User talk:Geof Sheppard

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to Geof's talk page!

I will normally post any reply to your message here on this page so that the conversation is all in one place.

Welcome to the Commons, Geof Sheppard!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−
Crystal Clear app korganizer.png First steps tutorial

Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

Icon apps query.svg Getting help

More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.

Transmission icon.png Goodies, tips and tricks
  • Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities.
  • All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery
  • Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~
  • Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!)
  • To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg
  • If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper
Nuvola filesystems trashcan full.png Made a mistake?
  • Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}}
  • For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Contents

File:Salisbury TMD 159003 159017 159022 158887 960012.jpg[edit]

Nice photo, with the heritage DMU peeking out at the end. I also liked the St Ives boarding - never seen a sprinter so busy. It's a shame so many of your photos are 800*600 - if they were at least 2megapixel, they could be quality images. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I need to be careful about bandwidth so I can't post the volume of pictures that I would like if they were all high resolution. Quality or quantity, what a choice! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
As for that overcrowded Sprinter, this is a typical bank holiday afternoon at St Ives (it was Good Friday 2009). Unfortunately the four-car set that started the day had to be reduced to just two cars in the afternoon. I was aware of this so positioned myself at the right spot to photograph the back cab when it arrived and everyobody was jostling for a space in the train. The high angle added to the impact – having a large LCD display on the camera means I can hold it at arms length and still have a good idea of what is visible through the lens. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Flax Bourton station[edit]

Hi, I reverted a few of your image moving to the Flax Bourton railway station category as the images were not actually of the railway station, or even pointed towards it. That being said, I should go and get some better photos of it sometime. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They really do need to be grouped as Flax Bourton station - a "station" should include all the area of that was covered by sidings, which at Flax Bourton ran from the western portal of the tunnel down to the west end of the cutting. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

rm of Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives[edit]

Hi Geoff, I was just wondering why you're removing Category:Preserved Great Western Railway steam locomotives from images? It's not an implied supercat on those that I've seen, e.g. File:Dumbleton Hall Nameplate 37427.JPG
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now finished tidying up the Great Western locomotives – there were pictures scattered across half a dozen different categories! I have checked that they are all in sub-categories of Category:Great Western Railway steam locomotives.
The preserved locomotives are now in sub-classes such as Category:Preserved GWR 4900 Class locomotives so that they can be found either through the preserved locomotives categories or from their class category, in this case Category:GWR 4900 Class. I have also introduced a new dimension of categorisation. Category:GWR locomotives by type groups together locomotives by wheel arrangement, which is useful if you can't tell your 4700s from your 4900s! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

I found this oddly fascinating, with the line running so close to the river. Got any more pictures of this part of the line that you can upload for me? :) Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As well as the Looe Valley Line, you will also find pictures of trains running alongside rivers (and the sea) on the St Ives Bay Line, Avocet Line, and Riviera Line. Don't forget to take a look in the station sub-categories such as Lelant and Dawlish. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Livery cats[edit]

