Wilfrid Newton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 4% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
@NemesisAT Hi - adding new routes is not something that interests me hugely, I'm doing a fair bit of updating of accessible and electric/hybrid stuff at the moment (as well as bus stations), and trying to add relevant history to relevant articles - first low floor route, first hybrid bus, first electric route. Thanks for getting in touch :) Turini2 (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, and good luck. Unfortunately it seems some folks are not interested in bus content on Wikipedia and will try and get it deleted. NemesisAT (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think its fair that not every bus route will be notable - I suspect that most of the notable ones have already been written... Well, we'll just have to find those golden needles in the haystack. :) Turini2 (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your edit on London Buses route 507, and thought I should clarify. That ref was taken out by a user who has worked to get various bus-related lists and articles deleted. I worry that removal of sources will lead to "there aren't enough sources" in the future and wind up in the article being nominated for deletion. But maybe I'm being too cynical! If you're confident we don't need the extra ref, I'm happy to leave it off. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I think there's a difference between an article with not very many sources and one overburdened with 5 sources for every single point. Having had taken a look, I think the Evening Standard ref would be fine given its reputation, but one more couldn't hurt. I just start seeing alarm bells when I see statements with loads of citations against them! Turini2 (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the removals you made from the infobox in the Class 455 article. I don't believe that the level of detail provided contravenes either of WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:EXCESSDETAIL, noting that both of those pages appear to be directed primarily at the text within the body article). Indeed, presenting that sort of technical data in the infobox would arguably satisfy the direction in WP:INDISCRIMINATE that ... Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability ....
I understand that the Class 455 infobox could appear to be particularly unwieldy, and would note that that's the case because it is a complicated class for which to provide information - it includes significant components taken from an entirely different class of units, and has further undergone a number of changes over its time in service. If that wasn't the case, then the infobox would look much like one in an article for a simple class - the parameters used to construct the infobox are all standard and the information contained in them is also provided for many other BR classes when it is available.
Hi there, I'm trying to find out how I can update one of the images for Brooklands Museum that Google is pulling from Wikipedia and using as the lead image for the museum. Unfortunately it isn't representative of what the museum offers so ideally we would like to use an alternate image in its place which will hopefully help us attract more visitors. Are you able to help? I noticed you made an update to the page last year and have some experience in motorsport 81.131.103.212 (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@81.131.103.212: The Brooklands Museum lead image right now is this image here. Looks okay to me, but then again I haven't been to Brooklands for a v long time! The image I see on Google when I search for the museum is this. The best thing for you to do is 1) declare your conflict of interest (if any - do you work for the museum?) - details on how to do that is here and 2) ask your question regarding the image on the Talk:Brooklands Museum page. They'll probably be an editor more closely related/interested in that article who can help you/seek consensus if the image should be changed or not. I hope this helps! Turini2 (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Netherzone}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ . (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on updating this. There's been many sports articles recently that have missed being posted because they haven't been properly updated, so good to see the TdF on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all an expert on Dutch names, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, all sources seem to use "van Vleuten" rather than "Van Vleuten" (except at the start of a sentence, of course). Thanks for reverting your edit of this :) Kiwipete (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared Why did you move this conversation to my talk page? You should have talk page conversations in one location. WP:MULTI
Firstly, the 95 and 96 Stock trains don't sound the same - the 96TS uses an older Gate turn-off thyristor traction motor design. Secondly, just because a train sounds similar - doesn't mean that it's related, it means it probably shares similar traction motor technology - e.g. the "singing train" in Japan (Keikyu 2100 series) and the Siemens Taurus locomotive. Turini2 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CastJared It's not a major incident, so it doesn't belong in the template. Around 10 people died in the subway last year, they don't all need to be in the template. Turini2 (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into La Vuelta Femenina. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I have corrected the issue.Izno (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@XAM2175 My apologies - I think that's because I started the edit while looking at the difference between your edits to the page. Did not intend to do that one bit! Thanks. Turini2 (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Today is the final day of the 2023 Giro d'Italia. What a Giro it has been! The last 2 weeks have been incredible.
