User talk:Murgatroyd49

Welcome back?

I assume (and hope) that the restoration of your userpage means you’re returning? I sincerely hope so, you would have been a loss to the community and the UK Rail project :) Danners430 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your kind words, I thought I was going to be unable to contribute for much longer but things improved much quicker that I thought. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate it if you could stop undoing my edit to the Natural History Museum about the Archaeopteryx specimens. The 12 specimens number is was outdated on May of 2024 with the Chicago specimen, and again in January 2025, with the SMNK-PAL 10,000. This makes the current amount 14. Thank you for you understanding, good luck in all other endeavours. Best, PatthisMollak (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide a reliable source(s) for your changes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Murgatroyd49. Thank you for your work on St Peter's Church, Hascombe. Another editor, TheLongTone, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Interesting article on an interesting building.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: Many thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting short description

Hi there. I noticed you reverted my edit to SS Coptic saying "default description is more useful". What did you mean by this? Were you planning to add a new short description tag? Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is primarily known as a White Star ship, chances are that anyone searching will recognise that description more easily. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for replying. I made that the short description instead. MediaKyle (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing Sport and Leisure Revision

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit to Littlehampton regarding the football team. Why is this? They are a valid, semi-professional club with their own Wikipedia page, so I am unsure of the reason.

Cheers DeathlyLivings (talk) 08:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per edit summary: unsourced. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part is unsourced? The information is available on their page. I disagree, however to meet the requirement I have added a source and reinstated the information.

My question is: why would the same criteria not affect the Rugby Union category which is also wholy unsourced and does not even have a Wikipedia page? DeathlyLivings (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You showed no source for the original edit. Plaese read WP:Referencing for beginners. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Although the existing material I had used as a guide was not cited, I should have done because although there is an article for the team, that is not enough to validate that it is a suitable addition.

Thank you for the guidance DeathlyLivings (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I found getting the hang of correct referencing the hardest part of being a Wikipedia editor! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	A massive THANK YOU for your dedication to referencing, linking, and maintaining a well-balanced presentation of information in Wikipedia articles! Your efforts keep knowledge accurate, accessible, and reliable for all! It was a pleasure crossing paths with you at Vauxhall and discovering an awesome Wikipedian! gidonb (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War memorials in Surrey

Hi Murgatroyd49,
Just a quick note to say that I'm going to start approaching a few people to ask for assistance in adding more memorials to the War memorials in Surrey page. Now that the good weather has returned, we should be able to get some more good photos for the missing memorials.
Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'm hoping to be able to get out a bit more with the camera. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watermill Theatre

I have responded, to your question on my talk page, below the question at User_talk:Chris_j_wood#Watermill_Theatre. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humber AC

IF you doubt my authenticity or my actual ownership of a Humber MK IV please feel free to keep an eye on youtube as "the cheiftan" was just here doing a video for his channel on it. I also have ALL the manuals on the Humber and all its variants. So please engage me directly before deleting or claiming my images are copy right violations. Sapper79z (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Youtube is not a reliable source, and everything on Wikipedia requires a reliable source. It's a basic part of how the encyclopoedia works. Danners430 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sapper79z I have no idea what you are talking about, I've never mentioned your images, whichever they are. As pointed out to you YouTube is not a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand and I’m happy to note the original manual for source if that is what you need, but I have the original manuals all of them and that is what I’m primarily using a source Sapper79z (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humber Weight

A Humber MKIV AC weighs 14000 roughly with full armor and without ammunition loaded. I just had mine over scales last week and the Original manual even states it isnt the 5ton you are claiming in your corrections... again I offer to get you scans of the original manuals to show source. Sapper79z (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is reference the changes as per WP:Referencing for beginners. This must be the fourth of fifth time I have asked you to do this. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The weight is the same for all the variants of the HAC. I have All but the MKIII manuals. I figured I didn't need to refrence them all for the information. But if that is what it takes I will do so Sapper79z (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit I am surprised the weight is the same, despite the different turret and the larger gun.

