User talk:Murgatroyd49

Welcome!

Hello, Murgatroyd49, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for RMS Mauretania (1906). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How can I correct a typo in an article title?

The article is :Bristol Bath Road Traction Maintenace Depot (sic)

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have fixed it. For future reference, you can do it with the "Move" tab at the top of the page. That leaves a "redirect" from the old title; consider whether it's useful, and if not (as here) put {{db-r3}} at the to to ask for it to be deleted. There can be complications: see WP:Moving a page for details. JohnCD (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Murgatroyd49! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	For all of the recent important small edits, helping disambiguate links throughout the Wikipedia project. We need more users like yourself, who are willing to work on the many parts of our Wikipedia backlog. Hope you keep it up, and if you need help, feel free to let me know! Sadads (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blush" Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I propose undoing the renaming of an article? (Specifically List of Great Western Railway ships)

You did the right thing posting on the talk page. I put a message on the mover's talk page also asking them to come back and comment. –Grondemar 09:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put their "ISSN" into a WP template. Please check. You will find that WorldCat does not have Reflections. – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the ISSN into google shows it.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but I've added a link for the Society's Reflections listing. We should rely on it rather than the inaccurate ISSN. Doing so gives the reader more direct access. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I propose an article to be locked against persitent wilful vandalism by an unregistered editor?

The page in question is Television South

You can request for page protection at WP:RPP. #1997kB 14:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article COSCO fleet lists 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/COSCO fleet lists until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw that you added an infobox to Keppel's Column regarding its designation. Could you also add it to nearby buildings Hoober Stand and Needle's Eye? I would do it myself but I have limited knowledge on how to. Thanks – Ozankk 11:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've looked at it, They appear to use a non-standard, possibly deprecated, infobox, so not as simple as I thought. Can be done, I'm just pondering the best way of doing it. Maybe substitute the infobox with infobox historic site. Hopefully will sort it out today. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now done, it was easier than I thought! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sandbox version looks great, the only criticism I have is removal of the cost field. But if that's not feasible to include, then I'm all for the sandbox version anyway. Cheers – Ozankk 12:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately 'cost' is not a recognised parameter in infobox historic site. I will change the three pages to similar versions Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your message - I understand your points. Hope we have solved the isue between us now by removing the unsupported claim until it can be validated. Thanks, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jontel (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BR Class 37 renumbering 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/BR Class 37 renumbering 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. Nightfury 13:10, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The information was provided by the National Trust Dapdune Wharf group. I suspect their information is not complete so I will go with your change. The group (and me) are new to using Wikipedia and we are working out the best way to capture the great deal of information we have about the Wey Navigation. We will be creating more pages as we sift through the various documents we have. We will also be working on the providence of the information so we can cite the appropriate references. Thank you for your other amendments. Regards WNRGMike(Talk) 08:45 October 31st, 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a group of volunteers called the Wey Navigation Research Group which I am part of. I am encouraging them to use Wikipedia as the place of record. We have a good amount of research but it is in folders which are not available to everyone and the research is often duplicated. By using Wikipedia we can create a central repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WNRGMike (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Are you based in Southampton? I notice you uploaded a couple of the photos used in the article. If you're passing the cenotaph in the near future we could do with some more photos. We don't have any on Commons from the back or the sides. Merry Christmas. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I used to be in Southampton, hence the photos. I'm occasionally back in town and will endeavour to take some more. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any time you're passing, keep it in the back of your mind. :) I'm hoping to get there at some point in the new year myself but I don't have any firm plans yet. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Murgatroyd49. You have been invited to join WikiProject Surrey, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Surrey-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits within the scope of the project. You may wish to visit the: Article guidelines, for help with writing surrey related articles. Article Requests Department, to help clear the list of requested new surrey related articles or to add new requests. Assessment Department, to help out with assessing articles for the project or to request an article be assessed by another editor. If you plan to contribute to the project please add yourself to the list of project members. You may also like to add {{User WikiProject Surrey}} to your userpage. ~~~~

- Adam37 Talk 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done.

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with using italics in an article title.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49, you can copy this template code to any place of the article: {{Italic title}} -- do not modify the words "italic title". This will italicize the title. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if only part of the title should be in italics, you can use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template. When doing so, just be sure that the spelling of the parameter passed matches the actual title of the article with respect to spelling and capitalization. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but Oates has no connection to Hampshire and therefore shouldn’t be under ‘Notable people’. It’s irrelevant. Tedster007 (talk) 11:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedster007: It's a somewhat less tenuous connection than L S Lowry who painted one picture in the county! I see what you are getting at but I think the reference is justifiable in that people interested in Oates would appreciate knowing where his collection was housed. Possibly should be moved to the museum section instead. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least Lowry has a connection! There is only a museum to Oates at Gilbert White's house because a previous owner was interested in his family. Agreed it should be in the museum section.

