User talk:Jackdude101

Welcome!

Hello, Jackdude101, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is against copyright to use NATO flags on wikipedia. EU, UN and OIC flags are copyright free so we can use them. Please refrain from using them in the future. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the talk page before editing the Belgian section of the ratification table. Thanks! Sigur (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Whyte Lightning, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whyte Lightning. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It said, "If you don't let us keep this, we're not going to announce it, motherfuckers." Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Astros4477. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Gemini (roller coaster), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cedar Point, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid some of your recent changes at the Cedar Point article. While some of your points are notable, they shouldn't be inserted into the article to transform it into a debate. Instead, I encourage you to start a new discussion on the article's talk page. Once the issue is resolved there, we can then decide how to best change the statements in the article if necessary. It did have the highest drop, so that should be taken into account in the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the use of the RailGauge template from articles about 3 ft (914 mm) gauge railways. The template is a standard convention used throughout articles about narrow gauge railways. Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are attempting to link the type of trains at various locations around the world to this article, but the article itself doesn't have any reliable sources. Where are you obtaining this information from? TrainWeb.org? That web site would not be considered a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, only the first mention of a term should be linked. (Or on long articles the first mention of a term in a while). If someone has read 2/3rds of the article and has read the term "3 ft. railway" 8 times, there is no need to keep linking the term. If they wanted to visit the article for 3 ft. railway, they would have by reaching that point in the article. Cheers, Dave (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Dave said. Easy there. Choess (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears your inquiry at the RSN about TrainWeb.org has some consensus supporting its use as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Thanks for starting the discussion there. My concern is resolved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three foot gauge railways 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:

• [[White Pass and Yukon Route]] (crosses into [[Alaska|Alaska, United States]] (operating)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kings Dominion 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(Click show ⇨)

|corkscrews]].<ref name="rcdbanaconda">{{cite web | title=Roller Coaster Database | work=Anaconda (Paramount's Kings Dominion | accessdate=28 July 2006| url=http://www.rcdb.com/id92.htm}}</ref> slides), Cyclone (three enclosed body slides, the center of which was a free-fall), Tidal Wave (two open slides, which riders rode on [[inner tube]]s, Splash Island (an area for children with gauge]]<ref>http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=3891 Steamlocomotive.info]</ref><ref>[http://www.steamlocomotive.info/vlocomotive.cfm?Display=5324 Steamlocomotive.info]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Dollywood, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.FirstDrop87 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only change I made to the Dollywood article was one change a week-and-a-half ago that simply noted that the park's railroad has a three-foot track gauge and nothing else. It's a small, key piece of information that is very worthwhile on the subject of railroads. I see from that article's history that an anonymous person made an unrelated change within the past few hours that removed some editorial content. If that change is what you are talking about, that anonymous person is not me. I only make changes to articles under my screenname. Please do not revert any of my changes without discussing them with me first. Jackdude101 (Talk) 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jackdude,

First of all, thank you four your latest contributions. I noticed that you:

• Removed the bullets I provided. IMHO bullets make a text more readable, and, more important, more compact.
• Provide numerous in-text external links where in-line citations are more appropriate.
• Make a huge amount of small edits, making it very hard to track changes as only the latest edit appears in my watchlist. Before editing, consider placing an "Under Construction" or "Work in Progress" template, during editing use the "Show preview" button to check your results.

Keep up the good work!--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'll make those changes regarding bullets and external links. The only reason I got rid of the bullets on the Three foot gauge sub-pages for the UK and the US was so that the pages would be styled the same way as the main Three foot gauge page, which has no bullets. I'll add bullets to that page, as well. Also, one option to see all of the recent changes to these articles is to observe my contributions page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jackdude101. Jackdude101 (Talk) 07:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Two foot and 600 mm gauge railways in the United Kingdom 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:

• *[[Great Bush Railway]] (located in [[Tinkers Park]] (operating)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Three foot gauge railways 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:

• reconstruction of the network in the early 2000s they were converted to {{RailGauge|1000|allk=on}}).

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fairbourne Railway may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• It was converted in 1916 to [[Ridable miniature railway|{{RailGauge|15}}]] railway|{{RailGauge|15}}]] gauge, and again to its present gauge in 1986. Originally built to carry building materials, the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you replacing {{RailGauge}} instances with, for example, 30? This could be done inside the template so all articles using it can have the benefit of your edit—with almost none of the work. Also, that would result in more standardization across articles and be much easier to maintain consistency between the components. —EncMstr (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The changes I made kept the RailGauge templates, but also linked them to a page listing 30 railways around the world. When you see them on the page after editing, they return the 2 ft 6 in (762 mm) text. All I did was add one or two links on both pages that you reverted (there were also some minor text changes). Reverting these very small changes I made is unreasonable. Jackdude101 (Talk) 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is that instead of editing a bazillion articles, you could simply update the template and achieve the same effect. If there are incidences of the template which should not be linked to Two foot six inch gauge railways, for example, the template could be enhanced to make that linkage conditional. —EncMstr (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have make the appropriate inquiry on the {{RailGauge}} template's talk page. You need to have special template editor rights to make these sorts of changes. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of this template, it is almost entirely implemented as a module and I see you found the right place to ask, Module talk:RailGauge#Including article links with RailGauge templates which is receiving positive feedback so far. After a few days, I might take a crack at making the edits, though I haven't done any LUA to date. —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary, you said:

"Zephyr name changed back to "Zephyr Railroad" with source. Park websites are not infallible with the information they provide. They only care about accuracy with specific ride names or precise stats to the point that it will generate profits."