I've reinstated the concatenation of refs, naming the ref the first time it is used saves having to type it out in full every time. NB the the "last" and "first" parameters in the citation are for the author(s)/editor(s) names. If the document is anonymous you can leave those blank.

One query, is the publisher actually stated to be the "British Military"? Should either be the manufacturer or the War Office. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Turret size would have the MkIII and 4 be the same. The weight for MKII and MKI would be a little lighter but we are talking only a couple hundred pounds as we are not talking about a massive change in size. Maybe I can show you in video or pics on discord or zoom to dissaude your distrust Sapper79z (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

On Princess Cruises. Yes I suspect you're right that they just brought the turbine ashore and not the entire ship. I should have caught that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I nearly missed it the first time round! Just realised that something wasn't quite right. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Number of station on metropolitan line

Hello, I have changed the number of tube stops on the metropolitan line to 35, I am almost certain this is the correct number. Please could you explain why you are changing it back? Sorry for passively aggressively changing it a couple of times, I hadn't realised you were the one undo-ing the changes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.153.9 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't give a source for the change. Unfortunately there are a few people who think changing a random number in an article is funny, so I tend to be a bit strict on those sort of changes. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's my first time editing a wikipedia page and I don't know how to provide a source. I based my change from the TFL page for the Metropolitan line: https://tfl.gov.uk/tube/route/metropolitan/

This page includes Willesden Green as a stop for the Metropolitan line, even though the Tube Map does not. The website for this station also list the Metropolitan as actively running through it: https://tfl.gov.uk/hub/stop/940GZZLUWIG/willesden-green-underground-station/. Including this would put the total number of stations on the Metropolitan line at 35.

I am unable to visit the station myself to verify the truth either way. I have contacted TFL asking them to update the map and/or explain why the map doesn't show this station on the Metropolitan line, I am yet to receive a response. In the meantime I thought I would update the page for this missed station.

Sorry again for not following correct procedure for updating the page! As a more experienced wiki-contributer, I will leave it to you to determine wether to trust the map or the line/station specific website. 80.189.153.9 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willesden Green has platforms for both Metropolitan and Jubilee lines, but only the Jubilee platforms (nos. 2 & 3) are in normal use - the Metropolitan platforms (1 & 4) are only used irregularly, such as when the Jubilee service is suspended due to engineering work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woolston station

On that reference, although not immediately obvious, it is in a reference, where you hover down over a letter, but that does confirm that Southern do call at Netley like that. The previous (older) reference most likely would have also contained a similar confirmation that Southern do call at Netley Lawrence 979 (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One service a day doesn't usually qualify for inclusion in the table. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter. It is clarified as a limited service in itself, and it is also an offically scheduled service 5 days a week. If it was an irregular service that only operated during engineering works, then that would indeed by the case. Lawrence 979 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{tps}} train service tables are meant for regular services, not peak time or limited services. A mention can be made in the body instead. Danners430 (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is just wrong, given for those edits I made, I actually used modified tables from other stayions with limited services such as Havant (southern services to Bedhampton), Horsham and Crawley (Southern services to Ifield and Littlehaven), and im pretty sure theres other precedent as well for limted services in tables such as Southampton ctl for SN services to Southampton Airport Parkway. You should undo those edits and put it to a wider discussion, but until it is decided nationwide, Southern services to Netley should be shown on tables in the same way as their services to Airport Parkway or others. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to resolve a content dispute is leave the content at a status quo and discuss on the talk page. Since you're the one that believes these edits should be made, I'll leave that to you. Danners430 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well honestly, this isnt just an issue about the article for Woolston. By your criteria we should probably be changing all those stations I mentioned as precedent for limited services at certain stations, or even limited services on whole routes, and probably a lot more stations across the entire United Kingdom. In general though, all I was actually doing was changing a status quo that went against precedent of similar examples. Lawrence 979 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel a broader discussion is needed, then perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways is the right place. Danners430 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section to that talk page, so feel free to discuss it further on that page, although a two trains per day service non stop from Netley to Woolston is pretty relevant information unlike other examples in this country. Lawrence 979 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stratford upon Avon

