User talk:Redrose64/requests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redrose64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Button Fact
Hi Redrose64. I'm a bit new to the editing of pages in Wikipedia so thought I'd drop you this note on the Button fact you mention on the discussion page of "List of Formula One World Drivers' Champions". Sky Sports have the fact listed on their website at http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12538_5637133,00.html.
Can that now be used as a reference to allow you to include the fact on the main page? Regards, Boris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisbadgerbear (talk • contribs) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Updated 2009 Formula One season with fact, welcomed above user also --Redrose64 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong#Requesting Move. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, that is OK, if you know somebody who would be interested in this topic please let him know. The point is that the page does need some impartial assessment. Thank you again. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
help with updating {{cite video game}}
Been trying to figure out how to update this template for something akin to the other templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite video}}, but as i'm not skilled at coding am running into a wall. One of the key problems is core doesn't have enough feilds. Video games are inherently non-linear so many of the usual citing of specific sections fail. In addition, like other media, every video game uses different divisors to determine where it occurs, if any.陣内Jinnai 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
{{underconstruction}}- The thing to to is to examine all the distinct parameters which are recognised by
{{Citation/core}}, and decide which would be most suitable for the information which{{cite video game}}is to show. For example,{{Citation/core}}has|Date=and|Publisher=, whilst{{cite video game}}has|date=and|publisher=- there is clear correspondence there.|Edition=could be used for|version=;|Surname1=for|developer=, and so on. (please wait, Redrose64 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC))
Not done Since this is outside my area of interest, I've really not done anything about it. I see that a thread has now been raised at Template talk:Citation/core#Need updates to support "cite video game". Any further comment should be directed there. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Bruce Rowland (drummer)
This article, thanks to your help, is now long enough for a WP:DYK nomination; I'd like to add his work with Ronnie Lane and others, but his chronology from 1983 - 1992 on Allmusic is blank; any ideas? Also, it seems difficult to update to what he's doing now apart from the occasional Fairport live gig. I'd propose for DYK "... that Bruce Rowland, Fairport Convention drummer, also backed Joe Cocker at the Woodstock Festival and played on the original Jesus Christ Superstar album?" - a bit banal, perhaps, but I've had less exciting hooks accepted. Let me know what you think. A free image would also help, but I can't find one. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hawkhurst branch
I know this is a bit outside your usual territory but I wonder if you would be interested in helping us get Hawkhurst Branch Line to FA status in time for the 50th anniversary of the line's closure on 10 June 2011? A question has also arisen in connection with the proper referencing of a journal article using the sfn template: when quoting a journal article - say from January 2010 - should the correct formulation be {{sfn|Smith|January 2010|p=1}} or should the month be dropped? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Have replied at User talk:Lamberhurst#A challenge --Redrose64 (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 | This user helped promote Hawkhurst Branch Line to good article status. |
- Oooh, ta! One for the userpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- The 50th anniversary of closure approaches. I'd like this to appear on OTD. I did ask at Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries about this a while back but have had no feedback. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oooh, ta! One for the userpage. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk:List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom
I asked some questions in the Criteria for Inclusion section on 20th Dec but no-one has yet responded. Can you take a look? GrahamHardy (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Bosnian Royal Family
Hello, and thanks for editing the page I wrote. I hope find it worth of Wikipedia, given that you took time to correcting it. But of course I may be wrong. In any case, would you care participating in the ongoing discussion on the proposal by some that the entire page be deleted, which was posted quite hastily 10 minutes after the page was up? The discussions are at Talk:Bosnian_Royal_Family, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosnian_Royal_Family and related at Talk:History_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina_(1463–1878). Regards Bosnipedian (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- These all appear to be heated debates. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- Well, true. Although, when you invest time writing a comprehensive article with many new reliable references presenting new findings by historians on a subject, and get faced with a hasty deletion request within 10 minutes from putting the page up, what can you do but defend yourself. Bosnipedian (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Revision of old FAs: LSWR N15 class.