Hi mate, I wanted to say that I'm concerned that adding images to "class xyzs of wessex trains" etx just because they have a wessex livery, even after franchise passed to First great Western may be a bit confusing. Perhaps we could add livery categories as well as operator ones? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and while I think of it, thanks for correcting my Blaenau image as 2 153s rather than a 150. I feel ashamed of myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
We certianly need to difuse the big categories such as the ones for Class 150s - these can only get bigger over time, and when they are too big people can't find what they are looking for. I was toying with the idea of going down to, for example, "British Rail Class 150s of First Great Western in Wessex Trains livery" which could then be a sub-category of the two TOC categories, but decided against it (for now) because
    1. the names are rather long, and
    2. it wouldn't put all the pictures of, say, 150266 in Wessex livery in one place.
As we are unlikely to get a big influx of new Wessex Train's images now, I think that adding a Wessex category to images already categorised as FGW is the best of two poor options. Adding a note to the description explaining the livery would also help. Mind you, if (when?) the FGW categories get too big, we might need to think about it again. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking more a second categorisation structure, "British Rail Class 150s in Wessex Trains Livery" or "British Rail Class 165s in Dynamic Lines livery" (or maybe just "Trains in Dynamic Lines livery", which may intersect the operator cats. At some point I was planning to go and try and do something by line... -mattbuck (Talk) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That would work - some of the loco categories are already done by livery. In my mind Commons is largely an image database and so the colour of the train is often more relevant than the operator, which is why it has things such as Category:Blue trains.
I started trawling through these images looking for ones missing location categories (I've found several of Plymouth, lots of Welsh stations, and a few "between stations" west of Bristol). Categorising by line would work for me; I work on the principle that nearly every image should say, as a minimum, what it is and where it is.
Once I get to the end of the West Country train images, my next job is to revist the stations and lines to make sure they are consistently categorised. As part of that I guess the huge Category:Bristol Temple Meads will need some difusing. "Steam trains at...", "Frieght trains at...", "British Rail Class 43s at...", perhaps?
PS is "dynamic lines an official designation used by First Group? I can only find it used by enthusiasts but not in official publications. And what was the livery before that really called? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
It seems a widely used term, I'd probably go by what the Platform 3 publications say, or RAIL magazine, so London Midland is a livery, as is Silverlink, and FGW Dynamic Lines or I think it's FCC City Lights. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right about needing to diffuse the BRI cat (why the hell network rail didn't use BTM as the TLA I'll never know), and it's a reasonable idea. When it comes down to it, you could go much further, "BRI platforms 13/15", etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Bristol Temple Meads reached 477 files in mid-May (and at least 4 more have been added since), but the main category has now been reduced to just 60! I haven't done any geographic sub-categories this time except for the fringes - Bath Road Bridge and Depot; East Junction. Next time (in a year or two?) I would expect that categories such as "old station", "main train shed", "station approach" will be needed.
I see you've started on the livery categories. I'll let you get on with that for now, I'll carry on tidying up the stations down the line.Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Hey mate. Been working on categorisation of 158s by livery. Do you think that Category:British Rail Class 158s in Regional Railways livery and Category:British Rail Class 158s in Express livery should be separate cats? In general I've tried to avoid renaming a livery when the only change is lettering - eg EMT & SWT share a cat, and ATW trains that use the old W&B livery with Arriva stickers are classed as W&B. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Oh, and another thing, your category of DMUs at Temple Meads - technically 220/221s are DEMUs, not DMUs. Maybe it would be better to just organise it "trains at Temple Meads by class" and include all locos and stuff in the came category. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that slight changes in lettering probably don't need a new category, so the Express livery and the ordianry Regional Railways livery could share the same category. You could persuade me differently if the livery was still in use and lots of photographs being taken of it.
Hmm. That would mean that the Wessex Trains named units don't need seperate categories, but this might be useful so that, say, 153369 could be a sub-category of Looe Valley Line so that the individual images of it don't have to carry that category.
As for the 220s, I was just following the convention of Category:Diesel multiple units of the United Kingdom. I certainly wouldn't offend anyone by calling them a DMMU! The problem with a single category for trains is how to sort them: 08, 143, 150, 153, 158, 220, 31, 37, etc. It's even worse if there are electric units mixed in! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Try adding a zero to the start of 2 digit ones so they sort under 043 rather than 43, that way it sorts nicely and probably isn't too annoying. I'll collate the RR/Express cats as suggested. Not sure what you're talking about with 153369 - something like Category:British Rail Class 158s in Wessex Alphaline Trevithick 200 livery? Individual liveries like this I've put in their own cat, but kept the parent generic, so it's a subcat of Category:Trains in Wessex Alphaline livery, not Category:Trains in Wessex Alphaline Trevithick 200 livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought of using zeroes for loco classes: [[Category:Trains at Bristol Temple Meads|043]], but then they are grouped under the number "0", which is not instinctive. The alternative is that they all get listed under "C": [[Category:Trains at Bristol Temple Meads|Class 043]].
153369 is named Looe Valley Explorer and has images some categorised for that line, but that means that you find pictures of Exeter St Davids appearing in Category:Looe Valley Line! Of course, where the livery is unquie to one unit, should the category be "British Rail Class 158 158747 in..." or "British Rail Class 158s in..." :) Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going for the more generic 158s in ..., as even though it's exactly the same thing, creating a cat specifically for an individual unit seems rather crazy. If you change from just using numbers to Clas XXX then that creates a lot of consistency problems elsewhere.
Speaking of consistency problems, would you like to weigh in on User_talk:Redrose64#Filton_Xc_service regarding Filton Abbey Wood? I added in the Cardiff-Bristol-Manchester XC service, but the stop at Filton causes some problems as to keep it consistent with other stops of the journey it has to be inconsistent with all other services at the station. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you say that the Northern 180 livery is different from the FGW 180 livery? The stripe on the Northern one is a different colour, but otherwise they appear the same. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A tough one that. I've often had the same thoughts about the Northern Class 142s that work out of Exeter with FGW logos. I think that I would vote for seperate categories because of the missing pink stripe and logo. But it's a close call. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you say the TPE Dynamic lines livery is different from the FGW/FHT one? It's a lot lighter at the top. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Category moving[edit]

Hey. Just a thought, but you might find it easier to do category moving via HotCat, Cat-a-lot and CommonsDelinker. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Holcombe[edit]

Just so you know Holcombe is techically part of Dawlish, not Teignmouth. The sea wall to the south of it is contiguous with the Teignmouth wall, but its not "in" Teignmouth. The boundary is actually at Sprey Point, where the welcome to Teignmouth sign is. (Which also provides a logical break in the wall, if a less good one).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll make sure the sea wall categories match. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Category removal[edit]

Hi, re this cat removal - the green coach is a Mark 2, so why should the image not be in Category:British Rail Mk2 coaches? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Only 3/4 of the coach is in the picture, and what's left is largely hidden by the signal, which isn't categorised. Does this part-view really deserve categorisation? It is seen much better in other views in that series, say File:6024 King Edward I-04.jpg. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Category names to keep simple[edit]

Hello, it is better not to add unnecessary synonyms in cat names. Also, unnecessary numbers. Cat names should remain simple. If one knows the first number, no need for the second in the title. --Havang(nl) (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The current 5700 Class sub-categories don't make much sense when seen in their Category:London Underground ex-GWR 5700 Class 0-6-0PTs parent category.
I see. The moves may be done either way, but you have the final choice. We try however at longstanding move request to look for alternative possibilites; one of them is improving the description. I'll move them now. Do you adapt the sortkeys? --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Line sorting[edit]

Hi mate, just to let you know I've created a few templates to subst to make it easier to sort trains by line.

-mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Minehead railway station MMB 10.jpg[edit]

Hi, are you sure this is a 115? I marked it as 117 per the en.wp WSR page, which seemed to indicate there was a 117 at Minehead awaiting restoration. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If only that SR goods brake wasn't there... if the part of the car hidden by the brake van were visible, it'd be easy.
Class 115 DMBS have 7 passenger doors and a short guard & luggage section (about 11 feet (3.4 m) long); class 117 DMBS have 6 passenger doors and a slightly longer guard & luggage section (about 17 feet (5.2 m) long); cl. 117 DMS have 9 passenger doors (and no guard & luggage section).
If you count the driver's door as no. 1, then doors nos. 2-7 are passenger doors on all three types. After that they vary:
  • cl. 117 DMBS - door 8 is the guard/luggage double door, and there are no more after that
  • cl. 117 DMS - doors 8, 9, 10 are passenger
  • cl. 115 DMBS - door 8 is passenger, door 9 is the guard/luggage double door, and there are no more after that
Note the presence of a grab rail just rear of door no. 8. This discounts a cl. 117 DMS, because on those the grab rail was just rear of door no. 10; but does not discount the cl. 115 DMBS, which had two of these grab rails: just rear of each of doors 8 & 9. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
When examining diagrams and stuff for the above I missed the bl**dy obvious... door no. 8 is a normal height outward-opening door, so is for passengers. If it were a guard's door, it would be inward opening, with its bottom edge some three or four inches above the normal level. Thus, this isn't a 117; I would go for class 115 DMBS. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know all the the WSR's power cars are class 115; the only class 117 cars they have at present are trailers. As far as I know it is car 51852. See en:List of rolling stock preserved on the West Somerset Railway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll edit my notes accordingly. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Useful template for you[edit]

I've created a handy template for trains - {{ukt}}. Put in as {{subst:ukt|Class|3-digit unit #|Operator|livery|line}}. If you just have a class, either use 3=Operator, 4=Livery, 5=Line; or replace the # with XXX. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there's now a variant {{ukc}} for coaching stock - same parameters, but with class replaced by say "3", or "4 DVT", and the 3-digit unit # replaced by the coach's stock number. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

InterCity liveries[edit]

Hi, Currently there is a train in InterCity "Swallow" livery in Category:British Rail Class 43s in InterCity Executive livery, although I accept it's essentially the same livery. meanwhile trains actually in InterCity "Executive" livery have been put in Category:British Rail Class 43s in InterCity black livery a name I have never seen used outside commons. The names I have allways seen used are; InterCity "Executive" livery for the trains branded "InterCity"; InterCity "Swallow" livery for the trains branded "INTERCITY" and with the swallow (obviously); an unbranded version used on mixed trafic locos was called "Mainline" livery, see the gallery on en:InterCity (British Rail), I shall now tell the other person involved then leave allone. best Oxyman (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know names so I just went with black/blue intercity livery. It's easy enough to change, I can just task delinker to it. But we should probably work out what liveries they are really. I mean, the InterCity blue livery is really just a variant on BR blue/grey; and all InterCity black liveries, executive, swallow or otherwise, are really just intercities in a black livery of some name. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here's my stab at it...
    1. British Rail green livery (locos, MUs)
    2. British Rail maroon livery (diesel hydraulics)
    3. British Rail blue livery (locos, suburban MUs)
    4. British Rail electric blue livery (some electric locos - is this the same as "chromatic blue" used on a few diesels cicra 1964?)
    5. British Rail blue and grey livery (long distance MUs, later all MUs, first HST livery)
    6. British Rail Pullman grey and blue
    7. British Rail refurbished DMU livery (white with blue stripe)
    8. InterCity Executive livery (two greys with red and white stripes)
    9. London and South East livery (jaffa cake)
    10. InterCity Sector livery (the one with the Swallow - locos are now predominatly white)
    11. Regional Railways livery (originally Provincial Sector)
    12. Network SouthEast livery
While we're at it, I'm not sure that we have First Group/FGW blue and purple really sorted out! Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
So which of the InterCity liveries have the yellow stripe on the 43? -mattbuck (Talk) 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
OK I know I said I was going to leave allone but "Sector" livery is the same as "Executive" livery, Sectorisation happened in 82. "Executive" livery appeared in 84, why make up a name for swallow livery when you know the actuall and well recognised name? at least you got most of it right "chromatic blue" was a variant of paint shade used for rail blue in the early years. The cicra 1964 livery was called "XP64 livery" it was used on one loco, a class 47. Oxyman (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I "know". The English Wiki page has no citations - was 'Swallow' a term that appeared in official documents, or was it just another nickname popularised by the enthusiast press? I'm always keen that we use descriptions if we don't have an official name. Again, the "mainline" name needs to be confirmed. I would be very wary of using it in Wiki as it would then need to be disambiguated from the later Freight Sector livery.
Having slept on it for a day (and then been unable to save my comments yesterday because Wiki went down), I am convinced that the correct answer is that the original HST livery should be called blue and grey. Don't forget that these were designed as DMUs, and DMUs at the time were painted in blue and grey. It's just that the HSTs have a much larger yellow end :) Even if we don't rename the category, it should become a sub-category of British Rail blue and grey livery.
The 'black' livery then needs to be moved to Executive livery, and the one picture of 'the other' livery be recategorised into... Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, so anything black we call executive, anything blue we call blue and grey, I assume the prototype is still prototype or is there some other livery for it? -mattbuck (Talk) 09:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
"The English Wiki page has no citations" Yes but we should know how it works and we should knoe that if there was disagreement it would have been raised there and sorted out there. Instead of trusting that process you seem intent on making it up as you go allong. It seems to me that the wiki page is better research than the alternative of no research. The 'Swallow' name is so well publisised that unless you have a reference that it is called anything else, I can't see why it should not be used. The alternative of "anything black we call executive" is better than is as current as it's not actually black it's grey. I understand your concern about the "mainline" livery and see dificulties with aplying it, but again you are ignoring some research over your favoured option of no research. To be honest I can't be bothered looking for citations and it's pointless anyway as you seem intent on wikilayering in order to make stuff up (nothing will satify you) and doing so useing no citations whatsoever. Oxyman (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Just seen you attempt at a covert message "I think it's blue and grey, but one swallow doesn't make a livery" why don't you bring this to the conversation rather than more wikilayering. Again it's making stuff up, is there a citation for this? I suspect not! anyway it was acompanied by other changes but this isn't worth going into as you won't listen to anything other than what you wish to make up. Many of your comments show lack of actual knowledge in this area yet you refuse to listen to someone that actually knows about this stuff why is that? Oxyman (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm just asking! Like a lot of people, I think that robust citations are important if Wikipedia is going to respected as an encyclopedia. If you think we have an answer, then I'm happy for it to be applied. The thing that makes this place so useful is that there are people like you who know some of the things that people like me and Mattbuck don't. And vice versa. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"I think that robust citations are important if Wikipedia is going to respected as an encyclopedia". What I can't understand is why you don't apply this to your own suggestions and actions, but prefer your own made up names to sourced names. Sorry but I think it clearly wikilayering when you insist on the most extreme robustnes for others sugestions but fail to produce any citations whatsoever for your own suggestions. Please explain your mindset that prefers your own made up stuff to some research. Where are your Citations? I'm just asking! Oxyman (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that English Wiki would have them - I haven't contributed to the article that lists BR liveries because other people seem to know a lot more about this (and presumably have more sources of information) that I do. Now can we finish this discussion about the best names for these categories? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Again you (deliberately) miss the central point, there was some sources but you prefered your own constructed structure and insisted on actual references from BR an almost imposible thing and you knew it! and of course your structure dosn't need any citations! a hyporcritical standpoint if ever there was one. Can we adress the point about some sources being better than no sources please? Oxyman (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Compared with the topics that I usually study there are plenty of reliable references for the BR era. A visit to the library has produced the work of lots of reliable journalists and historians which I have now used to correct and expand the livery section of the article. I'll summarise it here:

