User talk:Jsp3970
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] A welcome from Sputnik
We're glad to have you in our community! I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
[edit] Additional tips
Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!
- I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
- If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
- You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
- If you're still entirely confused, or would like to get a better grasp of your wikipedia skills, and you have an IRC client (or don't mind getting one), check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
- If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
- P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
[edit] Happy Wiki-ing.
- Sputnik
[edit] Kingston
I asked on both their respective articles a month ago - no reply. Rozema's article says she was born in Sarnia, not Kingston. Google results in 362 hits PR & Kingston, 723 hits PR & Sarnia, incl IMDB says she was born in Sarnia; another says Kingston but moved to Sarnia at young age. In any case, birthplace needs obviously to be verified first of all - second, how much time & how prominent do you have to be to be a 'Prominent Kingstonian'? Does living here for a few NN months count? Mundell spent one high school year in Kingston. Same question remains. But I am curious that nobody at their articles could give a reason to call them Kingstonians.Bridesmill 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:VIAFPA9RM6309.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LU 1956 stock
Just to let you know that the 1956 stock is currently described under the 1959 stock article (I noticed you added 1956 stock to the template). Our Phellap 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: prettytable
Consistency is the main impetus here. Quite a few of the articles that I looked at already used {{prettytable}} style, and many of those that didn't weren't using wiki syntax but much more verbose HTML syntax, which can sometimes be more difficult to edit. Since there were more articles using {{prettytable}} style than not, it seemed fair to make the conversion to keep them all consistent in style. On tables where row color was part of the information portrayed (such as for equipment dispositions), I was careful to preserve those colors. Personally, I prefer the look of {{prettytable}} to the thick, beveled borders; I find the data easier to read because the borders are much more subtle. Slambo (Speak) 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see what you mean. The original table was using ! as the field indicator which equates to <th> in HTML markup, which will bold and center the text in the field. The standard field separator, |, which equates to <td>, neither bolds nor centers the data. I hadn't heard that {{prettytable}} was deprecated, only that it should be susbted, which comes out with the result that is recommended in the deprecation notification box on the template page.
- To answer your second question, I'll have to go through a little history... WikiProject Trains was created in March 2004 (I started editing in September 2004) and includes articles about anything that has to do with rail transport, both current and historical, worldwide. The {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner indicates that the article is related to rail transport and points readers and other editors to a group of editors who specialize in rail transport information. WikiProject UK Railways was created in April 2006 as a subproject of WikiProject Trains to further specialize in rail transport articles within the United Kingdom. Before I made the changes to {{TrainsWikiProject}}, in early July I invited discussion from the existing rail transport related WikiProjects (such as the notice on the UK Railways project talk page). Following the model of {{WP Australia}}, I proposed to list the subprojects within this template too (see the template talk page for further discussion on this development). I proposed the various task forces (patterned after the structure used by WikiProject Military history) in late July to avoid creating a separate WikiProject for each of the currently implemented and future specializations and received only positive feedback for it, so I've implemented those as well. I haven't created a category for UK Railways articles yet (like there are for the various task forces) mainly because I want to put it out on the UK Railways project talk page first for discussion.
- The biggest reason to add {{TrainsWikiProject}} to all rail transport pages is to sort them all by quality following the assessment scale as part of the WP:1.0 efforts. Once we've got them all graded by quality, we can start on rating articles by topic importance. The importance ratings will work in a similar manner to the quality ratings, via sorting by a parameter in the project banner. I'm working my way through all of the articles in Category:Rail transport (I've gotten up to Cat:Railway companies → Cat:Railway companies of the United Kingdom → Cat:Railtour operators of the United Kingdom so far), assessing the quality and adding the banner (with appropriate subproject and task force tags) to every article related to rail transport. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the categories and assessments, this isn't a task that is easily automated, so someone (me, so far) has to go through by hand to tag them all (there are currently 70 other projects also working on article assessments). It's a long process, but will produce a worthwhile result. Slambo (Speak) 19:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Early London Underground gate stock
Hi jsp I am perfectly willing to accept your conclusion, though I do wonder if the name "Gate Stock" was added at a later date than their actual coming into service? Much like many of steam locos: the enginemen gave them names to illustrate their characteristics: Black Five being a good example. I have the LT booklet Sixty Years of the Piccadilly (1966) which, although it describes the cars in some detail, does NOT call them "Gate stock". Just a thought! (and the Romans never did call it "Watling Street"!) Regards Peter Shearan 10:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your reply; I will leave it with you! Peter Shearan 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:LUL
To join WikiProject Underground click here. Lenny 06:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Or visit the portal and look under the related project section. Lenny 07:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abandoned WP:LUL
There hasn't been much activity going on in WikiProject Underground, please add ACT next to your name in the list if you are still active in the project. Lenny 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I sent the above message to every member in case you thought I was singling you out. You could standardise the pages on rolling stock so that each has the same sections. You can also expand newer rolling stck articles. I have made significant addtions to the 1996 stock article (my favourite trains). Lenny 05:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like it! Very informative about the stock. I hope we can introduce the box to all rolling stock pages. Good work, more than what other members are doing (ie nothing). Unisouth 08:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Using the ltmcollection template
Hi, thanks for your query. It isn't the first time that the LTM site has got the descriptions of the images wrong.
