User talk:Motacilla

My Talk Archives

Archive 1

Please note I have archived my barnstars and DYK nominations here: Motacilla/Archive awards & DYKs

I see you already have the usual posse of pedants looking over your shoulder, and while it may be disconcerting at first, it is all in the interest of getting as many capable authors as possible that don't need to be edited further with sources by others, or even be deleted. (not that I do as much as I used to, and the guidelines keep changing as Wik develops.) You do need to include sources or references in articles, or you will get the dreaded "citation needed" inserted in your text on anything the reader deems debatable. I haven't researched Meguro, but knew about the BSA A7 copy, but not about the Motosacoche connection.

Found this: The "1937 Meguro Z97, which utilized a 500cc rocker-valve motor that may have been based on the Motosacoche Jubilée Sport's 498cc OHV engine made in Switzerland. The Meguro Z97 was the first Japanese motorcycle that was built entirely in-house, from-the-ground-up." "In 1939, the Meguro Z97 was adopted as the official motorcycle of the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, and was used until the start of WWII. In 1941 the Tokyo Meguro Works was converted into a munitions factory, and all motorcycle production was halted." See http://www.khulsey.com/motorcycles/vintage_motorcycle_meguro.html for more. My son has just come back from being an exchange student in Japan, has a Japanese girlfriend and speaks the language fluently enough to embarrass his teachers. I can try to get him to translate the Japanese web page, and then pass it on to you.Seasalt (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to references and verifiable, a forum may not be considered definitive enough as a source and it is (to me) annoying to get those "citation needed" tags long after I've prepared an article. A reference to a book is best as websites can disappear when their creators lose interest and fail to pay their domain fees. If the others on that forum can help with references, vunderbar. Great detail stuff. Australia had a lot of the Meguro/Kawasaki 650 BSA copy, which is the only reason I was familiar with the name. Seasalt (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on WP Suspension requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Clubmarx (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I undid the redirect in the Combe Longa, Oxfordshire article, redirecting the page to Combe Longa and made the Combe Longa page a redirect. The chances are that an article at Combe Longa, without the Oxfordshire modifier, would be acceptable, but a copy and paste edit of the old article at the new title means that the edit history of the article is lost. You might want to run the move through requested moves. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating these. Will have a look through and add anything that springs to mind. Note that the 3 halts on the line were not original stations and were opened by the GWR in the 20th century. Chipping Norton deserves a detailed article which I will give some thought to. Hook Norton (where I live) is also complex with all the various ironstone companies operating their own lines. There is an article for Brymbo, perhaps a second article for all the smaller companies? Bruern Crossing (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Hooky's other ironstone quarries - which of course shows why we need an article about them. How many were there? Were they less substantial than the Brymbo Ironworks railway?

I've done some work on the Oxfordshire Ironstone Railway article, and I've seen the article on Colonel Stephens' Edge Hill Light Railway. All were built to extract the same Jurassic ironstone that outcrops across north Oxon, south Warwicks and south Northants. Should there perhaps be a category linking articles invoilved with this ironstone field? I have not found an article about the ironstone itself. (Was it Horton stone?) I would like to read about this distinctive stone that ironmasters were so keen to extract. Motacilla (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brymbo was the biggest system but there was also the Partnership quarry which pre-dated Brymbo. This had its own standard-gauge line which ran from the station and down under the viaduct to a tipping dock where cable-hauled narrow-gauge tubs were unloaded. The narrow gauge line ran through a small tunnel under the Milcombe road, still existing. The tipping dock and explosives hut have also survived. The Earl of Dudley's quarries had a large calcining kiln near No.2 viaduct, with a cable-worked tramway system. This connected to the B&CDR via a cable-worked incline from the Swerford Road. These were the main quarries but there were some smaller operations at various times.

I'm not a great geology expert but an article on the Oxfordshire ironstone seems a good idea as it would pull together the various quarry articles and could include the proposed North Oxfordshire Ironstone Scheme. Yes, Hornton stone gets its red colour from the iron.

Eric Tonks defines the oxfordshire ironstone as "The Oxfordshire Field", including parts of Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. "The area thus defined was isolated geographically from the other Midlands ironstone fields and developed independently of them, with its own markets..."Bruern Crossing (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou: this sounds like a possible plan. From your descriptions, the Partnership and Earl of Dudley undertakings each sounds interesting enough for an article of its own. Are all those thirsty quarrymen one of the reasons why Hook Norton has sustained its own brewery for so long?

By the "North Oxfordshire Ironstone Scheme" do you mean the huge one that was defeated at a Public Enquiry in 1960? That was huge and its opposition seems to have been a significant event in local community history, so it seems to deserve an article. Deddington's community website has a page about the proposal and its opposition. The Bloxham briefly mentions the quarrying proposal and its rejection, as does the South Newington article that I created last month. If Wikipedia could have an article about Dowsett Mineral Recovery's application, the campaign led by the North Oxfordshire Area Protection Committee and resulting the Public Enquiry, then Wikipedia's articles about each of the affected villages could be linked to it.

I like the idea, but unfortunately my geology is rusty (please pardon the pun) and I'm no expert on the history of the episode to write it up. Do you fancy the task? It looks like the Deddington and District History Society are the experts to ask for information. Motacilla (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for moving St Mary's church, North Leigh to St Mary's Church, North Leigh while preserving its editing history. I'm sorry to trouble you when you already do so much, but how can I do that? I need to move Clapton Crabbe Rolfe to Clapton Crabb Rolfe. The historian Sir Nikolaus Pevsner seems to have mistakenly added the "e" to Rolfe's middle name, and when I created Rolfe's article I copied Pevsner before realising that every other authority, including C.C. Rolfe's father, spells "Crabb" without a final "e". Motacilla (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Motacilla. It's quite easy to move articles around the wiki and give them new titles. Please see Help:Moving a page. Hope this helps. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for moving Clapton Crabb Rolfe to his rightful place. I've amended all spellings of his middle name to "Crabb", both in his article and in articles that link to it. Motacilla (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it, Motacilla. Glad that I could help. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've spotted the photo that I put on Barford St. Michael‎. It's not the best that could be done, basically I was visiting my mother last weekend, and we were walking around the village - I decided to take a few photos (some of the others may appear on Commons in the next few weeks). Unfortunately my flash didn't go off, so that the actual Norman tympanum, which is of primary interest, is in shadow; it really needs photographing by somebody who has a decent lighting rig for outdoor use. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC) (amended Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thankyou for adding the photo. It certainly improves the article. One or two slave flashes angled up at the ceiling could give you the extra light you need. The slaves might work from concealed positions behind the porch arch.

I would consider moving the church's tatty doormat out of the way just for the photo. The other week I had a similar problem photographing St Mary's Church, North Leigh. The light was very grey making the colours rather muted - apart from a garishly bright blue plastic tarpaulin covering a tomb by the south door that was under repair. It sticks out like a sore thumb. When the mason has finished the job I must return and try to take a better shot. Motacilla (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with that; however a few days ago I spotted a user (can't remember who, or in which article) linking dates in the "[[11 November]] [[2009]]" fashion. Is there a policy doc which I can point the user at, next time I spot it happening? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found it; it's WP:MOSUNLINKDATES. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On my talk page, you wrote:

Thankyou for your edits to Mapledurham. I have reverted all of them except the inline citation of an external link to a BBC South Today webpage that you added.

All material added to articles must be verifiable. Your assertion of why you think Mapledurham is best known may or may not be true, but is impossible to verify by citing an authoritative published source.

I agree, mea culpa.

The "Civil Parish" section that you added repeated material all of which is already in the infobox, which has a standard format in order to condense what would take much longer to state longhand.

I fundamentally disagree. I (under my current and a previous identity) have been editing Wikipedia since before infoboxes were common, and I'm still not totally convinced by them, but have come to accept them. However they are not a substitute for textual information and (IMHO) should be regarded as part of the article lede; containing a summary of information found elsewhere in the text of the article.

There are several reasons for this, some stylistic and rooted in the belief that WP is fundamentally a textual medium, but not least because of accessability issues (the software that reads web pages to the visually impaired is much happier with text than tables). As far as I can see, this is the norm on WP articles; if you think it is against policy I'd appreciate a pointer to the appropriate policy.

Incidentally, the text did say more than the infobox does. It put the information on other settlements in the parish in the correct contextual place, rather than having it the lede. It gave the number of households. It clarified that the population was that of the parish and not that of the village. It gave the reader unfamiliar with UK local government practice a clue that parishes, districts and counties are (in this case at least) involved in local government. And it gave cites for information not previously cited (other settlements in parish; constituencies).

For these reasons, I have re-reverted your removal of the civil parish information.

Your elongation of the inline citations to Sherwood & Pevsner's The Buildings of England: Oxfordshire departs from the established academic convention that Wikipedia uses, which is to state author, date, page and nothing else. An inline citation should be concise but include enough data to direct a reader to the publication that is cited in full in the list of sources. There is no value in making articles longer per se. There is value in giving as much verifiable, factual information as possible as concisely and clearly as possible.

I prefer to include to include title because it avoids ambiguity if, as is quite often the case, the same author has written more than one citable reference. However this isn't the case here, and I'm happy not to cite the title. I'm less happy with your reversion to an ad-hoc citation style, rather than using the appropriate cite book template. I've therefore put back in the templates but without the titles.

You uploaded 27 edits to the same article in 26 hours. Most of us just after we have uploaded material have afterthoughts that lead us to make amendments. However, you may find it useful to use your sandbox first until your work is complete enough to upload.

I'm rather tempted to write mind your own business to this one, but that wouldn't be very polite, so I won't. Each of my edits was a self-contained and perfectly reasonable change (with the caveats above). I find this way of working the best way for me, and I don't see that it does any harm to the project.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope that you will not be discouraged from continuing to do so.

I doubt it very much. I've been editing here since 2004, and a little criticism every so often (some justified, some not) is good for the soul. But thanks for the encouragement. -- Starbois (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't help weighing in here. However, I shan't be one-sided.

• The infobox has links in the left-hand column which take you to articles on parish, district, shire county etc. so no explanation of these should be necessary in the text. Were we to put explanations into every article for a settlement equal in size to Mapledurham, or larger, we would need to copy near-duplicate information into hundreds of articles.
• I suggest examination of (a) WP:FOOTERS; (b) WP:CITESHORT and (c) the referencing method used in Featured Articles - such as today's, William III of England. Normal usage is authors, year, page.
• the references section (the one containing the short notes as above) ought to precede the sources section (with the full descriptions of the cited works. That is optional; but the "External links" should come after both.
• Maps ought to be cited with {{cite map}}, not {{cite book}}.

--Redrose64 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your points one by one:

• That might be true if the relationship between the different levels of English local authorities was standard across the country, but it isn't. Mapledurham has parish, district and shire county. A hundred metres away across the Thames, Purley has a parish council, in a unitary authority without county status, in a ceremonial county with no local government responsibilities. Elsewhere there are parishes in unitary authorities with county status, in ceremonial counties with different boundaries. There are unparished areas in districts that also have parishes. There is no way all that complexity can be properly expressed in an infobox, and whilst the generic articles may explain the generality of this, they do not define what applies where.
• I am entirely agnostic to citation format, which is why I always use the {{cite x}} templates, in the expectation they will get it right. If you believe they are not doing so, I suggest you take that up with their authors.
• I hadn't noticed they were out of order; I will correct.
• I've never come across the {{cite map}} template; thnks for telling me about it; I shall use it in future.

Thanks for your comments. -- Starbois (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In {{Infobox UK place}}, there are |country=, |region=, |constituency_westminster=, |civil_parish=, |metropolitan_borough=, |metropolitan_county=, |shire_district=, |shire_county=, |unitary_england=, |lieutenancy_england=, |london_borough= - every single one of which is optional. Only the relevant ones should be filled in; the irrelevant ones should be left blank - or omitted.

I have no problem with citation templates - in their proper place. For an article with one-stage referencing, such as Iffley Halt railway station, the proper place is between the <ref></ref> tags - but in an article with two-stage referencing, such as Mapledurham, the proper place for the citation templates is gathered together late on in the article - the section here headed as "Bibliography". The <ref></ref> may contain plain text; linked text; or one of the special templates designed for short footnotes, such as {{harvnb}}. For example, <ref>{{harvnb|Sherwood|Pevsner|1974|pp=693-694}}</ref> produces

1. Sherwood & Pevsner 1974, pp. 693–694 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSherwoodPevsner1974 (help)

in the references section. Now, if the relevant {{cite book}} also contained |ref=harv, the footnote would be linked to its citation template. Have a look at Charwelton railway station, references ^[2] and ^[3]. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redrose64: thankyou for your comments. I agree with all of them, and they cover many of the points that I would have made.

• Starbois: I agree that infoboxes "are not a substitute for textual information". For me and I imagine many other users userboxes are a substantial improvement in both conciseness and clarity. For many contributors they are invaluable standard checklists of basic facts to find out and provide about the subject of each Wikipedia article. The Mapledurham article's "Civil parish" section predates its infobox, which Fleming09 added in April 2009. In my view the paragraph should have been deleted when the infobox superseded it. If the number of households is sufficiently notable to be included in the article it could easily be added to the opening paragraph.

Is reiterating the contents of the infobox in a paragraph entirely beneficial to inclusive access to disabled users of Wikipedia? It is considerably slower for a visually impaired user to listen to a webpage being read than for a sighted user to read it for themselves. Were I visually impaired I would hate to have my time taken up by a discursion about tiers of English local government when what I wanted was to learn about Mapledurham. Inclusive accessibility is not only about visually impaired users. Users with learning disabilities or limited reading skills benefit from millions of images in Wikipedia that are no use to visually impaired users. If infoboxes are insufficiently accessible to users with some disabilities, have you raised that with the Wikipedians who create them?

The "infobox UK place" template has parameters specifically to indicate whether a place has a unitary council or district and county councils. The fact that Oxfordshire has two tiers of local government whereas Berkshire is broken up into unitary councils can be further discussed in the articles about those two counties. Repeating any of that narrative in the article about a single village is both unhelpful and inconsistent with good convention observed in thousands of Wikipedia articles about English towns and villages.

Redrose64 is right that to be consistent one would have to repeat a similar paragraph in the articles about every village in England. I must add that this would consume both space on Wikipedia's servers and bandwidth on every user's Internet connection. This would add both to Wikipedia's costs and to its carbon footprint. George Orwell's advice is appropriate here: "If a word can be left out, leave it out".

I disagree with your descriptions both of my citation style as "ad-hoc" and of your use of the cite book template as "appropriate". I have contributed to about 860 articles and created 134 of them. In my experience most other contributors' inline citations of printed works conform to the same academic convention that mine do. Your use of a severely truncated version of the citebook template is in my experience unique and unwarranted.

As far as I know Sherwood and Pevsner co-wrote only one work so your concern about confusion between publications is unlikely to apply to them even in the future. Where it is necessary to differentiate between different works by the same author(s) there is a relevant academic convention. If the works were published in different years, the fact that all inline citations include the year of publication is enough. Where more than one work by the same author(s) published in the same year are cited the convention is to assign numbers to them. If the months in which the different works were published are known, they should be numbered in chronological order.

Contributors are asked to write an edit summary for each edit that they make. Even though I am not as consistent as I should be in fulfilling this I must take issue with your practice in your reversions of the Mapledurham article. You believe "Each of [your] edits was a self-contained and perfectly reasonable change", but unhelpfully you left edit summaries for only three of your 27 edits, and only two of your three summaries gave enough information to enlighten your fellow-contributors. As Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative project we should all accept some accountability to each other. In writing "I'm rather tempted to write mind your own business to this one, but that wouldn't be very polite, so I won't" you have committed precisely the impoliteness that you claim to be avoiding and you seem not to be fulfilling a principle of collaboration.

Starbois, this is the second time that you have reverted deletions and précis of Mapledurham that I made and considered entirely appropriate. If we cannot reach a consensus we should refer this disagreement to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Motacilla (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your belief that an infobox in some way replaces the need to include full textual details, I'd refer you to WP:LEAD. This clearly states that the infobox we are talking about here is part of the article lead (see Elements of the Lead). It also makes it clear that the purpose of the article lead is to serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article and that Infoboxes contain summary information or an overview relating to the subject of the article. Summaries and overviews do not replace the information they are summarising and overviewing.

