using <ref group=Note>, to add loads of info. It takes up only 8 characters worth of table space.[note 1], and you can read it if you wave the mouse over it.

I started using "In Service" for dates, as it was less column width than "Dates In Service" used previously, and is easily replicated.

"At Poole" (for example) works fine, but when you get to "At Weston-super-Mare", you end up with a massively wide column for 9 digits of date range.

As I said before, don't wish to be at loggerheads, much prefer we work together.

Will still sort out a copy of LBES 2024 for you if you want one. Can always send to an anonymous address!

MartinOjsyork (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. I was looking at the comment again when I copied it across to here and thinking it could be clearer. I'll have another go.

You've got it right that the different sizes in the name column are because John and Mary is only for when it was at Gorleston, whereas Ages Cross is the name used at the other three stations. If the Built and Builder column weren't in the middle it would be easier to see:

ON	Name	In service	Station	Comments
663	John and Mary Meiklam Of Gladswood	1921	Gorleston No.1	Renamed in 1921, the name was later transferred to ON 670. Sold October 1952. Last reported as workboat Wimp in Aden in 1955.
	Agnes Cross	1921–1939	Lowestoft
		1940–1941	Dover
		1941–1952	Reserve fleet

I think the build date is useful but we only have the builder on pages where there were several different yards involved. Would having the columns as ON - Built - Name make sense?

'In service' works fine for the lifeboat class articles, but is a bit ambiguous on station articles as people might not realise that a boat had a longer service life than just the time spent at one station. There was a work around used in the past where the column was headed 'At station'. Not quite so clear but for long station names like Weston it is can be a useful alternative. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I had a go at resolving the rowspan boxes, and unless there is some magic code, it doesn't seem possible to make the boxes equal.

So much as i was thinking you hadn't done a great job, its not the case, and I must hold my hands up and apologise.

Leave in the build dates. Not such an issue on modern boats, but old ones turned up for decades.

Don't know about relocating build date. Need to have a think.

I can go with 'At Station'.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just wondering why??

Watson instead of 46ft 9in Watson ??? Is there not a specific 46ft 9in Watson page that your link should be pointing at??? MartinOjsyork (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The link does point to a specific page: [[46ft 9in Watson-class lifeboat|Watson]] (although I don't really understand why the Watson-class need to be split across so many pages). Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realised afterwards when on the PC.

Was looking at it on my phone.

Maybe need to tidy up Watson Class, but not yet.

Cool you have done Mablethorpe

2002–2015, B-778, Joan Mary

I'll leave that to you. You need a new book!

Not sure you need build dates on ILBs??

and what happened to Op.No.??

You'll find new pages for Thurso, Barrow, Hastings, you've seen Blackpool, and also done Peel, Ramsey, Port Erin, Port St Mary.

Have Douglas, Hoylake, West Kirby and Fleetwood on my list to do.

Had some arse called Broc demanding I change all the hyphens on Station honours, so I said if he wanted to do it, crack on. I think he did about 8 before he gave up.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

It would help if the RNLI updated its station history page :-) Geof Sheppard (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

B-778, Joan Mary

2001–2015, Mablethorpe

2015–2017, Happisburgh

Bought by the Finnish Lifeboat Institution in 2021. Now serving as a training and backup boat in Bågaskär training center.

Its on the A-75 page though.. Ojsyork (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

But B-754 was stationed at Mablethorpe until 2002. This is according to both the Atlantic 75 page and the 2010 Handbook. Is that correct? Geof Sheppard (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

754 is correct

778 is from 2002 Ojsyork (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Now amended.

Its a cut and paste typo, previous boats are 2001.

Probably mine, but I'm not sure! :o) Ojsyork (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

No, not guilty, I added on the end dates! Ojsyork (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

New Lifeboat Pages

Hi Geof

I've run out of material right now to create more new pages, maybe the odd thing will arrive, but I've made arrangements to collect a whole batch of Jeff Morris histories in late April, so I'll try to do some more later. Likely to be heading 'North', and doing some of the Scottish stations, and maybe Ireland, depends what comes.