All you had to say was:

"Zephyr name changed back to "Zephyr Railroad" with source."

I wouldn't have reverted your edit if you had provided the source to begin with. The reason is that the chart already has a source, the park's Guest Assistance Guide. And although you had good intentions and were basing your change on a fact, other editors down the road may not see those comments in the edit summary and change it back. Now that you've provided a source, that shouldn't happen. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the wrong assumption that because the change I made was so small, no one would care about the change, or whether a source was provided. Sorry. Besides my recent research on narrow gauge railroads, I have been researching roller coasters for several years, and I have come across several instances where the information given by parks (usually for parks in lesser-known, non-Western locations) is not simply inaccurate; it's a straight-up lie. I recall seeing one roller coaster in Vietnam advertised as being around 100 feet tall with a top speed of over 120 mph (on level ground with a traditional chain lift). Hence, I am always skeptical with the information that parks provide in terms of very specific information that a normal, everyday park guest would not care about. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three foot gauge railways in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of nice work in the gauge categories by you and Aaron-Tripel. I have one more bugging thing I keep seeing. IMO both Category:Track gauges by metric unit and Category:Track gauges by imperial unit could be cut out in the tree, resulting in one category for say the narrow gauges. Of course the subcategories must be sorted by size (irrespective of mm of ft.in), which looks not isdeal but is OK for a size cat (it's not a culture cat!). Maybe sort all like [[:Category:...| 0750.0]] (with space). -DePiep (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ah, I was not even aware of those categories separating all track gauge categories into imperial-only and metric-only (actually, I personally do not pay much attention to category pages in general). Since equipment can be interchanged with one another in some cases and since some countries use both imperial and metric, yes separating the track gauges this way is not needed. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the gauge width to the list of track gauges is not all that useful, nor particularly relevant to the article, which is what WP:OVERLINK seeks to avoid. The existence of other gauges is irrelevant to an article on the Johnstown Inclined Plane, as it is with most of the articles you are also adding the link to. One link for track gauge in the infobox and another for broad gauge in the article is fine. If there was an actual article for 8-ft gauge, then linking to it instead of the list would be preferred, but it doesn't. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 14:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one of the links in that article. Also, I respectfully disagree that indicating the existence of other track gauges with different railways is not useful, ESPECIALLY with the Johnstown Inclined Plane. Look at the List of track gauges and see where it is located on the table. You will discover by looking at this article that this railway has the widest track gauge of any operating railway in North America, and the widest track gauge for an operating funicular railway in the world! I think that's fascinating. Jackdude101 (Talk) 15:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Niagara has a point here:

• WP:OVERLINK does apply. We've gone through the process lately to change the RailGauge template linking to the corresponding article describing that particular gauge.
• This was discussed before: User talk:Jackdude101#Replacing. Quote: ...and be much easier to maintain consistency between the components...
• After the new templates had been implemented, your specific gauge links were all broken due to its syntax. And it will happen again if Railgauge templates are changed in the future (after the creation of new "gauge" articles).
• Your links only direct to a page, not a particular section of the page like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links. It is impossible to directly link to a particular row in a table like the 8ft gauge. Therefore the link is not relevant to me.
• The following categories in the Johnstown Inclined Plane article invite to a further investigation in the gauge/funicular topic we are interested in Category:8ft gauge railways in the United States, Category:Funicular railways of the United States. Far more precise than a general link to an article.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If I could find a source, I would add more on its unique gauge. It was actually incredibly difficult to even find the gauge for Johnstown. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 15:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check its official website? Its gauge is mentioned on its technical page. I wanted to confirm its track gauge yesterday, so I started by looking at its official website just in case they had this info, and they did. Jackdude101 (Talk) 17:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no...I visited the incline instead and they had some printed info I was able to use. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 16:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a close look at the following diff for example and PLEASE ask yourself how you think this is an improvement: [[1]]
• What is the reason behind changing railgauge templates from foot to inch in numerous articles?
• And what is the significance of spamming various articles with the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts link like [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]?

I don't understand this kind of overediting. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Item #1: these links were added prior to the conversation about the recent conversations about overlinking. Item #2: the only reason I have the imperial-based rail gauge templates in inches is to keep them all in the same format with inches listed. Only a handful have templates listed as feet (2 ft, 3 ft, etc.), but all have a template with the measurement in inches. Item #3: calling this spamming is a bit harsh. Disney rail transport consists of several monorails and narrow gauge railways, so it is logical to link to these articles. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. In spite of the discussions mentioned you just kept on overlinking. See the reverts of today.
2. Listing in inches only deviates from the category structure and the articles covering gauges like Three foot gauge railways, Three foot six inch gauge railways, etc. Moreover it's a waste of time as the template formatting is the same.
3. I still don't see any significance and logic in this.