Given that clear policy statement, I don't think there is any need to go into any more detail on why it is important to keep the detailed text as well as the infobox. I'd just point out that I accept that for you and many other users userboxes are a substantial improvement in both conciseness and clarity; I'd ask you to accept that for me and many other users natural language text is much easier to assimilate than tabulations. I'm not proposing disadvantaging you by removing infoboxes, you are proposing disadvantaging me by removing natural language text.

With regard to citations, I think Redrose64 has introduced some interesting points, with a lot of additional templates and parameters I wasn't aware of. It seems that I was mistaken in my usage of the templates in the way I was using them, and therefore probably wrong to change your usage. I will change them back.

To your charge that I have twice reverted your changes, I plead not guilty. My only reversion was the one on the 14th November. My addition of the Civil Parish section on the 12th November was written from scratch and was motivated by the fact that the 'village, civil parish and country estate' triplet in the first sentence of the lead looked as if it was asking for such a section. I have only just checked back in the history, and realised that this is because an earlier editor had written such a section at the same time as the lead. I think that if you compare the earlier 'Mapledurham Parish' section with my 'Civil Parish' section you will see they are different (actually I think the earlier one is better written, so have now copy edited my work to be more in line with his).

As for dispute resolution, it seems a little over the top to me, but please feel free. -- Starbois (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the various Grim's Ditchi are pre Roman invasion while Aves Ditch is probably Roman. The references are vague using helpful terms like 'believed' or 'thought to be' so one can't be definitive.

Rsloch (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new reference for the Palestine Railway, Brendon Judd's "The Desert Railway" has 260 pages in the 2003 privately printed edition which I have from the local library, but the 2004 Penguin edition has 328 pages. Hence I cannot give page refs to the Penguin edition. Perhaps chapter references instead? Hugo999 (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the message. Isn't it academic convention to specify which edition one has cited and give the page numbers therefrom? Motacilla (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted this project banner from a couple of articles. I know it says "cities" and the 2 settlements that I saw aren't cities, but the usage is an American one which is much broader. The project scope includes all settlements, regardless of size, even those which are parts of larger urban areas. I've replaced the WPCities banners on Chieveley and East Garston. Folks at 137 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Chieveley. The motorway service station is bigger than the rest of the village. City? No way. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call it a "city" either. However, the project scope is about settlements, irrespective of size. I think its v broad, but there we are. Perhaps the service station is within scope - is it a permanent settlement? Folks at 137 (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I put forward a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Oxfordshire. I'm not at all sure how to go about gaining recruits; but since you have demonstrated a strong interest in Oxfordshire topics, I thought I'd start by asking if (a) you are interested; (b) if you know how best to continue, who to invite, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re this post; I'm sorry if you got the impression that it was the above suggestion that I claimed was being ignored; in fact it was this one. However, all help appreciated! --Redrose64 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, but I did fail to answer your suggestion and I have been feeling guilty about it. At the time I didn't know how to answer your question (b) how best to continue, so I left it to one side intending to find out and get back to you, and... er... failed to get any further for three months, then got no further, then got distracted... oops! Now let's see how the discussion of your proposal progresses! :o) Motacilla (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken re canal/railway - have amended. Don't see a lot of point in repeating Pevsner refs for a new page when is just a case of a single section over four pages though. Anyway cheersCj1340 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on expanding the Ambrosden article. I spent two years working at the MoD RAOC depot just down the road from there, so I have many fond memories of sessions in the Turner Arms. The reference to "Ambrosden Court Ltd" in the Economy section looks a bit dodgey to me though, but as this is a public forum I'll say no more. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm not suggesting you put that in, just making a comment. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I've now expanded Ambrosden's "Economic and social history" section and reviewed the external links. The "Ambrosden Court Ltd" link was dead so I deleted it. Two of the other links led to webpages that had almost nothing to say about Ambrosden so I deleted them too.

I've expanded the article on one of Ambrosden's lords of the manor, Sir Edward Turner, 2nd Baronet (see Boleyn3's message below). The 2nd Baronet was a high-living 18th century MP and apparently the man who had that weird bouncy road built between Ambosden and Merton.

Next I want to write the article for Sir Edward Turner, 1st Baronet, who apparently made the family fortune by investing in the South Sea Company and selling his shares before they crashed. I think that'll be enough Turner Baronets to be getting on with! Motacilla (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now made a few more pieces of history to Ambrosden, including the fact that the park where Ambrosden House was demolished was subsequently used for horse-racing. Arncott and Blackthorn were parts of the ancient parish of Ambrosden so I've expanded their articles too. Sir Edward Turner, 2nd Baronet who built the road between Ambrosden and Merton also bought the manor of Merton, so I've developed that article to a similar level. I think I've now done enough for this corner of Oxfordshire for the moment! Motacilla (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your hard work on this article, which looks really good now. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! I've now made a few more additions to the article, plus a few to Sir Gregory Page-Turner, 3rd Baronet, and created an article for Sir Edward Turner, 1st Baronet. I'll leave the subsequent Page-Turner baronets for other editors to tackle! Motacilla (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Motacilla. I see you have contributed to the article Steeple Aston. The article is currently a Good Article candidate; unfortunately, the nominator has retired. I was wondering if you would be able to step in for the review; otherwise, I'm afraid I may have to quick-fail it. Intelligentsium 00:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for getting in touch. I was pleased that DharmaDreamer nominated Steeple Aston. I've created or improved hundreds of articles, many of them about Oxfordshire villages. A little recognition is always encouraging!

However, I haven't supported Steeple Aston's nomination as I don't think it yet fulfils the "Broad in its coverage" criterion. The article's includes no history of Steeple Aston's manor after 1086 and doesn't mention when the parish's common lands were enclosed. So far there is only a thumbnail sketch of the Church of England parish church and nothing about Steeple Aston's recusant or nonconformist history. There is more to be added about the vernacular architecture of the village's secular buildings. The lack of any photographs may not be an automatic disqualification, but it means it isn't as engaging as articles that do include them.

I think the article would be better described informally as "adequate" than officially a "Good Article". If no-one else adds to the Steeple Aston article, I will do so eventually. However, there are many articles about Oxfordshire villages that are less adequate and thus more in need of improvement. I am trying to concentrate on them for the moment!

I prefer not to nominate my own work for good article status. It's not only modesty but the fact that I prefer not to spend effort away from creating and improving articles. However, if anyone wants to nominate an article about an Oxfordshire village there are several that I suggest are more complete and from my point of view more satisfactory. They include Ambrosden, Drayton, Cherwell, North Leigh and South Newington. A few villages have a separate article for their parish church, of which St Mary's Church, North Leigh, and St Peter ad Vincula, South Newington are among the more comprehensive.

Thankyou once again for your interest. Motacilla (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steeple Aston is way off GA Status at the moment. Motacilla I have to say though I'm very impressed at your work on villages in Oxfordshire. It is nice to browse and find mostly half decent articles even if shortish. Now if we could get all of the villages in the UK up to a similar level... I'll add some photos to some of the villages.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some improvements to Ambrosden. If you could kindly fix the book citations to the actual pages instead of the 15-30 thing e.g. Lobel (1957), page 17 etc. and add a citation and fill the british army section out a little I think this is ready for GA. I'd be happy to help you promote some of these articles. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for working on Ambrosden and for your encouraging comments about my contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of Oxfordshire. It would be very nice to have one or two articles about villages or parish churches in the county accepted as good articles. Please feel welcome to visit the discussion of whether to create a WikiProject Oxfordshire!

My access to volumes of the Victoria County History is via http://british-history.ac.uk/, which gives only the page range of each section from the printed original. Strictly speaking I ought to add a URL for each cited section. However, British History Online is only "quoting" the original printed volumes of the VCH. If I can ever find the time, I need to spend a day or two in a library that has a set of VCH volumes and go through each article refining the inline citations.

Unfortunately I know very little about St. George's Barracks and its MoD housing and other facilities in Ambrosden, or whether a history of the barracks has been published. As the Bicester Military Railway was built to serve the barracks, the published history of that railway may indicate whether there are any published sources of the barracks' history.

• Lawton, E.R.; Sackett, M.W. (1992). The Bicester Military Railway. Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0-86093-467-5.

I'm sorry not to be more helpful with Ambrosden at this stage. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think more research is needed in the library. Its of GA quality I think but the sources used could be much more abundant. Its on hold at the moment but I think its probably best to withdraw the nomination until it can be made more comprehensive. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosden is now a GA. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla, please do not delete the template {{Coordinate}} from any articles as it is used for data extraction (e.g. for Google Maps). You can get a map of England instead of the UK by adding "maplevel=adm2nd" to this template (see my reverts of your edits). --тнояsтеn ⇔ 10:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now how can I add a map of England to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlbury? The formatting of the German infobox looks much more complicated than the English equivalent. Motacilla (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not an infobox in de:Charlbury. It's just a selfmade table.

You can add coordinates to an article by using de:Vorlage:Coordinate and maps with de:Vorlage:Positionskarte. If you want to have both you can use the first template which also provides the map feature.

Just put {{Coordinate|article=/|map=right|maplevel=adm2nd|NS=1|EW=2|type=3|region=4}} with latitude (1), longitude (2), type (3) and iso-code (4) at the place where you want to have the map. If you drop maplevel it will show the map of the UK, with this parameter set as adm2nd it shows England. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of your comments on Disused railway stations (Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway), perhaps you might like to have your say on the proposals that have been made here which would, if implemented, see many more individual station articles merged into one single page. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me about that one! I find that discussion more illuminating than the one about the merged article on DN&S former stations, and I hope it leads to a settlement of the issue. I've added my two penn'orth anyway. Motacilla (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox for Stratton Audley, the "Website" link which points to "The Stratton Audley Village Web Site" redirects through http://www.strattonaudley.com/ to the Red Lion Inn. Is this acceptable? Modal Jig (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not! When I created the article, http://www.strattonaudley.com/ was the village's website, with community information including downloadable copies of parish council minutes. That website has since been replaced with a redirect to the village pub. I have searched online but found no successor website for the parish council or the village community. I have therefore deleted the link. Thankyou for noticing the problem! Motacilla (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your work. I'll try not to leave so much of the housekeeping to others. I'll take your reference style in this entry as a pattern and try to supply the absent page references where I can. One thing that I would like to have done was to set the sample poem in single spacing like the rest of the text. How can that be done? Bmcln1 (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll jump in if I may...

There is the <poem></poem> tag pair, you would use it like this:

<poem>Think how her sister, dear 'Urania' [i. e. Anne], fell,
When ev'ry Arte'ry, Fibre, Nerve and Vein
Were by Convulsions torn, and fill'd with Pain...</poem>

which produces

To indent it, the usual colon at the start of the line doesn't work, so you need to enclose the whole thing in a <blockquote></blockquote> ie:

<blockquote><poem>Think how her sister, dear 'Urania' [i. e. Anne], fell,
When ev'ry Arte'ry, Fibre, Nerve and Vein
Were by Convulsions torn, and fill'd with Pain...</poem></blockquote>

which produces

Think how her sister, dear 'Urania' [i. e. Anne], fell,
When ev'ry Arte'ry, Fibre, Nerve and Vein
Were by Convulsions torn, and fill'd with Pain...

--Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Redrose64, I'll work on those lines. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very grateful for RedRose's explanation of formatting verse in Wikipedia, as I made a poor job of it in Anne Wharton's article and didn't understand how to do it properly.

Best wishes to you both! Motacilla (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, it still doesn't work for me, but I haven't lost heart yet. At the moment it's still in 1.5 line spacing. Always was a troublesome girl, that Anne Wharton! Bmcln1 (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sort of wild child your Mum warned you against! Motacilla (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have expanded Ashendon Junction which you started. I thought you might like to cast your eye over it. It still needs sources and is still under threat of being deemed non-notable. I think it is notable in terms of the history of the Great Central. Maybe that could be explained at greater length if a more detailed history of the GCR were to hand. Alarics (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five potential sources as a "Further reading" section - there should be something in at least some of them. I'll see what specifics I can find, but "when I get a round tuit". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eek! My bad. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded this a bit, and given it some structure. The Plimsoll Ship Data website is useful for ships in service between 1930 and 1945. Mjroots (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the link to Plimsoll Ship Data and for adding data to the SS Michael E article.

I have checked the article and corrected your typos. You have repeated numerous statistics from the infobox in the text. Is this recommended? Motacilla (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, infobox is to give a brief overview. The referencing occurs in the body of the text. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The displacement field is incorrect, it should be tonnage and coded -
|Ship tonnage = {{16,622|GRT|first=yes}} (1936-45) 17,362 GRT (1945-80)<br>9,572 [[deadweight tonnage|DWT]] (1936-45), 9,790 DWT (1945-80)
Plenty of info on Pretoria here and Empire Doon here. Empire Doon's tonnage was reassessed when she was taken as a prize. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I missed this one. Will create article on it soon as I'm currently waiting for the Clydesite website to get back online before I can write the Empire Conrad article. Mjroots (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found Empire Celia only because I'm following the convoluted history of Counties Ship Management. If you do write her article, please will you include a redlink to CSM? I'm working on an article about the company. It's nearly ready to post and is currently on one of my userpages: [1]. However the draft is too long for my liking, so before I post it I want to I move most of the details of SS Brockley Hill, SS Argos Hill and Convoy OA 178 to new articles of their own.

By the way, I am having difficulty finding the end of the story of SS Argos Hill. Her entry in Lloyd's Register is over-written with a statement "Damaged by Fire" and the date "1945". Online secondary sources repeat this statement but none says where she was when she burned, whether the fire was caused by enemy action, whether she sank as a result, and if not where and when she was scrapped. Do you know any other sources of records, preferably online, where I might find out? Motacilla (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this little beauty!. Re Argos Hill, I'll see what I can find on Ships Nostalgia. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for finding a photo of 'Empire Celia! Is that tug burning oily rags to make so much smoke?! Your draft of the Empire Celia article in your sandbox looks good too.

I've now completed all the articles related to Counties Ship Management that I planned to write, including as much of a history of SS Argos Hill as I could find. If you fill any gaps in Argos Hill's story, or pictures of any CSM ships, I would be delighted. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on completing and "launching" the SS Empire Celia article! I've given the CSM and LOF articles links to it. I hope you won't mind my minor revisions of Empire Celia's text. Wikipedia:Glossary calls paragraphs of more than 12 lines "Wall of text" and discourages them as "unappealing and difficult to read". I have a rather feeble ability to concentrate on long paragraphs, so I habitually divide them into smaller ones. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of a template for all Counties Ship Management ships? See {{Seatruck Ships}} and {{Irish Shipping}} for examples. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the offer: I think a template would be really nifty. Would it be too much trouble to give the template a separate section for each of the companies that CSM set up to own the ships? It might enable readers to decipher the Kulukundis' convoluted ship-owning arrangements a bit better and a bit more.

I think the main components of the CSM family were Dorset Steamships, Putney Hill Steamships, Surrey Steamships, Sussex Steamships and Tower Hill Steamships, plus a few other ships belonging to other owners. I'm not sure whether they were officially "Steam Ship Co" or "Steamship Co". I haven't had an authoritative enough source for me to detail each of the companies - or to find out whether they and CSM are legally defunct or technically still in existence.