Hello again. Whilst the K/K1 article is under FAC, I have been working on revising and improving some current FAs in the light of obtaining more material and experience with more recent FAs. Would it be possible for you to have a look at the result, which is located at User:Bulleid Pacific/Sandbox 1? The intention is to give it the lowdown on C/E and prose, then paste it to the main article, possibly putting it under FA review if necessary. If you could, I would be most grateful. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Do you want me to amend directly, or suggest on a talk page? If the latter, which talk? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can amend directly, as I have a hard copy saved on MS Word should anything go drastically wrong. Ps. Just discuss any problems on my talk page under an appropriate title, and I'll follow from there. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Is there anything that you've been able to find wrong with the revision in my sandbox thus far? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- You can amend directly, as I have a hard copy saved on MS Word should anything go drastically wrong. Ps. Just discuss any problems on my talk page under an appropriate title, and I'll follow from there. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Midland Railway
I see that you've created Template:MR colour, which is useful but touches on a problem that I've unintentionally created. If you look at the colours list you'll see that the MR and LMS colour codes are identical. My understanding is that whilst both used venetian red , the MR's version had a slight brownish tinge (maroon?). I played about with the MR colour but couldn't get it quite right. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- The hex colour values are indeed identical. I took the MR value from the list which you linked above. I did consider setting up
{{MR colour}}simply as a redirect to{{LMS colour}}, but then decided against because one may need to be amended independently of the other. At any one time, the locomotive and carriage shades were supposed to be identical; but regarding the actual shade, it depends which books you read! ... the subject of Midland carriage livery and that of its LMS successor has already been covered comprehensively in ... Midland Style, published by the Historical Model Railway Society in 1975 ...
Midland Red (Crimson Lake) - shade remaining consistent from 1883 to 1923 (and during the LMS period to 1939), save for any variation in manufacture. There was never an official instruction to alter the colour itself until 1946 when the LMS changed it to 'Maroon'. (Jenkinson & Essery 1984, p. 179)The standard LMS body colour was crimson lake, being basically the ex-MR shade. This colour has been discussed at length elsewhere so the argument will not be repeated here. The shade may have become a little darker as the years went by but until 1946 the nomenclature never changed. In this year, the LMS changed the name to maroon although whether there was any noticeable change in the actual colour is conjectural.
In 1956/7 when BR adopted an all-red coach livery, a definite attempt was made to revert to the pre-war MR/LMS shade and careful matching of painted panels indicates that this was achieved, especially when BR coaches were newly ex-works. At the same time, BR never reverted to calling the shade 'crimson lake' and it was always referred to as 'BR locomotive hauled stock maroon'. However, as the shade is more recent in history than LMS red, it will probably help readers to visualise the colour more readily. (Jenkinson & Essery 1977, p. 41; Essery & Jenkinson 1991, p. 41)- The paint recipe is also given on subsequent pages of the two LMS books. There are, however, factors that affect the final paint shade which are independent of the proportions of pigments used - these include (but are not limited to):
- the nature and colour of priming, sizing and undercoats
- the nature of the binder used when making up the paint (linseed oil was normal in Midland/LMS days)
- the number of main colour coats
- the number of varnish coats
- the type of varnish used
- actions carried out between coats (such as stopping and rubbing-down)
- Considering, for example, the type of varnish; in LMS days the varnish was linseed oil based, and was a definite yellow. Modern varnishes are normally polyurethane, which is almost colourless. To appreciate the difference, look at a coach painted in LNWR livery. The upper panels of preserved examples are normally pale blue - but they should not be. The correct colour for LNWR upper panels is
dry White Lead, ground in raw linseed oil with '... just sufficient Ultramarine Blue added to counteract the yellowing of the varnish in the finishing coats' (Jenkinson 1978, p. 22)
- Thus, by analogy, a preserved coach in allegedly LMS livery may also be "too blue", because the varnish isn't yellow.
- Essery, Bob; Jenkinson, David (1991). The Illustrated History of LMS Standard Coaching Stock - I: General Introduction and Non-Passenger Vehicles. Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 86093 450 0. T450.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Jenkinson, David; Essery, Bob (1977). An Illustrated History ofLMS Coaches 1923-1957. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 902888 83 8.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Jenkinson, David (1978). An Illustrated History of L.N.W.R. Coaches (including West Coast Joint Stock). Headington: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 902888 90 0.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help) - Jenkinson, David; Essery, Bob (1984). Midland Carriages - An Illustrated Review. Poole: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 86093 291 5.
