Need to check this again, as it's presumably still 1st October in some parts of the world, but currently it's at 6500 views! I think that can be called a 'result'! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. Sorry for the delayed response. I have been busy off-wiki over the past few weeks (I am still!) and decided to take a wiki-break and re-start my WP editing from 1st Nov.
I've had a read through your article and will try to have a more detailed look soon.
Hi, I invite you to make your thoughts known on best place to put the ghost: Talk:Burpham,_Surrey
Seddon-Atkinson
I'll have to dig through the references I do have for the Atkinson stuff, probably after I've finished the Leyland Titan Article, but a lot is through memory, and some of it comes from out of print publications I can't currently find to purchase.
If you look at the Seddon Pennine RU article there is in there a history of Seddon Diesel Vehicles, almost all of which comes from GG Hilditch's Another look at Buses, I think the citations are in place, feel free to copy it across.
Stephen Allcroft (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Stephen Allcroft[reply]
Thank you.
I am currently having a bit of a sabbatical from editing. There are many things I have to deal with off-Wiki and I had to completely wean myself from WP. Hopefully I will find a way of regulating my addiction so that I can return to the fold!
(Must get round to adding a 'currently off-wiki' banner!)
I tend to binge-edit and then go quiet for a bit, myself. But after doing the front-engined Leyland Tigers, doing the titans seemed like the next project. I'll try to get the Seddon history copied across when time permits.
Stephen Allcroft (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Stephen Allcroft[reply]
Beam pump? I had originally linked to the latter in my draft introduction, but this re-directs to Pumpjack which is a "nodding donkey" type of engine. Also, the Beam engine article starts by saying "A beam engine is a type of steam engine" whereas the one at Coultershaw is operated from a waterwheel. I am rather confused. Thanks for any help and advice. I have also posed this question to User:Andy Dingley and User:Parrot of Doom who also commented in that thread. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It's mainly a problem of terminology. To avoid you getting three answers, I suggest moving the discussion to Talk:Beam engine#Coultershaw Beam Pump. (But thank you for posting on my talk page: I get an email alert as I have currently weaned myself from chronic Wikipedia editing!) -- EdJogg (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ed, good to see you're still around. How's the Nobel Prize coming along? I do sometimes wonder just what we could each achieve without wasting time here!
Nobel Prize? Don't think so. Currently I am 'between employment' and supposedly spending my time constructively searching.
Haven't been active on WP recently as is was spending far too much time editing and regularly checked my position in the top 2000 contributors. I enjoyed it greatly, but it was threatening to take over all my spare time. Only answer was to stop completely. Recently I have started applying edits when I see errors, but I am yet to re-start anything really productive. (And I haven't dared look at the current state of the 'Thomas' articles!) I am sure that the steam engine related articles have been well curated in my absence!
Hi EdJogg - I too "retired" due to real world pressures. Just popped on to wiki to make a tiny edit, and thought "why not check the watchlist?". The first thing I saw was the creation of Thomas & Friends (franchise) and immediately thought of you! While I don't doubt the eagerness of the author to provide a central hub for all things Thomas that aren't RS/TV related, the lede "Thomas and friends was created by Rev W Wilbert. (sic)" just made me laugh. I haven't dared do anything! Anyway, regards, and best wishes - hope you are doing well!—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and sorry for taking so long to reply.
I still edit on WP, but at the moment only reactively, when I see something wrong during other research -- I find it far too easy to get sucked-in to a multi-page fix.
That 'franchise' page is still a mess, and the first reaction was to see if it could just be re-routed back to the original T&F page (where much of the non-TV stuff appears to have originated). But I think I just don't want to get involved! (Could be a very long job.)
Other language wikipage links are now maintained centrally at WikiData (hurrah). For further information see Help:Interlanguage links.
Would be a good idea to double-check the Traction engine links as there used to be much confusion between these and portable engines. (Check your ToDo list, if you dare!)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Meta may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before [[aspirated vowel]]s).
Commonscat Boxes -- preventing line-breaks in long titles
Many pages have titles too long to display neatly in the commonscat box, resulting in an ugly line-break (when viewed in PC browser).