1. Is it logical to have only one link for an item that appears a few times on a page like the Three foot gauge railways in the United States article, for instance, that has several hundred lines of text? What if in the future, the one linked item gets deleted or moved to a more specific article? Then you have no links left on the page. Hence, the extra links serve as "back-ups" in this regard, and keeps the reader from having to scan the article for the one single link. In some cases, based on common sense, only having one link for an item in a long article is not practical.
2. There are plenty of other imperial-based gauges without their own articles, such as 16-inch gauge or 14-inch gauge, and these are expressed only as inches in their rail gauge templates. The point is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything. Furthermore, if its a waste of time, then why are you changing them, then?
3. To elaborate on why Rail Transport in Disney Parks "deserves" to be mentioned on those articles you listed, many of the Disney railway lines are among the most heavily-used forms of transport of their kind in the world and the Disney Park chain of parks has more guests combined per year than any other park chain. The Walt Disney World Monorail System, for instance, handles around 157K passengers per day. Also, some of the older Disney rail installations are several decades old now, and some of the locomotives on the traditional railroads are more than or close to 100 years old. It should be noted that these same locomotives could easily have been sold to scrap dealers if the parks didn't buy them. Just because these transport attractions/systems are not common carriers and located in theme parks doesn't automatically mean that they are not relevant or any less important.

1. WP:OVERLINKING policy on Wikipedia:Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. If an article of 1,000 lines has a link repeated on line 600 there is no objection to keep te second link. A link repeated three times in the same paragraph is just plain overkill. Any undesirable future edits (removal of templates) should be adressed by closely monitoring your watchlist, not placing an excessive amount of duplicate links.
2. ...is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything... In my opinion, that's just impossible. Imperial versus metric, inch versus foot and inch, alphabetic versus historical order, etc. Using other units for Railgauge templates than its corresponding categories and article titles makes it harder to recognise a particular Railgauge when editing or reading text, especially for people accustomed to metric systems. When the list of track gauges, navbox track gauges, article titles and categories all mention 3ft 6in it is odd to use the devious 42in RailGauge template. Moreover, the Railgauge templates are only for conversion purposes and not intended for sorting lists by size or alphabet. Uniformity for the sake of uniformity serves no purpose.
3. Taking WP:NPOV, in particular WP:BALASPS in consideration, Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts is not less or more significant than a randomly chosen rapid transit rail system, famous heritage railway, abandoned railway or extensively used common carrier railway. There are numerous other railways transporting huge numbers of passengers, preserving steam locomotives or having other notable features. And these aren't listed in the "see also" section either. I chose the "spamming" qualification for all your linking behaviour, not only the Disneyland links (see the section header).--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...behaviour... Are you British, by chance? I'm American, if that was not already apparent.

Uniformity for the sake of uniformity serves no purpose. Uniformity is a part of creating order, which is what rules are meant to do. To suggest that it serves no purpose is to suggest that rules serve no purpose, which makes no sense. Instead of focusing squarely on rules, the focus should instead be applied to the result they are meant to create and how well they create order. If they do not create order or create disorder, they need to be changed or discarded entirely. What I am attempting to say, in summary, is the following: order > rules. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only partly agree that uniformity is a way to create order. I didn't suggest that it makes no purpose to achieve uniformity, I responded to your ...is to keep everything in a format that is uniform with everything... which gives me the impression that uniformity is your final objective instead of using it as a guideline to establish order. That's what I meant with "uniformity for the sake of uniformity". There is no "one size fits all" solution for the unique and diverse world we live in.

Im afraid the degree of uniformity you are trying to pursuit conflicts with the diversity present on wikipedia.

Have you ever considered changing all imperial railgauges to metric units for uniformity purposes? I hope not.

For example, your intention to change imperial railgauge templates to inches instead keeping "foot and inches" in some instances, results in what I call here "vertical uniformity", while my objective is to reach a "horizontal uniformity" in this domain by giving all elements of a particular gauge (like categories, titles and templates) a single identifying unit (as present in the list of track gauges or defined in an article). Using 3ft6in AND 42in is not uniform in my opinion. Needless to say our vision on uniformity conflicts in several area's.

If such a conflicting vision occurs, I first try to find and apply wikipedia policies as a guideline as these guidelines represent a consensus between Wikipedia users.

Wikipedia rules are not set in stone. If, in a particular case, applying common sense gives a better result than blindly following the rules, common sense should be the leading factor. However, when deviating from the rules, one should motivate this deviation and/or seek concensus.

I agree the focus must be on the result, not blindly following rules or applying impractical and rigid forms of uniformity.

In fact, order is very important to me. I put a lot of effort in the rail transport category structure. For example, I sorted the whole 3ft gauge category into countries and tidied all "rail transport by country" categories.