  1. Inter-City launched in 1966 using the same blue and grey stock as other services, and later added an 'Inter-City' name on passenger coaches.
  2. The APT-P was painted in a new grey and grey livery when it was built in 1978. This was the first time that the hyphen was dropped.
  3. Executive services were launched in 1983 using refurbished trains in the same scheme. It was referred to as the 'APT' livery at the time. Later it sometimes appears as 'Executive' but this name appears to have been dropped officially in 1985, after which it becomes 'Inter City’ livery. By now it was being used on West Coast Main Line and Gatwick Express services, amongst others, so dropping the Executive name seems sensible.
  4. In 1987 the logos were changed to INTERCITY and the swallow introduced. There was no official change to the colour scheme, although the amount of yellow was drastically reduced. British Rail appear to still just call this 'InterCity'; the railway press variously called it at the time 'new InterCity' or 'INTERCITY'.
  5. It was policy to only apply this to 'all InterCity trains that meet high quality standards', hence the appearance of older locomotives with no branding.
  6. Oh, and some were painted in InterCity livery but carried a ScotRail logo!

Now, what does that mean for categorising liveries in the Commons? Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am impressed that you have done some research, but I am afraid your references are incorect, I suspect selective blindnes and cherrypicking of statements you argeed with has ocored, in order to POV push. Regretably this is all too common practice on Wikipedia, meaning that citations are often not worth anything, degradeing wikipedia as a whole. For example Brand new class 90 locos were given the mainline livery, how on earth did these not meet high quality standards? http://www.class90electriclocogroup.co.uk/livery_combinations.html Oxyman (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved the original livery into blue/grey, let me know when you come to a consensus on what to call the black one and whether the different levels of yellow are worth differentiating. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am satisifed that the references given are 'correct', that is they were printed in reliable journals by staff members or in books by historian authors. Some quoted BR sources to support them - anyone is welcome to look up the sources that I have cited to see this for themselves.
Of course, this doesn't mean that there aren't other reliable references out there. For example, I don't think I noticed anything notable about the livery of the Class 90 (File:90001 Crewe 1987.jpg shows it to have been launched with INTERCITY branding). I certainly didn't come across the term 'mainline' in any of the quoted magzines or books, although I am aware of it being used in enthusiast circles.
However, I'm not sure how much effort we should put into this for the sake of Commons categories. If you look through the other livery categories, you will find that the use of different logos (or lack of them) is generally discounted. You'll see what I mean if you look at Category:British Rail Class 150s in Silverlink livery which includes both Silverlink and First Great Eestern units in the green and purple colour scheme. The differences are important when we come to the categories by livery, but InterCity, Scotrail and Railfreight Distribution would all qualify as Category:British Rail Class 90s of British Rail.Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not satified that the sources given are correct and as I said you are cherrypicking to falsify information http://arthropoda.southernfriedscience.com/?tag=cherry-picking , I'll explain this to you thurther as you don't seem to have got it first time round, I am not saying that those sources dont exist but that you have chosen the sources you like in order to POV push ignoring contrarary facts , I did not say all class 90s were given mainline livery as new, I said some were, This proves a LIE to the claim that only old loco's were given the mainline livery. There are plenty of images of this including the one on the link I gave you (which no doubt you chose to ignore). There was nothing unusual about the class 90s. many locos were given the mainline livery but not because they were old as your cherrypicked sources claim Oxyman (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I only reported what BR's intention was when they launched the livery. I'm sure people can find other references if they try, as experience shows that lots of varations exist for most liveries.
But I ask once again: what does that mean for categorising liveries in the Commons? mattbuck proposed (9 March): anything black we call executive, anything blue we call blue and grey which I can live with if there are no other proposals. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
"I only reported what BR's intention was when they launched the livery" So now we find out that you have used Weasel words and you yourself kow that the policy changed soon after. therfore again useing cherrypicked sources, the ones that agree with your POV, and by the way most of your sources are from Ian allen which cater for enthusiasts so no better or worse than any other enthusiast stuf. The problem with "anything black we call executive" is it is just making stuf up as you go allong, even your cherrypicked sources say that term was dropped. Probably best to call the black stuff 'InterCity Sector livery' a term you posted first, as they were all luanched dureing sectorisation, or do I need a quotation from british rail to suggest such a thing? I would have agreed to do this all along had you not descended into wikilayering as you did,
Oh and pointing to what has been done in other livery cats is hardly good argument as the cats are inconsistant, again cherrypicking comes into play. If the categorisation was sound I would not have needed to post here in the first place. If the 'black' intercity livery needs references from BR why no references for the other livery cats? I constantly have to grit my teath as more imagianative names appear for liveries, I dred to think what will happen when someone gets arround to say class 08s many of which have unique non standard liveries? Why does item of rolling stok have to have a livery cat? even stuff that has appeared in only one livery? it's all rather a mess. Oh and if you are going to create another livery cat please check that one has not already been created for it useing an imagianative name! Oxyman (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
InterCity Sector livery works for me, but nobody else seems to have used 'sector' in these categories, so is just '...in InterCity livery' even better?
I'd prefer sector to stay as some sort of descriptor, for the livery, as I said before refering to what has happened in the other cats is not good argument Oxyman (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

