User talk:Scillystuff/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Ondine

May I alert you to a discussion on merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze)! — Robert Greer (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the ballerina Lhs in the excellent phto you added to Marinela Nunez article is Lauren Cuhbertson ruskin18:30 25 January 2009. —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC).

You are quite right, I'll correct it as soon as I can, thanks :) Scillystuff (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

East Lincolnshire Railway

Hi, looking at this there are several references to Lough should this be Louth? Keith D (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rats, I though I had caught them all, overzealous spell checker, I'm afraid. I'll get them fixed.Scillystuff (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to add any more to the template, originally I was only going to add the loop and Spilsby branch, but then thought adding the Cleethorpes and Skegness sections gave a better indication of how it fitted into the system without too much more work. Glad to see someone else adding railway stuff :) --Bedders (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shottle Railway Station

Hi,

I'd like to very gently challenge your route box for Shottle Railway Station. Although not passenger-carrying, the line between Idridgehay and Duffield is operational for vehicle testing. I would suggest that 'disused' isn't quite accurate.

If you were going to do any editing or merging of records associated with the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway (saw the SuggestBot entry), could I work with you on them? I'll put my hand up to being a director of the railway and am keen to make sure that the information concerned with the line is as accurate as possible.

Regards,

Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nferguso wyvern (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy for you to add to or modify my work in any way you wish, I understand how wikipedia works and am not possessive about my contributions. I put 'disused' for Shottle as the article is for the station, not the line and I couldn't find anything on your web sites that implied the station was near to reopening. However, there is a category for national rail 'planned' stations (although I haven't seen it used for heritage lines}. I recently did similar work after creating the article for the East Lincolnshire Railway where the Lincolnshire Wolds Railway have relaid line to North Thoresby railway station but aren't yet using it for operations. I was intending to work my way along the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway adding route and info boxes as I have to Idridgehay railway station and Duffield railway station, where both the disused and heritage information is displayed in the same box. I was going to end with Ravenstor railway station by which time I should have a consistent set of information for the boxes and also add a route map. I was hoping that your pages would end up similar to the East Lancashire Railway and Nene Valley Railway where I also contributed or modified station and route information boxes. I wasn't planning on merging any of the articles, quite the opposite as I believe Wirksworth railway station needs a page of its own. I noticed that in Talk:Ecclesbourne Valley Railway there had been some difference of opinion over the direction the articles were taking, so I was going to tread carefully :) Let me know if it is OK to continue or if you would like it doing differently.Scillystuff (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Thaks for your reply; I really do appreciate your comments and I apologise for misinterpreting your use of the 'Disused' flag. Yes, I got caught-up in a full-on kicking session last year and if I may be so bold, I would really appreciate working with somebody who would like to take a look at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway's pages. I will put my hands up to being very closely associated with the railway (I'm a director) but would would be a very willing contributer if you wanted to edit the entries. If you wanted to proceed, would you like to exchange emial addresses? I'm not sure of the protocol here but would appreciate a conversation. Kind regards, Neil Nferguso wyvern (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neil, I've started on some non-confrontational Wikification of the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway article and stations and added a route map, hope I haven't jumped the gun. There's a few things that the articles could do with and probably a way for you to "spread the word" without being accused of spam advertising :) A popular source of photographs for wikipedia is geograph as once a photo is posted to geograph it is released as "Creative Commons Commercial Attribution", which means anyone can use it, even for commercial purposes, as long as they attribute the copyright holder. Ravenstor doesn't currently have a CC/CA picture that can be used to illustrate the station. If you were willing to release a photo as CC/CA to to geograph, then I could add it to Wikipedia and it would be found both here and there :) If you follow the geographic coordinates at Ravenstor and then follow Geograph British Isles project : Photos it will show you the current photos for the grid square containing Ravenstor. These photos also turn up in Google searches, so can be used by other enthusiasts when talking about the railway.Scillystuff (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Cromford Wharf etc.

Hi Scillystuff,

re. Cromford Wharf Shed on the HPR template, this is the name of the shed at today's High Peak Junction, and part of that complex. It is a bit confusing, as I have learned, but it's not on Cromford Wharf, so this, I think, should simply be "Cromford Wharf".

But talking of Cromford Wharf, this was largely isolated after the connection of HPR to the mainline, which is in the opposite direction!

Also, I've been checking up, and in Rimmer's definitive work, I really feel we should keep High Peak Junction as being the actual junction - since it's an historical template - not the name used today for Cromford Goods. (I might need to make this clearer on the HPJ page.)