There is also the related fleet of "Mount" ships such as SS Mount Ida that were managed by Rethymnis & Kulukundis and owned by various Kulukundis, Mavroleon, Rethymnis etc. cousins. I have no definitive list of them, no idea how many there were, no idea how many companies the clan set up to own them and I'm not at all sure how to find out! Shall we keep the "Mount" ships separate for the moment? They can always be dealt with at a later date, probably separately if there's a lot of them, but I would welcome your advice.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me a list of all ships owned by each company, plus the miscellaneous ones, whether or not they have a article. I can then sort out the template. Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the appreciation and guidance about the South Newton article, ?stub, you put on my talk-page. I had an itch to do an article of some sort and I will admit (only to you) that I went into this a little less prepared than I should have, but that's a lesson learned. I heed your advice and concur. Again thanks for your support. best. Richard Avery (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your further kind words, advice and church bell source. I shall certainly be using that in the future. Richard Avery (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have noticed I have now added a (not very good) photo of the church in South Newton I was passing through but the day was a bit cloudy. I'll improve it when I am next by there on a sunny day! Thanks for your pointers on the bell foundries. I have put them on my projects list! What an excellent idea to make a refs page like that. I have one but I have it in Microsoft Word, putting it in WP makes it accessible for all and easier to access oneself. Best wishes. Richard Avery (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Motacilla. I have come across your good work on a number of ship articles. One request: Gross tonnage, gross register tonnage, and net tonnage are specialized measures of volume, not of displacement, which is mass. Accordingly conversion templates should not be used; there is no way to convert, for example, grt (which is volume) to long, short, or metric tons/tonnes (which are units of mass). Many other websites erroneously list the weight or displacements of merchant ships; in most cases the proper measure is grt, gt, or net. (Deadweight tonnage, which is a measure of weight capacity, is used for tankers.) Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Lloyd's Register historically lists gross register tonnage, tonnage under deck (the principal tonnage deck), and net register tonnage. Tonnage under deck is a component of grt; it is not the same thing as modern gross tonnage. This book shows the calculation of grt for some late-19th century ships. For example, Duke of Clarence, when remeasured in 1903, was 994.35 tons under the {uppermost complete) deck, had additional volume in spaces above that deck in deckhouses, etc., which gives a gross tonnage (which is not the same thing as modern GT, but rather is grt) of 1433.81. There are 989.78 in deductions for machinery and crew space, giving a net register of 440.43. So these figures show grt, tonnage under deck (a component of grt), and net register tonnage. Kablammo (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I did wonder. Please check my revision of SS Empire Conveyor and tell me if I've got it right now. Motacilla (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the last measure is net register tonnage (nrt), not net tonnage (nt). Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Redrose64 has described you as "hot on churches and villages in Oxfordshire" and suggested you may be able to help with St John the Baptist Church, Inglesham. I generally work on WikiProject Somerset but since its creation I have been helping out with WikiProject Wiltshire, adding the project banner to lots of relevant article talk pages and also been writing articles on redundant churches in Wiltshire under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust. I've now started work on St John the Baptist Church, Inglesham which is a bit out of the ordinary! I have nominated it for DYK, but think it could go on to GA status. I would be grateful for any help you can offer:

• My books on old churches don't cover Wiltshire do you have any suitable sources?
• My prose is generally poor and it would be great if someone could give it a copyedit.

Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 19:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the message and kind words. I have worked on a few parishes in Wiltshire and have now quickly revised and expanded Inglesham. Unfortunately due to other commitments I am currently contributing very little to Wikipedia and so cannot give St John the Baptist Church, Inglesham the time and attention that it deserves.

The Victoria County History is always an authoritative source but unfortunately the volume that will include the history of Inglesham parish has not yet been published. [Volume 18, currently being prepared], will cover part of NE Wiltshire and I hope may include Inglesham.

The Wiltshire volume of The Buildings of England has two pages on Inglesham. I have added it to the footnotes of both articles. The Buildings of England series is colloquially known as "Pevsner" after its founding editor, but much of Sir Nikolaus Pevsner's work on Wiltshire was revised in the 1975 edition by Bridget Cherry. It has not been updated since then so there is no point paying for a new one. BookFinder.com can help you to buy a used one at the best price.

I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful at this stage. Good luck, and enjoy it! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I am quite familiar with Anglo-Saxon architecture and the numerous claims of various churches to incorporate Saxon remains, often either very minor or entirely incorrect. As it stood, the article didn't make a claim of any significant Saxon remains, beyond the two sculptures. I don't count the section heading, as the text did not cite any reference to support it. However, the new detail from Pevsner which you have now added makes the case plainly, so I have no objection to you re-adding the category. Warofdreams talk 02:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your post re citation format. I can't see what the problem is. The citations given are quite adequate, that is they enable the reader to locate the source material. I was unaware that WP requires use of a template when citing sources. If you wish to alter the format of my basic but adequate citations, feel free to do so. For your benefit I have added a URL link to the JSTOR publication in which I found the article by Elizabeth Whittle. I am at a loss as to what more you want for the Gervase Markham citation. I have supplied all relevant details. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Now that you know about citation templates please do not destroy them. When you destroyed the template citing for "The Early 17th Century Gardens of Tackley" you also deleted an inline citation to the relevant volume of the VCH. I have now reverted both items.

You have now provided a URL for "The Early 17th Century Gardens of Tackley" but still omitted most of the details of the publication. You also omitted the name of the second author and mis-spelt the name of the first. As the source is a journal I have changed the citation format from Template:cite book to Template:cite journal. I have looked up the Garden History Society's index of past issues of Garden History and filled in most of the details that you still failed to add. However, the index does not give the publisher's location or the article's page numbers. Please supply them.

You have not supplied all the relevant details for the Gervase Markham citation. Including the publisher's location is standard academic practice, but you have omitted it. If John Jackson were a 19th or 20th century publisher I might have little difficulty finding his location online and insert it. However, he is an early 17th century publisher with whom most readers will be unfamiliar. As with "The Early 17th Century Gardens of Tackley", please fill in the blank. Thankyou.

Motacilla (talk) 11:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you removed a link from Upton, Vale of White Horse because the link is also in the infobox. I do not think that is right. Help:Infobox says that infoboxes "are only supposed to summarize material from an article—the information should still be present in the main text, because it may not be possible for some readers to access the contents of the infobox". --Mhockey (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an access problem with infoboxes? Motacilla (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea - I'm just repeating what it says in Help:Infobox. I think more generally it is anyway useful to have the info in both places, because many people do not look first in the infobox. --Mhockey (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla, I noticed that you removed the compass-table from the Horsham article, your comment said it was "pointless", I've decided to re-added it, and have explained why on the discussion page. Grim²³★ 23:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla,

I have edited the comments regarding Hugo Ellis because the sources cited do not refer to the exact nature or cause of Hugo's death, the nature of which is not recorded in either of the sources you refer to. Your original statement is not verifiable. This is a sensitive issue and many people feel a more neutral reference to Hugo's death is appropriate particularly at this particular time.

Barneystjohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barneystjohn (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that Wikipedia requires verifiability rather than truth. One might add that Wikipedia's biography of living persons policy "requires a high degree of sensitivity". However, the same policy goes on to emphasise "We must get the article right".

Hugo's obituary notice in the Horsham Advertiser and statements on the websites of both St. John's parish church and The Space Arts Trust all withhold his cause of death. This impedes verification of what you, Simon Machin and a thousand other people know to be factual and of some relevance to the James Ellis article. It is particularly regrettable both that someone associated with a parish church sought to prevent Wikipedia from publishing the truth and that you and others are seeking to be economical with it.

Your definition of "neutral" may conflict with Wikipedia's. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy does not include glossing over facts. Hugo was conspicuously direct and honest and he surely deserves the same from you. A more candid statement published by either St John's or The Space would form the verifiable source that is currently lacking. It might also be a truer reflection of Hugo's integrity of character.

Finally, when ending a message please always sign it with four tildes (~~~~). This will enable a bot automatically to convert this to your username and a time and date stamp. Thankyou. – Motacilla (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) the four tildes aren't converted by a bot - it's the MediaWiki parser. Try entering four tildes then go for "Show changes"; the text on green in the right-hand half shows that it's already converted to the full signature. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the TS Pretoria article, which you created. A couple of facts have been marked as needing a citation. They are probably in one of the two book sources you used when you originally created the article. Maybe you could check and reference these. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for developing the article. The only item in the article that I can now find tagged "citation needed" is her service in the Suez Crisis in 1956. My only books are ones published in 1938 and 1942 so unfortunately they don't enable me to add anything on this point!

The only ship article on which I've worked recently is MV Chauncy Maples, which has a long and slightly unusual history. You're most welcome to cast a critical eye over the piece and make any necessary improvements. Motacilla (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Motacilla
I notice you wrote an article on convoy OA 178. It’s a welcome addition, as most of the ones we have already deal with the U-boat campaign.
There were a couple of things at variance with the sources I know, though (this one, for example, and this) I was minded to make some changes, but thought I’d check with you first, to see if you preferred to do them.
Also you listed some of the ships tonnages (e.g. MV Dallas City 4,952 long tons (5,546 short tons; 5,031 t) GRT). I’m not sure if you are aware now , but GRT doesn’t equate to tons like that; it’s a measure of capacity, not weight. That’s why, for example, a ship like Eastmoor can have a GRT of 5,812, but be carrying 7,500 tons of cargo when she was finally sunk (here) Xyl 54 (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the kind message. The story of coastal convoys seems to have attracted far less interest than those in the North Atlantic or the Arctic and now seems almost forgotten.

You're not the first colleague to put me right on my manifest failure to understand different measures of ship tonnage and discriminate between them! All too obviously I'm not a sailor, and 10 months later I'm still slowly getting the hang of it.

I wrote the Convoy OA 178 article solely because SS Argos Hill was damaged in it and I was writing about every Counties Ship Management vessel that had been either damaged or sunk by enemy action. My work in that respect is now largely complete. Please feel welcome to improve the article in whatever way your sources enable you to do.

Motacilla (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, I'll have a go at it. You're right about the coastal convoys; one of the things that got me interested was how little there was about trade protection generally (it was all "U-boat aces", hardly any thing about the other side of the coin). And don't worry about the tonnage thing, it took ages before the penny dropped with me over it. Part of the fun of doing this is learning stuff as you go along. If you are still interested in ships, you might try looking in on the WP:SHIPS project page. There's always room for someone interested in merchant ships (another under-represented area). Anyway, good luck, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am already a WP:SHIPS member, but thankyou for the suggestion. Since your message I have added four articles connected with coasters: the Burntisland Shipbuilding Company built dozens of them, the London Power Company and Wandsworth and District Gas Company had their own fleets of them, a lot of Thames colliers were flat-irons and SS Wandle was a Wandsworth flatiron with a noteworthy war record. I've also added mid-20th century coasters to the articles on Brimsdown Power Station, Fulham Power Station, Gas Light and Coke Company and Stephenson Clarke Shipping.

I've continued a little work on ocean-going merchantmen, creating articles for SS Empire Tower, SS Lambridge and SS Pensylvanie. However, I need also try to catch up with my work in the real World...

I managed to find and add non-copyright National Maritime Museum photos of SS Wandle and another Wandsworth flatiron, SS Ewell, and add them to the relevant articles. My sources do not identify the convoys in which Wandle sailed. I would particularly like to add in which ones she saw action and of course in which one she was torpedoed. If you have sources that would enable you to add this or any other information, please feel welcome to do so.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that there is an alternative way to do ship infoboxes. Compare SS Burgondier to SS Polar Chief. The infobox in the latter article is more compact, but still has all the info. Mjroots (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I've created several ship articles recently but I'm still clueless as to which infobox template I'm using. Talking of boxes, my latest is SS Pensylvanie, created to revive my long-dormant work on Counties Ship Management. She was built on Tees-side in 1917. Do you think she was a First World War standard design, and if so should she join Template:Standard WWI ships?

AFAIK, she was not a Standard WWI ship. You may find WP:SHIPS sources page of use for researching ship articles. A libary card should give you access to The Times archives via your library's website - sometimes can be a useful source of info. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Chzz  ►  03:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla! Firstly, thank you for your amazing work on the article Palestine Railways and others. I have a question: Do you know where I can get access to some of those railway books you used? I have the ones that can be easily bought, but not the more rare ones. In particular, I am interested in: Hughes, Hugh (1981). Middle East Railways. Harrow: Continental Railway Circle. pp. 34–44. ISBN 0-9503469-7-7. If you are located in Israel, do you know which library in the center has this book? Or even better, where I can buy it? Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I haven't finished yet! I've enough material to add separate articles about PR's M, K and N class tank locomotives and to expand the main Palestine Railways article with a section about coaches and perhaps freight rolling stock as well.

I don't know what Israeli libraries have a copy of Hughes' Middle East Railways but Bookfinder lists at least one copy for sale for just over £23.

Have you seen Paul Cotterell's sequel to The Railways of Palestine and Israel? He died just before completing it but his friend Chen Melling at the Israel Railway Museum in Haifa finished it as Make Straight the Way and also translated it so there's a hebrew version of the book, Yasheru Ba‘arava Mesilla, as well. Both versions are available direct from Israel Railways: Make Straight the Way.

The Israel Railway Museum has an archive of photos too, many of which I imagine were gathered by (and quite a lot taken by) Paul himself. The museum's webpages on the Israel Railways website are not very comprehensive, but if you contact the museum you may find them more helpful.

I hope at least some of this is useful! :o) Motacilla (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and than you for the prompt answer. I actually have Make Straight the Way in Hebrew (actually it was published in Hebrew and only later in English), I got it from Chen personally :) I will take a look at the link you sent regarding Hugh's book.

Regarding the museum, first of all, were you there on May 27 for the commemoration of Paul? I was. In any case, unfortunately they are not quick to release photographs, even those that are in public domain. I spoke to Chen about it several times but he said that it was problematic and the higher administration would not sanction a massive release of photographs. Things may change in the future though, maybe I'll approach them in my capacity as a Wikimedia Israel member and they will be more willing.

Regarding Rehoboth vs. Rehovot, it's a technical matter—the Wikipedia manual of style is clear on this point, that if you use a certain spelling of the same thing once in an article, it must be used again in the same article, except in direct quotes. I hope you did not take offense to my revert.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was applying WP:MOS consistency too. Please see the preceding use of "Rehoboth" in the line diagram and in the "Operations" section in the Palestine Railways article. And it's how Palestine Railways spelt it when writing in English, which is what we're doing here. However frustrating it may be, perhaps L.P. Hartley's famous comment "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" has some bearing on 20th-century Israel?

T.E. Lawrence would've hated WP:MOS's consistency rules. When his publisher challenged him for using two or three different transliterations of Arabic names of places and people in the same text, Lawrence refused to stick to one set of transliterations or another and practically threatened to introduce more variations just for the sake of it! But then, Lawrence made more of a career out of how railways could be sabotaged than how they should be run! ;o)

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mariners website gives Empire Pacific as being built by Burntisland (builder 04). The ship currently listed as Empire Pacific seems to be Empire Palace! I'll sort that one out in a mo. As for Windsor Trader, it is entirely possible that there were two or more motorships with this name. In which case it MV Windsor Trader can be turned into a shipindex page, and Windsor Trader will need to be retargeted. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about British shipbuilding in the 1950s and 1960s. You're UK resident, are you not? Do you have a library card that gives you access to The Times online archives? Probably tons of info there! Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you may want to go through the various lists of ship launches and add links as appropriate to them. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shipsnostalgia may also prove useful. Although blogs are not RSs in and of themselves, they can often prove useful tools for research, as once you find two pieces of info to link to a ship, you can then search for sources which verify those two pieces are related. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend Convoyweb (which often does not show up in searches), Mariners, The Ships List and Warsailors as good sources for researching ship articles. Other sources that may be worth using are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re this edit - where a book citation has a description of a point within the book, and that point doesn't correspond to an actual page number, it's better to use |at=Diagram 13B because that suppresses the "p." which |page=Diagram 13B generates. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm wondering why you are altering {{stnlnk}} to {{rws}}, as here, since rws is merely a redirect to stnlnk? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's shorter. I try to keep formating and wording as compact as possible, on the basis that each page's byte size takes up space so economy of wording equates to economy for Wikipedia. Have I misunderstood something? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Motacilla! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

I've just added to the works list for this article - cite 19. I'd be grateful if you could reformat the ref to the article style - not within my competence at the moment. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Job done with pleasure. There is more than one way to format source citations and inline citations, so I have merely harmonised your entries for the two Holbeaches with the same format as other entries in the Ewan Christian#England list. That is, the book is detailed in full in the Ewan Christian#Sources list using Template:cite book while the inline citations are concise and give only author, year and page number. I ought to teach myself how to apply Template:Harvard citation templates, as they hyperlink each inline citation with the relevant source listed at the foot of the article.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like {{sfn}} which is essentially the same as <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> with the benefit that you don't need to worry about naming the <ref> tags when referencing the same page in a given book in two different places. If you give {{sfn}} exactly the same permutation of authors/year/page two or more times, it merges them automatically. You can see it in action on NBR 224 and 420 Classes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw a couple of your edits and I would dispute your description of vandalism - WP:Vandalism has a specific description here and a good faith attempt to protect of edit in a similar vein would not fit the description of vandalism - more or less - any good faith edit is not vandalism - would you agree? Youreallycan (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping: you're correct. WP:Vandalism says "Edit warring over content is not vandalism". But surely User:GiacomoReturned is edit warring against my modification of Burford Methodist Church and has broken the WP:3RR? That's what I've called it here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:GiacomoReturned reported by User:Motacilla (Result: ).

