User talk:LordSavage1997

Welcome!

Hello, LordSavage1997, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		for your work on Guide Bridge Sidings and the other related articles you've been creating. Good work and don't get discouraged! Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider adding {{Rail-transport-stub}} to your railway related stubs. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiThanks

Thank you for your ongoing work on creating new pages for UK railway stations. WP:UKRAIL welsh (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks

Hi dude, thanks for your thanks. You've created some interesting pages. I'm planning to have a rummage around and see if I can find some sources & photos to bulk them out. The railway is covered in history so it should be out there somewhere. Hope you're not offended when I change the name of pages. Driving trains is my day job (well somebody's got to), so I use the official source of railway names - which is Network Rail's Sectional Appendix. Sometimes it's not that simple though, so if you get the arse with what I've done just drop me a line and we'll sort it. Keep it up. Dr Sludge (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it man, the names look a lot better now. The open/close dates are hard to find but they should be out there somewhere, like you said. As for the images, I might take some photos and upload them to Wikicommons when I get them chance. The pages are kinda old but they were in some need of repair. It's always good to have a second player helping me so again, thanks. LordSavage1997 (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated stations

Hi, like that you are updating the station articles, but the referencing is slightly wrong as the surname of the author should go first, not second. Also, it's not a full cite book template. I have created one for you should you wish to use it;

<ref>{{cite book|last=Quick|first=M E|title=Railway passenger stations in England, Scotland and Wales - a chronology|year=2002|publisher=Railway and Canal Historical Society|location=Richmond|page= |oclc=931112387}}</ref>

Just highlight from this page without activating it, copy, paste and insert whatever page number that is relevant to the cite. If it goes over two pages, use this one;

<ref>{{cite book|last=Quick|first=M E|title=Railway passenger stations in England, Scotland and Wales - a chronology|year=2002|publisher=Railway and Canal Historical Society|location=Richmond|pages= – |oclc=931112387}}</ref>

Happy editing. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

— Wug·a·po·des 02:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Station articles

Hello, thanks for creating articles for Burton Salmon railway station and York Racecourse railway station. Can you have a look at them again as the route box shows Forth and Clyde Junction Railway which is in Scotland. I tried stepping to previous/following stations but those articles do not point to these new ones. Keith D (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that's a copy and paste error. I'll fix that right now.LordSavage1997 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keith D (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolven railway station

Hi LordSavage1997. I was just looking through the WP:NPP feed and saw you had recently created Resolven railway station. I note that this is sourced to two books: Railway passenger stations in England, Scotland and Wales - a chronology and The Directory of Railway Stations. These books are not available online but I see from the description of The Directory of Railway Stations available online that it is essentially a 296-page directory of more than 16,000 stations (i.e., roughly 55 stations for each page of the book) and provides "Station entries includ[ing] dates of opening and closing, map reference and name of original railway company". In that circumstance I am not sure whether this source really does constitute significant coverage of the topic - instead it seems like they might be just directory listings giving very basic statistical data, and as such giving only a bare mention of the topic. Of course I don't have access to the source so I may be completely wrong about this, and if so please go ahead and say so.

Would you be OK, if only for my peace of mind, with giving an explanation of how this article does actually pass WP:GNG, particularly the requirement for multiple instances of significant coverage? FOARP (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:I've created hundreds, if not thousands, of pages of the same ilk and hardly anyone else has raised any concerns of notability. There are also other station articles that have far less notability than this article and are unsourced. Are we to say that all of my station articles are to be removed solely because they don't suit your criteria? LordSavage1997 (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LordSavage1997. Thanks for responding. What I'm asking is whether this specific article, as written, has sourcing that meets the guide. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:The sources do cover WP:GNG, especially Quick as it has the opening and closing dates and usually extra information. Butt only offers extra information occasionally, but I primarily use the source so the dates don't conflict with each other or don't get one source tagged. They are also verified and highly regarded sources. LordSavage1997 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LordSavage1997:, thanks for your response. I appreciate that you don't want to have your articles tagged as relying only on a single source. The reason the single-source tag exists is because articles typically need significant coverage in more than a single source to pass WP:GNG. If Butt only provides brief statistical data, it is not clear to the reader where this comes from.

I think it might be a good idea, to avoid getting tagged for sourcing, to add something as well from, e.g., the Welsh newspaper archive, which appears to hold a number of different stories about various things happening at Resolven station, stretching right back to the opening of the railway. This would help people understand the history of the station and make something a bit more obviously encyclopaedic.