One thing you seem to have a grasp of better than I do, is adding all the peripheral stuff, project tags, county links, etc etc. So please you could browse by all the pages I've done if you get time, and add the necessary odds and ends.

Seeing as it just seems to be you and me creating and updating, we really need to sort out some listing conventions, and stop being at odds...

• Don't really understand why you would replace Lbc|47ft Watson, with 47ft Watson-class lifeboat|Watson? Didn't you set that up in the first place?
• Why you're insisting on changing Op and ON references?
• Can we not get you to agree with small|Unnamed Unnamed?
• In Service or On Station?
• Station Table format, In Service, ON, Op No, Name, Class, Comments?

Discuss.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no harm in taking a deep breath before getting on with more new pages. There's still a lot of stations to do, but between us we've created more than everyone else in the last few years! I've finished the west coast of Wales; are you going to cover the north coast (Flint, etc.) or should I add them to my list? I was planning to do the missing stations in Essex next, after I've spent some time sorting out a few things down in the South West. I would then be thinking about Scotland - but I don't really have any plans for Ireland at this stage. You beat me to Hastings but there are a couple of others on the south coast which I could take a look at, although Dungeness seems complicated so might be at the end of the list.

I have taken a look at some of your pages for things like project banners. I'll find some time to go around the others soon.

As for the 'conventions', I don't think we are too far apart. The no name / unnamed thing is still open for discussion on the project talk page with no real conclusion. I'm looking for other views but I don't see it as something that we ought to spend too much time on.

If we are in agreement about the column order for station articles then I'll update the project page in a week or so - just leave it for a little longer in case someone else wants to add to the discussion.

I go with 'on station' (or 'at station') for the station pages.

ON and Op No changes from footnotes to a short sentence? Well, I just tend to avoid footnotes in general. They are useful for long explanations, and {{abbr}} has its place for simple things.

The Watson thing is a nuisance. As far as I'm concerned, 'Watson' is the class, no matter how long the boat might be. I don't understand why we need different articles for each length. But when it comes to the station tables, they all need to read 'Watson' if the table is sortable.

Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Mileages via Millbay

I seem to remember another editor a while back changing them all to avoid Millbay. DuncanHill (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it is confusing, but if the milepost shows 300.5 then that is a fact. It is a yellow thing stuck in the platform for anyone to see! If the mile and chain distances are cited from published sources then any other uncited calculations are in danger of being original research. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm not arguing with that, just wondering is this is the same chap reappearing. DuncanHill (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

See User talk:Class444SWRail#Distances on UK railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Editing RNLI pages

Hi Geof

I think its rather hilarious that you find my One revertion of your work unacceptable. For 6 months now, you've followed me around, reverting everything I've done.

• If I amend fleet comments, you rewrite, sometimes within minutes.
• If I have tidied up a station table, you change it.
• If I add text, you delete it.
• If I create split tables to make things clear, you merge it all back again.

There is nothing wrong with what I have done to any station page. All treated with the utmost respect, (and not touched if I thought anyone was managing that particular page).

• Why do you need to change Unnamed to (no name)?, just because you can.
• Why do we need sortable tables? You do it when there are only 2 entries??
• We have a standard format for Op and ON numbers. But you ignore that.
• Whats with splitting D from EA16 - it just looks a mess. We might refer to Atlantic 75 or 85, but its always a D-class, never an RFD PB16.

It just seems to me that you're hell bent on changing everything I've added, no matter how ridiculous things end up. Seems to me that its your way or no way, and that's just not right.

I can cope with you messing about with all the South West pages, and I'll leave you to all of those. (Oh, btw - you forgot to do Falmouth).

But I draw the line when you start on everywhere else, just messing with stuff that really doesn't need an update, it was done earlier this year. If you were so bothered, why hadn't it been done by you previously?

So right now, I'm taking it very personally, and I've had enough. You should have more respect for someone else's efforts.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the usual problem of "two cooks in one kitchen". Both of you should please see WP:OWN for our standard policy about this.