You forgot to undo the reupload of the photograph that corresponds to your undoing of my date edit on Needle's Eye. – Ozankk 17:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozankk: Hi, there seems to be a problem with the image file on Commons, the description says the photo was taken 2015 but I now realise that was the date of your original photo. The metadata on the replacement photo shows 2018. My apologies, I assumed it was just a reframed version of your photo. I'll revert my undo and edit the image description. It's a bit naughty to overwrite someone else's photo like that, he should have added his photo as a new image and changed the page link to point to it. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Well it just so happens I was the original uploader of said image - I actually wouldn't mind his since superseding mine, as it has similar quality and three years more recent, which I think is suitable. – Ozankk 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49, I noticed you undid my edits to the above article diff, which I'm not that bothered about. If you want to claim it's for consistency reasons, however, you'll need to undo all of my edits there because I changed the formatting of the entire article. By the way, your version of the the line break tag <br /> is not correct HTML markup; it is, and always was, <br>; see here. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Hi, apologies for abandoning the edit part way through, batteries went flat in my keyboard at the wrong moment! Since then I've been away. I'll go back and sort the inconsistencies out. NB the <br / is wikimarkup not pure HTML, see Help:List#Line breaks inside list items. Quite possibly I'm misusing it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Blake (novelist) wrote non-fiction as well as novels: please see [1] to confirm that he wrote about ship lines, Lloyd's of London etc. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apogies, a quick google didn't bring that up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on Perseverance IV, but updating needed. See Talk:Perseverance IV for the problem.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: Hi, I'm not directly involved with the restoration project, just a passing National Trust member. I will try and find out what the latest information is next time I am passing Dapdune. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. Cheung2 (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheung2: Sorry, I know nothing about the subject. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
I notice you reverted an edit I made here; I've opened a discussion there if you'd like to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your somewhat off-hand comments here; perhaps you could do me the courtesy of a proper answer, now? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that, I thought I was editing another article when I hit that - not sure how, JarrahTree 10:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reinstated the edit you undid on Caerphilly as it did not seem to warrant a complete reversal. It seems a good faith edit with some useful detail. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, could you please review "the position" of the picture that you have moved again? In that place of the article it creates a blank gap of space of 7 cm, totally empty, that requires the readers to scroll down unnecessary, and makes the page design looking empty and incorrect. I am probably the user that improved this page the most in the years, and I would appreciate your help in keeping the page tidy. Additionally the picture you are moving, is related to a ship that in these recent years has been converted into a museum, so keeping it in between two age sections would make sense. Thank you Goodwillgames (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodwillgames: What device are you looking at? On a standard desktop it displays fine. It also displays correctly on a tablet. I suspect the problem may be caused by the non-standard and idiosyncratic "table" layout you use to display the ship names and classes. Perhaps that would be better presented as a proper table as used on other shipping line articles. As to the position of the image it would perhaps be more appropriate to move it to the section on WW2 where the ship is specifically referred to. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry there is a misunderstanding. White and Poppe was closed when you imply Dennis Bros closed. Dennis Bros went to the dogs and was sold off in 1972 and the business has since had a very chequered history. I will separate out the Dennis Bros story from Dennis Specialist Vehicles but don't hesitate to point out if I seem to have gone wrong. it will take me a few days. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Not sure what you mean, it clearly states that Dennis closed W&P in 1933. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does now, since I altered it!

Are you happy about my proposed changes? Eddaido (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddaido: Ah,I see what you mean, missed that as I'd removed the company title originally to avoid repetition. As to your other changes I am more than happy. My main objective was to de-Americanise the article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I edited for the first time in adding some info into the notes sections on certain ships on the Royal Caribbean International Page. Since the notes already list some ship refurbishment, I thought it would be appropriate to complete the list. Should the other ship refurbishments be removed from the article. I gather from your note the better place is on the individual ship pages. Thank you for any help/tips.Mrdewit (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrdewit: Hi, the notes about ships on the company page should be a very brief outline of the individual vessel. eg where it came from an where it went to with details of name changes. More detailed information should be the province of the main article about the ship. Otherwise the company page gets bloated and you end up with effectively two articles about the same ship. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Murgatroyd49! Thank you for proofreading yesterday. I ask you to suggest how to better insert deleted comments, they are important, but in order not to overload the main text. And I did not quite understand what was wrong with the shipyard' name. This is a valid name. Navy shipyard number 1. This is a small shipyard, but one of the first in Russia. [2].--Pavel Goncharuk (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Павел Игоревич Гончарук: Hi Pavel, the yard number in the infobox is the ship's yard number. Comments are not references, the latter refers to citations to justify the statements in the main text, eg details of the book or website where the information came from. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just thought i'd thank you for changing the colours of the table on the harry needle railroad company page, one quick question: how do you do it?

MJ9674 (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MJ9674: Ah, that's a secret known only to the initiated! Seriously, it's the "bgcolor=123456" tag at the beginning of each box on the line. If you check back with the index above the table, it will give you the relevant values for each situation. It's a 6 figure alpha-numeric code. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ok thanks @Murgatroyd49: MJ9674 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, than you for bringing the typo i committed in Category:Birmingham Museums Trust to my attention, and for fixing it. My question: Shouldn't the incorrect one Category:Brimingham Museums Trust be made into a redirect, rather than being speedily deleted? I'm unfamiliar with the policy for category redirects, and couldn't actually find the right guideline page for them.

