User talk:Year1989

Central Trains CityLink

Thanks for your additions to this new page, esp. the logo. Dewarw 15:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me with my recent picture edits, by re-sizing them, and deleting those annoying gaps i keep creating! AC Best 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help...?

Hello, I was wondering i you could possibly help me?

Over at Train Spotting World we are reall trying to establish ourselves, and were wondering if you could lend a hand in making some pages look great and tidying up redlinks.

Interested?

Bluegoblin 7 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

... for tidying up my stuff on Sheffield area stations, appreciated Talltim (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS are you sure that Killamarsh Mildand was called that? My impression was that it was just Killamarsh, as was the GC station until renaming to Killamarsh Central by BR.Talltim (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that the wiki name is the last one that wass used, whether closed or open. However I'm not convinced that it was ever called Killamarsh Midland, which diagram did you see it on? Talltim (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of First Harrogate Trains

I have added support for the keep of the article. Several other TOCs (eg the ones on the template) are very similar to this. Btline (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also supported for the same reason. --Fuelboy (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S-jnct

Just a note, s-jnct is going away--everything it does can be replicated (with greater flexibility) by s-line. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adwick railway station

Hi, you changed the article Adwick railway station over to use the S-rail templates but in the process lost the link to the line for Sheffield-Hull (Adwick branch) which should link to Sheffield to Hull line. I cannot figure out the rather over complicated S-* templates. Please can you correct to re-instate link or revert out change. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff-Nottingham

A tag has been placed on Cardiff-Nottingham requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. DrFrench (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of discussions

Hi. First of all, well done with your work rolling out {{s-rail}}--it seems to have happened without any drama, which is a good sign. Indirectly related to this, there are a couple of discussions going on at WT:RAIL which you should look at, here and here. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCountry

What makes thejunction.org.uk anymore credible than any other random train spotting website? Why can it be considered to be a reliable source? Oh, and by the way, sorry about reverting you so quickly. I didn't realise you were working to find a source as you added the information back in, instead I thought you were more saying that I'll find a reference when I get round to it. From experience I know that if references aren't found when information is added then they often won't be added later. Adambro (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Year1989, you could have saved youself the trouble of being reverted again by combining the revert and adding a reference into a single edit. But I agree with Adambro about the reliability of the site you referenced. That site serves its own purposes, and we shouldn't be duplicating it on Wikipedia, which has its own rules and standards. --RFBailey (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the 220s are all in XC livery? I saw one (although it may have been a 221) in Virgin with XC logos earlier this week. Talltim (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all of XC 220s are in XC livery, after 220033 was the last one to recieve it. It could have been 221141 you seen which is the only 4 car 221 that XC have.

As for a source for the CrossCountry page it is nearly impossible we will ever find one. The companys never seem to publish anything official for which units they have. It is well known between everyone which units CrossCountry have and can say that it is correct what is on that page. Maybe there is something on the DFT website. Year1989 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "everyone", exactly? The fact is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, unit numbers are verging on indiscriminate information. That CrossCountry have 34 Class 220s is enough information. It would be roughly equivalent to including a list of truck registration numbers in the Eddie Stobart article. --RFBailey (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this you do seem to be correct. The East Midlands Trains article does not have the unit numbers. The unit numbers to each operators are on the actual train page. Such as British Rail Class 220. I think a little column saying how many they have would be useful though. Year1989 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 180

What exactly in Railway Herald Issue 128 are you citing? Adambro (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly there is something in there about which Class 180 trains were with which operator. Its used to cite which 180s Hull Trains have in the Hull Trains article too. Year1989 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything which specifies such details I'm afraid. Adambro (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough Year1989 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Country Route

Hi, another comment about your {{s-rail}} rollout. Please note that the article Cross Country Route is specifically about the Midlands Railway's route between Bristol and Derby, so to link to it from boxes on stations like Stafford is at best misleading, and to link to it from Aberdeen is just silly.. It might require a more careful use of the {{s-rail}} templates, but it should be fixed. --RFBailey (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In situations where the line article corresponds exactly to the route being described (e.g. the Wirral Line of the Merseyrail network), then it makes sense to say "Wirral Line" than "Chester-Liverpool", for instance. Other situatons are, of course, less clear.