{{cite book}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
- Essery, Bob; Jenkinson, David (1991). The Illustrated History of LMS Standard Coaching Stock - I: General Introduction and Non-Passenger Vehicles. Yeovil: Oxford Publishing Co. ISBN 0 86093 450 0. T450.
- Now, Essery & Jenkinson are normally very WP:RELIABLE sources. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Based on the above - would you not say that █ #AF1E2D ("sign red") would be more appropriate as the MR colour? If not, could I ask you to have a gander at these two pages (warmer reds and colder reds) to see if there's a better colour? The current crimson lake colour is too light (see for example the modelling page here: stationcolours). Lamberhurst (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have examined the stationcolours page, particularly the blocks titled "London, Midland & Scottish Railway Red"; "Midland Railway Dark Red" and "British Railways London Midland Region" - these three colour dabs are identical in shade, being, quite simply, #800000. This is reasonable given that, as stated above, the BR 1956 colour was matched to "the pre-war MR/LMS shade", so the three should be the same (where a difference existed in real life, it was between the earlier and later LMS colours, the later one being darker). Whether #800000 is a faithful reproduction or not is an entirely different matter: this being such a precise value (50% red, 0% green, 0% blue) suggests a desire for ease of use in computer software rather than accuracy of appearance.
- The problem with trying to pick a good match on a VDU screen for a paint colour is that you are considering items of different nature. The VDU screen uses emitted light and additive mixing, whilst a painted (or printed) item uses reflected light and subtractive mixing. Colour-matching one to the other hardly ever works - try doing a scan of a printed item containing an area of plain, solid colour, display the resulting file, then hold the printed item close to it. They will never look the same, no matter how much you tweak the component colour proportions. Even if you then get it to look almost right, adjust the brightness and/or contrast controls of your VDU; the colour changes immediately and the match is lost. My brightness/contrast are almost certainly set differently from yours; so what looks "right" for you probably looks "wrong" for me.
- I don't think that we should seek an exact shade, but one that is representative. If the MR and LMS colours should be different, the MR colour should be the lighter one, and the LMS colour the darker. On this basis, since your suggestion of AF1E2D is darker than the existing value DC143C, then
{{LMS colour}}should become AF1E2D, and{{MR colour}}can remain as DC143C. Here are some samples for comparison, together with 800000 as suggested by the stationcolours page:
- Based on the above - would you not say that █ #AF1E2D ("sign red") would be more appropriate as the MR colour? If not, could I ask you to have a gander at these two pages (warmer reds and colder reds) to see if there's a better colour? The current crimson lake colour is too light (see for example the modelling page here: stationcolours). Lamberhurst (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| Preceding station | Historical railways | Following station | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cleeve Line open, station closed |
Midland Railway Using colour value DC143C |
Cheltenham Line and station open | ||
| Cleeve Line open, station closed |
Midland Railway Using colour value AF1E2D |
Cheltenham Line and station open | ||
| Cleeve Line open, station closed |
Midland Railway Using colour value 800000 |
Cheltenham Line and station open | ||
- --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - more complicated than I had imagined! I had become too overconfident after I managed to pin down the colours for the BR regions. I'll take up your suggestion to switch the LMS colour. It would be nevertheless useful over the course of time to add in the missing railway companies to the colours page with their representative colours (e.g. GNR/M&GN). Lamberhurst (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
- --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Done at least, the {{MGNJ colour}} is done, while for {{GNR colour}} I've pinched the value from {{LNER colour}}. It can be adjusted later (something darker I expect), and presently looks like this:
| Preceding station | Disused railways | Following station | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminus | Great Northern Railway To Leicester Belgrave Road |
Orton Waterville Line and station closed | ||
| Terminus | Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway Sutton Bridge line |
Eye Green Line and station closed | ||
--Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good stuff with the
{{SMJ colour}}. A much needed colour. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
N1 class?