For a better understanding, which area's in the rail transport wiki project do you consider not uniform or disordered?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...which area's in the rail transport wiki project do you consider not uniform or disordered? The ones that you and I haven't touched yet. That's a very general statement, but it's not far from the truth from what I've seen. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles that mention a specific rail gauge now is created & being filled. Check your favorite gauge! More at Template talk:RailGauge. -DePiep (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When there is an abundance of whitespace next to the table, one should add images, not remove them. Never heard of any pattern guidelines for pictures--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you observe all of the other articles, you will see that that is indeed the case. One pic per country, and on country-specific articles one pic-per-state/territory (why you have not noticed this until now feels strange to me). If more pics are to be added, pics from a variety of countries should be used. On a related note, FYI, one of the pics I removed was one that I had added myself months ago (the one for the Statfold Barn Railway). Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, have you considered making separate articles for two foot six inch railways in the United Kingdom and the United States like you did for a few of the other narrow gauges? There seems to be enough entries added now to each of the two countries to justify their own articles. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very sensitive for this kind of patterns. When adding pictures I try to make a representation of all the various, diverse railways present for a particular track gauge. The UK for example has a great diversity of railways and if there would be five nice pictures on one page I would have no problem with that at all. For Taiwan, I like the contrast between the modern loco and the old shay (something quite extraordinary outside the USA). And when the amount of pictures exceed the table length we only have to remove the less interesting pictures. I already planned to put the UK, US and Japan into separate articles. You will only discover that there won't be much space on the left of the table, I have no problem if several US/UK will be retained on the main 2ft6in page. I will do this in the next hour. One last thing: Unbolding of hatnotes (the see more and main article links is more compliant with WP:MOS and will gradually be implemented in all track gauge pages.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Lead texts can follow later. I created an image gallery at the bottom. Maybe pixel size needs some tweaking. When patrolling my watchlist, I always restrict galleries to three. (as no empty whitespace is filled in this case). WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies. Extreme example: [5].--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep adding links to this site. On Puffing Billy to claim that it's the world's oldest surviving loco, then also at Rocket (a loco 15 years later) to claim that it's the world's first successful standard gauge loco. Do you not think that in the intervening years there had been quite a few successful standard gauge locos? Even excluding Puffing Billy as standard gauge (it has a gauge 4 inches wider) there were the Stockton & Darlington railway locos of the same gauge as Rocket and a number of smaller colliery railways around Tyneside. These were all the same gauge as Rocket. Even accounting for the rails of the L&MR being set further apart, this was merely a relaxing of the rail to wheel difference, not a change in the locos.

In what way does this site meet WP:RS? It doesn't even have any content, let alone content by discernible, authoritative authors within the field? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But no, just edit-war and add them for a third time. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Puffing Billy (locomotive) article before my edit, you will notice that it already states it as being the oldest surviving steam locomotive. Steamlocomotive.com mentioned this same fact, the Wikipedia article had a tag that it needed more sources, so I added it. In that article, I changed none of its actual content. As far as Stephenson's Rocket is concerned, you will notice that I did not state that the locomotive itself was 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge, only that it was the first successful steam locomotive to run on standard gauge track, which is factual. Yes, there were many successful steam locomotives prior to Rocket and some of them ran on track with a gauge SIMILAR to standard gauge, such as the Stockton and Darlington Railway at 4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm), but standard gauge does not apply to a range of measurements. Standard gauge is 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and ONLY 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm). Even if the track gauge is one millimeter more or less than that measurement, it is objectively not standard gauge and the very first time that this precise track gauge was used was on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Stephenson's Rocket was the first steam engine" is one of the most popular misunderstandings in the field. You've taken an article that was careful to avoid implying such and now made it support the misunderstanding. That is no improvement.

It is nonsense to think that "track gauge is one millimeter more or less than that measurement, it is objectively not standard gauge" Especially not in 1829.

Also in what way does this single-author site of negligible content possibly meet WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking as if I stated that the Rocket was the first successful steam locomotive PERIOD. That is not true. I stated that it was the first successful steam locomotive to run on standard gauge track. I am fully aware that it was not the first successful steam locomotive ever, which is why I added the bit about the track on which it ran. I'm certain that anyone not familiar with the material will finish reading the entire sentence before taking away information from it. You are making the assumption that any track gauge that is compatible with standard gauge is also standard gauge. That is 100% incorrect. Furthermore, those weren't cavemen that designed that railway. They had rulers back then, and the same measurements they used then are the same that are used now. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They had rulers back then" Yes, and in those days a "ruler" was used for ruling straight lines, it had no graduations on it. Measuring sticks of this size were rare and hardly consistent. "the same measurements they used then are the same that are used now." Approximately so. Usually. But only for the last 5 years. It had only been in 1824 that the British yard was really standardised at all accurately. Even then, trades like clockmakers kept their own peculiar measures. Measuring to an accuracy of half an inch over five feet was not an everyday achievement. Especially not on a railway line that was still using stone block sleepers, rather than cross-gauge sleepers.

Your millimetre claim is just wrong, even today, even for high speed running lines. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Raised at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#steamlocomotive.com Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stephenson's Rocket shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
5RR? That is _NOT_ how we work here. Discuss it and live with the result, however it goes, but don't just try shouting louder and more often because it makes you more right. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for your good work on the article and to related ones. The Piquette plant is of course hstorically important to Detroit and to the auto industry - plus t's a great looking building - but I think that adding the museum to the short list of Detroit cultural attractions in the Michigan article is beginning to push it. It's great that people can get inside of the building still, but as a cultural icon it is hardly in the same league as the DIA or even the Historical Museum. The Detroit section of the Michigan article is really there to provide a high-level overview. Indeed there are loads of interesting things going on in Detroit - and a ton of museums and attractions that could be added to that section to make it more comprehensive - but that's for other articles.

