User talk:Trainsandotherthings

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is Trainsandotherthings's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 30 days

Draft:2024 Colombia Mil Mi-17 crash[edit]

Italic text I added some more information and reformatted the article. Check to see if you think it should still stay in draft space. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: Thanks for your improvements. I've moved the article back to mainspace. I don't know if it's notable or not and expressed as much in the move summary, but it's at least to the point I don't feel it's harmful in mainspace the way it was before. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company[edit]

Hello Trainsandotherthings: You might want to check citation 18 on Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company. My screen is showing mostly in red "{{cite book}}: |last=has generic name (help)". Separately, I can confirm that the Newport and Wickford Railroad Company owned 3.4 miles of railroad line per the Interstate Commerce Commission's Fourteenth Annual Report of the Statistics of Railways in the United States for the year ending June 30, 1901. This can be found on page 142, and it also says the same railroad operates 3.4 miles of railroad line. TwoScars (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First off, in the future I would prefer you bring questions about specific articles to the talk pages of said articles, that way other interested editors can see them. Now as to your comments:

The generic name message is showing up because I am citing the Report of the Public Utilities Commission, and the citation template is set to automatically flag certain phrases as potentially in error. In this case, however, there is no individual author that can be identified, so naming the PUC as the author is the next best thing as they are the ones who wrote the report. There is a way to override the message.
3.5 vs 3.4 is little more than a rounding error. All of the sources I have used in the article concur on 3.5 miles, including Karr, Heppner, American Railroad Manual for the United States and the Dominion (published in 1874, just a few years after the railroad first opened), and the 1895 report of the Rhode Island Railroad Commissioner. As such, I do not feel comfortable altering the number based on just one source you have found. It is also possible the milage changed slightly at a later date (between 1895 and 1901, presumably), but the length should reflect the maximum historic extent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was only trying to help you out for whenever someone reviews the article. It looks like that worked, since you fixed the red error message. I don't think anyone would want a comment about an error message in an article's talk page. I'm not concerned about you using 3.4 or 3.5 miles since I am not reviewing the article, but it is good for you to know about the differences in case someone is concerned. I believe the Interstate Commerce Commission's Statistics of Railways and Poor's Manual of Railroads are the two best sources for railroad statistics. The ICC's data are from required reporting. The 3.4 miles noted by the ICC could reflect a decrease from the early years, or it could account for rounding of the mileage of segments. The ICC number is as of June 30, 1901, and it notes that the 3.4 represents no change from the previous year. It also notes that the railroad operated the same amount of mileage as it owned, which implies it had no trackage rights. Poor's 1894 Manual of Railroads, on page 26, says 3.4 miles for the year ended June 30, 1893. TwoScars (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would want a comment about an error message in an article's talk page. I think that's exactly where such a comment should go, actually. Per WP:TPG, The purpose of a page's associated talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page which is what both of your comments were about. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree on the error messages. There is nothing in WP:TPG about error messages. If you want me to put something about the milage in the talk page, even though it is hardly any difference, fine. TwoScars (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for all of your contributions! They're the best! I learned so much!!! :)

Iceypurple (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Buddy the Beefalo[edit]

The article Buddy the Beefalo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTNEWS, local coverage, no lasting significance. Animal version of WP:BLP1E.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Reywas92^Talk 01:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize I was going to immediately contest the PROD, right? PRODs are meant for uncontroversial deletions. The subject has attracted plenty of coverage from outside Connecticut and continuing coverage several years after his escape and capture. Please take the article to AfD if you believe it should be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company[edit]

The article Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company and Talk:Newport and Wickford Railroad and Steamboat Company/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LunaEatsTuna -- LunaEatsTuna (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Narragansett Pier Railroad[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Narragansett Pier Railroad you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]