Motacilla (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why you would report that is beyond me - you are edit warring also - if he is blocked so are you - it's not a win lose battlefield here - that is so often the default position here. I am starting to think there is no future for this place. How many reverts had you got< one less than him? - Youreallycan (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, but fortunately I was first on the scene, and I prefer not to block anybody less than indefinitely. Jehochman ^Talk 01:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan — Admins are welcome to judge me for that. I'm glad that my experience of edit warring over my few years of editing has been so minimal. I modified an article in good faith; Giacomo kept reverting it. I kept explaining my actions; Giacomo kept making remarks that were tantamount to ad hominem. And then there's the contrast between our block logs:

• GiacomoReturned: [2]
• Motacilla: [3]

Is there "a future for this place"? Goodness yes! Looking back at umpteen hundred articles in subject areas in which I've participated in the last few years, I see vastly increased coverage and quality — relatively little of which has been either undone or spoiled. I don't know if my usual subject areas are more convivial than some others on WP — by definition, I rarely venture outside my usual subject areas to find out!

Motacilla (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you give an editor a warning, you need to wait and see if it is effective before requesting that they be blocked. Also, it is never a good idea to edit war and then report the other guy because he made more reverts than you. In this case you were both wrong. Please use dispute resolution instead of repeating disputed edits. Jehochman ^Talk 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Good luck with it, I wouldn't hold out much hope though, as the apparently neutral contributors to the current discussions have already had things to say about that particular user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Giano_II. My own experience (for example at Mentmore Towers ) has been pretty unrewarding (even though he's stopped editing that, for the moment) as there's clearly a GiacomoReturned fan club which is happy to turn a blind eye to his repeated incivility, article ownership issues, and disregard for reliable sources. Ghughesarch (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you assume good faith, are friendly towards other editors, and try to hear their point of view, you will often find editing to be much more pleasant and productive. You can't control anybody else's outlook, but you can choose your own approach. Jehochman ^Talk 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently removed the second mention of the village of Oakley from Template:Aylesbury Vale. I have undone it for the moment.

When I was developing those templates we had a discussion here about just this issue. The way I had been doing them before was listing them as, for example, Oakley ( Addingrove • Little London ). I.e. as Parish ( Other places ). The difficulty with this is that in some cases the parish and main village do not share the same name, for example at Stone with Bishopstone and Hartwell ( Bishopstone • Hartwell • Lower Hartwell • Sedrup ) what do you then do with Stone? And in some cases the lead article was not just a redirect: the civil parish had its own article separate from the main village.

So what we decided to do was to list it as it is: to have the parish name at the start, then each place name within that parish in the parentheses, even if it meant listing the same article twice. Because these articles have not been formed in a consistent manner, unfortunately there is no consistent approach to listing them in a single template, just a "best fit" approach. -- role^player 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't edit your user page so will leave a note here. There was a Warminster and Westbury Rural District, but no Warminster and Westbury, until 1974 each of them was an urban district. Moonraker (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apparently the church at Warkworth, Northamptonshire now has a steel roof because the lead was stolen, and the eight regular churchgoers couldn't afford to replace like with like. English Heritage gave it the go-ahead. Might I suggest this for your to-do list? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes a change from the usual sort of "tin tabernacle"! I have worked on a few parishes in south Northants so erm, yes, I could eventually try to do Warkworth village and St Mary the Virgin parish church.

However, I'm still making too little progress on Oxfordshire! I try to stay focussed, but then I get drawn to nearby bits of Bucks, Warwicks and so on, and to Saxon churches anywhere in the country, and I never finish anything!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Motacilla. You may be interested in Talk:Ufton Nervet rail crash/Archives/2023/May#Petition, a discussion I started to gain consensus on the Ufton Nervet rail crash page. Your input would be appreciated. All the best, matt (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla. Nice work on those CIA-related articles, I really never knew the Agency was active in Indonesia in that way. Really good stuff. The lead on the bios are fine now, good summaries. I got the ship info from Miramar Ship Index, which is a generally quite reliable source (unlike wrecksite.eu, I might add). Miramar is subscription only access, but if you like I can add the Miramar stuff to the articles when and if you create them. The ship articles you already have created look fine, they shouldn't be challenged. As for Ammonia, if you register at Miramar you get a 7-day free trial. Manxruler (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And by Ammonia I of course mean Armonia... Manxruler (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your encouragement and advice. I will certainly try the Miramar site. I know Wrecksite isn't always correct: like Wikipedia it's a work in progress, and I've occasionally contributed to it! I have a life outside cyberspace so I don't know how long it'll take me to create articles for Aquila, Armonia, Daronia, Dromus and Flying Lark. Daronia should make a good read: in the Second World War a U-boat torpedoed her in the Indian Ocean but she survived and limped back to South Africa for repairs.

I think it's Flying Lark that was built in Norway as SS Denny. When I eventually write its article, do you fancy translating it into Norwegian?

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Lark was originally Norwegian, she was built as Honuras in Fredrikstad, Norway, in 1915. Renamed Tuxpam in 1934, Denny in 1939, Phoenix in 1946, Ville de Geneve in 1948, Ionion in 1955 and Flying Lark in 1957. Back when she was called Denny she was owned by Weinberger SS Co Inc, of Nicaragua and home ported in Bluefields.

Take your time in creating the articles, we've got plenty of time. Looking forward to reading more of your contributions. As for Norwegian translations, I sadly don't do those, I prefer to stay very far away from Norwegian language Wikipedia. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed a few edits of yours like this where you are adding books after the fact. This implies that they were used to create the article when they weren't. --Merbabu (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In every case the additional source provides further corroboration for material that I have added to the article. If you think this tendentious, the bibliography heading could be changed from "Sources" to "Sources and further reading".

Motacilla (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from my reading of the history, you didn't add material to the article. yet you added a book in a manner that implies it was used to contribute to the article. --Merbabu (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in that one case you're right. I'm working around the Permesta rebellion, creating or revising articles on particular people and incidents, and probably leaving the Permesta article itself until last. More importantly, my suggestion to revise the bibliography heading still applies.

Motacilla (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When using this souce, it is better to actually cite the individual page of the Lloyd's register entry, rather than the page that turns up using the search term. Mjroots (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: point taken. However, for a couple of reasons I tend to use several different years' entries for each ship.

1. Not every detail of every scanned page is legible — and especially the smaller print — so I sift through several years' entries until I'm confident what they say.
2. A later entry gives earlier names but not earlier owners, managers, ports of registry or identification codes.

Therefore I would need to quote several different years' entries separately. I agree that would be more accurate, but it is also more fiddly to do!

On the next ship that I do, I'll see what I can manage. I guess I could cite one clearly-repoduced page for all the technical data that remains the same, and then cite pages from different years for the few details that change?

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree pages aren't always legible, but can sometimes be improved by using the increase size feature. As for different bit of info from different years' entries, not such a problem. I tend to name my refs for Plimsoll in the style of "Foonn" where Foo is the name or last word or a two part name, and nn represents the last two digits of the year, thus you'd had Foo34, Foo37 and Foo38 as references for three separate year's entries. Take a look at some of the vessels on the {{Empire C ships}} for examples. Mjroots (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I agree that enlarging the .pdf sometimes works — however, at other times enlargement just makes the print fade away! It used to frustrate me, but now I take it as all part of the challenge.

I'll do SS Armonia next, as I've just worked out that she was launched as Tullochmoor, and at the end of the Second World War the MoWT made her Empire Soar. An insurgent aircraft bombed her in Indonesia in 1958 and at least two books say she was sunk. However, a page on Mariners-l says after that she was registered in Panama in 1959 and was scrapped in 1960. Does this mean (a) she didn't sink or (b) she was raised and salvaged? If the latter, is there a non-subscription reference that I could cite?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or was she raised, but deemed uneconomic to repair and then scrapped? Who Knows? As you say, it's all part of the challenge. The humblest of cargo ships can have some really interesting histories. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to the first ever Oxford Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Four Candles, 51 George Street, Oxford, OX1 2BE on Sunday 4 November 2012 from 1.00 pm.

I hope as many people as possible will be able to attend so that we can make this a regular event. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Oxford related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - will we be seeing you there? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I ought to come but I don't know if I'll be well enough. Since Friday morning I've had a worsening headache and I don't know if it's a cold or the result of spending too long in front of a PC screen. I'll see how I am on Sunday morning. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get The Headaches too, but they rarely last more than 24 hours. I have determined two main causes: too much chocolate; or tension in the neck muscles, although there are certainly other factors. The muscle thing may be eased with "Syndol" coupled with massage, but those don't work on chocolate.

Anyway, if you miss Oxford, there is Reading 2 two weeks after. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insights. It's not too hard to guess that someone who spends too long in front of a PC screen gets a tense neck, but how did you know about my chocolate habit? ;o) I've left the chocolate alone today and am a bit better this evening, but not yet well enough for me to guarantee coming on Sunday. I am sorry to be a disappointment on this occasion. I hope the meeting is a great success! Motacilla (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a reminder (because some people haven't seen the geonotice) that the fifth Oxford Meetup is this Sunday. Are you able to attend? It would be great if you could come. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Motacilla. I notice you have just gone for "Harvard"-style citations on the Ansty, Wiltshire, page. For myself, I find the machine-gun fire of full stops irritating, and I don't understand why that style has become so favoured on the English Wikipedia. Clearly, being American gives it an advantage, but surely even in the US it is used mostly in the sciences, and the styles the British prefer are commonly used in the arts? I may be wrong, but I don't think there is a firm Wikipedia policy which imposes "Harvard", and to me the main thing is to have consistency within an article. Articles here begun by me consistently use a more old-fashioned kind of citation (unless someone has added something I haven't noticed!) Anyway, I just came here to say that if you were to overturn that style in any articles I have created, I should want to discuss it. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for you message. Are reference formats inconsistent within the Ansty, Wiltshire article? Harvard citations help readers to navigate from the article text to the sources by including hyperlinks to the bibliography. I use them to replace inline citation formats that fail to do so. This may be a minor benefit in short articles, but the longer an article grows the more helpful they become. Therefore it seems practical to adopt a Harvard format in an article at an early stage.

The full stops are not ideal, but they are tucked away in the footnotes. Their usefulness outweighs a minor flaw in their appearance. Harvard references are not compulsory Wikipedia policy, but nor are they forbidden or discouraged in Wiltshire.

You make a possessive and, frankly, threatening remark concerning "any articles that [you] have created". Insisting on a discussion over a set of full stops would be an unfortunate distraction from what should be primary task of increasing and improving Wikipedia's factual content. Let both of us remember that all articles that you or I create belong to Wikipedia alone.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed, reference formats are now consistent within the Ansty, Wiltshire, article, but my point is that in articles on British subjects an American form of consistency should not be preferred automatically to a British form of consistency. You say "The full stops are not ideal, but they are tucked away in the footnotes", and I find that a little comical, as we are talking about footnotes! Isn't it rather like saying "plastic shoes are not ideal, but they are tucked away on the feet"? You say "Their usefulness outweighs a minor flaw in their appearance" - I don't find the flaw minor, but you do agree it's a flaw, so would you support a similar system which does without the Harvard full stops? The placing of the identifying year before the title of the book or article is also an American scientific convention which jars with me. When you say "Therefore it seems practical to adopt a Harvard format in an article at an early stage", that seems to suppose that there is no alternative. With regard to my comment "I should want to discuss it", that doesn't strike me as threatening at all. No one here has ownership of anything, but when we write an article we are likely to want to discuss edits which change its character, especially if they bring in an obtrusive character. Regards, Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me if there is a similar system without Harvard full stops: I might like to try it. However, the full stops are of so much less consequence than the information the citations convey, that I have long since ceased to even notice them unless someone points them out.

Now you add a new complaint, because the year of publication appears before the title of the source! What for? Because it comes from the USA or from the study of sciences, or for some other reason? Where the date is placed does nothing to impede the flow of information to the reader. No-one is concerned about it unless they chose to be.

I am trying hard to assume good faith and understand why Harvard references are even an issue for you. However, for the life of me I cannot see why it can be enough of an issue to have ever bothered to write and trouble another contributor over it. The more you expend time and energy making it an issue, the less I comprehend. Can't we just write articles?

More than a decade ago I was writing academic essays on a humanities subject for a British university. In my references I always put the year immediately after the author(s). Even the most particular of my college staff never disputed this. I wasn't aware that there was any other custom, let alone tribal differences between academics over which custom to follow. I was just getting on with the job, and if you'll permit me, that's what I'd like to get back to on Wikipedia.

I have spent several years creating hundreds of Wikipedia articles and revised and expanded thousands more. The vast majority are on local or architectural history in England. Only one other editor has ever criticised Harvard references. He has a long history of possessive and disruptive editing, and sniping over reference formats was only part of his edit warring.

Is there any substantial fault with taking advantage of the benefits of Harvard citations? So far all you have demonstrated is that you have a personal distaste for them. Is it so offensive if I suggest that it would be easier for you to just get accustomed to Wikipedia being how it is, rather than try to make Wiltshire a Harvard-free zone?

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seem picky here, but Motacilla hasn't used Harvard referencing at all, since the refs are neither placed within the text (which to my mind would interrupt the flow much worse than full stops do: see, for example Actuary which uses Harvard referencing exclusively, primarily by means of the {{harv}} template), nor enclosed in parentheses. Motacilla has used Shortened footnotes, albeit using the <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref> form rather than the more versatile {{sfn}}. Such footnotes are far more widespread in Wikipedia than Harvard (parenthetical) referencing - you just need to compare the transclusion count - {{Harvard citation}} (which is where {{Harv}} redirects) has 3436 transclusions, whilst {{Harvard citation no brackets}} (which is where {{Harvnb}} redirects) has 16185. The template {{harvnb}} has a misleading name, which may possibly be one reason why {{sfn}} is gaining ground with its 9915 transclusions. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: I wondered what "sfn" stood for! I look for two features in citation formats: maximum utility (e.g. both harv and sfn provide hyperlinks from the footnotes to the list of references) and minimum byte size. Hence I use "sfn" for an inline reference that appears only once or a few times and "harv" for a reference that I repeat many times (as is often the case with a relevant section of the Victoria County History from British History Online. If there are more concise or more useful formats that I haven't yet learnt, I'm always grateful to be directed to them.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As a major contributor to List of lost settlements in the United Kingdom, you might be interested to see a discussion that's just opened on "How to Write about... Deserted Medieval Villages" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. GrindtXX (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla,

I thought the article you wrote about the SS Patria (1913) was pretty interesting. I decided to nominate it to appear on the Did You Know section of the main page. However, it is unlikely to appear as long as not every paragraph (except for the lede) is referenced with a footnote, so I was wondering if you could add sources to some of the unreferenced paragraphs. You can observe the nomination process here.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and nomination. I've added some more citations to the article. Please let me know if it still needs any more. Motacilla (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added image requests to Talk:SS Patria (1913), for any pictures of SS Patria when she was in service with Fabre Line or Messageries Maritimes, as my main purpose in creating the article is to expand the ship's 27 years of history before the tragedy of November 1940 for which she is now best known. Motacilla (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I notice you are adding some excellent material to Furness Withy. Please could you add some in-line references because it is not clear which of the sources referred to support each of the facts you have inserted. Or is all the material about the Nova Scotia and the Newfoundland also from "the ships list"? Thanks in anticipation. Dormskirk (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think all the content of the paragraph that I added is from The Ships List. I think the Furness, Withy article is still sketchy and needs a lot more development. However, I'm currently concentrating on the histories of individual ships rather than their owners or managers. While we're on the subject, are you any good with copyright on historic photos? I've posted messages at Talk:RMS Nova Scotia (1926) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#RMS Nova Scotia (1926) abouth copyright on a pre-War photo of RMS Nova Scotia, and I would be grateful for any help. Motacilla (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I agree that it would be great if the article could be expanded further - Furness Withy was a really important company. Re photos my knowledge is sketchy and I would prefer not to mislead you - sorry! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are always welcome! Those are quite interesting articles and I will surely translate into Italian language, thank you! Just a question about the SS London Valour she was a steam turbine ship, so why do you use "SS"? E.g. in Italian language "SS" acronym for steamship is reported as "P/fo" wich stand for "piroscafo" and for "steam turbine ship" we have "T/n" => "turbonave", like Michelangelo and others, so is it possible that there is no equivalent in English? --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help. You are correct: English certainly does have the term "TS" for "turbine ship", which is more precise. But I am not sure that "TS" has been applied to every turbine ship, and as far as I can tell from available sources London Valour seems to have been called "SS".

