Archives

August 2006 -> April 2008 April 2008 -> December 2008 January 2009 -> March 2010 April 2009 -> December 2010 January 2011 -> June 2012 July 2012 -> September 2013 July 2014 -> March 2015 April 2015 -> June 2016 Current

Thanks for uploading File:I76-3.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 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nailsea and Backwell railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portishead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:AVENTRA.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mattbuck:

First, the new Strange New Worlds 2016 is an e-book. I indicated that; you deleted it.

Also, the List of Star Trek Novels page is a list for Star Trek Novels (as well as Short Stories). There have been numerous (possibly hundreds) of books about Star Trek including various reference books or even fictional reference books that did not contain stories. The Miscellaneous Section of the Star Trek List of Novels page has for some reason included a few of these books.

These include: The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (Ira Steven Behr), July 1995 The Star Trek Cookbook (Ethan Phillips and William J Birnes), January 1999 The Hologram's Handbook (Robert Picardo, with art by Jeff Yagher), 2002

Additionally, for some reason the Miscellaneous section included books that are not "Miscellaneous" but are listed under The Next Generation. These include: Articles of the Federation (Keith R. A. DeCandido), May 2005 A Singular Destiny (Keith R. A. DeCandido), January 2009

Additionally the Miscellaneous Section included books that are merely Omnibus volumes of DS9 books already listed in the DS9 section (if anything they should be listed in the DS9 section):

Twist of Faith - DS9 "relaunch" reprint omnibus (S. D. Perry, David Weddle & Jeffrey Lang and Keith R. A. DeCandido), July 2007 These Haunted Seas - DS9 Mission Gamma reprint omnibus (David R. George III and Heather Jarman), June 2008

There have been hundreds and hundreds of Star Trek comic books. Many of these have been re-printed in "book"form (IDW constantly comes out with them). Why list just the Manga comics and not all the others? None should be listed as comics are not novels (or short stories).

It is for these reasons that I deleted the other "Miscellaneous" books

One volume missing of short stories (although parodies) that I had added is: Treks Not Taken which can be found here. https://www.amazon.com/Treks-Not-Taken-Vonnegut-Generation/dp/0060952768

Thank you.Cnemore (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bristol railway map/collapse has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

UCL Institute of Education street address, please. Is it on Gower Street or Bedford Way? (Duplicate question on Wikimedia Commons.)--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dthomsen8 I don't know. Perhaps you could consult their website? If you're referring to my photo, it's geocoded, go look at it on a map. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Communication problems with IkbenFrank. (I notice you've run into this editor too). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crewe and Chester Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:NWLLR RDT2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Useddenim (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Useddenim, what was it? -mattbuck (Talk) 07:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{NWLLR RDT2}} was detailed diagram of the the North and West London Light Railway, showing all the connecting lines. I redrew it from the simple linear arrangement you had created into something that more accurately reflected the actual arrangement of lines, and then added it to {{NWLLR RDT}}. I hope that wasn't too presumptuous of me. Useddenim (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattbuck/Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH!, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mattbuck/Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH! (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Mattbuck/Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH! during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mangotsfield railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeper (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point that it isn't appropriate to link 'ring road' to 20th Century Road Schemes in Bristol#Inner_Circuit_road. However since we have information about the actual ring road in question, wouldn't it be better to refer to that specific information rather than a generic definition of 'ring road'? Maybe something like this:

Bristol city centre was, until the 1990s, encircled by the Inner Circuit Road — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSquirrel (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedSquirrel, while I get what you're aiming at, the link target isn't suitable. The Inner Circuit Road part of that article (which by the way has anchor #Inner_Circuit_Road_(A4044), not #Inner_Circuit_Road) is about the road's construction, whereas you really want a more generalised article which explains what route the road took. If there is sufficient for an article A4044 road (Great Britain) (it's currently a redirect) then I'd say link to that, or if the 20th century article were rewritten to be grouped by road rather than by plan/actual then link to that, but as is neither is a suitable link target. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattbuck it may not be perfect, but it seems a shame to lose the reference altogether. Can I suggest: 1. Call it the Inner Circuit Road, unlinked, rather than 'a ring road' (which would avoid potential confusion with the other two ring roads); 2. add a

See also: 20th Century Road Schemes in Bristol

at the foot of the section? RedSquirrel (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RedSquirrel that sounds good to me. Though see alsos usually go at the heads of sections, so perhaps there instead? -mattbuck (Talk) 19:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this article in two places where it is stated that the station building was destroyed and rebuilt - the current building is part of the original construction. I struggled to find a good way to reword it without making a big deal of it. Here is a good postwar image of the surviving chunk when still in railway use:

http://archives.bristol.gov.uk/GetImage.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=43207-9-14-043.700x700.jpg

