User talk:Martin Cordon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Martin Cordon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Also, your article about Butterley Tunnel has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to have a say in the article's deletion discussion, just follow the instructions on the article's page. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 00:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Thanks
Thank you for pointing that out. I have revisited the article, and found that you are indeed correct. I have changed my vote to keep. I hope that you continue to be an inclusionist. Good luck with the tunnel, !paradigm! 19:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)!paradigm! also, Ask me for any help you may need, just add youre name to my users i know list, and post any questions or requests on my talk page.
[edit] Request as to Butterley Tunnel
Can you please add citations and references to the article? This will help others make a judgment as to the verifiability of the content and notability of the tunnel. Thanks, Pan Dan 03:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looks great, Martin. As it stands I think this would be a good addition to Cromford Canal (as I just wrote in the AfD). Even if it's merged, that's effectively a keep, since all the material will still be here and you (or anyone) can continue to work on it. Pan Dan 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I typed that before your last message to me--now to answer that) As to notability, P.B. is correct, Wikipedia doesn't have a set guideline as to structures. First, even if it were unarguably notable, my opinion would still be to merge because I don't think it can be significantly expanded. (But as to notability, for me, I would probably judge something to be notable if it's been featured in many independent non-trivial works--that's basically the recurring criterion in existing guidelines on the notability of people, companies, websites, etc. In this case as most of the sources are primarily about the canal, I don't think notability of the tunnel is established yet.) Anyway, even if the article is merged, as I said above, all the material is still here. And if more sources are found and the section on Butterley expands significantly in Cromford Canal, then it might be in order to transfer the Butterley section to a new article once again. That's why a merge is effectively a keep. Pan Dan 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- (Clarifying--hopefully) I apologize for the somewhat rambling nature of my above comment on notability. I'll try to clarify. Uncle G writes in his essay that "Notability is not subjective.... A subject is notable if the world at large considers it notable." What I think this means is that it's not up to us to subjectively judge whether the facts you present (9th longest navigable tunnel, etc.) make the tunnel notable. Rather, it's up to us to check and see if there are any independent publications out there that considered the tunnel notable enough to feature it. If, say, the editors of a number of British newspapers took note (so to speak) of Butterley Tunnel and published lengthy stories on it, remarking that it would be the 9th longest navigable canal tunnel in the world if the canal were repaired, etc., etc., then that would show that they consider the tunnel notable--and therefore using Uncle G's criterion (and my criterion above) I think the tunnel would be deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In sum, we don't rely on subjective impressions of notability to tell if something is notable, we rely on independent publications' editorial decisions of what to feature in their publications. Hope I'm making sense, if not feel free to ignore me, or to ask me, or to ask someone more experienced (I've been here < 2 mos.) :) Pan Dan 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, some of those 48 tunnels are less referenced and less notable than Butterley, and I (for one) think those should be deleted (especially those without references). But this AfD isn't over yet, and I don't know whether it will result in a merge, but it certainly won't be a deleted! You shouldn't feel abused. Merge or no merge, you've made a valuable contribution to WP.
- (Clarifying--hopefully) I apologize for the somewhat rambling nature of my above comment on notability. I'll try to clarify. Uncle G writes in his essay that "Notability is not subjective.... A subject is notable if the world at large considers it notable." What I think this means is that it's not up to us to subjectively judge whether the facts you present (9th longest navigable tunnel, etc.) make the tunnel notable. Rather, it's up to us to check and see if there are any independent publications out there that considered the tunnel notable enough to feature it. If, say, the editors of a number of British newspapers took note (so to speak) of Butterley Tunnel and published lengthy stories on it, remarking that it would be the 9th longest navigable canal tunnel in the world if the canal were repaired, etc., etc., then that would show that they consider the tunnel notable--and therefore using Uncle G's criterion (and my criterion above) I think the tunnel would be deemed notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. In sum, we don't rely on subjective impressions of notability to tell if something is notable, we rely on independent publications' editorial decisions of what to feature in their publications. Hope I'm making sense, if not feel free to ignore me, or to ask me, or to ask someone more experienced (I've been here < 2 mos.) :) Pan Dan 23:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I typed that before your last message to me--now to answer that) As to notability, P.B. is correct, Wikipedia doesn't have a set guideline as to structures. First, even if it were unarguably notable, my opinion would still be to merge because I don't think it can be significantly expanded. (But as to notability, for me, I would probably judge something to be notable if it's been featured in many independent non-trivial works--that's basically the recurring criterion in existing guidelines on the notability of people, companies, websites, etc. In this case as most of the sources are primarily about the canal, I don't think notability of the tunnel is established yet.) Anyway, even if the article is merged, as I said above, all the material is still here. And if more sources are found and the section on Butterley expands significantly in Cromford Canal, then it might be in order to transfer the Butterley section to a new article once again. That's why a merge is effectively a keep. Pan Dan 23:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As to a direct link to Butterley Tunnel--if it does get merged (big if), and there's a section titled Butterley Tunnel in Cromford Canal, then it will be possible to link directly to that section using Cromford Canal#Butterley Tunnel.