By the way, the English terms for diesel ships are even less consistent. The abbreviations MS, M/S, MV and M/V all seem to have been applied to different ships, and some diesel tankers have even been called M/T! I have no idea who decided which abbreviation to use for each ship. I expect it is the individual preference of each shipping company. In each case I use whatever abbreviation seems to prevail in the verifiable sources from which I am working.

Motacilla (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SS=screw steamship, as opposed to PS=paddle steamship. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that seems to be a revision applied only after screw steamships were introduced, and I don't know from what date. SS Savannah, SS Great Western, SS Sirius (1837), SS California (1848), SS Atrato (1853) and many other paddle steamers were labelled "SS". SS Great Eastern (1858) had both paddles and screws, so I don't know what her "SS" officially stood for!

Motacilla (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found TSS for "turbine steam ship", anyway we have the same problem in Italian language, especially with ferry-boat (Mototraghetto =>M/t very often called with M/n prefix =>motonave, probably due their last decades projects and design wich have transformed them in large ferry-cruise boat). Ciao! --Nicola Romani (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every great language has its irregularities! Some turbine ships have the initials TSS and others have TS, depending whether the writer meant "Turbine Steam Ship", "Turbine Steamship" or just "Turbine Ship". Decades of inconsistency mean that whichever version you choose, it will be hard for anyone to disagree with you.

Similarly, "HMT" has been used for both "His Majesty's Transport" (usually troop ships, e.g. HMT Aragon) and naval trawlers (e.g. HMT Arab). I think the naval trawlers were eventually redesignated "HMS", but only after creating years of ambiguity.

Whichever abbreviation you choose, I expect it'll be alright. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now found that Wikipedia does have an Italian article Nova Scotia (nave), so I've linked it with the English article RMS Nova Scotia (1926). The Italian article looks as if it would benefit from review and expansion. There is no Italian article for SS Shuntien (1934), but plenty of material available to write a good one! Motacilla (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot Motacilla! I'll do my best before my departure! --Nicola Romani (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard and expert work on Augusta Victoria (ship) - in many ways it looks much better but I really wish you hadn't formatted the cites. I find that format, as well as the older citation templates, impenetrable and bulky, and the article had a consistent citation format already. Please consider not reformatting citations on articles that do not have conflicting formats. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. I tend to try to gather all cited books and articles into a single list. My thinking is that having all the printed publications in one place on the screen makes it easier for any readers who want to research a subject further.

I agree that the "sfn" template isn't perfect: I wish it didn't leave a full stop at the end of each citation. The fact that "harvnb" doesn't leave a full stop creates an inconsistency if one uses both "sfn" and "harvnb" templates in one article. I know that one contributor finds the full stops very annoying, but honestly I barely notice them any more.

I've revisited the article and reformatted the "references" template so that it displays in three columns instead of two. On my screen this makes the display more compact, and I hope that on most other sizes of screen it will look better too. I tried four columns but rejected the idea as it looked cluttered and messy except on a very wide screen.

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert it back to my preferred format, but I do think you need to be aware that people have differing preferences on this issue and that policy is to leave the format an article uses alone unless it is inconsistent: WP:CITEVAR. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Dec 2011 you added the following to the BS article: 'St. Helen's is one of a number of Oxfordshire parish churches that has a timber-framed tower' replacing Moreau's suggestion that a timber-framed tower was 'remarkable'. On the parish church website Liam Tiller follows Moreau, describing it as 'unusual'.

Is there a citation to support your change, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwin35 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "remarkable" expresses an opinion; hence it lacks WP:NPOV and thus is unusable in this context. But you could say "unusual", as this would be factual and neutral. Drayton St. Leonard and Waterperry parish churches have wooden towers, and so has Lyford parish church which was made part of Oxfordshire in 1974. (WP's Waterperry article doesn't yet go into enough detail to mention the tower, but the relevant volumes of the Victoria County History and The Buildings of England do.)

The style of Lyford church tower looks, to me, somewhat similar to that of a number of other old buildings which I noticed soon after I moved to Didcot some 14 years ago. Those buildings lie to the south of the River Thames, therefore are in those portions of Oxfordshire which were acquired from Berkshire in 1974 - Vale of White Horse and the westernmost portion of South Oxfordshire. Now I'm not an architectural expert, but when I noticed that the style was very different from the yellow Cotswold stone seen in the Banbury/Chipping Norton areas, or the red brick seen in the east, but was also seen in the Newbury area, I decided that this wooden style was "typical Berkshire architecture".

BTW: Oxford Meetup 5 is on 2 June 2013; hope to see you there. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.Sherwin35 (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just remembered that Rotherfield Greys and Sydenham parish churches also have a timber bell-towers. There may be one or two others in Oxfordshire that I have not remembered. Each Oxfordshire district has in the order of 100 parish churches, many have towers, and most of those towers are stone, so "unusual" certainly seems an objective and neutral adjective for the small number of timber-framed ones.

Berrick Salome, Drayton St. Leonard, Rotherfield Greys, Sydenham and Waterperry are all in South Oxfordshire and relatively close to each other. I have no idea whether their five wooden towers form a related group. Someone may have written a paper on them, perhaps in the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society's academic journal Oxoniensia. The journal has an online index here, and each of its articles published more than five years ago is available online as a .pdf file.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely overlooked my own local parish church, seven minutes walk from home. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to visit All Saints' Didcot and I didn't realise it has a wooden tower. I like the look of the odd mis-match between the nave and chancel — much more fun than Victorian perfection! I shall get there eventually! Motacilla (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My "AA Illustrated Road Book of England and Wales" (1958 edition) says "The Church is Dec. and Perp., and retains two rood-loft doorways". No mention of the clearly different roofs, nor the (apparently) different stone. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Motacilla! 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]

An interesting story you've found there about Bowles. Now that you've written an article about him, I wonder whether it would better to give the full detail about the Court of Arches case only at his article, with only a summary at St Beuno's Trefdraeth? To give the same details in four different articles, in virtually identical language, strikes me as overkill... I'll post a possible version on the talk page. Bencherlite^Talk 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for adding where Bowles' monument is, and for your suggestion to revise the other articles. The same thought crossed my mind. I also thought that one ought ideally to cite the actual Court of Arches records, I tried searching Lambeth [Palace Library's online database http://archives.lambethpalacelibrary.org.uk/CalmView/Default.aspx?]. I drew a blank, despite trying search words including "Bowles", "Trefdraeth", "Llangwyfan", "Bangor", "Egerton", "Ewer" (Egerton's successor in Bangor) and "1773". Any ideas? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link may be useful to you; it mentions that Bowles tricked the wardens into signing that they were happy with his Welsh, for instance. I think that I can get hold of a copy of the article by Geraint Jenkins in the Anglesey Antiquarian Society Transactions, if you're looking to expand the article further. The Royal Commission survey (Google link) says that the memorial includes his wife Anne Bowles, 1806 - which wouldn't fit with the article's existing details about his wife. I think the answer may be (in whole or in part) that geni.com is an unreliable source for use in articles! As for the Court of Arches records, I haven't had to look for them before. It's probably better to go by modern analysis of the case rather than attempt that task ourselves (which sounds too much like hard work anyway!) Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the link. I have now sifted through the Cymmrodorion's 1773 account of the case. I found the preamble hard going, but the evidence (pages 9 onwards) is clear. I have used it to expand the account of the case in the Thomas Bowles article. The corresponding sections in the John Egerton, St Beuno's and Cribinau articles probably do need some reduction, but I'll await your suggestion as to what the reduced text should be. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put my suggestion at Talk:St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth, as I said I would, some time ago. Bencherlite^Talk 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I missed that. However, I have now shortened the relevant section in the St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth, Cribinau and John Egerton (bishop) articles and made a similar revision to the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion article. What do you think? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be trimmed a bit further, and I don't think we need to repeat the same reference after every sentence. What do you think now? Bencherlite^Talk 22:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revising St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth. The summary plus the "main" template is a good idea. I have applied the same template to the other articles now. I have also introduced a difference of emphasis between the John Egerton (bishop) and Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion articles, in both of which the main point is the precedent set for future clerical appointments, and the St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth and Cribinau articles, in both of which the point is that the parish couldn't get rid of Dr Bowles! I hope this slightly reduces the repetition and increases the relevance of the section in each case. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject_desk/Interviews6 interest you? Bencherlite^Talk 11:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the word "period" to "era" in the context of art or architectural history. The word "era", correctly used, is a scientific term e.g. Jurassic era. While it is also often applied to historical periods e.g. Victorian era, it doesn't sit very well on art history. What we are talking about here is a period of specifically architectural history that is not defined by any historic era. It is the same with Gothic architecture. There is no such thing as a "Gothic era".

I particularly dislike the change from "during this period" to "in this era" because the word "during" implies a frequent event or continuous process e.g. "developments in vaulting occurred during this period."

Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) There is no such thing as the "Jurassic era", either. There's the Mesozoic Era, and the Jurassic Period. The word era isn't restricted to science; it just means "a long and distinct period of history" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th ed. 1995), and is from the Latin aera, denoting "a number used as a basis of reckoning" or "an epoch from which time is reckoned". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway.... thank you for working through the article again and fixing spaces, links etc. Amandajm (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC):[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of shipwrecks in the mid-Atlantic Ocean may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {| class=wikitable | style = "width:100%"

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the changes you made to List of shipwrecks in the mid-Atlantic Ocean as unnecessary. The {{ship}}, {{sclass}}, etc, templates are editing shortcuts, and make no difference at all to the functionality of the link or the way that it's displayed. Converting the link into a template is at best pointless, and in some cases may be detrimental. I'm very active on these "list of shipwrecks" pages, and the main reason I take the time to type out the links in full is that these lists are often edited by new users, unfamiliar with the complexities of wikicode, who tend to copy the format of the other entries on the list. Wikilinks are fairly easy to grasp, while the ship templates are impossible to understand without knowing how to find the documentation (and even then, it's not exactly straightforward). In addition, these lists take a long time to load as it is, and adding hundreds of unnecessary templates to the page doesn't help. So, unless there's a compelling reason to use these templates that I'm not aware of, I'd advise you to find something more constructive to do with your time. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits had reduced the page's size by 1,861 bytes, which I would expect to both reduce the page's loading time and the amount of cyberspace used on WP's system. Had I the time, I could have applied many more templates and reduced the page size much further. Where is the WP policy that "all articles to which newer users contribute must be devoid of templates"? I contribute to many other articles on various subjects that also receive contributions from newer users: are all of them subject to the same policy? Your comment "I'd advise you to find something more constructive to do with your time" seems to lack WP:AGF and I find it condescending and patronising. Your reversion also implies that you WP:OWN the article, which is something else on which I prefer to follow WP policy. Motacilla (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay, I'm not very technically-minded, it just seems like common sense that a template would take longer to load than a wikilink – if you say that's not the case, I'll take your word for it. Even if the templates do reduce the loading time, though, I still feel it's more important that the page is easy for new users to edit. Of course there's no policy that supports this position; I'm simply putting forward my argument, in an effort to convince you to change your mind. I know I don't own the page, which I think is evidenced by the fact that I'm trying to discuss this with you. But since it doesn't look like we're going to come to an agreement, you can go ahead and revert me – I'm not going to edit-war over this, it's not a hugely important issue. And, yes, in retrospect, my closing remark does seem a little condescending, and I'm sorry – I simply meant that converting dozens of links into templates seems (to me) like a tedious and pointless chore. But it's not my business to tell you how to spend your time – sorry again. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being conciliatory. I'll think about whether to revert the edit. Of course you're right about the tedium. The reason why I had converted only a proportion of the links to templates and had saved the job only part-done was that I was losing the will to live! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk)

Can you double check my addition to SS Patria (1913) to make sure it is the correct ship.

I am as sure as I can be that you have the right ship. In 1916 there were other ships called Patria, including a small Russian freighter that was sunk in 1917 and a small Swedish freighter that survived the First World War but was sunk in 1942. However, the fact that some of this Patria's passengers continued their journey on another Fabre liner suggests very strongly that you are correct.

The mystery to me is that US newspaper reports seem to be the only suggestion that such an attack took place. First news reports of events in that war were not necessarily right in every detail! The compendious http://www.uboat.net/ mentions no such attack, so whatever may have happened to Patria on 1 March 1916 seems not to have involved either a German or an Austro-Hungarian submarine. If Patria were damaged it could have been by a mine. But so far I've found nothing online in English to suggest Patria was damaged in the First World War. Whether there is something in French I don't yet know.

So, I've modified your edit to say that an attack was reported as happening to the ship, but that there seems to be a lack of other sources to confirm what if anything actually happened. That leaves the matter open for anyone who is better than I at finding sources to get to the bottom of the puzzle.

Does this seem reasonable as a work in progress? Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, excellent compromise. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to thank you for making such an intriguing addition to Patria's history. It begs a search for further sources to verify what may have actually happened. It's probably beyond my current ability, but it's the sort of unsolved question that keeps a lot of Wikipedians going! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edits on German submarines simplifying <br> punctuation. I was under the impression from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Guidelines#Infoboxes that we were to use <br />. Now I am a bit confused. Could you help me out there? ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) _or_not_to_<br>" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I replace <br /> with <br> because it is shorter, saves space and is just as tidy. If <br> has caused any malfunction on any WP page to which I've applied it in the last few years, please tell me.

The WP Ships guideline for this case (1) seems to suggest three options, (2) specifies what isn't wanted and (3) doesn't specify <br> as unwanted. A guideline is not a rule, which is just as well as on <br> this guideline is silent. Douglas Bader said "Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools." If he wasn't joking, then I'm sure his comment is a bit much for rules. For guidelines, however, it seems self-evidently fair comment.

Therefore is there a reason not to WP:BB enough to use the more concise option, thus saving bytes for facts that would otherwise be used for formatting? And if it works, is there a reason not to add <br> to the guideline as a suggested option? How big computers work isn't one of my subjects. If making things more concise waste cyberspace somewhere in WP's servers, please explain it to me.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't want to cause any unpleasantness. If the way I edit causes any technical problems, please alert me. Motacilla (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that often comes up at various places (WP:VPT, talk pages of bots and their owners, etc.), and is not peculiar to WP:SHIPS. There's brief text at Wikipedia:Line-break handling#.3Cbr.3E. Quick précis: <br /> and <br> are completely interchangeable, use whichever you prefer.

Changing <br /> to <br> (or vice versa) when no other changes are made is counterproductive, since not only is the rendered page identical (partly because they are identical in effect, partly because HTML Tidy converts one to the other in any case), but it creates an old revision of the page which will always occupy more space than the elimination of the space-and-slash will "save". But if the article contains both <br /> and <br>, and you're making other changes as well, you can harmonise them without controversy. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good advice, and especially the technical info. That helps me a great deal. Motacilla (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that: are either of you near Oxford? If so, do you think that you could make the upcoming meetup? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I didn't see your message until the day after you met. I was too absorbed in adding another new article: SS Oropesa. Motacilla (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the Canadian Navy flag and wikilink on the German submarine U-74 (1940) article. {{Navy}} has examples of useage for various navies. Mjroots (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the infobox in the Royal Canadian Navy article needs changing too. It gives the White Ensign as Canada's naval ensign 1910–65. Motacilla (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mjroots (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I feel guilty that I've helped make a big White Ensign disappear! Motacilla (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heythrop Park eh? I went there (for one day) in 1982 or thereabouts, when it was a NatWest training establishment. — Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never visited the place, which puts me at a disadvantage. It sounds like some odd extensions and new buildings have been added over the years? Motacilla (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were three ships of this name. You should consider moving the article and converting the current title into a shipindex page. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about the 1883 and 1912 Clan Macarthur ships, so I wondered how to handle it and whether to append (1935) or (1936) to the article's name. But Wikipedia as yet has no article on either of the earlier namesakes, and I don't know Wikipedia's policy on this. In the past I have been criticised for including the year in the name of a ship article in such circumstances, so this time I decided not to. E.g. more than two years ago I wrote SS Wandle (1932), anticipating articles for her 1909 or 1922 namesakes, but neither I nor anyone else has yet written either of them, so now feel I probably should have omitted the year until someone did.