Obviously there's no reason why you absolutely have to listen to me on this. Wikipedia is of course a collaborative effort and it is OK to make basic WP:GNG-passing articles and leave them for others to fill out. However, it really is best if they are clear WP:GNG-passes at least on creation. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP:I forgot all about the archived newspapers; whenever I search up a disused station on Google, I usually get irrelevancies but thank you for your edits and reminding me about this reliable source. LordSavage1997 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, GBooks just isn't a very good source a lot of the time nowadays as it seems to surface a lot of results that are nothing to do with what you're looking for. I prefer Internet Archive's full-body search feature (see, e.g., here). This book looks interesting as a source for branch lines and had a 1905 picture of the station. FOARP (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gowerton South railway station

In the history box at the foot, you show the Dunvant and the Penclawdd stations as being on the Llanelly Railway whereas it is the link to the LNWR Llanmorlais branch line

It needs an addition to the history box to show Dunvant and Gorseinon stations as being on the Llanelly Railway

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Fixed. LordSavage1997 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Llanmorlais railway station

You were kind enough to write a Wikipedia article on this railway station and I wonder if you had in mind to write a similar article on Penclawdd station which was the other station on the LNWR Llanmorais branch line.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Oh wow, I must have completely missed this one out. I originally thought that the opening dates with Quick and Butt were conflicting but they're not, so I'll get right to work on it. LordSavage1997 (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: It's done. Now let's just hope that the ongoing RfC means that my page stays alive. LordSavage1997 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Brockhurst railway station

Another of the articles that you have written.

I wonder if you could add to the history box, another section showing the station information for the first station of the Lee-on-the-Solent branch line

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to notify you the other day, but I added it. LordSavage1997 (talk) 17:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gelliceidrim railway station

Not so long ago, you kindly wrote a Wikipedia article on Garnant station on the Llanelly Railway Brynamman branch line and I wonder if you have plans to write a similar article on Gelliceidrim railway station which is on the same branch line.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: I'm afraid I won't be able to because in the main sources I use at the moment, RVJ Butt and M E Quick, the opening/closing dates conflict each other. If I find a new source where the dates coincide with Butt or Quick, then I'll add it. Until then, I won't be able to write the article, sorry. LordSavage1997 (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your most prompt reply. It is annoying when main sources of information conflict each other. In another thought on another matter concerning the Llanelly Railway, in your future plans for Wikipedia articles, there are the three stations on the Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen branch line that need considering, when and if you can fit these into your forward scheduling. I find life is racing far too quickly as I will be 78 when my next birthday arrives.

for me

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dewsbury Market Place railway station

Could you be so kind as to add the "Historical Railways" box with information at the foot of the Wikiprdia article, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Done.

Proposed deletion of Huddersfield sidings

The article Huddersfield sidings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. My rail books don't give any indication of notability, e.g. long-term allocations.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic: Makes sense; that article was a dud that I made back when I was new-ish to Wikipedia. I'll add db-author to have it deleted quicker. LordSavage1997 (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Oxford Down Carriage Sidings

The article Oxford Down Carriage Sidings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability. Relies upon one source - a map. No long-term allocations.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic: Agreed. See above for reasoning. LordSavage1997 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Southport Carriage Sidings

The article Southport Carriage Sidings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Clearly fails WP:GNG. No long-term allocations and not a major depot.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bedford Carriage Sidings

The article Bedford Carriage Sidings has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Insufficient information to prove notability, unlike Cauldwell Walk. Thus fails WP:GNG.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Edge Hill Intercity Depot

The article Edge Hill Intercity Depot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability, fails WP:GNG. Relies entirely upon a single source.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwernydomen Halt railway station

Could you please add a Historical Railways information box at the foot of the article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Vale Railway

There are still two closed stations on this line without Wikipedia articles and as you have written some in the past on this line, I wonder if these are still on your "to do" list. Ynysgeinon.....topography states opened 21st January 1861, closed February 1862. Cwmtwrch Well Halt.....topography states opened 14th December 1935, closed 25th September 1950.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher: Sorry to disappoint you, but after this RfC passed, I don't have any plans to create any more railway articles. I could instead wikilink to the nearby commune and add content about the station that was around at that time. LordSavage1997 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you will no longer be producing Wikipedia railway station articles, as all the really hard work of yours in the past has been a boon to us lesser mortals.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAILSCOT

Is it now Wikipedia policy not to allow this source to be used as an accredited source in articles?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 04:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) theoretically yes per a discussion at the RS noticeboard, but it was decided that it is allowed to be used as an External Link; just not as an inline reference. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

L&YR Astley Bridge branch line

This was a short branch line with a terminus at Astley Bridge and an intermediate goods station situated at Halliwell. My query relates to the navbox at the foot of the Wikipedia article on Astley Bridge railway station that makes mention of Halliwell but not as a goods-only station. What is the Wikipedia protocol on matters such as that?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Railway, Scotland

On the attached RDT, two stations are shown as East Newport and West Newport. They should read Newport-on-Tay East and Newport-on-Tay West. Perhaps it all depends on what time period Wikipedia recognises as being correct for these station names. The ones already shown appear to be the original station names.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]