Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 129.49.72.78 (talk) at 19:07, 29 April 2011 (modest barnstar). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, G-13114, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Rugby railway station

Re this edit - please see the policies MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:YEARLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

First, the 'railway station' bit is added as a disamiguator, it is not part of the title, actually we should probably have it at Rugby (railway station) the station appears on timetables and on signs as just Rugby. For consistency, are you suggesting that we should bold Birmingham New Street railway station on that article? And if not why not?

Secondly, the policy you refer to appears to support the linking of articles that are related to the subject matter, such as 'xxxx in science' in science related articles. The article I linked was 1885 in rail transport, not the bare year article. If it is logical and acceptable to link to 'xxxx in science' on science related articles, and 'xxxx in music' on music related articles example. Then it is surely logical to link to 'xxxx in rail transport' in an article related to rail transport. G-13114 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

First: the "railway station" bit is not added as a disambiguator - it is part of the title. The name of the article fits in with the guideline at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (UK stations). We bold all three words because the topic of the article is neither the town nor the sport, which are the two primary meanings of the word "Rugby". If you look at most other articles on UK railway stations, you will see a consistency: the bolded part of the lede matches the article title in almost every case. See, for example, Euston railway station, Watford Junction railway station, Milton Keynes Central railway station, Northampton railway station, Coventry railway station, Birmingham International railway station, Sandwell and Dudley railway station and Wolverhampton railway station. Regarding Birmingham New Street railway station, this is one of the few exceptions, which I can't explain.

Second, I did note that you linked 1885 in rail transport, not plain 1885, but the opening of Rugby railway station was not one of the key events of rail transport that year. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kilsby and Crick railway station

Are you sure about your change to the coordinates in this article? This old OS map seems clearly to show the station as having been located to the east (not the west) of the overpass carrying what's now the A5 over the railway line. Deor (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to show that, but I know the area quite well. If you want to check for yourself, if you look at the closeup satelite image on google maps, you can clearly see part of the old up platform plus the old station master's house and approach road to the west of the A5. You can clearly see them from the road, and as you go past on a train, I know, I've been there. G-13114 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, just checking. Deor (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, having looked at this http://www.old-maps.co.uk/maps.html?txtXCoord=456380&txtYCoord=272646 I think you might have been right the first time. Maybe that was a goods loading platform or something. G-13114 (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To the right (east) of the A5. See here. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Exeter railway station

Hello, thanks for fixing a bit of a mess, can't understand why my move did't work, But?? Regards Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Midland Main Line infobox width

Hi, I've adjusted the infobox width to 520px, which is the narrowest that it will render without linewrap (breakup) on this laptop, which is running at 1280 x 800. I still think it may be better to re-detach it from the infobox, but it is better collapsed (although it took me ages to find the one at West Coast Main Line). Tim PF (talk) 22:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Doh! The West Coast Main Line "just works" with "box_width = auto", so I've fixed the Midland Main Line to use that also. I'm much happier with that, although I'm still not 100% happy with such really wide infoboxen once "shown". (Please reply here if needed). Tim PF (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it's certainly an improvement on what it was like before, the map totally dominated. IMO that whole article is a dog's dinner in need of a big revamp. G-13114 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with that. But then again, I'm not offering to do a cleanup, either. Tim PF (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford

I had seen the discussion and was going to stay out of it, but since you invited me I've offered my 2p on the subject here. --RFBailey (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! -129.49.72.78 (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)