I don't know how many people read a disambiguation page such as {{ship index}} unless it is disambiguating at least two articles that actually exist. I've scant preference either way. I've now added to SS Clan Macarthur a paragraph in the introduction explaining she was the third Cayzer, Irvine ship of that name, and giving a one-sentence thumbnail of each of her predecessors. I hope that's justified, as it sets her in her historical context as well as implicitly disambiguating the article. As soon as any of us writes the article for either the 1883 or the 1912 Clan Macarthur, it will be right to suffix the year to the present article's name. You may have seen that Wikimedia has two photos of the 1912 ship, which would be nice to use if her article is ever written.

So, should Clan Macarthur have a {{ship index}} page now, or should it wait until there are at least two Clan Macarthur ship articles to disambiguate? You do much more of this than I do, so I'll defer to your knowledge and experience.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've now finished creating SS Abukir, SS Clan Macarthur and SS Gasfire, and had better go and belatedly get ready for Christmas . Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 698th recipient of my Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Six years ago, you were recipient no. 698 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Motacilla. Please be aware that there are two moat sites near Bardon Hill. One of them (the oval one) lies to the east of the hill. It is the other one (a square or rectangular moat) that lies to the south of the hill. The oval one is indeed a scheduled monument. Kellam's Farm lies eastward of the summit of the hill, and (as the official citation states) the oval moat site lies eastward of Kellam's Farm. It is the moat island southward of the hill that was the site of the old hall. Old Hall Cottage (sometimes called Old Hall Gardens Cottage) now stands on this moat island, and Old Hall Farm stands very nearby.

I have taken the liberty of amending the entry on the Bardon wiki page and I hope you don't mind.

Incidentally, the map that is annexed to the 1947 Bardon Estate sale catalogue refers to the oval site by the name or description "Castle Mound".

New Year greetings. Habizhpeh (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much for improving the article. Leicestershire is not the county I know best. I have now revised and expanded a few details, made some of the wording more concise, and gathered all the book citations in the bibliography with suitable links from shortened inline citations, so that all the book citations are in the same format. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edits to the Griffin article you almost completely eliminated the term "the ship" in favor of more "she"s, thus restricting the alternatives to her actual name to just "she". You may not have realized that I carefully alternated between "Griffin", "she" and "the ship" to avoid over using any one of those. Your changes now severely overuse "she", to the detriment of the article's overall readability. While I appreciate the addition of new info to the article, I ask you to restore the original uses of "the ship". And if you've done this to the other RN destroyer articles, please restore them as well. Most of these are Good Articles and their existing language was deemed acceptable by other editors, regardless of your own preferences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. In fact I have left "the ship" in three places where it seems appropriate. Using "the ship" 21 times sounded very repetitive and contrived. The fact that an article has GA status does not mean it is flawless or cannot be improved.

Were one writing prose about a man, one would not rotate his name, the masculine pronoun and "the man". Saying "the man" instead of "he" 21 times would seem an affectation. One might use his name about once per paragraph and the masculine pronoun in almost every other case. This is surely simple good English usage, not my mere preference.

I have used this approach when creating dozens of new articles about ships. Have a look. If they are all wrong and should all be changed, please tell me.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the situations are as equivalent as you seem to. Multiple uses of "he" would generally be acceptable barring unclear antecedents. Unfortunately, I've been chided for boring repetition in earlier ship articles during FACs which is why I've developed the system that I use now. Of course, a GA can be further improved, but you should still respect the stylistic choices made instead of imposing your own.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the articles on Diamond and Griffin, although I generally left the pronouns in as they're not worth fussing over. That said there were a number of things that you added that broke WP:MOS, most notably WP:TIME. Also, don't use abbreviations in general. You have a bad habit of overusing "on x date", so I moved some of those deeper into the sentences to avoid repetition. I don't know why you reformatted the external links on Diamond into the cite web style; they're not citations and thus don't need dates of access, etc. Seems like pointless work, but I'll let you revert yourself if you choose to do so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your messages. In answer to the earlier one, I cannot "impose" anything, as any other contributor can undo it at the click of a mouse. "Respect the stylistic choices made" sounds to me like WP:OWN. It is content that creates interest; not artificial variations of language. I have yet to be told any of the ship articles I've contributed is dull; several have received DYK nominations from contributors who presumably found them interesting.

While we are discussing ship articles, please explain [your recent edit] to HMS Diamond (H22): you have deleted her motto, honours and badge, despite the article having a link to NavalHistory.net that verifies all three: Mason, Geoffrey (1998). Smith, Gordon (ed.). "HMS Diamond (H 22) – D-class Destroyer". Naval History.net. Would it not have been better to retain these items and add inline citations to the source?

I strongly sympathise with your efforts to understand and respond to criticism. One contributor says they dislike things being done one way; another says they dislike being done another way; one ends up feeling caught between opposing tastes. WP:MOS helps in many cases but not all. However, it does say

Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.

That paragraph links to the Plain English article, which says Plain English

is a generic term for communication in English that emphasizes clarity, brevity, and the avoidance of technical language...

Ships run on technical language, so it cannot always be avoided. An encyclopaedia should surely introduce the reader to relevant technical terms, but in a way that ensures they can be understood. However, "clarity" and "brevity" are always good counsel. George Orwell might have made a good Wikipedian. Two of his six rules for effective writing were "Never use a long word where a short one will do" and "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out".

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't regard naval-history.net as a reliable source and will purge any cites to it that I find. At best, it can lurk in the external links, IMO. Find another RS for the motto, etc. and you can feel free to restore that info with the new sourcing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for telling me I "have a bad habit". Nowadays I try to avoid ever describing other editors' style pejoratively, as it achieves so little except to damage colloboration. Which of the sentences to which you took exception was grammatically or syntactically incorrect? I look forward to your examples that naval-history.net is unreliable in such matters as battle honours, badges and mottos. All four of HMS Diamond's four Second World War battle honours are substantiated by the text of the article from which you have "purged" them. I know nothing about Gordon Smith or Lt Cdr Mason, but your vow to "purge" naval-history.net contains a value judgement that their website is somehow soiled. And if you are serious, there seem to be up to 1,242 Wikipedia articles that you have yet to do.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, the history page will show you what changes I made; there's no point in enumerating them myself. As for calling your habit of overusing "On x date" at the beginning of a sentence, "bad", I make no apologies. It's very repetitive and should be varied in placement to keep the reader's interest. Don't confuse one criticism for an general insult as to your writing ability. Take it, rather, as a learning point.

I make no assumptions as to the reliability of Mason's statements about Diamond's battle honors, etc.; they may well be correct. I simply place no value in him based on inaccuracies that I've found in his material over the years and cannot regard anything that he says as correct without outside confirmation. While Diamond undoubtedly participated in the battles enumerated in the article, I've found that navies can be very quirky about awarding battle honors and prefer to avoid the subject unless I can find it in a more reliable source, ideally an official one. As for purging Mason from Wiki, all in the fullness of time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for appointing yourself as my teacher: most condescending. If I do not see how your denigrating correct English as a "bad habit" conforms with WP:AGF, that must be further proof that I am at fault.

I start a lot of sentences with dates to make a narrative easy to navigate. If a narrative moves on in date from one sentence to the next, it aids clarity to indicate at the start of each sentence how far forward in time the story has moved. Wikipedia needs to be readable and engaging but it is an encyclopaedia, not a novel. In the last seven years you are unique in calling repetitive the style I have developed in thousands of contributions, but you know best.

You offer no substance in answer to my specific question about Lt Cdr Mason's accuracy on battle honours, badges and mottos. Instead you concede he may well be correct. Given that the source was correctly cited, readers were free to decide whether they trust it. But again, in removing information correctly cited as per WP:VNT, you know best.

I have now added to the HMS Griffin article the fact that she rescued 766 survivors from SS Mohamed Ali El-Kebir. But don't thank me. If finding fault with a contributor's style is more important than the information they add to Wikipedia, maybe I have been contributing to the wrong project.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would I thank you for adding the info to Griffin? You did what you should have in that case and I don't pat people on the back for that sort of thing. As for Mason, the factual errors I've discovered impeach everything on his website as far as I'm concerned as I have no idea what can be trusted or not. And that goes to the heart of VNT, IMO. Nobody said your English was incorrect, I said it was repetitive. The two are entirely separate matters as should be obvious. And if you believe that learning stops after school is out, then I pity you; we all have things to learn from other people. And I do include myself in that; I'm not ashamed to say that I've learned how to write more fluidly from other people's comments on my work here. And I like to get such comments as they point out mistakes and infelicities that I don't see for myself. That's why I spent a lot of time at GAN and FAC, only there can I get comments from people who assess the entire article. You obviously feel differently, but that's your prerogative.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this correction. I should have spotted it when the error was made. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	For all the work you've done on things like ships and Oxfordshire villages and landmarks!! You're a gem of an editor! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Dunster. I noticed that, as part of the changes you made, you removed the "alt text" describing the image in the infobox. My understanding (per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images) was that these were useful for visually impaired user, and I wondered if there was any particular reason for the removal?— Rod ^talk 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I had no idea that the "alt" text had a purpose. Sorry! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For writing the QSMV Dominion Monarch article. Great work!. Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for such an unexpected treat! When I started it I was surprised a proper article for such a prominent ocean liner had not yet been written. All we need now is some good non-copyright pictures of her! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should nominate this for GA status. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread on the Ships Nostalgia forum contains some useful pointers for further research. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref [25] - is p1983 correct? Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Sorry, no, and I've corrected my mistake now. Motacilla (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Excellent and much needed article! Great job! QSMV Dominion Monarch Ormr2014 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article QSMV Dominion Monarch, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the cargo liner Dominion Monarch carried all her passengers in first-class accommodation? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/QSMV Dominion Monarch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome . Mjroots (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming up to my 900^th new article. As usual with a milestone, I try to put a bit more effort in. Take a look at this, but don't touch. Any suggestions either ping me or via my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I knew about Fort-ships but I'd never heard of Fort Stikine or its disaster. It sounds almost as catastrophic as the Halifax Explosion in 1917. I've no criticisms to offer on your article, but I'll have a good read when you've completed it. My late Dad probably knew about it. He was with the British Tanker Company throughout the war and did at least one trip in the Indian Ocean.

I only recently discovered the air raid on Bari and how destructive it was. I've been toying with writing an article for Testbank which lost 70 crew when John Harvey exploded. But there are so many stories yet untold on Wikipedia, and I've not done much work on Andrew Weir & Co, so I'd be quite happy if someone else does it. After creating Avila Star and Melbourne Star and revising Dunedin Star I may do one or two more Blue Star Line ships before turning to anything else. Brisbane Star still has scope for improvement, other Imperial Star-class ships served in Malta convoys, and the history of Napier Star has some episodes that make it a tempting subject.

I've completed 336 articles so far, of which at least 100 are ships and several others are shipyards or shipping companies. I know what you mean by wanting to make an extra effort when reaching a round figure. Happy editing!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article now live, at DYK and GAN . Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why you have amended the unit for the steam pressures from "psi" to "lb_f/in²".
In deciding to use "psi" I took into consideration the following:

• most people are familiar with "psi" (think tyre pressures), whereas "lb_f/in²" will be alien to many outside certain engineering or scientific sectors (where SI units would usually apply).
• the original sources on this subject invariably use "psi", so any reader of Wikipedia who is working with other sources will have consistency in units, thereby helping readability.
• "psi" is an obvious abbreviation of the Wikipedia article entitled "Pounds per square inch", so making reference to the link more seamless.
• "psi" follows the style guide WP:UNIT

Did you have any particular reason for this edit? Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for your contributions to Oxfordshire on Wiki. Nikreations (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't italicise Latin loan words and phrases like "per", "via" or "en route"; see MOS:FOREIGN#Common usage in English, MOS:TEXT#Foreign terms and MOS:ITAL#Foreign words. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please would you look over recent edits to Adderbury? There seems to be somebody who wishes to plug a few organisations, as well as having an axe to grind about heavy lorries. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. I've reverted most of the changes and posted a polite note on User talk:109.150.145.187, which is the IP address from which most of the edits have been made. I hope it helps! Motacilla (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted on the talk page, there is more than one Buster. I suppose different dogs are mixed up in the article. Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Ships of Union Steam Ship Company to Category:Ships of the Union Steam Ship Company and Category:Ships of Blue Star Line to Category:Ships of the Blue Star Line Hugo999 (compare them in Category:Ships by company ) (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to disturb you - I have to log off (for work). There have been some (strange??) edits to the above article today. Can you check them - it seems to me that they are about a settlement and not about the loch. Thanks Denisarona (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motocilla. All bound up in my own interests I have just noticed it is barely two weeks since you were working on this article. You may have much more up your sleeve to lay out for the reader. Please feel free to adjust what I have written. It isn't complete and the financial story gets more complicated so there is more to insert but I don't mean to discourage you. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Island Line, Isle of Wight may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• in service in [[London Regional Transport|London Transport]] livery at {{rws|Ryde Esplanade}}]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for having a look at this article. I have restored the lead to its previous state. I know it looks clumsy and maybe verbose, but it was the phrase agreed to be used by a number of editors working on listed buildings. We felt that it was accurate, and it also provided a link to National Heritage List for England within the article which, as you know, is the database of all the listed buildings in England. If you are unhappy with this phrase, and want to change it on other articles, you will have to do literally hundreds of edits. Maybe it's best to keep it, at least for consistency with other articles. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Some time ago, you apparently edited Template:Belfast and County Down Railway, adding or refining information regarding the Ballymacarrett Freight/Goods Yard near the Ballymacarrett Junction. Per my comments at Template talk:Belfast and County Down Railway, I am having a very difficult time locating any references or corroborating evidence. If you remember where you found your information, would you please add a reference to the template or point me in the right direction? Many thanks, --Arg342 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you deleted all the wikilinks from the ship descriptions? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore, I misread what you'd done, apologies. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Miloslav Mansfeld, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Miloslav Mansfeld, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your thoughtful message about Wikiproject templates on talk pages. I used to be very diligent about creating a talk page for each new article I wrote, and adding to it every relevant project template. But a couple of years ago I lapsed from creating new articles and I forgot all about setting up talk pages properly.

I have now added a template and few more parameters on Talk:Miloslav Mansfeld. I have also increased the templates and parameters on Talk:Izidor Kovárik and Talk:Otto Smik, whose articles I expended recently. I hope that helps.

Recently I have revised and expanded articles about several Czech and Slovak WW2 aviators. I will check the talk page of each of them in due course.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

At this edit you evidently had a source attributing construction to Newport News. Could you show where you found that info? There is a longstanding problem with the construction dates being uncited, and the article showed it as laid down after its launch!LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you and me were within five minutes' walk of each other yesterday. We could have gone to the pub. Do you have any idea why this bus is pulling out of the short-stay car park/taxi rank?

Trivia: you photographed the entire class - Thames Travel own just two of these Wright StreetLite buses, nos. 441 & 442: they were purchased at the beginning of September 2016, specifically for use on Route 98. Until last week, they were the newest vehicles in the fleet (TT have a policy of acquiring most vehicles second-hand from City of Oxford Motor Services). TT have since purchased at least one new double-decker, no. 623 (BN68 XTO) which is, I think, a Wright StreetDeck, also purchased specifically for use on Route 98 and the new Route 99 which was introduced on Monday 3 Sep. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming on Sunday, it was great to finally meet you at last. We talked of many things, and I made some notes which I'm trying to work out. The beer which I was drinking (Purple Moose Brewery "Dark Side of the Moose") may have affected my handwriting. It is now available in the Wetherspoons in Abingdon, so I had a few today. Anyway, in no particular order:

• Dodie Smith's novel The Hundred and One Dalmatians (1956) is a pretty good read and as a book it is somewhat better than its film adaptations; but its sequel The Starlight Barking (1967) is embarrassingly idealistic.
• Anne Diamond's blogs include Aaah! At last it's happened! (19 February 2013), the exhibition concerned being at Abingdon.

Sorry for taking a few days to come back on this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have no need to apologise. And thankyou for your kind messages in September. I apologise for my discourtesy in being so slow to reply. For much of the time since the WikiMeet in Oxford in September I have been too anxious and phobic to interact with people online. I apologise also for missing the WikiMeet in Oxford in October. I did go out that morning, but my anxiety became very acute and I had to go home. I was in too bad a state to face trying to go out again in the afternoon.