-
-
-
-
-
- By the way, as to sources, are there any old books about the tunnel (or about the canal) to your knowledge? (I looked on Google books and didn't find anything substantial.) Pan Dan 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Just wanted to say congrats on the result of the AfD. The article is interesting and looks terrific, and I also want to thank you for what I think is a valuable contribution to WP. Pan Dan 17:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Reply
The article still need a lot of citations, but it looks better. I still don't think it should have its own article, but it could be merged with Cromford Canal. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Second reply Hey, Martin. The article looks a whole lot better now, and a lot more detailed. Though I still think the subject isn't notable enough to have its own article (and no amount of editing could change that, no offense), I think it could be a BIG edition to the Cromford Canal article. Thanks for all the hard work! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 20:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Third Reply Hello again, Martin. I'm not sure if there is a particular notability rule about structures (see here); I think it's usually just left up to the community to decide. As for the other tunnels with their own articles, well, I never knew about them, and frankly, I'm surprised they haven't been merged as well. What are their names, so I can check up on them?
-
- And as for not writing any more articles, I urge you to please reconsider that. There are plenty of subjects out there that don't have an article yet, and are quite notable. Wikipedia can never have enough editors.
-
-
- Forth Reply The reason Wikipedia doesn't have "administrative sections" is because all of the information on it is for all of the users (and casual readers), and therefore everybody has a say in an article's importance. Wikipedia does however have certain groups called "WikiProjects" (such as WikiProject Albums}, and other groups like Esperanza, the latter of which I am a member. And it's not like your contribution with the Butterley Tunnel is going to be worthless. It will most likely be merged with the Cromford Canal article, which will help drive it towards becoming a featured article.
-
[edit] Creating new articles
You've done very well. That's a better article than most people's first new article. You've improved Wikipedia.
And now you know what to do in the future. If when creating new articles you ensure that from the first edit onwards you cite sources, either as references for the existing text or as further reading (and thus potential sources for expansion), to the degree that Butterley Tunnel now does (The citations don't have to be perfect, but the citation information has to be clearly there in the article for casual readers to see.), I predict that you won't have much trouble with people nominating your articles for deletion in future. Articles, even stubs, that cite multiple in-depth sources are rarely even nominated for deletion, let alone deleted. Editors with pet subjects, from canal tunnels to traffic circles, in the main only encounter trouble with AFD if they don't cite sources. Use Butterley Tunnel as it now stands as the sort of new article to aim for in future, in particular the sort of sourcing to aim for in future, and (I predict.) you'll have few, if any, dealings with AFD. You might have editors wanting to merge your articles into existing, broader, articles, but that's a wholly different ball game to deletion, and doesn't involve AFD at all. Uncle G 11:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Butterley Tunnel
Hello Martin. I'd like you to know that I appreciate your continued work on the article Butterley Tunnel even when it seems as though the result of it's AfD discussion is going to be merge. I'm pretty sure that this specific tunnel will never be notable enough for a wikipedia article (though by no fault of yours). However, I urge you to continue editing Wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of the discussion. Also, just a friendly reminder, please sign all comments on talk pages (including user talk pages) with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks a lot and enjoy editing. Feel free to reply on my talk page. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 contribs 00:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- There appears to be a creeping change within the Wiki world to cite references. As with many things in life, people take them to different levels. Some people are quick to jump on the AFD route, others let things develop. Don't get put off and keep up the good work.Jschwa1 11:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] your images
Any chance you could also release your images under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/) lisense which is somewhat better for images?Geni 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- simply add {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to the image pages.Geni 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- you can't there is no central respositry of images. Creative commons is just a lisence. There is wikimedia commons:
-
- Which has a large number of images under a number of "free" lisences such as GFDL and creative commons.