I figured I'd drop a note here rather than continuing in edit summaries and setting off an edit war. If you'd like to discuss it we can do it here or at the article - thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for messaging. The primary reason why I feel the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant is worthy of being on the short list for Detroit tourism in the Michigan article was because of this: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g42139-Activities-Detroit_Michigan.html. It's TripAdvisor's list of top things to do in Detroit (within the city limits) and the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant is ranked #4 out of over 120 other attractions (DIA is #1, Comerica Park is #2, and the Motown Museum is #3). The Detroit Historical Museum and the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History, museums already mentioned in the Michigan article, were #10 and #11 respectively. My point is that the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant is most definitely in the same league as the other attractions already mentioned. Jackdude101 (Talk) 14:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. TripAdvisor is but one website - and as best I can tell, its recommendations and rankings are crowdsourced. Such sources are not generally considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. The Piquette Plant is a nice place to spend an hour - but the DIA by contrast is well over a hundred years old and is one of the most respected art museums in the country. Indeed as you know, the DIA's collection - and its fate - was a key issue in the recent bankruptcy proceedings; and that's before you get to the Rivera murals. An article on Michigan really doesn't benefit by the inclusion of particular museums or attractions just because they made TripAdvisor's top 4 or 5 - whereas an article about Detroit, or Tourism in Detroit, will include all of those attractions no matter what TripAdvisor may say, and on those I'm glad you added this worthy, albeit minor, attraction. JohnInDC (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, it's not necessary to bypass a redirect in another article. As long as the Piquette Plant link continues to point to the Ford Piquette Avenue Plant article, readers clicking a link under the former name will get to the right place. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your related edit to Studebaker also raises questions. Firstly, please add a citation to verify Studebaker's acquisition of what would then have been a quite minor part of their massive facilities. (It's not mentioned in Erskine's 1918 history of the company, but might be shown as "Plant 10" in the photo on p. 54.) Secondly, if verifiable, that photo seems to show the old Ford plant next door to the former EMF plant, not "across the street". Also, the article Ford Piquette Avenue Plant states "The plant was spared disaster on June 20, 2005, when the former Studebaker/E-M-F Company Plant next door burned to the ground." (My italics.) Bjenks (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the Studebaker article and changed the symantics in the Piquette Plant article to say "across the street" universally. You can see the source here: National Historic Landmark Nomination - Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, p. 22. From this same source, the E-M-F Plant (the one that burned down) is described as being on Piquette Avenue on the West side of Brush Street, which makes the "across the street" description accurate. Per this same source, that newer building you see currently next to the Piquette Plant building was built by Studebaker in 1920 and both buildings were connected on the upper floors during the time Studebaker used them. Jackdude101 (Talk) 14:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Imzadi1979 mentioned above, it is not necessary to bypass valid redirects, such as Ford Piquette Plant. Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. Official names and NRHP names do not matter. Within the context of the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office, it is called the Ford Piquette Plant (see all the images here). Furthermore, NRHP and offical names don't always match, either (for example the Grand Army of the Republic Building is listed as the GAR Building, and it's name on the NRHP list should remain GAR Building). Please restore the redirect so that it matches the Michigan State Historical Site listing. kennethaw88 • talk 03:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for goodness' sake, the building says "Ford Piquette Plant". Using that name is not wrong. kennethaw88 • talk 03:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link in the article in such a way that the text reads "Ford Piquette Plant" to match the historical marker, but the link still goes to "Ford Piquette Avenue Plant." I am trying to avoid re-directs for this article for page view statistic purposes (with re-directs, the page views for the article get split up among several different data sets, which can mislead people into thinking that the total page views for the article is smaller than the true number). Hopefully, this is an acceptable compromise for you and we can drop this whole thing. Anyway, explaining the situation with the signage for the building being different from the building's official name is a great opportunity to apply abstract thought. You can observe on the historical marker and on the building's main sign that there is not a great deal of space for the full name, so it can be inferred that the official name was shortened for practical purposes (by removing the word "avenue") to fit it easily on the signage. Jackdude101 (Talk) 6:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I still get the impression that you have not read WP:NOTBROKEN. kennethaw88 • talk 18:04, 5 December 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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The "neighborhood" sections in the listings in National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan are currently divided into broad geographic categories with a short description. "Palmer Park Area," for example, includes Palmer Park, Palmer Woods, Sherwood Forest, etc - Palmer Park + some surrounding locations. Likewise, the "New Center Area" includes the New Center + some surrounding locations. If you're interested in proposing a new organizational methodology, that's cool, but please discuss at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Detroit, Michigan#City areas - definition (I created a new section for that purpose). Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Imzadi 1979 → 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:LQ, Wikipedia uses the "logical quotation" style, which means that the period goes inside the quotation mark only when it's part of the material being quoted. Thus, I have reverted the changes you made to the various subpages of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries. Regards, —howcheng {chat} 04:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I just reverted a couple of those edits myself. Jackdude101 (Talk) 4:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Disney monorail. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 14:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you're aware the Silver Line only operates 4 days a week: Tues., Thurs., and Sat. & Sun. I don't really consider that "regular public transit service" which is why I never added it to that list at Streetcars in North America. It might go better in the "Tourist service" list, actually... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jackdude101, where did you come up with the combined route length for San Francisco's E- and F-lines? The provided source only gives the route length of the F-line, and after looking I've never found any source that verifies either the E-line length or the combined lengths of the E- and F-lines? (Note: If you don't have an independent source for this, you should probably self-revert, as without a source it's definitely WP:OR...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the length back to the "F Line only" stat in both articles, as it is not important enough to me to argue about it. I was unable to find a source also, so I found it manually using the measuring tool in Google Earth (the additional trackage that the E Line uses exclusively from the Ferry Building down to the 4th Street station is 1.5 miles even). Formal source or no formal source, that stat is correct. It's not a big deal, man. Jackdude101 (Talk) 16:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but remember: one of Wikipedia's key mottos is Verifiability, not truth – in other words, it's less important that info be "true" than that it be verified by a reliable source. This is one of the hardest things new editors have wrap their heads around. But I find it particularly true about rail systems' stats – if you can't source a stat or figure, it's generally better to not even include it. But thanks for your clarification edits to those two articles – that should help! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your edits modifying links to Rail transport in Disney Parks: Redirects are not broken, there is no need to bypass them. I see from your talk page that this issue has been brought up to you before. Furthermore, do not edit other users' talk page comments without a good reason, as you did here. Thank you. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are interested in narrow gauge railways, and thus I would like to inform you about my new articles about John J. Coit's miniature railways:

• Venice Miniature Railway
• Eastlake Park Scenic Railway
• Long Beach and Asbury Park Railway --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. I like the connections to the BJWRR, as it appears to be one of the best miniature steam railways running today. Jackdude101 (Talk) 13:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disneyland Resort Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 13:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jc86035, I commented on the discussion at the link you provided. I don't think the world is going to stop spinning if there are two different route diagrams for the same line covering two different contexts for the line. Jackdude101 (Talk) 14:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've withdrawn the nomination. However, I strongly suggest converting the diagram to be {{Routemap}}-based, as the {{Railway line header}}/{{BS-table}} combination was deprecated in 2011. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 16:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! I'm a huge narrow gauge guy, mainly for Hawaii. The edits I made to the page needed citations, which I was going to work on (just got caught up with life haha) But I have various books about Hawaii's railroads, narrow gauge and standard gauge. I'd love to talk more about narrow gauges with you when you're able too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 808AntW (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• wrong colors on stations: got a better way to clearly show express vs. resort service?
• removal of accessibility icons: replaced by the note All stations are accessible at the bottom
  (ditto replacing all the  (HUB) icons with a note).

Also, you should not be bolding all the station names, as wikimarkup automatically bolds transcluded links. Useddenim (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stations are already labeled clearly (big=express; small=resort). Secondly, red-colored stations are meant to represent heavy rail stations, and the whole WDW Monorail System is light rail (i.e.: blue). Thirdly, without the hub icons, the ferry icon being next to the Grand Floridian implies that ferries only serve that resort, regardless of the note below explaining otherwise (I'm using the logic that images > words in this case). Lastly, I don't know whether you are aware of this, but there are now route diagrams for every Disney Park rail line and they are all displayed side-by-side in the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article (I am the original author for all of them except for, ironically, this one). All of those other route diagrams have their stations marked with accessibility icons where applicable, hence why the WDW Monorail System's stations are marked as such. For the purpose of allowing readers to easily compare the route diagrams, they should all be uniform in style, structure, etc. (as part of that, you may notice that all of them are exactly twelve rows high). If there is any significant change that absolutely has to be made to the structure of one of the Disney Park route diagrams, ideally that change should be applied to the others for the sake of uniformity. Otherwise, the changed route diagram is going to look like a "black sheep" when compared to the others. Jackdude101 (Talk) 4:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Jackdude101. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Dry Gulch, U.S.A., for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to dispute the deletion proposal, but I see that you removed the proposal already, so thank you for that. The primary reason why I wrote this article, and what makes it the most worthy for inclusion, is because of the steam railroad located on the site. Purpose-built tourist railroads that run genuine full-size steam locomotives are rare, but for those steam locomotives to be historic pre-1960 equipment is exceptionally rare (this railroad has two examples of these in service). The cherry on top is that these types of rail lines are typically found in amusement parks or outdoor museums, and it is absolutely unheard of for a place like a religious summer camp to have one of these. Jackdude101 (Talk) 2:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, your input on the editorial quality of the First Transcontinental Railroad article which you contributed to in the past is needed here. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 22:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to take out Highland Park Ford Plant from Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 7. There's a 1916 item that gets preference due to it being the 100th anniversary, and we need to have both chronological and geographical diversity. We'll save it for next year. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Walt Disney World Railroad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking forward to working with you on this article. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Congrats, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Walt Disney World Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Walt Disney World Railroad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might enjoy adding Template:User Did You Know to your userpage, now that Walt Disney World Railroad will be going on the main page as a part of DYK at 27 January 08:25 (Eastern). Elisfkc (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ^talk 12:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've created  (CCAR), which may be of use to you. Useddenim (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackdude101. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Disneyland Railroad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Disneyland Railroad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Disneyland Railroad for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Disneyland Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Disneyland Railroad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bob1960evens -- Bob1960evens (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jack. I'm just posting to let you know that Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for July 17. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to congratulate you on the hard work you put in on Disneyland Railroad and elsewhere on Wikipedia. You are really helping to improve areas of the site that tend to get neglected. This FA promotion was well-deserved! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoneIn60: Thank you. I am very passionate about these subjects (the common thread with all of them seems to be old-timey vehicles, and steam trains especially) and I want more people to become interested in them, hence the heavy editing that I have been doing. Hopefully, certified quality content will draw in more people who will also become interested in these topics. On a related note, I recently put up the Walt Disney World Railroad as an FA candidate here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney World Railroad/archive1. You are welcome to comment on that one. The review is moving swiftly, but I still need a source review to move the nomination into the final stage of the process. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your track plan diagram to the original sketch, but if you can provide a diagram that better shows the actual layout, it would be OK. As it is now, people get no idea of what the track really looked like! --Janke | Talk 11:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram still doesn't represent the actual shape of the track. --Janke | Talk 08:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Disneyland Railroad scheduled for TFA article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 7 August 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 7, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Walt Disney World Railroad! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and for today's Ford Piquette Avenue Plant, a former car factory owned by the Ford Motor Company in Detroit, Michigan. From 1904 (when it was built) to 1909, the company used the building to produce several car models, including the Ford Model T, which was created and first made there. It was also the first factory where more than 100 cars were built in one day, and is currently the oldest car factory building in the world open to the public."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1704 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Carolwood Pacific Railroad, "a ridable miniature railroad run by Walt Disney in his backyard. The locomotive was produced from scratch by the Walt Disney Studios' machine shop, as well as several of its train cars. The wooden portions of the caboose, including its miniature interior, were built by Disney himself. The CPRR was a product of Disney's lifelong passion for trains, and it inspired him to create what would become known as Disneyland. The work experience gained from building the CPRR's rolling stock, its structures, and the landscaping around it were applied towards building Disneyland"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IronGargoyle (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sketch is by me, traced from Michael Broggie's book. The original is © Disney, so it can't be used. (That non-free image would be deleted immediately if I upload it here). If you don't have the book, I can send you a better, scanned drawing, if you contact me by e-mail. I don't mind at all having my sketch replaced by a better drawing! You can discover my e-mail address by visiting my Live Steam page, http://www.sparetimelabs.com/animato/animato/steam/index.html - look at the little black loco vignette on the bottom! Best regards, and thanks for your great contributions to the Disney railroad articles! --Janke | Talk 10:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Check out my videos, especially the one where I run on Ollie Johnston's track!