I give you a favor, if you can make a summary for the entire Giro like what you do with the La Vuelta Femenina, and, if possible, put the article in the "In the News" section.
You might also want to add a summary on each individual stage, especially since there is no summary for stage 12 to 20 (stage 21 is still to be held).
@WL Pro for life I tend to focus on women's cycling - balancing out the attention that the men's events usually get. I don't have time to write for the Giro unfortunately, sorry. You can do it if you want, don't let me stop you! Turini2 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's me making an colossal error, it looks like I've dragged the last "es" of Femmes into the word Paris. Apologies! Now fixed Turini2 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, but I have just made a(nother) small correction. Is there something weird about Visual Editor that caused this? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
This is in response to your WP:GOCER request for FAC copyedit of 2022 Tour de France Femmes. I thought I would handle this as I would at FAC (would this be your first FAC submission?) with notes and suggestions rather than direct edits to the article. Let me know if you'd prefer I edited the article directly (which is simpler but less informative). Feel free to ask questions or make comments here.
Please take the following as constructive suggestions. I might be a little more insistent if I was reviewing the article at FAC, but I'll let you figure out what best serves the article. FAs are supposed to adhere to all of the MOS unless there's a good reason to do otherwise, so I'll be looking at a lot of that. I feel some of the tone is leaning toward sports journalism and will also be looking to remove some redundancies and superlatives for a tighter encyclopedic summary.
The first thing I noted is that the lead appears to be a bit on the long side at 5 paragraphs. Prosesize lists the article at 14k of readable prose, so per WP:LEADLENGTH it should have a lead of 1 or 2 paragraphs. (This should have been addressed at the GA review.) I took a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles § Cycling and 3 of the 4 Tour de France FAs have the lead at 3 paragraphs, which I would find acceptable here (it's very close to the LEADLENGTH threshold of 15k). I would suggest merging the content of the 2nd and 5th paragraphs into the lead paragraph (example below).
I feel that focus should stay on the 2023 race and some of the lead material which better fits in the main article Tour de France Femmes should not be repeated in this article's lead. In particular, the historic background details.
Grand Tour (cycling) § Women's Grand Tour events suggests that sources are mixed on whether this event should be called a Grand Tour. I have not surveyed the sources, but if true I would suggest removing this from the lead. Tour de France has enough name recognition that most readers will know it's an important race.
The 2022 Tour de France Femmes (officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) was the first edition[2] of the Tour de France Femmes, which took place from 24 to 31 July 2022.[1] It was the 16th event in the 2022 UCI Women's World Tour and followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France.[3] The race drew large crowds and had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders.
I feel that there is inconsistency with the presentation of the name for Annemiek van Vleuten. Assuming that the biography article title is correct, I believe that without the given name it should be van Vleuten and only Van Vleuten if it begins a sentence. In a case like this, per MOS:PERSONAL, we should use the capitalization that the person themselves use. Whichever way she prefers it, it should be consistent throughout the article.
The infobox graphic is quite large and the text almost unreadable. It's perhaps outside the scope of a copyedit but I would suggest cropping out the large blank area, avoiding italics, and simplifying if possible.
The winning time is given as 26h 55' 44". Per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS (near the very end of the table) this should be one of 26:55′44″ (no spaces) or 26 hr 55 min 44 sec or 1 h 30 m 7 s (html code for non-breaking spaces between number and unit abbreviation). In the first of these, the ticks are typographically known as prime and double prime (html code ′ ″), and are used as shorthand for units with time, angles, feet-and-inches, etc. It's probably best to use the format with prime and double prime in infoboxes and tables where space is limited; in the text one format should be used consistently through the article (unless there's a reason to write out hours-minutes-seconds in full). This is incorrect; see 24 Dec comment below.