South Devon Main Line[edit]

Hi Geof, I noticed you put a load of pictures into south devon main line categories - we don't appear to have an article for that on en.wp, what exactly are its boundaries? -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the bit between the Category:Bristol to Exeter Line and the Category:Cornish Main Line. On English Wiki they have recently decided to call it Exeter to Plymouth line, but historically it is the main line of the South Devon Railway. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I ask because I got around to sorting Bristol to Taunbton and Reading to Plymouth back into constituent parts again. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomas pic[edit]

Hey, I grabbed this snap of a "Thomas" at Buckfastleigh this week. I'll probably upload it and a few others from the SDR that day sometime. One thing I'm not sure on, do you have any idea which (class of) locomotive it really is? I think the photos in Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (real steam locomotives) ought to have the info on which loco has been defaced, its ultimately just an unusual livery :)--Nilfanion (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of these are old industrial locomotives, but I'm not sure which this one is. Have you tried the Thomas editors on English Wiki? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Categories for individual units?[edit]

Hi. Thought you might want to weigh in at my en.wp talk page about potential categorisation by individual unit. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorising cropped bus images[edit]

Hi Geof. Regarding cat additions like this, it was originally my intention not to categorise bus images that have been cropped to isolate the bus in another image (having fully categorised the crop) to prevent uneccessary duplication, ie there's no point having both this and this in the Volvo Olympian category etc etc. For such cropped images, I generally include a geographic category if there's some worthwhile scenery etc, but that's about it. Therefore, for the purposes of Category:Unsorted UK bus images I consider any image already in Category:Cropped UK bus images to have been 'sorted'. Can you follow this logic and do you agree with it? If yes to both, I'll be removing all the ones that show up on an catscan intersection search for unsorted & cropped from the unsorted cat. Ultra7 (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I'm all for anyhing that will reduce the volume of images in categories to a useful number - not too large and not too small. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I'll continue on that basis then. Ultra7 (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Share your photos[edit]

Hello, Geof! I know that I am free to share (to copy, distribute and transmit) your works published here due to free lincences. And I want to upload you photos of buses to the BUS TRANSPORT united photo gallery, but administration of this site requires the consent of the author to publish his photo there. If you agree, just write about it here or you can register yourself there and spend boot from first-hand. Yours sincerely, Sidik iz PTU (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read Russian, so I can't interact easily with that site. Any images that are uploaded to Wikipedia with a Creative Commons licence can be used elsewhere provided that the author/source is credited and the same licence is applied to the copied image. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Scotland's Railways saltire[edit]

Hi Geof, I was wondering what source you're using for changing from Scotland's Railways livery to Saltire livery. I think I set it up using the livery names from RAIL, which said Scotland's Railways. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The reference given on English Wiki announcing the livery uses that name: Scotland's new Saltire train livery has been officially unveiled... and the same name is used in other generally reliable publications such as October 2011 Modern Railways. "Scotland's Railway" is the marketing tag line that appears on the side of the trains. Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Bishops Lydeard railway station|2010-08-10 12:05[edit]

I was curious, why do you categorise a station category by date? I was trying to upload some images to that a month or so back and found it made it a lot harder to work out which images I'd already uploaded. Sorting a date category by date makes sense, as does a train category by train, but I fail to see the logic in sorting a station category by date. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have used this for some time to bring older images to the top of the page at avrious stations. I took it a bit further on the WSR stations to see if it helped group images that were taken at around the same time as there seem to be batches uploaded on certain days. It certainly helps me spot images that might not be fully categorised, but I'm still evaluating whether it is worth the effort. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Using some of your pictures[edit]

Hi Geof, I´m a lifeboat-enthusiast from Germany, and I´ve a website (www.grimmi-online.de) with the focus of lifesaving at sea.

And now my question: is it possible to use your photos of the Hurly Burly and the building of the lifeboat-station Penlee on this website? Tell me please, how I´ve to credit the pics. Hope to hear from you, thx in advance.

Greetings from Germany

....and sorry, my English isn´t so good......