Hello there! Just wondering whether you'd like to have a look at the SECR N1 class article? I've spent a little time expanding it and would like to have an outside opinion on both prose and content. I've also asked EdJogg so between us we could potentially see this article through to FA. Just a thought, anyway. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The Lizard - parishes correction
Hi Redrose64, thank you for your very helpful suggestions about Lizard parishes. In the light of your comments, I've substantially reworked the map and corrected the text here. I'd greatly appreciate your opinion again please – leave comments on my talk page as before. Many thanks, Andy F (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Time to dig out the maps; I know that I have all the OS N.P. Edn and 7th Ser maps for Cornwall somewhere... --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you have time that's be great, thanks. I based the current version on Cornwall Council's "interactive" map which shows civil parish boundaries. My map is a sketchmap, more a schematic, so it's the approx locations and relationships we are after rather than every twist and turn of each boundary. Best wishes, Andy F (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
GWR Avalanche
This is listed under GWR 3031 Class as a 4-2-2 locomotive - but looking at the dates, I take it this is a different locomotive, using the earlier name. Apologies. I thought the standard gauge 4-2-2s were recycled from the broad gauge 4-2-2s locos - but looking at the dates, it appears not. Thanks. Mish (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- The 3031 class consisted of three groups. The first eight (3021-8) were built in 1891 as broad-gauge 2-2-2 but designed for conversion to standard gauge 2-2-2 (the conversion of these locos occurring in 1892). The next 22 (3029-30, 3001-20) were built 1891-2 as standard-gauge 2-2-2, being rebuilt as 4-2-2 in 1894, as were the first eight. The final 50 (3031-80) were built 1894-9, and were always standard-gauge 4-2-2.
- None of the locos used components from any true broad-gauge engines; however, all were named, and most (if not all) reused names (but not the actual nameplates) from old broad-gauge engines, many long since withdrawn. The final 50 got names when new, but the first thirty were named in 1893 (ie those built for the broad-gauge were not given names until after they had been rebuilt for the standard gauge). Details are in
- Reed, P.J.T. (1953). White, D.E. (ed.). Part 2: Broad Gauge. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Kenilworth: RCTS. p. B47. ISBN 0 901115 32 0.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help) - le Fleming, H.M. (1954). White, D.E. (ed.). Part 7: Dean's Larger Tender Engines. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Kenilworth: RCTS. pp. G7–G12. ISBN 0 901115 18 5.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help); Unknown parameter|month=ignored (help)
- Reed, P.J.T. (1953). White, D.E. (ed.). Part 2: Broad Gauge. The Locomotives of the Great Western Railway. Kenilworth: RCTS. p. B47. ISBN 0 901115 32 0.
- BTW I watch all talk pages where I leave a message. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, interesting. From what I can make out, the 2-2-2 arrangement put too much load on the front wheels? And the 4-2-2 arrangement was phased out because there could be issues with traction using only one pair of drive wheels? I am only trying to clean up the links on the 3031 Class page - as they all link to what they are named after, not the locos themselves. I don't suppose you happen to know if anybody has ever made a OO model of a UK 4-4-2 locomotive, by any chance? There are plenty of 4-2-2s, 4-6-0, 2-6-0, 0-6-0, 4-6-2 Pacifics, etc. but I can't find any details of anybody having made any models of the UK Atlantics. Mish (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- The first 30 of the GWR 3031 class were rebuilt as 4-2-2 because of the derailment in Box Tunnel on 16 September 1893; it was partly the heavily-loaded front axle, but also the short wheelbase compared to the length of the boiler.
- The 4-2-2 wheel arrangement went out of favour because of increasing train loads (corridors came in in the 1890s, restaurant cars a few years later), and the adhesive weight could not be more than 20 tons. Four coupled wheels would allow 40 tons adhesion.
- There have been no 4-4-2 locomotives in 00 scale as far as I know; I have previously searched for these in
- Ramsay, John; Hammond, Pat (2002) [1998]. King, John (ed.). Ramsay's British Model Trains Catalogue (3rd ed.). Felixstowe: Swapmeet Publications. ISBN 0 9528352 7 4.