I would suggest removing the flag icons from the infobox. I realize this has become a standard for Tour de France articles, but it doesn't seem justified to me in the context of the article. The athletes are competing for their teams and not directly representing their registered countries on the tour. While their individual performances may earn them points toward qualifying for a national team, that's a bit far removed, and it is also common for lower-ranked teammates to sacrifice their standing to benefit a higher-ranked teammeate of a different nationality. It seems like style creep, and the infobox is already pretty large, busy, and colourful, with different elements competing for attention and distracting the reader. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE recommends to include only the defining characteristics of the subject (ie: the 2022 Tour de France Femmes) with a less-is-more approach. And it's odd to give premium space to summarize something which doesn't appear anywhere in the article text.
eventually – This word editorializes, suggesting that something happened later than it should have. If the opinion is important, state it as such with attribution and a source. Otherwise, remove the word and let the reader decide.
stomach bug – This may be too informal, and is a US term. On the other hand, gastroenteritis may be too precise and may have BLP and WP:MEDRS issues. One of the sources quotes her as saying "stomach infection" so suggest going with that (appears twice in article).
24 teams participated in the race.MOS:NUMNOTES discourages starting sentences with a numeral, which is a bit prominent here as it begins a section. Suggest combining with the following sentence as: The 24 teams which participated in the race[6] were announced on 30 March 2022.[7]
144 riders from 25 nationalities started the race, the largest percentage of whom were Dutch (20% of the peloton). This seems a bit awkward to me. How about: A total of 144 riders from 25 nationalities started the race, with The Netherlands having the largest contingent (20%).
ASO, the organisers of the race, noted that the prize fund Strike the parenthetic statement as this is already explained in the first paragraph of the body.
Ahead of the race [list of names] were all named as pre-race favourites for the general classification Don't need both "Ahead of the race" and "pre-race", one can be assumed from the other. Also, anyone who is named here can be referred to by surname-only later in the body (MOS:SURNAME), unless there is ambiguity (ie: two people with the same surname), and their names don't have to be linked again later on (MOS:OVERLINKING).
Consider whether the subsections in Race overview make sense. The Early stages section covers the first 6 of 8 stages or 783 of 1033 km total (>75%). The last subsection is Summary; this is a bit different than the Wikipedia definition (eg: WP:Summary style). Maybe 'Results and reception'?
Taking place earlier on the same day of the final stage of the men's Tour, stage 1 of the race started beneath the Eiffel Tower in Paris, before the riders tackled eight laps of a circuit around Champs-Élysées. Could use a little more cohesion. It'd be nice to work the date in there, which isn't previously mentioned in the body except for a table, and maybe why it's important to mention the men's tour. Suggest: Stage 1 of the tour took place on 24 July in Paris, with a start beneath the Eiffel Tower and eight circuits around the Champs-Élysées (the latter being a traditional route which concluded the men's tour later that day). Actually, I don't like latter/later, so maybe the parenthetic could be: (these laps being a tradition which concluded the men's tour later that day).
I feel that you should choose either yellow jersey or maillot jaune as the primary term throughout the article, with the alternate given in parenthesis on first mention in lead and body.
In a sprint finish, Lorena Wiebes (Team DSM) outsprinted Marianne Vos (Jumbo–Visma) to take the first maillot jaune (yellow jersey) of the race, as well as the green jersey of the points classification. Lorena Wiebes can be referred to by surname only since she's already mentioned (2 paragraphs up) and there's no ambiguity. It's not necessary to link the teams (set |nolink=yes in the {{ct}} template). Should it mention the green jersey, or on this first stage would it automatically be paired with the yellow jersey?
Stage 2 to Provins was marred by multiple crashes in the final 30 kilometres (19 mi), with Marta Cavalli (FDJ Suez Futuroscope), one of the favourites for the yellow jersey, having to abandon the race as a result. Can remove the underlined clause which is mentioned two paragraphs up, refer to Cavalli by surname, and unlink her name and her team name.
On the Côte de Mutigny, the peloton split with a select group of seven riders containing most of the general classification contenders going off the front. Perhaps: On the Côte de Mutigny, seven riders contending for the general classification broke away from the peloton.