--Grimmi59 rade (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alle Bilder auf Wikimedia Commons können wiederverwendet werden. Sie müßen nur zu zeigen, mir als Fotograf. (Ich finde, daß die richtige deutsche ist. Sehen Sie dies). Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Railway photos[edit]

Thought you might be interested in something Magog the Ogre has set up for me. Any photos which are uploaded in Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom now end up on subpages of User:Mattbuck/Railways. Thought you might want to watchlist or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

3850 climbs out of Watchet[edit]

Hello. I voted for "3850 climbs out of Watchet ..." this morning and I thought, afterwards, that you are the photographer : a "~" lacks at the end of your signature which is, consequently, invisible. I hope I'm not wrong. -- Anyway, just a remark about " A Dennis dart operated by Crosville Motor Services in Weston-super-Mare." It needs a slight perpective correction, so as to make the wall on the left and the bus both straight and parallel. I apologise I didn't tell you before but I think you can easily and fastly fix it with Gimp or some equivalent soft. -- Sorry for my English. Best regards. -- JLPC (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take another look at it. I was trying to capture the thunder cloud behind and

did not notice the wall. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Williton station 2012.jpg[edit]

I appreciate it helps with passenger movement, but I can't help but feel the place looked better before the bridge was put up. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It looked terrible at first without the roof, but a little better now. But on busy days you get loads of people standing there taking photographs so (a) passengers can't cross the line easily, and (b) they get in the way of me taking pictures looking the other way! Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Anglia Railways[edit]

Category:British Rail Mk2 coaches in Anglia Railways livery is not the same livery as Category:British Rail Class 170s in Anglia Railways livery. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anglia Railways always used turquoise and white, but they applied it differently to different classes of rolling stock. Each class only had one version of the livery. To sub-categorise them as "Anglia Railways windowed" or whatever smacks of of over categrorisation - we're forcing people to drill down through too many levels to find the images. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
First group always use pink, white and blue; but that doesn't mean dynamic lines is the same as local lines or city lights. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
But Class 150s have appeared in two different First Group liveries (and have a lot of pictures too) which means the disambiguation serves a useful purpose. Anglia only ever used one livery for their Class 170s (with very few units involved, nor pictures likely to be uploaded) so disambiguation isn't necessary. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That is not the issue. The point of the categorisation is to distinguish between different liveries - the liveries are different! A naming scheme needs to be consistent: we put all 378 trains in "trains of LO" and "trains in LO" even though for a long time they were one and the same. If two trains have the same livery, they should be in subcats of "trains in livery X". If they don't have the same livery, they should not both be in subcats of "trains of livery X". -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
"It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure." Are you suggesting that by calling all the variations just 'Anglia Railways livery' then people won't be able to find the images they are looking for? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
What I'm suggesting is that a category structure needs to be consistent, and if you make exceptions it loses its usefulness. The category structure as I set it up means that different liveries have different categories, on the basis that liveries change over time and aren't restricted to a single TOC. I accept this is maybe not the best method, but it seemed sensible, as it differentiates between, say FGW 150s in "local lines" livery and FGW 150s in the plain blue livery. Now, I accept that when it comes to TOCs which had 1 livery for a class and never changed it, it can maybe become a bit strained, but given the point of the system is to differentiate between different liveries (substantially different anyway, counting for variations in train shape), it seems odd that, for this one TOC, every single different livery they have is declared the same. It's like saying that all SWT units are in SWT livery: it rather misses the point that they're different colours. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Braintree line photos[edit]

Hi mate, thanks for uploading the Braintree Line photos. I was very disappointed last month when I found we barely had any and I wanted some for a job interview presentation. These look pretty good. Too late to help with my interview, but sod it, forward the free media bandwagon! -mattbuck (Talk) 01:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've been doing some surveys on the branch lines a little further into East Anglia so it didn't take me far out of may way. Cressing looks like it is worth a visit at some time, but I'm not sure that White Notley has much to offer.
The main line between Shenfield and Colchester isn't well covered either so I also took in Ingatestone (lovely station!) and Chelmsford that day - watch this space! Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Get to Cressing before they get around to adding a passing loop! -mattbuck (Talk) 14:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Crosville Motor Services[edit]

Hi Geof. Today, I've been sorting some preserved buses and coaches from the UK and now I'm wondering if there's any difference between the vehicles in Category:Crosville Motor Services (Weston-super-Mare) and Category:Crosville Motor Services. It looks very much like we've got two different categories for one and the same business, so I thought I'd ask you since you created one of them. De728631 (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there're two different companies. The orignal Crosville Motor Services operated in Wales and north west England during the twentieth century. After deregulation the core business in Wales was bought by Arriva and dropped the Crosville name to become Category:Arriva Buses Wales. More recently a bus enthusiast set up a small coach hire business in Weston-super-Mare and aquired the rights to the Crosville Motor Services name. Things get complicated because one of the strands of his business is a fleet of heritage buses which are available for hire. And this includes some that were originally operated by the original Crosville, hence they get categorised with both companies — Category:Crosville Motor Services for the livery and Category:Crosville Motor Services (Weston-super-Mare) for the operator. There is a full list of the vehicles concerned on English Wikipedia at en:Crosvile Motor Services (Weston-super-Mare). Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Oy, that's more complicated than I had hoped for. But thanks for clarifying it. I'm going to check that list at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

165s at Westbury[edit]

I'm not sure I see why Reading blockade would mean that 165s came to Westbury. Your description states something about London-Penzance services, but surely these would be operated by HSTs? -mattbuck (Talk) 01:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

While Reading was being resignalled the only operational platforms there were the South Eastern and Berks & Hants bay platforms. Bristol services ran via Banbury to Paddington and West of England services reversed at Westbury to run to Salisbury and then up the main line to Waterloo (pictures will be uploaded next week!). This left Pewsey with no service so alternate-hour trains from Reading to Bedwyn were extended to Westbury.
This was much more customer-focused than the Christmas blocakde a couple of years ago when Pewsey had just a couple of rail replacement buses and the HSTs were banned from the Wimbledon line so had to be further diverted around the Windsor lines! Geof Sheppard (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Nice shot with File:Waterloo - FGW 43023 and SWT 444023.jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Line cats[edit]

I'm not sure of the value of having a train photo in two different line categories, such as with File:Plymouth 150246.jpg.