I'm not close to the RNLI but understand that its ships are mostly crewed by volunteers. As it's important that they work well together in close quarters and dangerous conditions, how do they manage the chain of command and differences of opinion? Perhaps we can get some good ideas from their example?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for jo9ing the debate. I don't claim to own any pages but I am trying to work alongside Martin to improve what we've got. I've been impressed by the energy that he has brought since he joined Wikipedia's editors.

Martin, the reason that I asked the question on the Mudeford Lifeboat Station page is because that was where you undid my recent editing. Your previous edit on that page was more than a month ago, not the "minutes" that you keep accusing me of.

I explained on that talk page why I believe that it requires a sortable table. It has 12 rows, not just 2.

As for the '(no name)' and 'unnamed' debate, I don't think there is any consensus on which is better, but I think 'no name' makes more sense. However, can I suggest you take a look at a page which does have a sortable table with a mix of named and unnamed boats, perhaps Appledore? If it was sorted with 'unnamed' those would end up in the middle of the named boats: Douglas Paley, Glanely, Manchester and District, unnamed, Vera Skilton, Wildenrath Wizzer.

If you sort with '(no name)' then it pulls them to one end of the list: (no name), Douglas Paley, Glanely, Manchester and District, Vera Skilton, Wildenrath Wizzer.

PS Thanks for spotting Falmouth's tables got missed. I don't know how that happened, but I'll put it on my 'to do' list. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Geof

You only need to go back through your talk history to see that you have been pushing my buttons since I started editing. I'm not having issues with anyone else. Yes, you were changing stuff after just minutes. Not now I agree, you wait a month or so in the belief that it will then be acceptable.

Regardless of what points I raise, I think you will still do what you want, to the detriment of the lifeboat pages, and maintain your disrespect for what has gone before, and all the previous editors, not just me. In all our 'discussions', so far, you have conceded nothing. So much for collaboration.

To keep changing stuff that was recently done is just ridiculous. What a waste of everyone's efforts.

Let me just say, and these are all things just You are insisting on...

• I don't like Date first tables.
• I absolutely don't see the point in sortable tables.
• I don't see why you are changing the OP and ON links
• I absolutely don't agree with (No Name).
• I don't see why every table need to start with a pic, which then just offsets the format.
• I still don't see the point of citing every page of a book 14 years old, when most folks won't have the book, and couldn't verify if they wanted to.
• And why use a 14 year old book anyway, when I offered to get you a new one?

All I ask - please just stop amending pages needlessly.

Just look at the ILB table for Yarmouth. How is that better than what was there before?

Absolutely frustrated.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin, but just because you don't like or don't agree with something doesn't mean it is wrong. The date-first format was discussed on the project page and you agreed to it.

I certainly don't disrespect ... what has gone before, and all the previous editors. I am one of those previous editors and many of your edits build on, or change, what we have done. What was okay 5 or 10 years ago can often be done better now and some of your work has helped this. As your talk page testifies, I am not the only editor who has put time into helping you edit and collaborate, even if you don't always agree with them.

I will continue to work on lifeboat pages and, hopefully add value there. Certainly updating to sortable tables and untangling the class/sub-class/length confusion that some of them have. We need to remember that most people who read Wikipedia don't have the in-depth know;edge of lifeboats that you and I do so we should aim for plain and consistent language.

I am avoiding doing big reverts on your work, I hope that you can have the same respect for my work.

By the way, the images of lifeboats aren't being put into the table, I put them on the side of the lifeboat section as that is what they are illustrating. This is what is set out in the MOS. If it doesn't fit on the side there are other solutions, but I would avoid placing images near the top of the page as they get pushed away by the long infobox. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Geof Sheppard

I thought I would leave it a while to see how things panned out.

"just because you don't like or don't agree with something doesn't mean it is wrong." Absolutely. It applies to you just as much as me.

Date format - reluctantly, I said I could go with it. It was primarily in the hope that there would be some compromise from you on other things. Sadly, that is never forthcoming.