- and not found anything. Neither is there anything in the more specialist books on Hornby-Dublo, Tri-ang/Tri-ang Hornby/Hornby Railways. I think the main problem is lack of scope. A man at Dapol told me they would only consider a model if it could be produced in at least three different liveries, each with a variety of running numbers. Most Atlantics were extinct by the end of 1951, so a BR livery is not possible for these; the only exception which I know of is the LB&SCR H2 class, which lasted until 1958 - but there were only six of them. Also, if a class of loco was only used in one part of the country, models of it might not sell well in other areas; for example, the GNR C1 almost never got beyond York. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, interesting. From what I can make out, the 2-2-2 arrangement put too much load on the front wheels? And the 4-2-2 arrangement was phased out because there could be issues with traction using only one pair of drive wheels? I am only trying to clean up the links on the 3031 Class page - as they all link to what they are named after, not the locos themselves. I don't suppose you happen to know if anybody has ever made a OO model of a UK 4-4-2 locomotive, by any chance? There are plenty of 4-2-2s, 4-6-0, 2-6-0, 0-6-0, 4-6-2 Pacifics, etc. but I can't find any details of anybody having made any models of the UK Atlantics. Mish (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Model locos
Thanks, I guess also that the chassis for the Pacifics is similar across the different variations.Mish (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Er, model or real loco? Which class(es) are you thinking of? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Model.Mish (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, whilst in the past it was the practice to share components between model locos (in order to cut down on the number of new moulding tools that were required for a new model launch), that doesn't happen so much these days. The big manufacturers - Hornby and Bachmann - are in direct competition, and they are now fully aware that the model railway press - particularly Railway Modeller - will take the micrometer to all new models and check against the diagrams of the real loco. Hornby's models of Southern Railway pacifics, for example, cover three main variants: rebuilt Merchant Navy, rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain. At a casual glance, the two rebuilt varieties look the same - and maybe fifteen years ago Hornby would have made one moulding cover both - but put the models side by side, and you'll see the differences - length, wheelbase and dome position relative to the centre coupled axle are the main things to look for, but there are others. The rebuilt and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain may share some chassis components, but probably not all. This contrasts with the situation of circa 1972 when one chassis was shared by the Tri-ang Hornby Princess Royal, Coronation and Britannia. So if you can give specifics, I might be able to help further. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing specific. I have four locos, only two have ever run a 0-6-0 tank, and a Battle-of-Britain class Winston Churchill made by Triang around 1969. About ten years ago I bought a Flying Scotsman, kind of in memory of the time I rode on that from York to London, which was its 'final' trip, around 1968. Then I was bought Mallard a couple of years ago - both Hornby. I was struck by how the Mallard is a bigger loco than the other two, which are about the same size. I have just picked up a Britannia on eBay. I'm quite keen to get a rebuilt Merchant Navy Class, and a rebuilt West Country Class, and the Coronation Class unrebuilt and rebuilt. That's all 4-6-2s. But I was interested in getting a 4-4-2 as well - except nobody does them, and then a 4-6-0 and 8F and 9F. Then there's That's all I was thinking about really.Mish (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- OK, whilst in the past it was the practice to share components between model locos (in order to cut down on the number of new moulding tools that were required for a new model launch), that doesn't happen so much these days. The big manufacturers - Hornby and Bachmann - are in direct competition, and they are now fully aware that the model railway press - particularly Railway Modeller - will take the micrometer to all new models and check against the diagrams of the real loco. Hornby's models of Southern Railway pacifics, for example, cover three main variants: rebuilt Merchant Navy, rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain. At a casual glance, the two rebuilt varieties look the same - and maybe fifteen years ago Hornby would have made one moulding cover both - but put the models side by side, and you'll see the differences - length, wheelbase and dome position relative to the centre coupled axle are the main things to look for, but there are others. The rebuilt and non-rebuilt West Country/Battle of Britain may share some chassis components, but probably not all. This contrasts with the situation of circa 1972 when one chassis was shared by the Tri-ang Hornby Princess Royal, Coronation and Britannia. So if you can give specifics, I might be able to help further. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- Model.Mish (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