I am unsure why you keep deleting edits - the attraction I am adding is genuine (as is the Butterfly Farm and others noted in the same section) and is backed by citations. Can you clarify why you think this is advertising and how you would phrase it? PMShakespeare (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious COI Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolvesey Castle

Thank you for your edit to Wolvesey Castle: [1]. I'm not fully sure why you made this change, although there is probably a good reason. If it's the formatting of the gallery, at least on my device, it has made it worse! In this case, a different solution will have to be found. Best wishes, Godtres (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing the name of the former managing director of Go South Coast companies/brands

Given the sudden nature of Andrew Wickham's passing today, as evidenced by these articles [1] [2][3] [4], would it be better to change the names of the Managing director to the interim "Ben Murray" or wait until news of a more permanent managing director assumes control of these companies? What do you think? -NHPluto (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NHPluto: Use the interim name but reference it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redhill to Tonbridge line

You have deleted my amendment in regard to the signalling on this line. The information given as a source was incorrect. The line uses track circuit block signalling between Three Bridges ASC and Ashford ASC. This has happened before that incorrect information in books is transferred to Wikipedia without checking. Steamybrian2 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamybrian2: You have not provided any evidence that the original source is in error. "Because I say so" is not good enough I'm afraid Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steamybrian2: and Murgatroyd49 It's worth pointing out that the source is a study published by Network Rail almost exactly a year ago. It a detailed study into the route, including barriers to increasing capacity. If anyone should know what the signalling systems currently in place on the line are, then it is Network Rail. However, I am a little mystified as to how there is an 'island' of Absolute Block between the two ASCs. I presume, but have no knowledge other than the source given, that there has to be some sort of manual handover of trains between Three Bridges and Ashford. It would be interesting to know the procedure (if there is one), but we can't change the spirit of the current wording without an equally high-quality source. Mertbiol (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like Bromley Cross, which was on the boundary between the areas controlled by the signalling centres at Preston and at Manchester, which were not compatible with one another - so the small signal box at Bromley Cross was retained, but with the levers controlling colour light signals. A train from Manchester to Blackburn via Bolton would run under the control of Manchester panel until it reached Hall i'th' Wood, at which point Manchester panel would send "is line clear?" to Bromley Cross box on its block instruments, and when the train arrived at Bromley Cross, the box there would send "Train out of section" to Manchester panel, and "Is line clear?" to Preston panel. Once the train reached Darwen, Preston would send "Train out of section" to Bromley Cross box. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a likely scenario. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed reply. I cannot understand that between Godstone to Edenbridge is shown as AB signalling but the signal boxes at both stations (and others on the line) were abolished in the 1990s. Today trains are automatically transferred between Three Bridges Regional Operating Centre and Ashford ASC by track circuits and I am unaware that required any input from signal men such as ringing bells, changing block instruments, etc. Train movements on this (and other lines) can be seen on real time under "opentraintimes". As I reside in Kent I frequently travel over the Redhill to Tonbridge line and many years ago visited Three Bridges ROC. Finally I apologise for any errors I have made but it was made in good faith for which has even puzzled yourself.Steamybrian2 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my email I have rechecked this again and have found no record of any absolute block working on this line. My final analysis is that it would appear that Network Rail have made an error in their own publication ..! Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing Graph/Chart migrations

Hello there, I've noticed that a few of my graph migrations have been reverted. However no reasoning was given in the change description. I would like an explanation. GalStar (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, I misread the edits as unexplained deletion of material, hadn't realised you were carrying out migrations of the graphs. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no problem, as someone who reverts vandalism, I make similar mistakes

Cheers, GalStar (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]