Stage 4 to Bar-sur-Aube was another hilly stage but it also involved four sectors of gravel in the final half of the stage. → Stage 4 to Bar-sur-Aube was another hilly stage, its final half including four gravel sections. Link to gravel road which is a North American term.
was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar at 175.6 kilometres (109.1 mi) in length. Don't need in length.
In the final sprint, Wiebes took her second stage win from Balsamo and Vos. → In the final sprint, Wiebes overtook Balsamo and Vos to secure her second stage win.
With 86 kilometres (53 mi) still to go, the race exploded as Van Vleuten launched an attack on the Petit Ballon, with only Demi Vollering (SD Worx) able to follow her move. A bit confusing. Suggest: On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton with only Demi Vollering (SD Worx) able to match her pace.
On the second climb of the day, the Col du Platzerwasel, Van Vleuten dropped Vollering a kilometre from the top. On the final climb of the Grand Ballon, Van Vleuten's lead over Vollering increased to almost four minutes. → A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel, the second climb of the day, van Vleuten accelerated ahead of Vollering. Van Vleuten extended her lead to almost four minutes by the final climb of the Grand Ballon.
Van Vleuten lost some time to Vollering on the final plateau section, but she nevertheless powered away to a dominant stage win, 3' 26" ahead of Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM classification. → Van Vleuten lost time to Vollering on the final plateau section, but nevertheless achieved an impressive stage win, 3′26″ ahead of Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM.
With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, the maillot jaune, Van Vleuten suffered a mechanical. SD Worx and Trek–Segafredo soon lifted the pace in the peloton, with Van Vleuten being forced to chase a deficit of almost a minute. After a while, Van Vleuten eventually made it back to the peloton right at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace. The article already states that she has the yellow jersey five sentences earlier so that can be cut. I would be tempted to split the middle sentence and put this in two sentences instead of three: With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, van Vleuten suffered a mechanical and SD Worx and Trek–Segafredo increased the pace of the peloton. Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace.
She passed the remnants of the breakaway while Vollering went in pursuit of the race leader. Much like the previous day, a chase group of GC contenders formed behind the duo. Van Vleuten gradually extended her lead over Vollering towards the finish as she took her second successive stage win, sealing the Tour title in the process. Vollering finished 30 seconds down while also confirming her win in the QoM classification. → She passed the remnants of the breakaway with Vollering in pursuit. Much like the previous day, a chase group of GC contenders formed behind them. Van Vleuten gradually extended her lead and won the stage and the Tour title. Vollering finished 30 seconds behind, confirming her win in the QoM classification.
In the first paragraph of Summary, suggest putting Vos's wins together then breaking the sentence and having the young rider winner, omitting respectively.
one of the hardest races → one of the most difficult races
In the Classification leadership table, the blue link in the dark red cell at the bottom (Demi Vollering, Mountains classification / Final) fails accessibility for colour contrast (MOS:CONTRAST, which falls under accessibility policy). You can see this using WebAIM Contrast Checker with #0645AD foreground for the link colour and #FF3E33 for the cell background. To pass FAC it needs to meet WCAG-2.0 AA as a minimum and preferably AAA. Suggest: changing the text to white and darkening the cell to #EB0C00.
Overlinking in the General classification table. Also the non-typographic ticks.
Alt text for images are required. Alt text should describe the image for someone who can't see it clearly, and be concise if possible (text-to-speech readers convey information at about 1/3 reading speed).
Infobox image |image_alt=Route map that shows the stages of the 2022 Tour de France Femmes, with their start and finish towns. Could omit the underlined part as assumed: Route map showing the race stages with start and finish towns
The picture of Vos at the top of Early stages, add alt text with |alt= after thumb. It expects the unnamed but ordered parameters for size (thumb) and justification (right, by default) to come first, so it may be a good idea to have both of those: thumb | right | alt=. The visible caption is last. Suggest the alt text: Woman in yellow jersey smiling for photographers
Also, for the visible caption, why isn't it: Marianne Vos wore the yellow jersey on stages 3 through 7?