...and this shows the whole thing:

http://archives.bristol.gov.uk/GetImage.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=44819-3-164.700x700.jpg

I suspect that most of what was destroyed was the Station Master's house, but have no proof. I have seen another image showing the utilitarian postwar extension (on the site of the bit that was destroyed) also in railway use. Period Fireplaces bought the station in (I think!) the early 80s; it was pretty derelict then. RedSquirrel (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was at Network Rail Today and they showed me the proposals for a possible extention of metrowest down to glastonbury and street from yatton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.235.165 (talk • contribs)

82.37.235.165 that's great, but have such plans been published anywhere? Is anyone taking them seriously? There used to be a railway there sure, and in principle one could reopen it, but I don't think it's really anything which is being actively considered. The MetroWest website for instance doesn't go beyond the stage 2 reopenings. For Ashton Gate it specifically says it has been ruled out for now. That you saw something is original research and gazing into a crystal ball. The key to Wikipedia is verifiability. Unless a reliable source publishes the plans, we shouldn't include them. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you saw, I have been working my way through the list of deadlinks on the cleanup list for WP:Bristol. I have dealt with quite a few but on Stoke Gifford depot almost all the planning documents on S. Glos council web site used as sources are no longer available - meaning the claims in the article are largely unsupported. As you know more about stations etc around Bristol I wondered if you could help?— Rod ^talk 18:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodw it's been remarkably hard to source anything for that article, I can't even find a source to say when it opened. I'll take a look later this week but don't expect much. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:QEHnews autumn08.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) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mangotsfield railway station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mangotsfield railway station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mangotsfield railway station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mangotsfield railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mangotsfield railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've done 99% of the work at Pilning railway station, but weren't the one who nominated it for GA status. It looks like it needs a bit of cleanup (there's an uncited paragraph, and the lede is a bit out of date), but not a huge amount. Would you be interested in getting it to GA - I'm happy to do the review - or not at this time? Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 I don't think the article is GA standard, and it was nominated against my wishes. There's a lot of history missing, both ancient and modern. I'll see if I can have a look at it over the next week or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. If you do decide to get it to GA standards, just let me know. And thanks as always for the effort you put in on railway history - the combination of your research skills and output is rare among editors. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 That's very kind of you to say. I am now surrounded by books again, and will hopefully get this together over the next week or so. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 I think it's probably ready now (though it now fails GA on stability grounds). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! I don't think the stability requirement is meant to exclude recent major expansion - I would guess that most GA candidates are the result of that - but of edit-warring or other disagreements about article contents. Ill start the review in the next few days. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pilning railway station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pilning railway station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535 thanks for reviewing, and for poking me to finish the damn thing! -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 28 October 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pilning railway station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:I76nitrocover.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) 18:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'll use the preview button like what you said. Also, I'm impressed that you've written lots of good articles. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 10:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm Aya Syameimaru!. Thankyou for the compliment, I used to have a lot of time spare at work to write articles, not so much anymore unfortunately!

Rather than having a conversation between two pages, you can notify users you have replied using the {{u}} template. {{u|mattbuck}} returns mattbuck, and will notify me that I was mentioned on that page. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That comes in handy. I'll use it. _{Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞} 11:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wet T-shirt contest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morsko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer a class of 50 locomotives, though it was. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I have removed the mention of there being 50 in the first sentence, that should solve things. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note here to avoid massively cluttering up the discussion. I've a couple of books on order .... by Vic Murray if I remember right, the first being "Branch lines around Mitcham junction" and the second "Branch lines around Effingham Junction"; The first should help me understand Sutton to Peckham Rye and the 2nd will cover the Bookham Line. You may have noticed I generally write Irish Railway stuff and stay clear of UK thoug I do a little on Liverpool and Manchester, Birmingham and Gloucester to 1845 and L&YR to 1925; having built up some relevant book sources (some are library loans). In terms of Mole Valley stuff I've got some practical memories commuting over many of the lines in the 2010s but I am perhaps a little rusty/confused to the north east of the east croydon to clapham lines ... however in the case of southern I dont really have any book sources and cant use the libraries in the lockdown. Anyway when I get "Branch lines around Mitcham junction" I'm hoping I might get some information and make a more informed decision/suggestions. Anyway seems like the mileposts towards Dork//Horsham cam down from Raynes Park .... Hmmm.... (In some ways I was hoping they came from Peckham Rye). Thanks and regards - Derek