Its a branch line service, on the route of the branch line, and at that point the branch uses same track as the main line. Its not unreasonable to have the train "on" both lines. A similar image, File:Devonport 43122.jpg is a main line service, on the route of the main line, and at that point the main line uses the same track as the branch. So logically the situation is similar with both trains.

However, putting main line services on the branch feels outright misleading, while putting branch services on the main line doesn't feel that wrong. Presumably that's because the actual trackbed shared by both lines is the "main line".

I wonder if it would be better to put the trains in only the route the actual service is on. With the original image: If someone is looking for a Class 150 on the Cornish Main Line, will they care about images of Tamar Valley Line services? Depending on the user that might just be noise, because "I need a picture of a Main Line service"...--Nilfanion (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a thorny issue certainly. I tend to use line categories for just the line the train is operating, although that can be tricky - is a service to Westbury from the north on the Wessex Main or the Heart of Wessex? -mattbuck (Talk) 13:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a problem because named services don't always match the geographic nature of Wiki. The Cornish Main Line and the Tamar Valley Line are both are categorised as Category:Railway lines in England, not Category:Train services in England. If we were to have a category for the Gunnislake Branch then it wouldn't be such an issue, but that would mean that pictures of Dockyard - a station which I think is only served by Tamar Valley trains at present - would be missing from the branch line.
Its even more of a problem where there is a long overlap. Matt has mentioned the Heart of Wessex Line, but what about the line from Exeter to Newton Abbot? I often can't tell whether a train is a Riviera Line service to Paignton or a main line service to Plymouth.
So my pragmatic solution is to categorise for the service, but where I think it adds value to categorise for the line too then I will. To not include the Class 153 at Dockyard on the Cornish Main Line would not reflect the fact that there are more 153s at the Plymouth end of the line than at Penzance.Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
An improved "solution" may be more intersection categories; as opposed to restricting the structure to the entire length of named lines. The ECML's category covers everything from King's Cross to Waverley, so includes this and this. As a result of the ECML's categorisation, they are placed in a subcat of Lincolnshire.
If we split the line categories in a geographic manner (as has been done for the A303), we provide better geographic data. It also gives us potential to handle 2 lines on one track as cats like Category:Cornish Main Line in Plymouth or Category:Cornish Main Line (St Erth-Penzance) can be categorised in all relevant lines.
The reason I used quotes is geographic splitting is really a solution to a different issue (the situation with Lincolnshire above), and triply intersected cats (Class 153s on the Cornish Main Line in Plymouth) are overkill with a lot of work for little gain - its not really going to solve this problem. I suppose the question is: Is a Tamar Valley service at Dockyard "a train on the Cornish Main Line" or "a Tamar Valley train on the main line"? Is there a meaningful difference between those two concepts or just semantics? I'm not sure.
For what its worth, the minor stations in Plymouth are used by mainline services (eg the 06.00 Penzance-Cardiff, 14.49 Penzance-Plymouth, 17.04 Plymouth-Liskeard all call at Dockyard).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Buckfastleigh station - Southern National 1613 LTA772 and Western National 137 FJ8967.JPG
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Buckfastleigh station - Southern National 1613 LTA772 and Western National 137 FJ8967.JPG, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Washford 5553 shunting.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Washford 5553 shunting.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Austell - FGW 43012 under Menacuddle Bridge.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Austell - FGW 43012 under Menacuddle Bridge.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Carnon Viaduct - FGW 150126 above Mineral Tramways Trail.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Carnon Viaduct - FGW 150126 above Mineral Tramways Trail.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Is this right?[edit]

File:Dawlish railway station geograph-2444513-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg‎ includes Category:Steam locomotives at Bristol Temple Meads railway station ?

This cat appears on a number of other pages edited at about the same time Chevin (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Copy-and-paste and a lack of coffee! Thanks for spotting it - I'll get it fixed. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

renames[edit]

hello;

i was renaming your truto station files, as per requests, was wondering if there was some significance to the long number in this file name, or if it can be removed?

"Truro Rail Ale Trail 153377.jpg" to "2009 at Truro station - Rail Ale Trail 153377.jpg"

Lx 121 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

153377 is the number of the train in the background. Please keep it in. Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Bishops Lydeard locomotive compound - D9526 B end head on.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bishops Lydeard locomotive compound - D9526 B end head on.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Image resolution[edit]

I've noticed that the images you upload are typically limited to 1024px wide (there are exceptions, like the QI above). As you are clearly a good photographer, it would be great if you could upload higher res files. I'd suggest a minimum of 1800px wide - with a typical aspect ratio that is above the minimum res of 2MP for COM:QI, and also gives 6x4 prints at 300dpi. In general, the higher the res the more valuable the image to Commons.