In cases like the Barnsley example you cited, linking to Midland Main Line isn't unreasonable, as that's the line those services use for the vast majority of their route. But, say, if we consider CrossCountry services between York, Newcastle and Edinburgh, as the services are most definitely on the East Coast Main Line at that point, then surely that's what should be linked to?

As for whether the route starts at Derby or York, I'm not entirely sure; if we're restricted purely to the Midland Railway's routes, then that rules out Wakefield-Leeds-York, which belonged to the Great Northern Railway and North Eastern Railway, for a start. Between Derby and Sheffield, that route certainly did belong to the MR, but of course that's part of the Midland Main Line, so possibly doesn't count as part of the Cross Country Route. You'd be better off asking someone else about that at WT:RAIL.

But you're right, this does need to be discussed--and perhaps it would have been more sensible to do it before implementing the changes! --RFBailey (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we ought to find a way of including both pieces of information. One of the main purposes of the boxes, as originally intended, was to show the relative position of a station to its neighbours along each line, particularly at stations where several lines meet or cross. (In this regard, service levels are irrelevant, so having things like "previous: Chesterfield/Dronfield (limited service)" should be avoided, as the next station along the line is Dronfield.) Thus it makes sense, say, at Darlington, to show that the XC services use the ECML.

However, to put things in a wider context, it does also make sense to mention that these services are part of the CrossCountry network, and that the services head off the ECML at some point and then go somewhere else (Birmingham etc.). How this extra information should be displayed, and what the {{s-rail}} code necessary to implement this is, still needs to be figured out. --RFBailey (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Class 150

Hi Year1989. Since it probably concerns you, I'd draw your attention to my recent comments here. The main points I would highlight would be my concern that the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline aren't been taken into account in UK rail articles in general. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Chesterfield railway station

Hello, Year1989. You have new messages at Schumi555's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding the Master Cutler once again. I noticed earlier this week that the Master Cutler does actually call at Chesterfield, and I checked the timetable to confirm this. So I have readded it to the Chesterfield station article. Just to update you :) Regards, Schumi555 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Year1989. You have new messages at Schumi555's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

British Rail Class 222

Regarding this edit, where does the Bombardier page back up the statement? I can't find it. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't back up all the facts in that paragraph but it does back-up a few. It is a useful reference that says how many we're built and that it is similar to the Class 220/1. It also is a reference for some of the technical facts on the next tab. I suppose it just needs moving.Year1989 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could clarify that it would be appreciated. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class 222

You changed this http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=British_Rail_Class_222&diff=270554405&oldid=270528321 but the reference giving the information in the text describes 222/4 222/9 etc - (the number of carriages maybe?) ie this http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20DMU%20Tech%20Data%20/DMU_222.html

Is the reference wrong, or maybe inaccurate? any ideas.

Also you added some more info at the same time using the same reference - a couple of points

The reference is from 2006 - that does not give the current fleet status
Please be careful when adding information that you reference it correctly.

With respect to the current fleet details - I would suggest that should be covered in the "operations" section.

Also have you read Wikipedia:Recentism - only covering 'as of now' details can create problems for editors in the future. I helps a lot if you can give all time frames equal coverage.

Thanks - (also please comment about the reference accuracy on the Class 222 talk page) as if it's no good it will have to go.

00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FengRail (talk • contribs)

Class 222 derailment

Your addition of the accident details using the RAIB website as a source appears to be, in part at least, a WP:COPYVIO. Part of it are close paraphrasing, and parts of it are a direct copy & paste of text from the source. Please rewrite the section into your own words but keeping the relevan facts. Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Firsthulltrains2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Firsthulltrains2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG-20110302-00007.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG-20110302-00007.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:DY Depot Sticker.jpg

Hi. Where was this photo taken? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Year1989. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Year1989. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Year1989. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Citylinklogo2.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Citylinklogo2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Meridians at STP Int2.jpg

The file File:Meridians at STP Int2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Low quality. Superseded by files at c:Category:British Rail Class 222s at St Pancras railway station.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]