@Janke: Thanks for sharing the videos. I've never actually seen footage of Johnston's backyard railroad. Do you happen to know if there are any online videos of his full-size railroad in Julian? Yes, I do own the Michael Broggie book. It's my primary resource for editing most of the Disney train Wikipedia articles. Also, take another look at the CPRR route diagram template when you have a moment. I made significant changes to it over the past several days and I think it's improved to the point that it can substitute the hand-drawn sketch of the CPRR's layout in its article. Let me know what you think of it when you have a moment. Jackdude101 (Talk) 01:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: Yes, the template looks s lot better now, but still, I don't think it gives as good a "feel" for the shape and size of the layout as the drawing in the Broggie book (or even my sketch). It would be great if you can somehow translate the exact proportions to a diagram - using Photoshop, Illustrator, Gimp, whatever... and even better with a measurement! (I don't have time right now, preparing for another run day with my steam locos - my "3003" is very similar to the Lilly Belle, same size, same gauge, same time period!) -- You can find videos of Ollie's train (Walt's too) with a simple search on YT - try "Ollie Johnston backyard railroad" for starters... you'll find my clips, and also Ollie's "Family album" containing some footage. Haven't seen footage of his DLP full size layout, but the Marie E. (now John Lasseter's) did run on the Disneyland track - try those keywords! Best, --Janke | Talk 18:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: I am assuming the drawing in the Broggie book to which you are referring is the one on page 113. I used that to design the route diagram. Because route diagrams are meant to be simple, linear affairs and were never meant to be used to represent complex, physically accurate model layouts, it will be impossible to make a 100% accurate version without having it take up most of the computer screen. I am actually fine with your hand-drawn map in the article. My only concern is whether this will become an issue during this article's featured article review several months from now (they are very persnickety about image copyrights). Hopefully, it won't be an issue, but if it does become one, I will notify you and invite you to join the conversation. Jackdude101 (Talk) 19:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: To be really honest, in this particular case, I think that readers are more interested in the actual layout than in a technical diagram (which is great for general RRs which go from one city to another) - I'll see if I'll have the time in the near future to do something about that sketch, if you don't want to; any traced copy of the Broggie illustration which doesn't use the actual lines of the original will not be a copyright problem. --Janke | Talk 07:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackdude101: I uploaded a better sketch, remember to purge your browser cache to see it... --Janke | Talk 13:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Janke: The new map you made looks spectacular! Thank you for taking the time to make it. It will be a great compliment to the article, and will pair well with its future GA status, and FA status after that. On a semi-related note, I just got back from a day trip to Disney World with my kids (it's 90 minutes from where we live), where we took pictures of the pieces of CPRR rolling stock on display in the Villas (timeshares) at Disney's Wilderness Lodge. I'll be uploading some of them to Commons, so watch for that soon. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jackdude, I have a large number of promises to keep and things to do over the next week or so. If you can find another reviewer to weigh in on the prose for Walt Disney World Railroad, go for it. If nobody else reviews the article before August 5 or thereabouts, I'll try to get to it. Finetooth (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting the Disneyland Railroad to be a Featured Article! Since it has become one, I took a look at its Wikidata entry and noticed a lot of information was able to be added. I did add some new stuff (like sponsor, length, gauge, Facebook, TripAdvisor, etc.) but I was hoping you would take a look and make sure everything is correct, as well as adding anything if need be. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisfkc: Thank you for your efforts. Any enhancements to this article's Wiki presence is valuable, imo. I made one correction concerning the DRR's change in ownership. Per a sourced piece of info in the Retlaw Enterprises article, ownership of the DRR was transferred to the Walt Disney Company in 1982. Everything else looked great. Jackdude101 (Talk) 02:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My belated congrats for your TFA a few days ago, and also congratulations for getting Walt Disney World Railroad to featured status as well. Are you planning to make a Featured Topic with Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts? epicgenius (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: Thank you. I was thinking about creating a Disney Trains topic to group them all, actually, but I can't decide whether it should be a Good Topic or a Featured Topic. The ones you mentioned are indeed featured, but, hypothetically, if the other Disney train-related articles were to also be improved in the future, many of them would probably not be able to get past GA status, due to a lack of quality sources available, lack of free images, etc. A great example is the one that I'm currently improving: the Grizzly Flats Railroad. I am confident that I can get it upgraded to GA status, but not to FA status, due to the lack of free images for it on Commons. What do you think? Jackdude101 ^talk cont 02:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could also go for Good Topic, if you want to improve them all to Good Articles instead. Good Topics could also include Featured Articles, but either way is good. epicgenius (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I attempted to create a featured topic today for Disney rail transport here: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Disney rail transport/archive1, but unfortunately, because most of the other Disney train-related articles are not even close to any kind of acceptable level of quality, the nomination was closed. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 01:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about that. I think you could add more articles and then re-nominate it in some time. I just want to commend you on your great work so far, though: 3 featured pages is a good start.