The stage 7 picture, suggest alt: Woman bicycling through an alpine village
The stage 8 picture, suggest alt: Riders cycling in line up a street on a forested hill
The Summary picture, suggest alt: Cyclists in polka-dot, yellow and green jerseys ride side-by-side, leading the peloton
The Broadcasting picture, the alt would pretty much be the same as the visible caption, so no need to duplicate that.
I'll leave it at that for now, I think that's most of the big stuff. I'll probably want to take another couple passes through it after you make changes, time permitting. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Reidgreg Oh my goodness, this is amazing - your work is really much appreciated! It would be my first FAC submission yes, which is why I asked for the assistance. I've tended to use the previous men's Tour de France articles as a guide when I've worked on this - the 2012 Tour de France is the most contemporary featured article.
@Reidgreg and Turini2: The above comments are incorrect; MOS:UNITSYMBOLS lists "1:30′07″" in the red "Unacceptable" column. "Acceptable" formats according to the MOS, for non-astronomy articles like this one, would be "1:30:07" or "1 h 30 min 7 s". I used the latter, but feel free to use the former if you would like more compact notation. -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, recently I have added a map of Line 6 Finch West to the article. I see you have removed it under "Undid revision 1223384821 by Commotatoes (talk) 1) not an improvement imo 2) not a minor edit WP:MINOR"
I understand the minor edit (thank you for clarifying that for me) but I do not understand how a geographical map of the route is not considered an improvement to the page. Was it improperly formatted, or is a map of the line itself not relevant?
Hello, I think the best thing would be to stick this message on the Line 6 Finch West talk page so everyone interested in that article can discuss it there (rather than here, where no one will see it!) I watch that page, so I'll add my two cents after you've put a message there. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:SDESC specifically the section WP:SDNONE regarding why "none" is a valid short description and deliberate override for a specific purpose. The intentional "none" detailed as "(including those that are intentionally blank; see below)" was the remainder of the line that you quoted in your edit summary. Thanks. Canterbury Tailtalk20:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Turini, since you have undone a number of minor changes I have made to articles, I would like to clarify that all I intend to do is tidy up the grammar so that it is easier to read and remains consistent across all articles relating to tube stock, and remove any information that is incorrect, irrelevant, speculative or redundant. For example on London Underground 1983 Stock it is better to use the word "trains" instead of "sets" within the infobox, and it is obviously incorrect that they were built from 1980!!! TrainBusFan06 (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello – no need to clarify, I understand your edits were made in good faith. :)
In terms of the 1983 stock, your edits weren't supported by the reference – a single three-car unit could be a "train"! Therefore 2 units running in multiple are a trainset or "set". Furthermore, your edits completely removed the dates of construction from the infobox (that's why I reverted it), but you're right – 1980 was wrong. I've now amended the start date of construction with a valid reference.
Hello and thanks for your understanding. I did start a discussion on some of the talk pages so as to avoid coming across as an edit warrior. Still waiting to see what other editors thoughts are... TrainBusFan06 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite a tour-de-force of an article - well done and well referenced and constructed. To the extend that it can be condensed a little more (and 4-paragraph lede installed), that would even be more helpful for casual readers, but great job. thanks.
Hi, I just saw that your 2022 Tour de France Femmes FAC was archived. I had hoped we could improve it further before they closed it, but c'est la vie, I guess. I wanted to recommend you go through every sentence of the body and check its claims are truly supported by the sources given for that sentence. If not, then add source or adapt text. Then check the lead if it still matches the body. Ping me when you nominate it again, I'd be happy to review again. Good luck. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Following you edition on UCI Women's World Tour talk page, I searched for additional information that could be add to the article, with no luck I must say. I did find some articles that might interest you even if not for this article: [4], [5], [6]. Good editions. Rpo.castro (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid starting the same discussion on multiple pages, which fragments discussion. As I stated on your talk page, RTT is not a reliable source. Wait for one! Turini2 (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tour De France sprinters Jersey colors
Hi @Turini2, I wanted to reach out and apologize for changing the color of the 2023/2024 TDF points jersey in the side bar. The Jersey looked black on my screen (because I had the brightness down low) and I was not aware of the color change for the 2023 race. I have also reverted the 2024 article to your last edit.