Originally the line would simply have gone Sheep Pasture -> Cromford Wharf It then went Sheep Pasture -> Cromford Goods -> High Peak (actual) Junction

But we still need to show the original Cromford Wharf which was abandoned after mainline connection!

I can't use these template things, but to show it all I think it should go like this ...

Sheep Pasture incline >> Cromford Goods Yard (today known as High Peak Junction) showing siding off >> Cromford Wharf (original terminus) shown on a side branch off >> High Peak Junction (the actual junction - from where the Derwent Line goes off in both directions)

Does that seem to make sense? Is this possible to do it like this? Cheers, Hogyn Lleol (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added a "kink" in the Template:Cromford and High Peak Railway Derwent Valley Line so that a junction name can be added. Please change the other names at that end of the railway as you have written the articles for them and have the references for what they should be. I think the line layout matches what you wanted above (and it matches the lines in the 1930 OS map), but if it doesn't, take out the chunks you don't like or let me know how to modify it to match what you want.Scillystuff (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've updated it, and all looks correct now. One little thing - the branch to Cromford Wharf shed, could the line come DOWN and round, rather than UP and round as it does now. That would show it better, I think. Thanks for your work on that. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reversed the shed junction.Scillystuff (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Cheers. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brighouse

Hi. Thanks for the addition on the Old Ship. I saw the legend on the pub last night, but didn't photograph it or copy it down as I believed (wrongly) it was already on the page. Oops.--Storye book (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Donington-on-Bain article URL conflict

Hi,

The URL for this article needs changing to reflect Donington-on-Bain GNR station. As it is it conflicts with Donington LNW station in Shropshire, for which no article yet exists. The link in the List of Closed station from Donington points to this article while that from Donington-on-Bain shows no article existing, so that also needs changing. (PS Donington LNW station was spelled wrong in the closed stations list and I have now changed it to Donnington)

I'd make the change myself but I'm just starting out with wiki, I'm not sure how to do this yet and I don't want to muck up your article!! Do you simply need to cut and paste the whole article across to a new article linking from Donington-on-Bain and delete that for Donington?

Regards, Eramaps

You are right, both the 1948 timetable and the 1923 / 1938 OS map list the station as Donington on Bain. Wikipedia provides a process for moving articles which will leave behind a redirect. I can then see what links to the redirect and fix the links, leaving the redirect free to be reused. I'll do it later tonight if I have time, otherwise tomorrow. Scillystuff (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Marianela Núñez seven deadly sins.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Marianela Núñez seven deadly sins.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 21:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Humber is not a river

From its own Wikipedia article:

'Although the Humber is an estuary from the point at which it is formed, many maps show it as the River Humber.'

It meets the definition of an Estuary as it is formed from several rivers (Ouse, Trent amongst others) and it has an open mouth into the North Sea, and I was always taught at school that it is wrong to call it a river even though it is thought that 'Humber' (or something similar) meant river.

Looking at Encyclopedia Britannica they have it called the River Humber but classed as an Estuary | Mirriam Webster seems to have it as an Estuary too, I admit that OS maps say river, I don't think in a technical sense it is, unless it's name is the River Humber but that's a misnomer and it is actually an estuary.

I shall try and aquire better knowledge about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.39.137 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Polite Notice - Possible solution to Ondine merging

I am creating this notice to invite all interested parties to vote on the proposal to merge Undine (ballet) and Ondine (Ashton) to a new article at Ondine (ballet). You can read the discussion and add your vote to the poll at:

Look forward to seeing you there to help resolve this situation, thanks! Crazy-dancing (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message on my talk page, I have now put the brakes on, but thanks for your concern. To be honest I hadn't realised quite how many edits I had made until Kleinzach pointed it out. But as I said on the article talk page, I'm going to make a concious effort to consolidate my contributions into fewer edits, and I WILL remember to start putting a description in the edit summary as well. At the moment I am in the process of creating new articles about Julia Farron and some of the other dancers who danced in the original production, and then I will link to them, but I will make sure to do them ALL at the same time. Crazy-dancing (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity killed the cat

See reply. Simply south (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Brighouse Bridge

Sure and it's my pleasure - any time. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Railway stations Hornsea line

No please do not de-merge. Read your own links please.

WP:Notability : The stations have not received any significant coverage in reliable sources indepedant of subject - if fact there is little information in sources directly related to the topic. To put it simply the article are very unlikely to progress beyond a stub at any point in the future.

Also Help:Merging first paragraph - reason for merge "minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic." - this is an exact match for the situation.