YuriNikolai (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YuriNikolai: I had gone through every page with the incorrect Category on and changed them so no redirect needed. It's much easier than if it was an article name, that would need the redirect. Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for adding Twyford Brook to the list of tributaries on the River Loddon article. I think that River Broadwater probably ought to be removed. I have proposed it for deletion, as I am not convinced it is a real river. It might possibly be an alternative name for the section of the River Blackwater from the River Whitewater to the Loddon, though the evidence is very shaky, and even if it is, one sentence in the Blackwater article would cover it. Twyford Brook was also historically called the Broadwater, and indeed is still marked as Broadwater Brook on Openstreetmap, and the mouth location on the Broadwater article is actually much closer to Twyford Brook than to the Blackwater. I thought I would just mention it, as you have made numerous edits to the Loddon article. Bob1960evens (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bob1960evens: Hi, I agree about deleting the Broadwater article, I’ve found nothing to justify it either. Nice work on the Twyford Brook article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Thanks for your support over recent and no so recent issues. You may be interested in this SPI - if you can add any more names, that would be great. Many thanks  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Murgatroyd49-- The phrase was used in an addition to the article May 1943 which gave no details about the number of people who died in the training accident, and it had been paraphrased from the HMS Untamed article; I wasn't able to find a mention of how many people had been on board, other than that the article said that there were no survivors. Mandsford 20:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rhoda McGaw Theatre 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/Rhoda McGaw Theatre 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.   // Timothy :: talk  19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about OOCL Hong Kong is a large container ship. She was the largest container ship ever built ... and so on? I want to make sure that she IS, not WAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantin Kosachev (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing that, your edits merely duplicated what was already in the article, no point in saying it twice. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how'd you suggest saying it? Leaving it as is feels a little wrong. Konstantin Kosachev —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with leaving it as it is, it already points out that her and her sisters were the largest of their type in the world when built. (That may well still be true, I haven't checked). That by itself means she is a large container ship so it doesn't need repeating. Allow the reader to have some intelligence. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't revert a logical taxonomy! This is not an index to a paper encyclopedia, the very suborder setting of the tabulation lists was for tributaries as a prime example! What else would it be for, Fish & Chip shops in Birmingham? I mean really! Also to revert my river swift in favour of an at-best equal status Bourne Rivulet name which is not not borne out by the article. I mean one would think there was only one real source to river articles in the area.- Adam37 Talk 19:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam37: If you think items are in the wrong section of the template, move them to the correct section. It is not a place to discuss and insert expanations. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What section? How is one to second-guess what you find acceptable? Category is the place to put a basic, alphabetical index of rivers, navbox should enable clear navigation, like good old books on geography do, listing items underneath their respective headers. As wp:en is far more detailed on Eng. rivers than any global atlas, then even more so, if atlases do it, so should all navboxes of lists of say more than 15 rivers! If somehow you think mild explanations obfuscatory then simply reword. English is a very flexible language; text can always be improved on. If you want to compose a tree at least you have a foundation. In this visual age when other people (not us) cannot be bothered to read you may have a point. But once again, why just replicate Category:Rivers in Hampshire when navboxes enable truly so many other better alternatives. And don't destroy taxonomy for the sake of a rigid love of letter-order.- Adam37 Talk 08:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken on board what you've said. I don't particularly like the style of no 'River' adopted by the few other county river boxes that exist; I know you'd agree with that stance like me. However writing as you have copied from elsewhere River x is a river is just pathetic, no one in years past called each River "the River x" (almost no-one) and so to state the French-root word "river twice" is the height of sophistry and "fine speech", just not needed. However back on to topic I've really sorted the rivers into the sort of officiously rigid uniformity and banality which seems to be your touchstone and indeed it is a fine improvement. In fact my explanations were a little too bespoke but that is me, I like to be precise and bespoke. Quite honestly I would have subsumed many of these piddling rivers like the Fleet Brook into their parent rivers just like WP:UKVILLAGES mandates that for hamlets so much as possible, but hey ho!- Adam37 Talk 09:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49. I thought you'd let you know (as a fellow Surrey enthusiast) that many research papers from the Surrey Archaeological Collections are now available from the Archaeology Data Service here: ADS Library search and Journal index. I may be telling you something you already know, but I've only discovered recently that these articles are 'open source' (i.e. no longer behind a paywall). I am not sure if this is a recent change, but I wasn't aware until this month and so thought I would spread the word.
Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Many thanks, that's very useful to know. Off to have a look now. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for bothering you with a non-WP question. I quite understand if you do not wish to help. I am trying to find the numbers of the following UK locos. I don't know whether they are part of a group. They are The Institution of Civil Engineers, Wild Swan, Resilient, Magpie, Sea Eagle and Solway Princess. The numbers that I have found are 47540, 60021, 47741, 44806 (I don't trust that one), 60139/60028 (but which one, if either?), 57312. I believe the first one may be right, but I'm not at all sure about the rest. If they turned out to be part of a set, I might be more confident. Again, please forgive me for bothering you with a trivial question. I should add that I'm asking you because you have contributed to WikiProject UK Railways. Storye book (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Not an easy question to answer, several names were allocated to more than one loco at different times and, especially with the Class 47s, locos carried more than one combination of names and numbers. Have a look at British Rail Class 47 renumbering and British Rail Class 60#Class list. Most of them appear to be class 47 names. HTH Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thank you! I promise not to ask any more non-WP questions! Cheers. Storye book (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I reverted one of your edits on Norwegian Cruise Line for a couple of reasons. All other cruise lines still have their future ships second. Two the ships have not been cancelled. I also added a source. If you believe it still fits WP;CRYSTAL feel free to revert