Using the {{ltmcollection}} template is quite straight forward and the procedure is explained at Template talk:Ltmcollection.
Generally, when I am adding multiple images to articles using this template I do it as a series of bullets under a heading which links to the London's Transport Museum website thus:
If there is just the one image to add I do it as follows with "London's Transport Museum Photographic Archive" put into the second parameter of the template and the description outside:
- London's Transport Museum Photographic Archive Station in 1925.
DavidCane 19:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] EMU template
The reason I removed classes 451-453 is because this was from the first TOPS arrangement (see British_Rail_TOPS_first_arrangement#Electric Multiple Units. If all of these were included in the template as it stands, there would be duplicate classes (e.g. 411, 414 and 415). I suggest if you want to include these class designations, another line should be added for them.
E.g. - highlighted in yellow.
[edit] London Underground diesel locomotives
I reverted your deletion of the bit about the class 66 locos which Metronet hired. My reasons are stated on this article's talk page. I hope you can live with this explanation.
[edit] Welcome Back!
I am glad you are not letting some idiot ruin your time on wikipedia. I am glad you are back with WikiProject Underground. If you have any problems again, please email Wikipedia and they will sort it out. Unisouth 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rolling stock template
Very good thinking but the template as a whole should include the deep-tube stock as well. I am all for the change. Unisouth 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1938 stock
Hi. No worries. The problem was that the tables had two openers, i.e. {|, so everything afterwards was treated as a column of the table, and hence the width was restricted.
I was wondering if you could help me complete the article on London Underground engineering stock, which I have started, but not had chance to complete? Our Phellap 23:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] London Underground stock info boxes
| Example Stock | |
|---|---|
| Manufacturer | Some Manufacturer |
| In Service | 1994-present |
| Lines Served | Jubilee (1994-1999) Victoria (1999-present) |
|
|
|
As don't think i replaced any infoboxes. I only replaced tables (and even then only maybe two or three), and replicated the information that was in them. Only trying to help... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vrs26 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- I think it's possible to make the image optional. Anyway, could you point me at where to discuss this? I had a look at WikiProject_London_Transport and couldn't find any bit about Underground stock info box stuff -- should I just add a new thing to the discussion page? Vrs26 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps we could try to get all the info we can into an infobox (like tube/surface stock and service dates for certain lines)? The infobox can be designed so that if an item isn't present, it just doesn't show in the box (like you don't have to have an image) - see example at right. You have quite a lot of extra stuff in your boxes, like "DM Numbers" (which i know nothing about...), so they could be added too. You can see (and edit) the Infobox template at Template:Infobox_Underground_stock. Let know what you think. Vrs26 20:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I've removed the legend at the bottom. Also tried experimenting with making it clear whether it's tube or subsurface stock - looks a bit crap though -- see London_Underground_1996_Stock and London_Underground_D78_Stock. I dunno about making it a different colour -- I think most Infoboxes on Wikipedia are fairly muted. In terms of stock numbers, do you think it would be good to have numbers in the infobox at all, or just keep them in the main article? Also, perhaps we should standardise units (i.e. maybe use metric as default and include imperial in brackets (maybe vice versa for older stock?))? Vrs26 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Seating certainly makes sense. I suppose with the colour I just like the simple look (my graphic design side coming out!), but naturally, feel free to experiment. I took the grey colours from the Automobile and LU Line Infoboxes (TX1 and Jubilee line for example) Vrs26 21:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- What do you think to the idea of standardising units to some degree (see above)? Vrs26 21:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Article Standardisation
If you think improvements should be made on the project page then you can always do it yourself. Or you could make a formal anouncement on the talk page. Or you can place it in the to-do box. I think the page needs updating as it hasn't changed much since September 2006, when the project originaly started!
PS: In rolling stock articles, a interior and exterior image is compulsory. Unisouth 16:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- In reference to images, maybe it could be impossible or very very hard to find a picture of stock before 1938. So I will pace a note on the project page. Unisouth 16:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