I also don't think it looks good to have a build date listed AFTER the service date, doesn't look good. But to start a list with the Build Date still doesn't look right.

Its a list of Lifeboats, should start with ON, Op, Name, Build, Service, Comments.

"I am avoiding doing big reverts on your work". No, that doesn't seem to be the case. You're continuing to progress your wants and changes, despite any protest. I reverted some of the pointless messy confusing updates.

My compromise is to not touch South West.

I am firmly of the opinion that you are changing stuff just for the sake of change. You aren't adding value.

You changed all of Poole inshore boats... take a look at the Op numbers of the A-class. You used some old numbers, with a note to say they were later changed. And then some new numbers, saying they were previously changed etc etc?? How confusing is that! It was all perfectly fine beforehand. Might not be how you would prefer, BUT fine nonetheless.

And what on earth are "Large" lifeboats?

There's a whole load of pages, text, citations needs correcting etc etc. I didn't touch much of that at all. And plenty of pages needing creating. I've now done over 50. Might not be perfect, but I'm trying my best. Just jolly frustrating to watch someone systematically change your work.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions, but a 'pulling and sailing' lifeboat never used to be described as 'all-weather' - that is a term that only came into use much later. When there are separate tables for pulling and sailing and motor lifeboats the headings are fine, but then we sometimes end up with lots of little tables.

Despite your edit comments, there is no consensus on using unnamed. It used to be just — on some pages (as we do for boats with no Op. No.) but you've gone around changing them.

And when you are reverting my work, please keep the things that are done to conform to the Manual of Style, such as the corrections to capitalisation that I have made. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the term All-weather is perfectly accurate. Pulling and sailing lifeboat were sent out in All weathers. Certainly not 'Large'!

Does it matter we end up with lots of little tables.

Regarding Unnamed, it was in use way before I came along. It is also how boats are referred to in lifeboat documentation, LBES handbook for starters.

If we were starting from scratch, then maybe (No Name) would be the way to go, but I really don't see the point of changing everything to that now just because its what you prefer.

I gone around a lot of ones I did with quotes or Capitals, to make them all the same. If they had all been (No Name) from day 1, then thats what I would be doing, just maintaining what was there first.

As I have said previously, I know I'm not perfect, and make many errors, esp Capitals. I have never had an issue with their correction, and I will endeavour to correct my style errors.

I don't want to be at odds with anyone, that was never the intention. Just really don't understand what I have done so badly that needs everything redoing.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A fresh start

Geof Sheppard

I'm sure your probably fed up with me. Maybe time to draw a line and move on. Hopefully we can still work towards a common goal.

When I created the former RNLI stations page, I was hoping that you might grab the challenge and create some separate pages, rather than just tag existing information. For example, create a separate Penzance station page, and then cross ref to Penlee etc, a bit like I have done with Banff and Macduff / Whitehills and Macduff. I'm sure there's enough material out there to do that.

I was looking at "Hope Cove Life Boat", which is a bit of a mix. It seems to cover more of the independent station, but the pic is the old RNLI station, which has nothing to do with it. So maybe it needs a "Hope Cove Lifeboat Station" page to document the RNLI stuff, and make the current page more of the independent.

Just a suggestion. MartinOjsyork (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I may have said it before, but splitting Penzance from Penlee is on my 'to do' list. You may have noticed that I've been doing the rounds of stations that have listed status (and collection boxes!), and the Penzance building is one of these so deserves its own page.

Hope Cove is a bit of an odd one, but it is rather like Sidmouth. The page as it stands should do for now. Like you've pointed out, there are plenty of missing stations that are clearly notable and need a page created. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Think there was just a bit on Hope Cove that says they're still using the old building, but clearly they aren't. It was up for sale not too long ago.

Your listed status stuff is great.

Collection Boxes are my specialism for Heritage. It's what I research, and currently have 6 under restoration. I will have to work something out, as I do have loads of newspaper references and about 300 postcards/ images.

Quite amazed nothing has been said about the flag. Even messaged Dave Riley at RNLI Media for a press release - but nothing came back!

- Ojsyork (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)