Is there any reason for the restricted file sizes?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I struggle with slow connections so file size is the issue. I have to make a choice between upload volume, image size, and time spent patrolling categories. If I think that one of my images may be particularly useful then I will upload a 2MP image; three dozen of these have been judged as QICs. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hendford[edit]

Geof:

You have produced a number of maps to illustrate the historic development of some lines. I applaud that as it makes things considerably clearer for the reader. May I respectfully draw your attention to a typo on the Yeovil maps ... it is "Hendford" not Henford. Depending on the software you use this might be easy to rectify or it might be awkward. Kindest regards Afterbrunel (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've uploaded a corrected version. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well done, Geoff, thanks. Afterbrunel (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Minehead - 6960 heading for Bishops Lydeard.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minehead - 6960 heading for Bishops Lydeard.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cogload Junction - FGW 43185 (43174).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cogload Junction - FGW 43185 (43174).jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Chippenham - FGW 150246 and 150244.jpg[edit]

I thought Chippenham-Westbury was 2 trains per day in the early morning and late evening. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you read in the press! That's the 15:06 from Westbury passing the 15:22 Swindon to Warminster on a saturday afternoon. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Taunton - CrossCountry 220032 passing FGW 43004.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Taunton - CrossCountry 220032 passing FGW 43004.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Sand Bay 39920.jpg[edit]

I had removed that category in error. I misread and thought is was overcategorization (but bus stops is not necessarily bus shelters). --Dschwen (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Plymouth[edit]

Hi Geof. I don't understand why you reverted my edit at [Difference between revisions of "File:Royal Albert Bridge Signal Box viewed from the bridge.jpg"]. The image clearly shows a road bridge in Devon and a signal box in Devon, and therefore belongs in both those categories. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think I did - I thought I cancelled out of the change without saving! I've put it back now. Keep up the good work. Geof Sheppard (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No problems. It's so easy to accidentally click on that wrong button. Have done it myself. More coffee needed, lol. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Plymouth Royal Parade - First 53154 (HIG8433).jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Plymouth Royal Parade - First 53154 (HIG8433).jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI[edit]

You may want to look at Commons:UK Train Categorisation, which is a project I'm working on currently. Of specific interest are the line definitions - so far they're mostly all common-sense I think, but I have made two major changes:

  • Outer South London Line is not a valid line
  • East London Line ends at New Cross, New Cross Gate and Old Kent Road Junction.

I'll get on recategorising trains on these lines later this week. At some point the North Berwick Line will also disappear, but I'm working my way northwards so it will be a while before that happens. Once I'm done, I'll post a complete list of stations and relevant lines. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Useful stuff! I'm not sure why you want to delete the North Berwick Line. Where does that leave Nprth Berwick railway station?
Do you have any ideas for the Cross Country Route? Is it really one line from Bristol to the North? The nature of trains between Bristol and Birmingham, and between Bristol and Derby are somewhat different, especially when it comes to steam and early diesels. But there is also a Category:Birmingham to Worcester via Bromsgrove Line which doesn't quite make sense - most of this is really the category:Cross Country Route which gives us another big overlap like the Riviera/South Devon Main Line and the Heart of Wessex/Wessex Main Line. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the North Berwick Line, according to the article, runs from Glasgow to North Berwick, and the article reads as a service line. Most of the distance is the Caledonian Main Line (or something like that) and the ECML, with the North Berwick Branch covering the end bit.
Yes, the Cross Country Route... I will certainly be doing away with the TransPennines, and perhaps Thameslink (apart from Dock Junction to Blackfriars). I've always counted the XCR as its own line, and I'm not too averse to overlaps (although they are annoying), but.... I don't know, perhaps we should create a list of "tbc" lines at WTUKRAIL. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The "traditional" North Berwick Line is just Edinburgh to North Berwick. While it mostly overlaps the ECML the trains are very different. I worked through most of the lowland Scotish lines a couple of years ago and put the more easterly bits of this route into the snappily-titled Category:Glasgow to Edinburgh via Airdrie and Bathgate Line and, for the far end, into Category:North Clyde Line. Those EMUs run coast to coast! There are a couple of other lines in the Glasgow and Edinbugh conurbations that are really services rather than physical lines, but I left those for another time.
TransPennie is another mish-mash of services. I've categorised a couple of images from the Category:York to Scarborough Line and refuse to consider them as being Category:North TransPennine. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI I have now recategorised ELL and OSLL images. ISLL will likely be renamed as SLL in the near future, as there's no need for disambiguation anymore.
I'm ok with NBL being EDB-Berwick, that makes a sort of sense. TransPennines are indeed a mess, and I shall work on them at some point. Thameslink probably needs discussion at WTUKRAIL. I shall start one. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:GWR_2800s_of_Great_Western_Railway[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:GWR_2800s_of_Great_Western_Railway has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Category:Trains_of_Great_Western_Railway[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Trains_of_Great_Western_Railway has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | Polski | Português | Русский | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Bishops Lydeard - BSO 9278.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Bishops Lydeard - BSO 9278.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:2014 Tour of Britain stage 5 team NFTO signing on at Exmouth.JPG[edit]

български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk bokmål | polski | português | română | slovenščina | svenska | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:2014 Tour of Britain stage 5 team NFTO signing on at Exmouth.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Stefan4 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Minehead Lifeboat D-712 Christine at sea.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Minehead Lifeboat D-712 Christine at sea.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

File:Doxey - Govia Thameslink 387118-387117.jpg[edit]

To me the livery they're in looks the same as on the 379s, making it NX debranded. It;s hard to tell but the doors look grey rather than the blue of GTR white. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! The 387s have nothing to do with National Express so I wouldn't want to call it NX anything. I just looked at what people have used for other GTR units and followed suit. It was one of those 'right place, right time' pictures (making up for just missing a class 68 test run half an hour earlier) so I didn't get much of a look. When it was coming towards me I just registered it as a white Electrostar. As it went past all I could see were the Thameslink logos. I have a suspicion that the doors may be dark green. Geof Sheppard (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)