--Life200BC (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC) @Life200BC: All future cruise fleets come under WP:CRYSTAL at the moment. It is quite likely that many of the currently planned ships will not be built. Probably best to see what happens next year before adding anything to the page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be left as it was before as they were ordered. They can all be changed once they are cancelled .

Life200BC (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Murgatroyd49. I wonder if I could ask another favour? I am in the process of creating an article here about the above British Railways Board engineer who was involved in setting up the 1960s UK rail electrification system. I am not a rail buff as you know, so the rail tech stuff in the article really needs checking for talking-out-of-hatness before I publish.

There are citations for everything, except for one sentence identifying the trains (should I say locomotives?) used with the 1960s electrification system. I have made three guesses, but have not been able to find sources for that, at all. Is there any chance that you could shed light on it? If not, I'll simply strike the sentence out.

I found this chap while researching his parents. They are very notable, but sadly not notable on WP terms, because what they did has no citations. There is a large collection of their postcards, currently in private hands, all written in a unique cipher invented by them, while they were courting. It's a charming love story, but I can't make an article from that. The coded postcards are in the process of translation, and I plan to scan the lot and put them on Commons, because ciphers and postcards are always of interest there. Then perhaps one picture (and no more) can be added to the forebears section of the article at a later date. I'm just telling you this to explain why this non-railway-buff has written about a railway engineer - although actually I think Claxton deserves recognition for what he achieved.