You asked about the new double deckers in Thames Travel's Connector fleet. They are a set of three Volvo B5LH chassis with Wright Gemini 3 bodies. Their registration marks are BN68 XRO/XSO/XTO, and their fleet numbers are 621/2/3. Two of them work routes 98 and 99 while a third works routes X2 and X32. The three buses rotate between the routes.

I have photographed 621 and 623. I have seen 622 but not yet managed to photograph it. By now you may have seen all three of them either in Didcot or between there and Abingdon.

Look out too for route 41 in Abingdon, which the Town Council has subsidised Thames Travel to reintroduce. The launch photos show a Mercedes-Benz Citaro that was cascaded from Oxford Bus Co's fleet. I imagine TT will use only old buses on the service.

You asked why the Wright StreetLite that I photographed was emerging from Didcot Parkway's short stay car park. That weekend there was Network Rail engineering work for the Great Western electrification. Replacement coach services had taken over the bus stops in front of the station, so regular buses were displaced to temporary stops in the car park.

In the background of my photo two of the rail replacement coaches are just visible. There is a Country Lion coach from Northampton on the right in front of the station and a Johnson's coach from Henley-in-Arden on the left waiting in the car park. There were also some nearly new Enviro400 MMC double deckers operated by First West of England. I photographed them but have not yet uploaded the photos to Wikimedia Commons.

I am discouraged from donating bus photos to Wikimedia Commons, because if I use them to improve articles, User:Davey2010 reverts them for unjustified reasons. Davey has falsely accused me of "promotion". Davy falsely claims that the proportion of photos in an article by any one photographer should be limited. It seems to be of cardinal importance to Davey that the photograph in the infobox at the head of an article should be out of date, taken in bad light, preferably poorly composed, and above all not taken by Motacilla.

I do not work and never have worked for any commercial undertaking in or connected with the bus industry. I have never been paid for photographs. I hold a voluntary position that I would have to resign if I had any commercial interest in the bus industry. Davey's accusation is groundless and personally damaging.

Davey has made unconstructive and personally vindictive reversions of my improvements to Arriva Shires & Essex and Stagecoach in Oxfordshire. In the Stagecoach article, his preferred infobox photo shows a bus that is no longer in the Oxfordshire fleet, with a route number that is no longer in use. In the Arriva article, several of the photos are that he insists remain in place are of very low quality. His excuse "Reverted to revision 818968136 by Arjayay (talk): Rv prev were fine." is specious.

Wikimedia Commons has good-quality photos of Arriva Shires & Essex buses in all three current liveries: standard, Max and Sapphire. Davey excludes all of these from the article because I took them, and because their quality is too high for his low standards. The Arriva Shires & Essex article completely fails to mention the company's Max and Sapphire routes. I have agreed with Davey that bus articles should include some photos of past vehicles for historic reasons, but I have reasoned that they should be confined to a "History" section of the article, and an article should show enough photos of the current fleet for readers to know what to expect if they actually use its services. I have also reasoned that photos should be of as good quality as possible.

All to no avail. So for as long as Davey continues unreasonably to exert WP:OWN over bus articles such as Arriva Shires & Essex or Stagecoach in Oxfordshire, there is scant point my trying to update them.

In September I also mentioned to you User:Acapital's needless complication of the introductions to Faringdon, Shrivenham and Uffington, Oxfordshire. WP has articles about a few hundred civil parishes, villages and towns that were transferred from Berkshire to Oxfordshire in 1974. I have worked on nearly all of them. A few years ago I made sure that more or less all of them have a similar, consistent wording to explain their former and current county. Acapital makes no sense by insisting that the introduction to three of these hundreds of articles be more complicated and less clear than all the others.

I apologise for not being more positive. I live with Asperger syndrome and chronic depression. I have had two nervous breakdowns and several lesser episodes of acute depression. I get attacks of panic and acute anxiety. I have spent many hundreds of hours photographing, creating and improving content for Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. I have always found it hard to cope with other contributors irrationally and destructively reverting or messing up what I have contributed. I am now so ill that I no longer have the strength to do so.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 09:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Motacilla, I completely agree with you that there needs to be consistent wording with all of the settlement pages. Therefore, the historic county should be mentioned clearly in the introduction sections of all the remaining settlements left to edit. I have discussed the historic counties with you on my talk page, and also separately on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. For other users who haven't seen this, I have copied part of my response to Motacilla, showing my reasons for the edits:

"Furthermore, this issue has been discussed before on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements.

Here, I have copied part of my input in that said discussion (dated 15 October 2017), and I hope it will be constructive "Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, says that we can cover the Historic County in the Lead section (I think that saying 'Historically' seems to refer to a time parameter, whereas 'Historic County' is more like a noun). Similarly, the Infoboxes on some city/town pages (such as Manchester and Birmingham) clearly state the Historic County."

Thank you. Acapital (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the ping, I am genuinely sorry If I've discouraged you from uploading and or including images to articles that's never been my intention, As I've said previously I've always reverted editors who replace all images with their own because yes I do see it as promotion but more so I think it's unfair on all of the other photographers,

Inregards to older vehicles - Again the exact same everywhere else[4] - In my eyes we shouldn't replace history ..... the older vehicles were used at that time and so we should show that although I certainly agree the entire article shouldn't consist of older vehicles (which annoyingly Arriva Southern Counties does at the moment!)

As far as I know there's no policy that agrees with me or you and so maybe there should be some sort of RFC done on both these issues (inregards to the transit diff the person who took the 2018 picture thanked me for reverting so some do agree with me I guess)

Anyway as I said above I'm sorry if I have discouraged you that's never ever been my intention, I do think your photos are great but as I said I just think it's unfair to everyone else really, Anyway thanks again for the ping, –Davey2010^Talk 13:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have taken some pretty decent photos around South Newington. One of them in particular caught my eye: the owner-occupier of this house has a Wikipedia article, would it be against the rules to state who that is? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message and kind compliment about my photos. I have no idea of the answer to your question. College Farmhouse is very conspicuous in South Newington, right next to the parish church. Are there Wikipedia administrators who could advise you?

Do you personally know the occupant(s) of College Farmhouse? Behind it is a 17th-century barn I wouldn't mind photographing. But it is on private property so I would need permission.

In the last month or two I have taken a lot of photos in numerous north Oxfordshire villages. They include the village of North Newington, which unlike South Newington is acutely under-represented on Commons. And I have added Wikimedia's first photos of the parish church in Alkerton, Oxfordshire: a 12th-century Grade I listed building of which WM previously had no pictures at all.

However, my personal bully on Wikimedia Commons has blocked me from editing for a week, so I cannot upload any more until 25 July. He is obsessed with destroying the order in which I have spent several years alphasorting thousands of files and categories. He ignores every request for credible reasons to destroy that order. And he has created a bogus "consensus" by holding a brief "consultation" in which he concealed from participants both my identity and his years-long harassment campaign against me.

Thankyou again for your kind message. I apologise for being unable to be more helpful.

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the house (who I will call "J") I have not met for 35 years or so, but I met his brother ("D") most recently in October 2018. "J" has (or rather, had) four children, the eldest of which ("B") was at school with me but now lives in France. Of the other three children, two also now live outside the UK but one died in 2018. "J" himself probably won't remember me. "D" may sometimes be seen around the Farmers' Markets of Oxfordshire, selling walnuts. "J" wrote a book on theoretical physics, in the preface of which he explains how he and "D" came to buy the farm and its buildings. If you come to an Oxford meetup, let me know beforehand and I'll show you the book. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LaMèreVeille (talk) 17:06, 19 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The new system under development, as mentioned yesterday by Marielle, is m:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Commons:Village pump#Defaultsort for UK buildings RFC, if you don't want to comment there yourself I can post of you're behalf. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. On my Commons talk page on 17 April I stated that due to slow Internet access and temporary lack of mental health support "I am not sure whether the conditions exist for me to take part. I am lucky that today my connection speed is enough for me to reply to you. I therefore suggest that we defer the discussion until the UK lockdown is eased enough for these two conditions to improve."

My MH support worker is now back with me one or two days a week but as the lockdown continues my online access is still poor. Therefore your starting the Village Pump discussion before the lockdown is eased puts me at a disadvantage.

Further, Rodhullandemu's messages of 19 and 21 April to me and to RexxS are very aggressive and threatening. Rodhullandemu's continued threat to ban me from Commons for life is causing me acute anxiety. I am on the brink of a panic attack just replying to your message here on Wikipedia.

In real life I have a deadline to meet on 17 May: I have two huge reports to research, write, lay out and submit. In these conditions I have neither the time, the Internet speed nor the nervous strength to be diverted to a Village Pump discussion.

I asked you not to start the discussion before the lockdown was eased. You have gone ahead anyway. I do not understand why you did not honour a simple and reasonable request to wait. Motacilla (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ,this is a bit weird. You are relying mostly on a self-published source. We do not do that. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PM Heaton is a pretty reliable author on merchant ships. Certainly more so than the National Museums Liverpool's dodgy fact sheet. And I have corroborated from Lloyd's Register, uboat.net and Wrecksite wherever possible. Motacilla (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush Reverting a piece of work that took me a week and is corroborated from other sources is unduly negative. I suggest you refer this for discussion in WP:Ships rather than just destroy a fellow-contributor's hard work. Motacilla (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suggest you build up articles in article space then you wouldn't waste your time like this. Your own research counts for nothing and Heaton is self-published and therefore fails WP:RS. Sorry, I realise you have spent a lot of time on it but that's a lesson learned, isn't it? - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was a bit rushed then - WP, trying to fix someone's pc remotely, running 2 x WhatsApp chats with customers who have gone into work for first time today & panicked, and an SMS thread + a mother whinging by email, all in the same three minutes!

There has long been a debate about whether or not people should create articles offline or in userspace and then use that creation to overwrite an existing article. I can recall one fairly recent big bust-up about it involving a Featured Article creation. My more general point was that if you had done it "in-article" then the issue of the SPS source would probably have been raised by me much sooner and so you may have saved some time.

I'm not sure that the ships project has any weight in the matter because WP:V is pretty clear. Self-published sources are ok in many circumstances for statements about the person/organisation publishing the things but not for more general statements. Heaton may well be an expert but in that case why can he not get his books and/or papers published properly? I'd guess you would say that it is because he operates in a niche market where commercial publishers have no interest but I don't think that's a valid exception to the rule. He could write anything and it would pass through without some form of proper checking/review (not by a Wikipedian). I think, if anything, you should ask at WP:RSN because that is the central venue. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for my own peace of mind, I raised this at User talk:Serial Number 54129#SPS and transport issues. If you want to challenge it then I really do think you will have to take it to WP:RSN. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments "We do not do that", "No, I suggest you build up articles in article space then you wouldn't waste your time like this" and "that's a lesson learned, isn't it?" are gratuitously high-handed. Being too busy is no excuse for abruptness with a fellow-editor. If you have your hands full fixing other people's computers, dealing with your mother and so on and do not have time to edit Wikipedia politely, you would help the project more by staying away until you have time enough to be polite.

WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Heaton worked for Lamport and Holt in the early 1960s. He spent about a decade writing articles for Sea Breezes magazine. He first wrote L&H's history as a series of articles that Sea Breezes published in 1977. Then he updated the history as a book and Abergavenny Publishing published it in 1986.

By the time Heaton updated L&H's history again and republished it in 2004 he had written two dozen history books, 20 of which are about merchant shipping. The fact that by 2004 he had also chosen to set up as a publisher does not invalidate the material in his book, much of which draws on his 1977 and 1986 iterations of the L&H history. Your ask "why can he not get his books and/or papers published properly?" The answers are (1) he did and (2) having done so, his choice to switch to self-publishing is his business.

I have researched the article but that is not WP:OR. I am simply collating published information as one does for any Wikipedia article. In the section "Competition to carry Brazilian coffee" I made fuller and more informative use than you did of De La Pedraja's book Oil and Coffee: Latin American Merchant Shipping from the Imperial Era to the 1950s. If reading Uboat.net, Wrecksite.eu and old copies of Lloyd's Register is "original research", many WP articles about ships should be either deleted or significantly cut.

I appreciate that WP:OWN says "it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors" and "be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor". However, it also says "No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page."

I rewrote the article in userspace because the article as you created it is so unsatisfactory that trying to re-use it would only have got in the way of writing an accurate history. I apologise if that sounds blunt and unappreciative. You used a skimpy "factsheet" from the National Museums Liverpool that is so inaccurate that it even gets WJ Lamport's middle initial wrong!

I have written dozens of WP articles about merchant ships and several about shipping companies. Nautilus International published one of my articles in its Telegraph magazine. I do not need to be "taught a lesson" about either self-published sources or preparing text in userspace. I do deserve better behaviour from a fellow-Wikipedian. And my work to improve the Lamport and Holt article, sourced from a writer who knows the company better than almost anyone else alive, deserves to stand.

Thankyou. Motacilla (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If he worked for L&H then there is a potential conflict of interest there but it would have helped if you had indicated that his book was a revised reprint. I never claimed that the article was any good, nor that there were not better sources out there so please learn not to deflect. There are far too many crappy articles about transport which use obscure sources. This appeared to be one of them and I asked someone else who at the time also could not see why the guy was the expert you claim. And if you want to be collaborative you do not usurp an article by drafting a completely new version in your own space and then dumping it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it: you may think you're some sort of genius but you are fuck bugger all here, like me. On the internet, everyone is a dog. How am I supposed to know you are some sort of expert? - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read your user page. I did look when I first came here some days ago but there is so much crap in the way of infoboxes that I skimmed it. I have seen the note about your mental health and realise now that this disagreement may not be helping matters for you. For that, I apologise. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reverted the Lamport and Holt article back to the longer, informative and fully referenced version. I think we always need to be driven by "what makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" I have no doubt that the article as it now stands achieves that. I would add that I have also found the Liverpool museum's fact sheets to be full of errors. If these are politely pointed out to them, with detailed references, they tend to come back with reasons why the incorrect version should stand! I presume that their curatorial staff are not paid enough to attract people capable of doing the job - this is in sharp contrast to the National Small Boat Collection/National Maritime Museum Cornwall who are only too happy to make corrections, and appreciate the contacts that originate them.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven years ago, you were the very first person to answer one of my talk page posts - I had posted on other talk pages before that, but none of those posts were answered (they still haven't been). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your thoughtful message. I apologise for my long delay in replying.

It is a good anniversary to celebrate. I wish all Wikipedia working relationships were as harmonious!

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latest batch of buses are now all in service, nos. 901-909 - their numbers indicate that they are barred from passing through Oxford station bridge, and their plated height of 14′6″ confirms this - the previous batch, nos. 621-623, are plated 13′10″. Besides the increased height, the 901 class differ from the 621 class in having diagonal staircase windows and reduced seating capacity upstairs. This is because four tables have been added - to fit them in, three pairs of seats are removed and four more pairs reversed, giving a capacity of H39/29F; downstairs, the four rear-facing fixed seats behind the rear axle are replaced by tip-up seats giving more legroom for those on the bench. Registrations are as follows:

901 class fleet numbers and registrations

Number	Registration	Licensed to
901	NK20 EKT	City of Oxford Motor Services
902	NK20 EKW	City of Oxford Motor Services
903	NK20 EKX	City of Oxford Motor Services
904	NK20 EKO	Thames Travel
905	NK20 EKP	Thames Travel
906	NK20 EKR	Thames Travel
907	NK20 EKY	Thames Travel
908	NK20 ELU	Thames Travel
909	NK20 ENJ	Thames Travel

The registrations may indicate the order of delivery, those of nos. 908/9 suggest late delivery, and indeed I didn't spot these until some weeks after no. 907. All nine are normally seen on the Oxford-A34-Abingdon corridor, with nos. 901-903 painted a very impressive black and red - these are used on route X13 but the livery is not dedicated to it, whereas nos. 904-909 are painted in "Didcot Connector" two-tone grey - these are used on routes X2 and X32 but do migrate to the 33/X33. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your kind message. I apologise for my delay in replying.

Go North East ordered those full-height StreetDecks, but then in the covid-19 crisis changed its mind. I believe they came to Oxford Bus Co and Thames Travel in an exchange deal in which some coaches from the former X90 fleet went to GNE. The details will be on Malcolm Crowe's Oxford and Chilterns bus website.

Like you I am impressed by the black and red livery on 910–903. The black is because their Saturday job is a shuttle service to Bicester Village. One former Park & Ride low-roof StreetDeck, fleet number 662, is a permanent Bicester Village shuttle and is in all-black livery. 662 is the StreetDeck that used to be in GWR livery.