Given that I've also been a significant contributor to the article, I don't think I can offer support for it. I hope that a few more comments are made and that it gets promoted - it's a great article! Turini2 (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that will help, I can do - you've done 2/3 of the edits to the article so you certainly deserve the lions share (according to the graph, anyway!) Turini2 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It won't actually help with the article itself, but it will allow me to nominate another one.
In 2024, the cycling news citation has "the riders then faced four laps of a 17.7-kilometre circuit" - there is an error, in that both races had four laps! I'll correct. Turini2 (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 26 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic timeline
I noticed your request on the help desk [7] about graphic timelines, and wanted to ask whether you were thinking of one that would auto-update when new data was added, or whether a simple image file would suffice. If the latter, I think I could make one for you without too much hassle - I also don't write complex code but I enjoy messing around with graphics. StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for getting in touch! I think a simple image would suffice – in terms of the timeline, it could have "19xx–present" etc, with the table caveated with "as of 2025"? Turini2 (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds doable! I'll have a go and pop back here with a draft version, if you're willing to have a look and tell me about any grievous errors you see - happy to go through however many redrafts are needed to make it make sense :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's attempt 1! Constructive criticism welcome, of course.
Timeline of the UCI Road World Championships Races (1921-2025)
I do not want every single one of my contribution to be reverted by this user
Commons policy requires objective grounds like copyright, out of scope, duplicate or poor quality to the point of unusability. Not personal attacking or vague reasons. I do not want to be followed by this user for my sincere endeavours to contribute. I have not harmed the website and am only contributing...not putting bad work as said in a comment. LadyJetA1 (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. At no point did I attack you personally, I merely disagreed with your edits and provided reasons for doing so. One can have a personal opinion on the quality of a photo, Wikipedians do it all the time. If you disagree, the best place to discuss is the relevant talk page (not here), as pointed out by @10mmsocket. Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would have made sense if it was found naturally. I request to not be tracked. I'll listen to other's opinions and take edits easily if done with good intention...just seemed like a coincidence that every single page I edited was reverted. Seemed more like biased targeting: Paddington, Barbican, Harrow/Wealdstone etc all reverted in minutes. A coincidence that could have only happened by tracking my history. No more. Open and receptive to suggestions/edits from others who go page by page (not track all of my personal edits) but I just thought that that was excessive and total deletion. LadyJetA1 (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, many of the articles you edited are on my watchlist. Secondly, it's not unusual for editors to look at the contributions of others to make changes to edits.
To talk you through my thought process, your Barbican tube station photo was good, but the caption needed a tweak (less capitalisation WP:CAPTION). The photo that you added to London Paddington station was also a good improvement, but again it needed a caption tweak.
I then looked at your contributions to make changes to other edits where I thought it necessary. Not all your edits were reverted, only those I thought where the photo was not an improvement to the article. That's not stalking or a personal attack, we're all here to build a better wikipedia. Turini2 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm another editor with a large watch list of rail-related articles. So I too am not tracking you, rather I'm tracking the articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between Commons policy on uploading images, and Wikipedia policy on placing images in articles. Might I suggest you take a look at MOS:IMAGES if you haven't already. Images need to be pertinent not decorative and personally I don't see the pertinence of pictures you added to stations which are of a train taking the large part of the image with a very small proportion being (mostly unidentifiable) parts of the station itself. It should be the other way around - a large part of the image being the station, with a train being the minor part. After all, it's a station article not a train article. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edit. TBH I think it's irrelevant and should be removed from every Metro station article, especially as it's no longer true with the mixed running of both old and new classes. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All gone! Hopefully nobody will object and the logic is that they're all a) out of date due to the new trains being introduced, b) unsourced, and c) irrelevant given that other UK railway station articles don't routinely list the types trains that serve the station. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