I had asked User:Tom walker for assistance due to his interest in railway electrification, but I have now realised that he is not on WP all that often. I should add that I am not related to the Claxtons - their postcards were found around 1990 when rescued by charity workers following a house clearance in London. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Hi, you are talking about the locomotives that would have hauled the electrification trains, though the Class 73 and 74s were dual diesel and third rail electric locos, where the diesel engines were fairly low powered to enable them to shunt trains in non-electrified sidings. I can't see them being used in this scenario. Class 47 (and 37) diesel locos were the main heavy haul locos avaiable from the early 60s so both were quite likely to be seen on electrification trains but not exclusively. Frankly, I wouldn't worry about what the locos used were as they would have changed depending where the work was taking place and what was availble. As an observation I recall seeing the electrification trains used for extending the Great Eastern elctrification at Stratford in the late 60s, they used a lot of redundant pre-nationalisation carriages both for accomodation and stores as well as using the underframes with the bodies removed for transporting the cable drums and supports. good luck with the article, looks quite interesting. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for the prompt reply. That's very useful. I'll remove that sentence, then. It sounds as if you are as ancient as I am, if you remember the late 60s rolling stock. In those days I hated the steam locos because of the thick layer of coal dust on them, and the state of the carriages after nationalisation. And the noise. On Gillingham station I shut my eyes due to noise of the letting-off-steam, and walked straight into a pillar, and got black eyes. I love steam locos now. Strange how things change. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article is now published. Thank you for your advice. Storye book (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my edit which was not incorrect - Iestyn Llewellyn is a real policeman featured on road wars. Dissapointed. Chris wahlen (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But hardly notable. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability does not limit the wikipedia use English citation only. Matthew hk (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: That wasn’t a cite but editorial content. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you remove a citation without a reason Special:Diff/994758055. Matthew hk (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, When removing a category from the article it woud help if you replaced it with the correct sub-category. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I agree Twinkle was born in Surbiton but that is now a part of the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. She moved with her family to Warren Cutting, off Warren Road in Coombe, also part of RBK, and lived there for some years. I lived near there and knew her briefly in the mid 1960s. Best wishes. Duncan Harrington — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncanharrington (talk • contribs) 15:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Duncanharrington: Hi, I was working onthe principle of working down the categories, as Surbiton has it's own list of notables; as does Coombe. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Murgatroyd49:
Hope all is well. I have been working on the Dorking article over the past couple of months. Another editor (who knows the town fairly well) has kindly given me some feedback and I wondered if you would be willing to do the same? Please do leave any comments on the talk page.
I would be grateful if you would consider grading the article for WP:Surrey. It is currently rated as 'C class', but I am hoping that it is now sufficiently complete to have reached 'B class' standard.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: I’m fine thanks, I will be delighted to look over the Dorking article, though I don’t know the town that well. You are obviously keeping busy. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: From the pattern of your edits, I guess that you are based in west Surrey and I think it would be good now to have feedback from someone, like yourself, who is less familiar with the east of the county. Best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert and delete my link to Double-Cross System? It is exactly about the topic! --SchmiAlf (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @SchmiAlf: You removed a valid reference and your addition was inaccurate. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. I missed the hidden reference here under "all German agents in Britain had been turned". Even then I think that my change was an improvement (with making the hidden reference more obvious), especially to link the sub-section V-weapons deception [[3]] would make it very clear. But I won't touch it any more. --SchmiAlf (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please give me a tip about using {{ill}}? I assumed that it is always helpful to provide a link to a page in other languages because editors can get some info from it, but you reverted my edit. Le Loy 09:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ле Лой and Le Loy: Hi. The document referred to is written in Latin by English monks, there is no discernible Russian connection. The article in the Russian Wikipedia is a stub that adds nothing of substance to the English language article about the Abbey. If it was a scholarly essay on the document that would be more relevant, but again would be better added as a translation. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the LT&SR article and this one. I was thinking about copying this one into my sandbox to carry out a comprehensive re-write as its still a bit of a dogs breakfast in places. Before I get started, are you planning any more changes or do you want to help?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidvaughanwells: Wasn't planning any more changes, it's a line I only know vaguely but always willing to help if I can. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks - can heartily recommend Peter Kays history if you ever want to get to know it better.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been having fun finding little bits to add to the above, but if you want to change any of my edits you are welcome. We have hit the 5x expansion mark today, so you are welcome to have that for DYK if you wish - I'm not doing DYK on my own behalf right now - having a rest from that for a little while. I have searched on Geograph, Google, Flickr and Ebay for images, and the only one I can find is the copyright one attached to the English Heritage listing. I still have to go through the old newspapers, but I don't have much hope. My daughter lives in West Sussex - I can possibly set her on it, if and when the lockdown will permit. Let me know if I can help any more. Storye book (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say: I have also searched here for pictures, but it's a bit of a labyrinth. Didn't find any, anyway - you might have more luck? Storye book (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: I've been searching for pictures as well, like you no luck so far. Can't find anything more written about the place either, still keep trying! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found some little bits of gossip in the old newspapers. A bishop turned up to tea at Tyes Place with a woman. All totally innocent of course, but one can't help smiling. There is a (poor quality) picture of Mr Powell. I think he got 4 bishops at his funeral - I'll have a proper look tomorrow. There was a local hunt, which ended up at Tyes Place for the kill (yuk), when it still had lots of land. I'll see if my daughter can take a picture, then. Storye book (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've added some more bits from the old newspapers. I think that's about all I can find, now. My daughter reckons that Streetview suggests that the house is not visible from the road, and I would agree with that. Perhaps there is a view of it from a public footpath, you never know. Over to you. Storye book (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I prevent a particular editor repeatedly vandalising a page? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Murgatroyd49 please have a look at the procedures and tips to do so at Wikipedia:RVAN. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. The criteria for cultural references on geographic location articles are not how important or unimportant they are to the plot, but simply any reference

Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements#Cultural_references Cladeal832 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, that applies to settlements, the River Test is not a settlement. Also WP:Trivia applies Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. I've tried to research a suitable source as to why they are there but can't find anything that is worthy to cite except "it is thought to have been a firing squad" which obvious isn't factual. I'm ashamed that the information is speculative, but I can't think of any other plausible reason as to why the holes are there, hence the "unsubstantiated" at the end and gone with what a lot of sources say albeit nothing in a factual way. Feel free to amend it though to disregard firing squad or put the disclaimer about them being scattered around. – Ozankk 17:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to omit it completely. Thanks for the feedback – Ozankk 17:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozankk: Could be something as daft as the local militia using the structure for target practice. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for coming to my rescue where I had messed up the Ref on that bit about Gas Factory Junction. I'm newish to this process of editing Wikipedia, and it was my first Ref, so I'm not surprised I got it wrong. I still don't know what I did wrong, but hopefully, next time.....

Grumpyxch (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Grumpyxch: It's one of those things that is not intuitive. When trying to put a ref in if you use the Cite menu, top right of the edit window, that will give you a menu of useful presets (web, book etc)that will guide you through the process. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did use Cite. The trouble was I found the Ref/Ref thing before I found Cite, so maybe that put something in that I didn't delete before I used Cite. Grumpyxch (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds likely, better luck next time. It's always worth while playing around with things in your Sandbos before unleasing them on an unsuspecting world if you are not sure about them. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Murgatroyd49: Hope life is treating you well. I'm contacting you because you have edited the Grey Wings, Ashtead article in the past. I have proposed a merger of the page into the main Ashtead article. I would very much welcome your input into the discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to support or oppose the merger. Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: Done. Sometime, now restrictions are coming off, we ought to organise a Surrey editors get together at a suitable hostelry, perhaps in Dorking. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: Yes, good idea! It would be great to meet over the summer with other local editors. I'd be happy to meet Guildford-way if that's more convenient for others. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you reverted an edit on the BR class 50 page citing unsourced, however the source was given in the comment section of the update. The reverted version has the oposite claim, but with no source apparent at all. If the update is redone with an inline source would you revert it? If there is a source for the opposite claim perhaps both views need to be in the article.