In related news, I also am creating a KML file for Walt Disney World Railroad. I will upload that, and the Disneyland Railroad KML, when I get back from my vacation next week. After that, you could add the {{Attached KML}} template whenever you want, or edit it if I made an error. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I created the KML files but didn't put them in the articles. epicgenius (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted, if you could add a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit, pleaese. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit in Disneyland Railroad with the statement that "... templates should be kept regardless of how they appear in the tool-tip preview." Why would you want to make Wikipedia less friendly to users by doing that? Content in inline templates is suppressed in tooltip previews, usually making the lead paragraph nonsensical when critical information is omitted, so users are forced to open the article in a new tab or page, when all they might be interested in is getting a brief overview of the topic quickly. Remember, Web sites exist only to provide information to site visitors, not for the convenience or vanity of Web editors. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 15:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrargyrum: When I see this article's preview after hovering over its link, there is nothing nonsensical about it. The only thing omitted are the metric equivalents, which is not a big deal. I should note that this feature is a beta feature and not something that everyone currently uses. Furthermore, this never came up during its FA review or the FA review for Walt Disney World Railroad, its sister article. My main concern is maintaining consistency in the article. There are conversion templates used throughout the article, and, to me at least, it makes no sense to make an exception to this and inefficiently type out metric conversions manually in the lead section all for the sake of a feature that's still in its beta phase that not everyone uses. If, however, its release version still doesn't show the metric conversions, then I would be open to doing this. Jackdude101 ^{talk cont} 18:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I use tool-tip previews, I want to see numbers, such as distances, lengths, elevations, and so on. To visitors who are raised in countries where the metric system has been the norm for several generations, trying to interpret old Imperial measurements can be very inconvenient, indeed. All kinds of information can be obfuscated by hiding it within inline templates, but by avoiding use of inline templates in the lead paragraph, the issue of crucial information being invisible is entirely avoided. Without that information, one is forced to open the article and wait for the page to download and render, which takes many times longer and uses much more bandwidth than a quick peek at the lead paragraph. Saying that tool-tips are a "beta feature" is disingenuous, as that feature has been available to registered Wikipedia users for something like ten years. As for saying that not everyone uses this feature, I don't understand your argument: It would be like letting a bridge deteriorate to the point of collapse because "not everyone uses it". (After it collapses, most certainly nobody will be able to use it.) In most cases, templates in the lead paragraph can be replaced simply by inserting "subst:" before the template name, so there is no significant effort in making the site more user-friendly, and it doesn't need to be done throughout the body of the article. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 00:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Because it would be extremely difficult to enforce the absence of template use in lead paragraphs across all articles, it would make more sense for the tool-tip feature to implement a fix to resolve the issue. Has this issue been brought up at Beta Features/Hovercards? Are you even using Hovercards, or are you using the older NAVPOPS gadget? If it's the former, then that beta feature has only been around since 2014. With the emergence of HTML5 in the last few years, I'd imagine there's a way for the gadget's creators/maintainers to find a way to resolve the issue. Might be worth mentioning on the gadget's discussion page. As for your suggestion to use SUBST: before the template name, I'm curious as to why you didn't try that in this edit? Your change might have remained had you attempted that instead, assuming it worked as expected for both parties. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoneIn60 read my mind. If you can't see templates the way they are supposed to be displayed in the tool-tip preview, it's the gadget's fault, not the article's fault, and as such, you should open a discussion to get the gadget fixed. It would be a much more logical course of action than removing perfectly good templates in the lead sections of thousands of articles. Jackdude101 ^{talk cont} 01:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Grizzly Flats Railroad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RickyCourtney -- RickyCourtney (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Grizzly Flats Railroad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Grizzly Flats Railroad for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RickyCourtney -- RickyCourtney (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Grizzly Flats Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Grizzly Flats Railroad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of RickyCourtney -- RickyCourtney (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Carolwood Pacific Railroad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Carolwood Pacific Railroad you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Carolwood Pacific Railroad for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gat