Removing the line-break with <br/> can cause unanticipated results when viewed on mobile/tablet: the Commonscat box is wider and <br/> may cause it to display unnecessarily on two lines. Instead use {{nowrap}} to force a line-break only when required, like this:
Thanks for the help. I will have a look and see what I can achieve :-) Rosser Gruffydd 11:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Steam car - developing edit war
Hi EdJogg - I would like your assistance on a technical steam engine matter. There is a small edit war developing and the argument is around a paragraph about the disadvantages of steam engines. Can you take a look and give me some guidance as to who is right. The discussion is on the articles talk page.
Congratulations on your sterling work at improving the Steam car article. I must admit I haven't read your edits, but I've seen you've been very busy! When you've 'finished' I could give it a proof-read if you like.
Now, this edit IS problematic. Before looking at the article, and the edit war, my first thought was that you should refer the matter to User:Andy Dingley, as he has written most of Wikipedia's content about the many types of steam boiler!!!!
Ho-hum.
I will comment on the article itself on the talk page.
Fear not, I'm not expecting further input from you. NOW I know you were already involved, but I didn't at first (when I thought that comment). I'm just composing my response. That section is sorely lacking useful technical information, and those two referenced paragraphs are not actually helpful to the article.
I can't work out, and have little interest in it, whether they're complaining about "radiator" as terminology, the uselessness of condensing from some theoretical standpoint (there wasn't any condenser vacuum on any road steamer I can see before the 1950s) or whether they just think that "99% of steam cars" were built without them. Yet someone at White (also Stanley and Doble) was clearly doing a lot of soldering to make something! Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I have a reference for condensers being fitted on Stanleys and Whites. The book also notes why they were not fitted to earlier Stanleys "...[the brothers reasoned] no one would want to travel more than forty miles in a day, so that was the capacity of the water and fuel tanks"!
Nor does their past contributions history inspire much technical confidence. Oh well, my "braying ignorance" and I will go elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have noted the limited edit history of the complainant, but I have not examined the technical content of NealeFamily's edits. I agree with you that referenced material should not (normally) be removed, and that the information (such that it is) is missing from the article, but I also agree with them that the two paragraphs make little sense out of the context of the book from which they were taken.
Hence, my independent view is that the article is actually better off without the two paragraphs.
Just so you both are clear about my position - I have no technical knowledge about steam engines so whether they have condensers or radiators or whatever I have no clue. What I was trying to achieve, and hopefully you will be able to do is some agreement over how the technical aspects are covered without it turning into a major war. Hopefully you are able to resolve the issue. My interest is purely a historic rather than a technical viewpoint. Hope this helps. Regards
From the number of your edits I perceived an interest in steam cars and had hoped that you might be able to fill in some of the technical blanks we've been highlighting.
But any improvements you can make are warmly welcomed and, as I mentioned elsewhere, if you felt moved to take on the restructuring of the article, I would certainly be pleased to offer proof-reading support.
As to the matter in hand, the 'edit war' should now be over, although the resultant lack of technical detail is still problematic.
I guess I am going to have to learn about steam engines. Thanks for your help and advice. I shall complete the history research (I am up to about 1970) and then take a look at a tidy up. As Andy Dingley said there are a number of inter-related articles that need tidying up. Regards
You're welcome. And as I said, I'm happy to help with proof-reading or a similar specific request.
Unfortunately I have found that Wikipedia editing is rather addictive, so these days I mostly restrict myself to correcting errors I find when reading articles for research.
With regard to steam engines, it should be enough to recognise the different components and the general principles of operation -- (I've never attempted to understand the minutiae of the physics involved!) -- and this will help you appreciate the significance of the developments by each manufacturer.
I have entered all the steam cars I can find into the List of steam car makers, split the list into, hopefully, logical sections, and updated the comments. If you or Andy Dingley are aware of any missing ones let me know.
I am going to do another sweep through and then from there start on into the
Apologies for delayed reaction to comments -- real life taking priority!
The article is looking good.
I wouldn't be able to add anything to the list entries, except perhaps proof-read them (although I don't have the time at present); however, I have adjusted the headings slightly to improve their consistency. I hope you approve. I do understand the problems of grouping the manufacturers chronologically due to all the overlaps. I think each section could do with a bit more introductory text -- there is scope for cross-linking between here and the parent article using 'Main' links.
I have also adjusted the lede paragraphs, as I felt it important to introduce the list first, and then explain how it was arranged. Once you have edited the steam car article further, you may wish to revisit this.
As an observation, it can be tricky finding a specific manufacturer who spans several eras (eg Stanley is not in the 1900-1913 list, which is confusing). Duplicating complete entries would create an editing nightmare, but for the few where this is significant, you could add a row with the first columns duplicated and a note like "see '1890s' manufacturers".