Also Wikipedia:Merging#Rationale "Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic"

Please don't waste my time with blanket statements such as "All stations are notable" and then link to pages (WP:Notability and WP:MM) that shows that the articles needed merging anyway. Shortfatlad (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Also please see the essay Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And to quote WP:MM "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merger ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages." Previous merge and delete discussions for stations (such as WP:Articles_for_deletion/Shottle_railway_station) have ended in favour of keep. Please discuss at least one of the mergers before doing them again. Scillystuff (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have reverted all of my changes already without a discussion or waiting for a reply. WP:Reverting suggests "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." Scillystuff (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The merge is not controversial really.. It is also not the same as a deletion. I've responded at wikiprojectUK railways.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

reply

The reason I keep telling you; you are wrong; is that someparts of what you are doing is wrong - for example you've made some short articles about railway stations, but no article about the line it's on or other related railway info.. If you think about it you are recreating a directory of railway stations such as Butt, R.V.J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations. .. but Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory - its good that we have all those station articles for future use but I think you need to discard any idea that a complete set of articles for each station is the best way to organise.Shortfatlad (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also you talked about precedents for notability of geographic articles - there's some info here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Geography_and_astronomy and also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Transportation. The essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability also clarifies a bit. Though I don't think any UK station would ever need total deletion as most would be relevant information within the scope of another article. So it's probably not important.

My opinion on the way wikiprojectUK railways should proceed is to follow the global wikipedia policy and guidelines rather than attempt to make any sort of special rules for railway articles. AND attempt to write good articles. However if you want to get proper clarification on policys the place to take it is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), if you want to make a new policy, such as establishing that all xxx are notable I think that is the same place to start.Shortfatlad (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I do make articles on the line as well as the stations - East Lincolnshire Railway for example. I also edit a very few lines which are already lists of stations and have created a few station info tables myself, such as Ecclesbourne Valley Railway#Stations. However, as I quoted, removal of the individual station articles was vigorously opposed. I don't want to make a new policy and I usually fit in with whatever is there already. Until now I have based my editing on what I thought was the existing policy, as established by the plethora of individual station articles. Perhaps the new policy will favour single line articles. I really wish I had been given the opportunity to explain this on a talk page of an article that you re-merged. I'll be happy to take it to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) but I thought WT:WikiProject_UK_Railways was more knowledgeable and had discussed it before. Scillystuff (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13#Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season

May I call your attention to a proposal at Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 13 to delete Category:New York City Ballet repertory by season? — Robert Greer (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Staines to Windsor Line

What sharp eyes you have, tho yr edit summary was a bit confusing. It's strange to me that, although railway line templates sensibly do not allow for number of tracks, roads crossing them are shown as thick or thin.--SilasW (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

German acronym icon names don't make for easy reading, do they :) Scillystuff (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean, I missed the ex off completely. Wups. Scillystuff (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rasta Thomas

Rasta Thomas will turn 30 years old on July 18, 2011, and I would LOVE for him to be the featured article of the day on that day. I'm calling foryou your help to join in on taking this article to greatness, and giving Rasta a little love.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

calder river stuff

Thanks for your message. I don't move stuff often, but I did look for a move tab and did not find one. I did also move another article in the same series of edits, which was to move the article about River Calder, West Australia away from where it was, which was River Calder. Maybe you could look at it for me? It seems, by the way, that a lot of confusion is coming from the way British place names tend to use the reverse word order to "New World" rivers, so Americans or Australians searching for "Calder River" (not "River Calder") would have got the impression there was no article about any of the rivers of that name in Britain. So hopefully I have done more good than harm! :) Most of what I did in this series of edits was improving the disambiguation page and adding more wikilinks and redirects, but those two moves seemed necessary to get the job finished off.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see where the tab has moved to on the new set up. I should have looked harder.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. Concerning having disambiguation links instead of disambiguation pages, I understand what you are saying but I think the situation I found was extremely confusing, and I did add a lot of dab links, but I felt it was not enough. Anyone searching for Calder River would have found only a reference to West Australia, and River Calder also only referred to one River. Neither of the Calders having these two "prime spots" seems to be in any way primary, which would be the implication. Adding little links at the top of the page did not seem a good solution if the aim is clarity.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have performed histmerges on the River Calder, Yorkshire article, but I have left the content of the original version as the top version as the new article only had a lead section. I have also changed the link on the dab page for this article which still went to the now redirect. I have not gone through the original name links and changed the articles to point to the new name. Have not got time at the moment as there looks a significant number to do. Keith D (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I hadn't realised that 90% of the original article was missing as well as the history. Time to start wading through the links. Scillystuff (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's the first 30 done, 60 more to do. Scillystuff (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2010