I spent some sunny days in August and September photographing all nine buses 901–909, in most cases in Abingdon. And I photographed 662 in Bicester in its new black livery. But I am still uncomfortable in the irrational bear-pit that is Wikimedia Commons, so I have not yet uploaded the photos.

Best wishes Motacilla (talk) 10:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your edit on SS Lichtenfels from Belgian Congo to Belgium maybe incorrect. I don't have access to relevant reference: Dunn, Laurence (1973). Merchant Ships of the World in Colour 1910–1929. London: Blandford Press Ltd. p. 191. ISBN 0-7137-0569-8., but it makes sense that in 1918/19 heavy lift ships were used to move locomotives from Europe to Africa, but not between Britain and Belgium, which would have had established factories and rail networks by then? Wanted to check-in here on the reason for your edit, in case you have access to Dunn 1973 and know more about it than my assumptions?Vauxhall Bridgefoot (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Vauxhall Bridgefoot: Hundreds of British locomotives were loaned to (or were requisitioned or bought by) the Railway Operating Division of the Royal Engineers. Most of these were shipped to Europe, the Middle East or Africa; some never returned. See e.g. GWR 2301 Class or GCR Class 8K. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou both for your messages. I apologise for my delay in replying.

I did not state that Lichtenfels took locomotives to Belgium, or to the Belgian Congo. I wrote in the SS Lichtenfels article that Christen Smith Rederi did so. My purpose was to explain the origin of the heavy-lift market that DDG Hansa entered a few years later with Lichtenfels and her sister ships.

I have page 191 of Merchant Ships of the World in Colour 1910–1929 open in front of me.

"Not long after the war, Armstrong Whitworths' had to deliver 200 heavy locomotives and tenders to the Belgian State Railways... Captain Christen Smith, an officer of the Norwegian Navy and an expert in heavy lifts, saw his opportunity."

nl:Staatsspoorwegen (België) says that in WW1 Belgian State Railways lost hundreds of locomotives and thousands of wagons. Most of Belgium was occupied by Germany, which looted industrial equipment from Belgian factories. Four years of combat destroyed parts of Belgium's railway network. Belgium had been highly industrialised, but the imperative was to restore the railway as quickly as possible, not wait for Belgian manufacturers to catch up.

Belgium took many locomotives, carriages and wagons from Germany as reparations. It also received 70 Baldwin 4–6–0s from the UK War Department, which NMBS/SNCB classified Type 40 when it was founded in 1926. Armstrong Whitworth start making railway locomotives in 1919 because a huge part of its industrial output had been armaments, and after WW1 it had to beat some of its swords into ploughshares.

After WW1 Belgium was desperate for locomotives, Armstrong Whitworth was desperate for work, and yes, Christen Smith did ship 200 A-W locomotives to Belgium from the Tyne.

Thankyou again for your message. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 10:30, 28 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2013 you added the prefix HMHS to all the WWI entries in this list. Do you have a source for that or was it a presumption? I believe the majority continued to use their existing civil prefixes but may have used HS (for Hospital ship) as they were contracted by the War Office (not the Admiralty) and were not therefore ships of the Royal Navy. I cannot find any definite source with regard to the use of HMHS or even if they did use that prefix if they were Royal Naval ships. Any help you could offer would be gratefully received Lyndaship (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. That was seven years ago, and shortly thereafter I had a nervous breakdown. Sorry, I have no idea what source I may or may not have used at the time. Motacilla (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I think I am going to have to leave the article alone as I can't find any RS to confirm or deny what I believe. Hope my message did not cause any upset Lyndaship (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1933 disasters in the United Kingdom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are fond of using this template. It might save a bit of typing but I think it makes a bad link to the List of Ships launched in yyyy as it's not very relevant and is rather Easter eggish. I intend to put it up for deletion (along with the similar ones which have no usage at all) once I have changed all the articles it appears in - I suspect you are the only editor to make use of it since it was created in 2006. Lyndaship (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I don’t think our paths have crossed. I understand that you contribute photographs of Oxfordshire villages to Commons. I am very keen to have an image of Fritwell Manor to accompany the article. As far as I can see from Google Earth, it appears to face North Street, which runs out of the village, so it should be pretty accessible if one makes it as far as Fritwell. If you have the opportunity at any stage, I would be hugely grateful. If it’s not possible, or in any way inconvenient, don’t trouble at all. I shall make a point of ending up in the village myself at some time in the future. With many thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. I have photographed buildings in Fritwell, but somehow managed to miss the manor house. You are right: it faces south, can be seen from North Street, and should not be too hard to photograph. And as far as I can see on Google Earth, there seems to be nothing that would cast an unhelpful shadow across the front of the house when the sun is in the south. Therefore it should be possible to take a good photograph of the house even in winter.

I prefer to take photographs in full sun, not only to make them more cheerful but also to bring out the colours of the building materials. I will keep Fritwell Manor in mind, and give it a try on the next sunny day when I am free to do so.

Thankyou for asking me to help. I will see what I can do. Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Greatly appreciated. I am slightly puzzled as to why there is no image on Geograph, my usual go-to source when Commons fails, but there you go. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 15:05, 14 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Motacilla, you have access to Miramar, don't you? If so, could you check the entry for Chantal, IMO 5352408 and make any improvements you can to German trawler V 303 Tannenberg. Have seen a quoted 8kn for her after being re-engined, but the source is not useable on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message Mj. In fact I do not have a Miramar account. I apologise for not being more helpful. Motacilla (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've added the speed from Miramar. Only other item of interest was that her cargo when lost was scrap metal from Cap Haitien-Aruba Lyndaship (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Motacilla, you tend to change or "correct" articles in the german Wiki saying "Bitte Englischer Artikel sehen." To check with the article in this (english) Wiki is no reasonable proof or source for any edit. As your co-operation is more than welcome, please add proper sources to your edits. Many thanks / vielen Dank Landkraft 08:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your message. In each German Wikipedia article that I revise, I usually add an online source to the external links near the bottom of the article. However, I do not know how one formats inline citations in German Wikipedia. And most of the articles that I have revised seem to have very few inline citations before I revised them.

Also, some of the online sources are not entirely accurate. For example, they are not always correct about the numbers of engines and types of engines. I would have to go into more detail, citing books such as Lloyd's Register that, as far as I know, have not been published in German. I am not confident that my German is good enough for this.

When I add "Bitte Englischer Artikel sehen", I do not mean it not as a citation. I mean it as a request to an editor who is fluently bilingual to compare the texts and sources, and help to amend the relevant deficiencies in the German article. If you would like to help with this, I would be very grateful. Motacilla (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RMS Etruria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed your uploaded pictures from the motorcycle exhibition of Schloss Wildeck. I have already included two pictures in de.wiki-articles. Are there maybe more of them? Would like to image more motorcycle articles. Thanks in advance! --Ch ivk (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much for your message. I did take more photographs of DKW and MZ motorcycles in Schloss Wildeck. I have not yet uploaded them, because first I wanted to identify each model correctly, in order to name the files correctly. I could just upload them to Wikimedia Commons with numbers instead of model names, but that would not meet the standards that I set for myself.

I am not a DKW or MZ specialist. I know only a few friends who have MZs, and only one who has a pre-war DKW. I have asked my friends to help me identify the bikes in my photos, but I have not yet received any helpful replies.

I assume Schloss Wildeck has an inventory of the motorcycles in its collection. But I have not found an inventory on Schloss Wildeck's official website. If you can direct me to an inventory, either official or unofficial, of Schloss Wildeck's motorcyle collection, I would be very grateful.

Thankyou once again for contacting me! – Motacilla (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have searched longer, but could not find an inventory list of the museum. Of course, I'm still looking. What might help you to identify the bikes are the image categories in Wikimedia Commons ([5] and [6]). If also in German, perhaps also this page [7] help. Last but not least (in German language) the Wikipedia articles ([8], [9]. Good luck and thanks in advance. --Ch ivk (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PS Adelaide (1880), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted most of your edit to Curtiss P-36 Hawk. While I thank you for trying to improve the article, replacing every "during" for "in" created a lot of awkward sentences, such as "The prototype first flew on 6 May 1935, reaching 281 mph (452 km/h) at 10,000 ft (3,000 m) in early test flights." and "The only combat by U.S.-operated P-36s was in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor." Although condensed language is helpful on Simple English Wikipedia, such condensing is not necessary and may cause problems on English Wikipedia. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not replace every "during" with "in". I was selective, precisely to avoid creating any "awkward" sentences. None of my modifications caused a problem. The fact that Simple English Wikipedia exists is no excuse for standard English Wikipedia to use longer words than are needed. Your reversion only increases byte size and wastes electricity. Motacilla (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? Since when has byte size been a problem? Last I checked, there was no policy stating we should avoid longer words. I may not have my computer engineering degree yet, but I can tell you that the amount of electricity "wasted" by increased byte sizes is extremely negligible. In fact, most of the electricity "wasted" on Wikipedia is used to illuminate device screens. If a Wikipedia page were large enough for electricity to be a problem while loading, the device and likely Wikipedia's servers would crash. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wise Wikipedians have always cared about byte size, without needing an official policy to tell them what to think. The fact that an illuminated display uses electricity is no excuse to use more or longer words than needed.

George Orwell could have made a good Wikipedian. Of his six rules for good prose, (ii) is "Never use a long word where a short one will do" and (iii) is "If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out". None of us is perfect. I am sure there are sentences in which I have used words I could have left out, or longer words where I could have used shorter ones. But applying Orwell's rules consistently would improve a lot of Wikipedia articles.

Many people now read Wikipedia on very small screens such as smartphones. Conciseness helps them, even if it saves only a syllable and a couple of letters in each sentence. Failure to apply Orwell's rules to Wikipedia is bad style, a disservice to our readers, and a disservice to our Planet. Motacilla (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wikifairy is found. Put a diminutive stub under the pillow and wake up to a shiny gold sovereign. Thanks! Davidships (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your kind message. The first time I saw the White's Marine Engineering Company article, I think I was as displeased as you seem to have been! My dilemma was whether to (a) fix the White's article without having enough ships to link to it, or (b) add more individual ship articles and then fix the White's article. I found choosing (b) easier to do, which had the unfortunate effect of drawing attention to a stub of utter fiction before I got round to fixing it. Sorry about that! Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be sorry, I'm delighted. I wasn't looking for that company anyway, but it came up when looking for Whites Shipyard at Southampton and I was suspicious about it being a shipbuilder at Hebburn, and then found that the ships claimed to have been built were all from other yards. You've made some fine additions to the maritime content of WP over the years. Davidships (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to say I hope that I didn't come off as rude on my talk page. :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your thoughtful message. Your reply on your talk page is purely factual, and technically correct. It is no fault of yours that WP's guideline on the matter is grammatically incorrect. Motacilla (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited USS Zuiderdijk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shahrestan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there—I swapped the image in SS Tubantia back to its original non-free image as what you uploaded on Commons (File:Tubantia sea trial.jpg) needs a publishing date to be verifiably in the public domain. Apologies! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you can track down the original publishing location of this image, it might be in the public domain. (I can't find it, unfortunately. The Flickr license is obviously made up by the uploader.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the image you found on Medium was published in the Netherlands. Hence it is covered by the copyright law of the Netherlands.

Have you the same objection to the other images in Media related to Category:Tubantia (ship, 1914) at Wikimedia Commons? She was built in 1914 and sunk in 1916. These are publicity images published either when she was new, or in the ears immediately after she was sunk. Motacilla (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain images on Commons need to be in free both in the United States and the photo's country of origin, yes. And for the United States, which is the copyright tag you applied to the image, it needs a publishing date. This edit and those you made to other images in that category doesn't change the fact that a US public domain tag is needed (Per the template, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."), and are wrong because you don't know the death dates of the people who created them.

All that aside, you also uploaded this image. Very usefully here postcards are nearly always printed near their creation date, and I've seen that argument accepted as proof of an early-enough publication date... so I swapped that image in. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you mean that each image on Wikimedia Commons needs two copyright tags? Or is there one tag that can cover both?

2. The "fair use" image File:SS Tubantia.jpg and the image that I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are the same image. The Dutch source from which the "fair use" version was copied in 2009 seems to have vanished from the Internet, I don't know the source of the original version, and you have not suggested that you do, either. The two versions differ only in that the "fair use" version has lost much of its quality by a low-grade copying process somewhere in its history, whereas the version I uploaded is in better condition. Is there a reason not to upload the better version to Wikipedia under the same "fair use"?

Motacilla (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. All of this applies only to public domain images only, but within that there's no easy answer to that question. Some images do, and other images don't, all dependent on their particular copyright situation (often creation date, publication date, or author death). In this case, according to the template it's a clash between claiming the image is in the PD based on the death date of the author vs. US copyright law needing a publication date. Frankly, it sucks, and I wish we didn't have to follow US copyright law for non-US PD images... but the servers are in the US. See c:Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law.
2. Unfortunately, finding that postcard image means that no non-free image now qualifies per WP:NFCCP #1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thenkyou for your help. Should I just reinstate the US copyright templates that I used originally? Or is there a better option?

I feared that my uploading that colour postcard of Gelria and Tubantia might be fatal for the "fair use" image! It's a pity, because artist's impressions are not always accurate. For a different example, File:De Veertien Master „Grangesberg“.jpg seems to be an artist's dodgy reworking of the photograph File:Grängesberg at anchor.jpg, with waves and smoke added for effect. The artist has made the funnel too fat, and the stays between the masts are far too thick. I'm not sure the funnel colours are entirely right, either. I believe there should be a broad red band with a white capital "M" (for Müller) on it. But dodgy artistic representations of ships are historical artefacts in themselves, so they deserve their place in the record.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm pretty sure they should be deleted under Commons' rules, but I wasn't going to slap more deletion tags on them because I didn't want to come off like a jerk. :-) And without a publication date, it's also really hard to tell when they would enter/if they are in the public domain in the United States. There's a whole rather confusing page on this. I did some Google Books searching for the ship to see if anything had images, but had no luck.

If the differences were significant you could make an argument under NFCCP #1, but those don't sound like they'd meet that bar. But, I'm also not a lawyer! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for searching. I tried TinEye for some of the photos, with varying results. As long as the WP article for each ship has at least one image, that's adequate for me. Plenty of ship articles have no image yet, such as MV British Prudence, and I've not much idea how to solve that! Motacilla (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, that one's tricky. Only extant for three years, no government photos, and another British Prudence tanker built after the war? Good luck! :| Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! And I think I've been offered photos of the 1948 British Prudence in good faith, by someone who was trying their best to help. However, the 1939 British Prudence was one of several tankers all built to the same design for the British Tanker Company. If I can find a good photo of one of her sister ships, that will be better than nothing. Motacilla (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Dwinsk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boatswain's mate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your username around and today chanced upon one of your edits. I was just curious to know why in this 2020 change you wrote "I an autistic"? Thx. 82.13.47.210 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. Thanks for pointing it out. Motacilla (talk) 06:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the best .--82.13.47.210 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Motacilla! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as China Navigation Company, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/data/gb102-jss/jss/3, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:China Navigation Company and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, China Navigation Company, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:China Navigation Company. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:China Navigation Company with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:China Navigation Company saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, Gerda. Happy New Year! Motacilla (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS War Baron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMS Tuscarora, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British S-class submarine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited HMY Iolaire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AE.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Hitachi Maru (1898), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SS Eleni (1947), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ely.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motacilla, did you check you check the references before you moved this article? It is called the SS Egerland. The first reference states it. scope_creep^Talk 18:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"SS" is not part of Egerland's name. It is a prefix, and in Egerland's case, Wrecksite is wrong. The SS Egerland article also cites a Naval Intelligence Division report from September 1941 that states her propulsion was by " two sets of 8-cylinder M.A.N. diesels". Therefore she was a motor ship.

You created the "SS Egerland" article. You correctly put "MAN diesel" in the infobox, but contradicted yourself by incorrectly putting "SS" in the title. The two are mutually exclusive. Please resolve your self-contradiction by amending the title of the article.

Thankyou, Motacilla (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, Just wanted to check. scope_creep^Talk 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motacilla, you couldn't have a look at this could you. I could not progress it at all. You seem to have much better sources. scope_creep^Talk 20:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the invitation, but I have rather a full worklist at present. Friedrich Breme needs a lot of improvement, but I won't make any promises. Motacilla (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything at all. That is the reason its not been expanded. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]