As a future development, the lists could be made 'sortable' (I have not done this before) so users could, for example, list the companies by country or start date.
Hi EdJogg, hope you can help or point me to some place!
I'm interested in using the WP canal map format in general, and specifically the existing maps for Cotswold canals, on Cotswold Canal Trust web site.
But on a quick recce I am not sure what copyright etc would apply to a map. Is it text or image?
Many thanks in advance.
Keble6 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Interesting idea.
I don't think that copyright will be a problem at all. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that it's free for anyone to use, hence all photos, etc, must be free of copyright restrictions. So, as long as you give the appropriate attribution to say where the map came from -- and a link to the Wikipedia article would be useful too -- I would have thought that would be enough. However, you should check elsewhere on the site for specific advice about reusing or quoting portions of WP, as I am no authority on the matter!
How would you propose to re-use the maps? The wikicode will be of little help, but the generated HTML appears to be a series of tables -- with lots of CSS formatting, of course. Or will you stitch the icons together in a graphics package to make a single image? This might well be quicker, although you'll lose the flexibility of updating the map as restoration progresses.
A screen grab will give you what you want, agreed, but the quality will be limited. If you must go down this route, I would suggest making the map image as large as you can before grabbing, as the resolution loss should be less noticeable when you reduce them in size for the website.
If your HTML is up to it, the individual icons are available on Wikimedia Commons as SVG images (and hence scalable for different screen sizes, which is what you want for a website). You could potentially arrange the icons in a table, and you will be able to create whatever section of map you want, and it will be maximum resolution. It might save you some time to view the page source and copy out the appropriate sections of HTML, but it will require further editing.
Thanks for being an active member of WikiProject Thomas. I would appreciate it if you would help me assess the unassessed articles. Peter SamFan02:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. Thank you, @Peter SamFan: and welcome to Wikipedia!
I don't remember us (ie WikiProject Thomas) ever having created a barnstar.
If you look at my contribution history, you'll see that I am a rare visitor here nowadays (as an editor).
Unfortunately I find Wikipedia editing far too addictive, so I now tend to abstain. And, like most of the other early project members -- most of whom came here as fans of the original books -- I found the sheer volume of content created relating to the TV series became overwhelming. It just required too much monitoring and reversion, especially for the volume of (often-speculative) content from the younger TV fanbase. After a while, managing this kind of thing stops becoming fun.
I dare not get too involved again, so assessing swathes of articles is not for me, sorry, although I'm happy to help out with specific issues if I can.
Hi EdJogg - I am reasonably happy with the List of steam car makers now and think that it now contains virtually all of them. The ability to sort that you added was really useful. I have now begun tidying up the Steam car article to ensure consistency between the two. Once I have added more references and decided what to do with the stray cars in the article I thought I would put my mind to the History of steam road vehicles.
At this stage I am wondering if it would be better to rename and refocus the History of steam road vehicles to the
In relation to your other query you do not want to rename/refocus History of steam road vehicles as it is fulfilling a unique and necessary role already: collating the complicated development of non-railway, land-based, steam-powered traction. The article you suggested creating would need to be additional, at a higher level than this one, using a subset of the information on road vehicles. I'm not sure how you could usefully populate such an article as the development of steam-powered ships, trains and road vehicles was largely independent. Admittedly the development of very early railway locomotives overlapped the earliest road vehicles, but they quickly diverged, and the common areas of technological development would be better covered under steam engine, or one of its sub-pages.
Sorry for delay in replying. Life off-wiki is very busy: a house move, new job, and helping hands-on with a canal restoration project against a deadline, all keep me away from the risks of getting addicted to editing again!
Thanks. I've been helping with the Compasses Bridge project. Utterly amazing what we've achieved in a year. (See photos here, here, and, most recent, here. Scroll to bottom and work up to see them chronologically.) One day I'll find time to update the Wey and Arun Canal page...!
Thank you. Yes, I concur, having since looked more closely at several other photos of that lock on Commons. Thanks for responding so quickly. -- EdJogg (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages now require direct sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight.
Please do not add new additions to these pages without direct sources as the
burden to provide them
is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.
, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Blimey, when was the last time I curated any of my userboxes?
Seems a shame that this category couldn't remain, just a harmless piece of fun, or Mostly Harmless, at any rate. There are times when I wish WP wasn't so restrictive.