-
- For example in the case of canals there is:
-
- Other than that relivant wikipedia articles will often have pics.Geni 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The Erewash Canal pic was the reason I asked you about Creative commons lisenceing.
-
-
-
- incerdentaly {{cc-by-sa-2.5|Martin Cordon}} will produce add Attribution: Martin Cordon to the template.Geni 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Richard Arkwright
Dear Dracontes
What does you addition Hr gav mean on the Richard Arkwright page?
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- If you look closely at the comparison of my revision on the right column to the previous one on the left column you'll notice that the only thing I did was revert what seemed to be an inconsequential edit, including that bit of nonsense you refer. But never mind, "Hr gav" removed.
- Dracontes 08:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] It's a Keep!
Hey, Martin! I saw that Butterley Tunnel has been "kept" by consensus of the Wikipedian community; good job expanding it and not giving up! -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reply Hello again, Martin, and you're welcome! Looking at the tunnel page now, it definitely looks like it should have its own article; if I'd have originally found it looking like that, I'd have never requested deletion. You mentioned that I requested deletion after you wrote just one line (sorry about that); there's a way you can keep this from happening in the future. Whenever I create articles nowadays, I build the whole thing up first in my own personal sandbox, and then I move it to the encyclopedia part of the site, all completed. If you would like your own sandbox, just create a subpage, like User:Martin Cordon/Sandbox.
- P.S. -- About Valento, I think he just forgot to start a new discussion when he wrote that message. Nevermind him :-)
[edit] Cromford Canal
I've taken the merge tag off now. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Railway Bridges etc
Thanks for the pics. Didn't think about that. Do uou think i should somehow put the list in a table (once i get the hang of it) so that people can view the bridges and viaducts themselves? Maybe similar to List of largest suspension bridges? Simply south 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nottingham Victoria tunnel
Hi, I see you've recently added information to the article about Nottingham Victoria railway station. Your link currently says "Midland Road railway tunnel". But the article this is linked to (Nottingham's Tunnels) appears to list the same tunnel as the "Mansfield Road Tunnel". Do you know which is correct? Cheers, – Kieran T (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Kieran T
I responded on your talk page and then read your request to keep the discussion here, therefore I deleted that response. That was mistake 2. The tunnel is definitely Mansfield Road Railway Tunnel not Midland Road Railway Tunnel. That was mistake 1. I have corrected both errors, thank you for spotting the mistake.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Martin, thanks ever so much for taking such trouble over this — I hope my request about carrying on talk page discussions doesn't seem too fierce! I realised after a short period using Wikipedia that keeping topics on one page makes it easier for third parties to follow the discussion, should it be of interest to them. – Kieran T (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
Just a quick note to let you know I've commented on this on Andy's talk page. Adambro 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- So have I. I happen to agree with you on some canal tunnel/tunnel articles, but not on all of them. Don't allow these two to discourage you.Pyrotec 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented further on Andy's page. Martin Be_bold_in_updating_pages, if you disagree that strongly, just revert.Pyrotec 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I am not going to revert without concensus. It is clear that this will start an editing war. Life is too short for that. Martin Cordon 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented further on Andy's page. Martin Be_bold_in_updating_pages, if you disagree that strongly, just revert.Pyrotec 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Worsley Navigable Levels
I'm afraid I don't have the relevent book to hand at the moment. At one point I did try and track down the photos taken by the coal board of the inside of the tunnels. However the collection was broken up in the early 90s. I think the photos should be at either the county archives or the Manchester archives but I didn't investigate that far.Geni 22:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Martin,
[edit] Kimberley Railway Cutting
Thankyou for your interest in the Kimberley Railway Cutting. We met last night at the rifle club. I must apologise if I seamed uncooperative but we have to be careful with unknown visitors asking to go in the club. The local historical society has all of our contact details, I have also forwarded your details to our club secretary. Regards M Poole.
Dear Mr. Poole
I do understand your concerns with respect to entry into your club. I am very happy to have been able to see those parts of the building which I saw. Thank you for forwarding my details to your club secretary.
Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