As you've realised, an apparent cite in the edit comment is not an adequate reference. If you have a proper cite then insert it into the article properly. Refs in comments can't be checked in the future, or even found without editors having to search every single edit. Also note that when making comments on talk pages you must sign your posts. In this case I have no idea who you are. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you removed the addition I made to the facilities section on the Leyton page. I'm somewhat new to editing so would be keen to better understand why you didn't feel it was appropriate? Conscious of making the same mistake again, otherwise! Thanks.

Hi. I see in a recent addition to River Churn you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Hi, thanks for the correction. I’d actually got the original text from another editor working on rivers so will have to make sure I use the corrected version next time. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Murgatroyd49. I've checked a few recent ones and they're done perfectly.— Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Murgatroyd49:
Hope all is well with you. I've been working on the Epsom article over the past few months and I am thinking about submitting it for WP:GA. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the town, but I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look and let me know your thoughts as to how I could improve the article before nomination? I have set up a new section on the talk page for interested parties to discuss what additional work is required. I will ask a few others to chip in with their feedback and suggestions.
Thanks and best wishes, Mertbiol (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mertbiol:
I know Epsom from a long time back but haven't been there recently. I will certainly have a look and see if I can help. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
You reverted a change I made here a few days ago. I added the names and links of the Big Four liners because the term 'Big Four' was present without obvious explanation. If the ships are linked elsewhere, then I can see links are not needed (though by the same token, we wouldn’t need the Big Four link either) but I suggest it is still worth adding the names, for clarity. Otherwise someone like me is left wondering what they are. Do you object to the names being replaced? Xyl 54 (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xyl 54: There is a whole section about the Big Four where the liners are named already. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also, on the subject of the Big Four, I've posted on the talk pages here and here, if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the edit tp Leyton on Ancient Counties. I am currently in a frustating discussion with an editor who wants to put this fact in the first sentence of the lede of everywhere in East London, that used to be part of Essex. Moving it to the second para was a compromise. Personally, I think Norman boundaries can be in the article, though not of primary relevance in the lede. Please join their talk page User talk:PlatinumClipper96 of you have a POV on this. Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello It's me, N1TH Music the guy who's been writing individual locomotive articles, I've read the Section you and Black Kite have made to "Project UK Railways" and I understand that you don't really want me making more of these, I think if I'm not mistaken that it's ok to make articles about the most notable individual locomotives so the way I see it, stuff like 442 001, 314 209 390 033 "City of Glasgow, ect. but I have a few questions. 1. It's hard to see what is the line between a useful article about and individual locomotive and a useless one, does it have to be preserved or does there have to just be something special about it warranting an article, for example 314 209 is the only remaining 314 unit and it's being hydrogen converted, is that enough? is my existing article about 02 003 which Black Kite called "more interesting" enough or are neither of them enough. In addition I read the Wikipeida instructions that say what articles should be on wikipedia and stuff like that. It makes a point saying that just because something is true and is sourced does not mean it should have an article, just because it can does not mean it should, but it also said that articles on wikipedia shouldn't be too long. If I were to take all the information and sources I put on 02 001, 02 003 and 02 004 and put it all on the Class 02 article, the article would be very long and wouldn't be very user friendly and I only wrote aritcles about the 3 units that got TOPS classifications, If I wrote about all 20, the article about class 02 would be immense. You might tell me then it's too much information but the way I see it, there are some people who only want skin deep information about the class but there are others who might want to learn about a single unit. In this case the person who wants to learn about the class will be confused and maybe even lost about the Giant article that has a lot of information and the person who wants something specific must go searching through said giant article for the little specific information they want. There are 2 solutions, one is to just not jam pack the article with tons of information, but then the person who wants to find out something specific will have to look through the source material or go on FlickR and I know from experience, trying to find information that only Wikipedia's source material has is incredibly annoying. And that's the soul reason I began editing on wikipedia, I wanted to add information so if someone added it it's there, I felt it would be better to make new articles about these locos then it would be to make the existing articles titanic in size. The other solution is what I did, but I understand your point, not all Locomotives need an article, there are 996 Class 08 locomotives, most of those don't matter, maybe a list simply listing and talking about the simple most basic facts would be a simple Idea, I know you did that twice with the class 47 and class 37 and those are great articles, maybe that's a solution, but I would please like you to reply to me on my talk page what you are ok with me writing and what you're not because I don't want to be a rulebreakerN1TH Music (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither 442001, 314209, nor 390033 are individually notable. If a locomotive or unit has some claim to fame that differentiates it from the rest of the class, that is something that can be mentioned in the Class article. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean about "this is an encyclopedia", but this encyclopaedia has over 6 million articles in just English, it's like no other but I still understand and accept the points you are making and I will cease to make an article about every single Locomotive. But for the LU standard stock vehicles, I'm only writing about the preserved/formerly preserved ones which there are 13 which I wanted to make an article at least the size of teh smallest one for each of those, and looking at the article about Standard Stock, It's already huge, nearly 60 cited sources, and external links, and further reading it is full of serveral section each with different subsections and thousands and thousands of words more and as much as there is much more to say, I felt it would be much better to write 13 articles about 13 different cars as oppose to Putting 50,000 bytes worth of new information in the existing article. And back to the class 02s is making an article about every preserved unit too much or not, because well Black Kite said that the article about the preserved one is ok and said that more like that are fine, I get now that I'm not allowed to make articles constantly about individual Locomotives and Train carriages but am I allowed to make one about every Preserved one? You haven't told me, I please would like you to tell me exactly where the boundaries are so that I know what to make, lastly as unnecessary as the other articles might be, I would like them to stay up as they took me a lot of time, and It will take me a while to transfer the information to the main articles or to consolidate them, and I can't do that to deleted articles.N1TH Music (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again N1TH Music (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I'm writing to ask if a certain topic I plan on creating is "notable" enough to be worthy of a wikipedia article, I figured you're the right person to ask as you're familiar with some of the stuff I've created, I want to make in on unit 314 209 as it is the only 314 unit to remain and is also being hydrogen converted which I consider important. Thanks N1TH Music (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that should be part of the main article on Class 314. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and take care when reverting. My first recent edit at Buxton did two things: it fixed a broken citation and it moved a wikilink (from a picture caption into the text). My thinking was that since there was a duplicate link in the section anyway, it would be better in the text than in the picture caption. You seem to have taken exception to the latter and reverted the whole edit (with the edit summary "already linked in previous section of text"), thus reinstating the broken reference as well as the wikilink in the picture caption. I accepted your position that there should be no duplicate links, so my second edit was actually to remove the wikilink from the picture caption (which I assume it what you wanted) and to fix the broken reference (again). You reverted that edit too – so ironically you were increasing the number of duplicate links to Buxton Opera House (as well as reinstating a clear error that I'd fixed in the reference). I've fixed the reference (for the third time) now but I've left the duplicate link in the picture caption. Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think your application of WP:OVERLINK is a little inflexible – the guideline says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article but may be repeated, if helpful for readers, in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" (my emphasis). In the case of the Buxton article, there's a list of notable buildings in the lead (each with wikilinks) but it doesn't seem unreasonable to repeat the links later when the buildings are described in more detail. Currently, the Buxton article has links to Buxton Opera House in two places: once in the lead and once in a picture caption. Is that logical? Dave.Dunford (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: I wasn't complaining about the link in the picture caption at all, though it had other problems, but the fact that the Opera House was linked in two successive sections as well as the lead. This you don't seem to have noticed, hence the request to look at the whole article before assuming I had got it wrong. There is something about assuming good faith that would seem to be appropriate here :-) I apologise if my edit summaries are a bit terse, I try to strike a balance between sufficient explanation and being long-winded. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a conversation about Brighton and Hove images on the [Talk pages]. Paolo Oprandi (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Murgatroyd49: I have been working on the Haslemere article in the past few weeks and would like to submit it as a Good Article candidate in the next few weeks. I have left a note on the talk page asking for some help with a few issues that have arisen. Would you be able to have a read through and to give some suggestions as to how the article could be improved please? I would very much value your wise counsel and input into the discussion. Thanks and best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mertbiol: will do in the next couple of days, catching up with a backlog of non-wiki work at the moment. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Murgatroyd49: Absolutely no rush. I look forward to your comments. Mertbiol (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE [4], because I am working on this article and in the middle of converting those entries to a table. Can you stop reverting me please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Why not do it in your sandbox and transfer it when ready? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not necessary. Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and I will make incremental improvements. Improving this article may take several days/weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: It is necessary, otherwise people won't know what you intend and assume it is going to be left like that. If you intend changing the complete list for a table, do it in your sandbox and then transfer the table wholesale when you have it completed to your satisfaction. Or, if you have to change the live page piecemeal, then use one of the under construction templates so that people know that it is an ongoing process. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take me quite a while because I'm trying to gather information about the dates each station was active and which actual vessels were used at each. If you have access to any good sources of information, I could use some help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a lot but I can hunt through what I have an see what might be relevant. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’ve made corrections to the Wiki entry for Kingston upon Thames and you have twice reverted them! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1058262896 I live in Kingston and I am keen that the page is accurate - it’s is currently incorrect. Can you explain why you keep reverting the changes? 2A02:C7F:F880:4400:B034:8084:849E:AB4D (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because you don't quote any source for your information. "I know because I'm local" is not good enough. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate that you need sources…albeit I’d argue a source has to start somewhere! Regardless, you’ll see I linked to Wikipedia articles on Kingsmeadow, Chelsea Women AFC and the Women’s Super League. Surely those are sources? If not, can you explain what constitutes an “official” source? EdGossage (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a start you can't use Wikipedia as a source as it is self-referential. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read that - particularly “when and why to cite sources” which suggests sources are required “for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged”. Not sure any of my edits constitute that? In fact, I’m challenging the current content which is factually wrong (sorry - no debate on that one!). There’s plenty of content on the page which doesn’t appear to have any sources - generally where it’s factual (e.g. the Thames runs through Kingston…). I’ll leave it with you - if you’re happy to leave the page as is, so be it… EdGossage (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information has already been challenged it would suggest that proper references wouldn't be a bad idea. To give you a clue, if you go to other Wikipedia pages on the subject you will find some sources that might be useful. And claiming there is no debate on something you say is why sources are needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite where the debate or challenge is about where AFC Wimbledon play (or don’t play)! Anyway, I’ll leave it with you as I’m clearly not qualified to navigate through the red tape. EdGossage (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is about justifying your assertions about where whatever teams play. It's hardly that difficult to provide sources to back up those statements. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I hope this finds you well? I'm hoping you might enjoy this enquiry - a great picture with a loco crossing the edge of a lake, but I don't know the location. Of course I'm not asking you to do any work on my behalf, but is there any chance that (with your interest in railways) you might already know where it is? The artist Bernard Walter Evans visited Scotland - and as far as I know, he visited no other country with big mountains and lakes like that. And he died in 1922, so the railway might be a defunct one. His commons category is here so you can get an idea of his painting locations. I'm currently working up an article about Evans, and that really is quite a good picture to use at DYK, with its loco and its drama - if only I can find out where it is. Cheers. Storye book (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Nice picture. I'm not an expert on Scotland but I'd hazard a guess it is the north shore of Loch Eil near Fort William but I've asked some Scottish friends for ideas. I'll let you know if a better identification comes up. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - Thank you! I look forward to their reply. Storye book (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just found the same picture reproduced here, where they think it's in Wales, possibly the Ffestiniog Railway, although they're not sure. Another possibility, anyway. I have temporarily categorised the image file as Wales, but I have added a note to say that we're not sure yet. Storye book (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would certainly explain the rather odd looking train if that is a rake of slate wagons. However the only lake along the line is the Tanygrisiau Reservoir, created in 1963.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, thank you. I was too hasty to believe that info, then. Perhaps I had better put it back into the unknown location category. Note to self: must be patient. ;-) Storye book (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Current concensus is that it is the old Highland Line on Loch Carron north of Strome Ferry. Hope that helps. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant - well done, and thank you! Please thank your informants on my behalf. I'll correct the image page accordingly.Storye book (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever find the answer to this question, which I just saw? I wouldn't know how to answer it but the people who might can be found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Hi, no I never did, I'll try your suggestion, thanks. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities is not cities. Per the project scope, it covers "cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods". Dimadick (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC) @Dimadick: apolgies, note to self, read past the first line! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was interested in your edit to Haslemere railway station. You seem to have interpreted the BBC report as saying that the signal box would not be in use after next week's line closure. My understanding was that the box replacement would come in a later phase of the works which continue until late 2024. The BBC report says that "During the nine-day closure until 20 February, engineers will start work on the new signalling system" but I don't think that "start work" means removing the old box at this stage. Hopefully we'll find another source which isn't as ambiguous as that BBC page. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly me over-reading the BBC article. As you say further resarch needed. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Biddulph: I've reworded it to make it less dogmatic. Still looking for further information. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted my change here. Fair enough, but do you happen to know how to put them on the other side of the running line, as my personal knowledge backed up by maps tells me that it's where they should be? Thanks. Britmax (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Britmax: Hi, you are right, they should be the other side. I think I tried to correct them a while ago and failed. I'll have another go. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly succeeded, but couldn't get the lines to meet up after I'd swapped sides. Britmax (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, back to the drawing board. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would be much more useful to the objective of having an accurate reference if you researched news on a subject instead of destroying accurate information. The Santa Fe Group no longer exists there are now two separate firms under different ownership one being EAC Invest A/S the successor to the East Asiatic Company the other being Santa Fe Relocation which is part of Proventus. The two articles that should still be up are in bold. You don't need to read Danish there are articles on the company in English and there are translation aps.RichardBond (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case supply references. I suggest you go back and reread the guidelines on how to edit Wikipedia before attacking other people for your shortcomings. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the owner a welcome and coi notice on his talk page. Have watchlisted the article for a month. PBLOCK is available to be used if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is well known amongst Canadian Irish suggest you allow the edit as it is of general interest Mendelso (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mendelso: It doesn't matter how well known it may be among <random group of people> it still needs a verifiable and reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I recently edited Template:British Rail Locomotives to include a new section, Dual-mode. This version shows up on the appropriate page, British Rail Class 99, but on other class pages the older version still appears. I've obviously done something wrong but can't fathom what! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's showing correctly for me on British Rail Class 81, it think it might just be a cache issue. Give it time, it will fix itself :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]