Djm-leighpark, I'm an expert on Bristol railways, but have been working on a personal project recently which has me delving deep into line diagrams. The mileposts to Dorking are indeed measured from Waterloo, I guess because that's the most direct route. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1960's/70's before Portsmouth via Fareham was electricified and there were works on the Portsmouth Direct they used to divert through Chichester and I assume Horsham-Epsom-Wimbledon to Waterloo. I have vague memories of my younger days of the train from Chichester going though Cheam, Epsom, Sutton (20 min) to Victoria, Mitcham J. then through Clapham to Victoria. Bristol I'm more famous on buses than trains but I won't go there ...though the old 08:28 Southern 377 love express from Guildford to Epsom is half a clue (dont think that runs anymore).Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mileposts can be misleading. They generally follow the first route to open but not always the one which is today's the "main" line. You'll be familiar with the mileposts west of Taunton being measured through Bristol even if the majority of trains from Paddington to Devon and Cornwall for the last 110 years have travelled via castle Cary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geof Sheppard (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattbuck for editing "Hotwells_railway_station" in response to my comment on its talkpage. I only make comments now, I have stopped editing pages as I am completely frustrated by ignorant idiots who think that their opinion is more important than facts. Thanks again!

Feel free to delete this when you have read it. Chris.Bristol (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polaris (train), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CSRE.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 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) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Geri Halliwell Union Jack Dress (BRIT Awards 1997).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) 18:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Polaris Countryside.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) 03:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Manual of style is for four-digit years in ranges, and class is fine."

Well... I'm afraid I have to disagree on both points. Sorry.

For year ranges entirely within the century that began in 1900 and ended in 1999, I honestly believe that, for instance, "1989–93" and "1996–97" are neater than "1989–1993" and "1996–1997" respectively, and do the intended job just as fine. The "19" in both "1993" and "1997" genuinely feels superfluous to me.

Likewise for year ranges entirely within the century that began in 2000 and will end in 2099, e.g. "2005–08" and "2013–14" rather than "2005–2008" and "2013–2014" respectively.

On the other hand, year ranges such as "1998–2001" and "1999–2000" are absolutely fine that way and indeed *should* be styled that way, because they cover parts of two different centuries (the 1900–99 century and the 2000–99 century).

(Careful wording there as you can see, because 2000 *was* the final year of the 20th century rather than the first year of the 21st. ;) )

Regarding "Class" columns, if this word is used as the heading of the column, then does it *really* then have to be used in each subsequent entry (regardless how many entries there are)? Again, it does genuinely feel superfluous to me, and I believe that just having the class numbers (and the family names where applicable) does the intended job just as fine.

For instance,

Class
47
101
143 Pacer
150 Sprinter
170 Turbostar
377 Electrostar

as opposed to

Class
Class 47
Class 101
Class 143 Pacer
Class 150 Sprinter
Class 170 Turbostar
Class 377 Electrostar

2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D1D3:6B4E:9DF5:9775 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:D1D3:6B4E:9DF5:9775, thanks for responding. Regarding the date range, I'm afraid that Wikipedia has a manual of style, and it specifies four-digit years where possible. See MOS:DATERANGE for more info. Regarding the classes I think that simply seeing "101" with a bluelink like that just looks weird, but I'm not aware of any rules on this. I'd suggest looking at how other TOC articles are presented and emulating that. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 13 August 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Swindon railway map/map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Circuit Bahrain2.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused crop and superseded by c:File:Circuit Bahrain.svg.

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¦» 15:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattbuck:, I saw your comment at Template talk:Convert/Archive October 2015#Angles again. I have needed to express various gradients in Cliff railways in the Isle of Man, where the original information was expressed as '1 in X' (X not always an integer) or 'Y degrees'. It was not always obvious whether two sources were indicating the same gradient, within rounding error. Also, it might make more sense for those used to modern roads (at least in Europe) to convert these figures to a percentage. Have you found any template for converting/displaying gradients? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 21:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with your edit but you have a clear COI with Tube Lines. Secretlondon (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Tube Lines doesn't actually exist anymore, and the edit is uncontroversial IMO - the escalator nameplate does not represent the company, it merely features the logo. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{You've got mail}}. —Cryptic 02:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, much obliged, thanks for your help. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS9-2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210 (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail line five to one has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Defunct/disused/former railway stations on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]