Delivered September 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:AMonthintheCountryZenaidaYanowskiRupertPennefather01.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:AMonthintheCountryZenaidaYanowskiRupertPennefather01.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Eccleshill railway station

I cannot agree with text description of the location of Eccleshill railway station. Eccleshill does not have a 'High Street' or an 'Oddfellows Hall' whereas Idle does. The given coordinates of the former station where Summerbridge Crescent is now, are correct.Stuffed cat (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, I cut and pasted the opening information from Idle, the next station on the line and did not remove the location information. I couldn't find any contemporary images of the station and the 1925 map reference wasn't acurate enough to describe the location in detail. I've removed the offending information. Scillystuff (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2010

Delivered October 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability of primary schools

Hi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education states that verifiable high schools are generally kept and that primary schools that "don't source a clear claim to notability" are usually merged to either its school district in North America or to the appropriate lowest level locality - that would be a civil parish in the UK. --Kudpung (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

WYPTE

PTE's are and except between 1974-1986 have always been half of a binary organisation (WYPTE wasnt created till a few years after the others so it might have been very brief, in fact the change that created it may have also been what abolished the other authorities I dont know exactly). The Executive arm does the spending and day to day management, West Yorkshires, the WYPTE has always existed since the met county was created. However all PTE's work under an ITA made up of councillors from the member Boroughs (or in Strathyclydes case the Unitary Authorities) which sets policy, controls the budget and provides accountability. For more info see the Passenger Transport Executive page or http://www.wyita.gov.uk/about . The name change on the page refers the Passenger Transport Authority name changing to Integrated Transport Authority, its not refering to any name change in the Executive. However when you think of PTE/ITA's you must always think of them as binary organisations with the ITA forming the head and the PTE the body and working as one. WatcherZero (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

But the Passenger Transport Executive page is quite clear that the PTA didn't exist between 1974 and 1986, so it would be wrong in the lede of the article to say it was created under that name. Scillystuff (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

File:AMonthintheCountryZenaidaYanowskiRupertPennefather01.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:AMonthintheCountryZenaidaYanowskiRupertPennefather01.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2010

Delivered November 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 12:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Bridges on the Mon

I've noticed that you've redirected a link on the page concerning crossings of the Mon River. Despite the confusion on maps, the C. Vance DeiCas Bridge is not the same as the historic Charleroi-Monessen Bridge. It is actually this bland 1957s struture[1]. I've readded the link and the appropriate page.Mr. Vitale (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that - I spent an hour back in August trying to figure out which bridge was which. Scillystuff (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've found the reference that I based my redirect on. The Pittsburgh Tribune review had an article on the Charleroi-Monessen bridge and stated the following: "On Nov. 20, 1990, the state Senate gave final approval to legislation designating the span as the C. Vance DeiCas Memorial Bridge. That action came in memory and honor of the late engineer (McDonald Associates), community and business leader and former PennDOT official. DeiCas is further recognized for his work with the stretch of four-lane road between the Donora-Monessen Bridge and Route 201 in Rostraver Township being named the C. Vance DeiCas Memorial Highway." Ron Paglia (March 19, 2009). "Charleroi-Monessen Bridge became free to public in 1957". Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Retrieved November 14, 2010. Scillystuff (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And there is a PA Senate Bill 1113 renaming the bridge on State Route 2018 to be the C. Vance DeiCas Memorial Bridge. Scillystuff (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The official names here in the Valley keep changing. Here's the problem: the classic (and currently finally under reconstruction, after quite the feud) Charleroi-Monessen Bridge was once named for DeiCas. However, signs on the approach to the Donora-Monessen Bridge also list that it is named in his honor. Anyway, I remembered something that will ease the confusion. This year, the Donora-Monessen Bridge was renamed for Baseball Hall of Famer Stan Musial.[2]. So why don't we reconfigure the pages and remove DeiCas altogether? The Charleroi-Monessen Bridge can retain its simple name, and the Donora-Monessen can have the official Stan Musical Bridge moniker. Also, I'm not sure why there are two articles on the Donora-Webster Bridge. It's all one brittle old structure sitting in limbo.Mr. Vitale (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll have a go at merging the Donora-Webster Bridge and Webster-Donora Bridge articles. Scillystuff (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

template:infobox bridge

i committed the cardinal sin of leaping without testing first. thanks for bringing that to my attention...it should now work properly. cheers! --emerson7 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scillystuff. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Scillystuff. You have new messages at WVRMad's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WVRMad•Talk•Guestbook 18:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)