User talk:BIL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, BIL, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

The Wookieepedian 19:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Motorways in Belgium 2 Boknafjord 3 Newark Airport 4 Gauge mistakes 5 Christiana, Delaware 6 Coöperation 7 List of rail accidents 8 WikiProject Airports 9 Schengen 10 Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting 11 Russian routes 12 Sorry

[edit] Motorways in Belgium

Belgian motorways do have numbers but these aren't used where the motorway also has an E-route number - you wouldn't even know they exist as they're not used on singage at all - only where the motorway isn't an E-route, like the 'back route' from Brussels to Antwerp via Mechelen. Gerry Lynch 11:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boknafjord

Hei It does not seem that Boknafjord will be the longest tunnel. The Channel Tunnel or Chunnel is already 50 km (31 miles) long, of which 39 km (24 miles) are undersea. The average Chunnel depth is 45 m (150 ft) underneath the seabed. Perhaps you meant Boknafjord will be the deepest? Tusen takk - Williamborg 22:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Boknafjord will be the longest undersea road tunnel. There are longer railway tunnels, like the channel tunnel and the Seikan tunnel. (Jag skrev inte det och det var fel). /BIL 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newark Airport

I noticed you wrote on ElektrikBlue's talk page that other airports are listed in the main city they serve, not their location. However, many of your examples do not apply here. Kansas City International is in Kansas City, Missouri; Washington Dulles is in Virginia but is under the jurisdiction of Washington DC's airport authority. Newark Liberty is just outside of Newark, is controlled by the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, and is under lease from the city of Newark, not New York. Dbinder (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As Dbinder pointed out, OAK still is listed as Oakland EVEN THOUGH it serves San Francisco area as well. The airlines only state New York for marketing purposes, but for encyclopedic purposes, I prefer Newark. Elektrik Blue 82 15:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a matter of what policy we would like to have. Clicking the link shows more about where you get when you fly to the airport, here the city of Newark with 200.000 inhabitants. In swedish Wikipedia the destination is written New York/Newark. Can't we have that? I thought we could use the main city it served as defined by the booking systems, e.g. www.amadeus.net and by the airline homepages. It is probably natural that the city of Newark owns the land, as in Sweden a county/city can't own land outside its own border. A big problem as I understand is the fact that the city New York has the same name as the state. It looks strange to write New York, New Jersey. /BIL 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Most foreign airlines that fly to Newark also fly to Kennedy (TAP being an exception). The Portugese Wikipedia may have New York/Newark or Newark/New York or whatever. For the English version, however, it makes perfect sense to distinguish between an airport in New York and one in New Jersey. Depending upon a traveler's ultimate destination, one airport or the other may be more appropriate. Simply listing both as New York doesn't provide a whole lot of information. Dbinder (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but we never list both as just New York since we list the airport name also. Listing just Newark doesn't provide a whole lot of information neither. If you press the link, you get info about the 280.000 inhabitant city in New Jersey. If you look very close in that article you can see that it is close to Manhattan, but you probably have to know that to understand the meaning of the air travel destination Newark. An encyclopedia should explain things not neccesarily known before. People knowledged in USA air travel knows that Newark airport is a good option when visiting New York, but we should not require this knowledge. Better would be to write New York City/Newark or Newark (New York City). To write New York City not New York would avoid the confusion with the state where the airport not is located./BIL 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gauge mistakes

I read with interest your edit on Rail_gauge}:

• Sweden (only the Köping-Riddarhyttan railway, now closed. Measurement mistake when ordering locomotives and cars. The railway was then rebuilt from 1067 to 1093 mm.)

Is there any more info on this? Keo 18:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in Swedish language. [1]. It appeared that someone measured the gauge top-to-top on the rails (a short part was finished), when the real method is inside-to-inside. About year 1863. BIL 20:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

cool, thanks.Keo 05:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny serious rather than funny ha-ha!

Gauge is easy to get wrong; costly when this happens. See Talk:Rail gauge#Gauge mistakes

Tabletop (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christiana, Delaware

Please be mindful of designations such as "town" that have legal significance in many states. Towns in Delaware are incorporated municipalities. Christiana is not incorporated and so cannot be called a town. Thanks, Postdlf 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coöperation

He didn't actually deliberatlly misspell the word Coöperation, it's one of few english words with diacritics. Just a friendly reminder.

And btw, I see that you're swedish, do you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden? --Krm500 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Never seen that spelling, but maybe you are right. Google search on Coöperation=120 000 hits, and Cooperation 183 million, sometimes used, but can't be main spelling alternative. I have now looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden, not checked that one out before. BIL 18:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of rail accidents

There is currently a discussion about whether we should set criteria for inlcusion of accients on the List of rail accidents page, and if so what the criteria should be.

The discussion is located at Talk:List of rail accidents/Criteria for inclusion, where your input would be most welcome. Thryduulf 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Airports

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Mariehamn Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 21:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schengen

Regarding your edit to the Schengen Agreement article, I was trying to make clear that the status of Norway and Iceland as non-EU members means that customs controls in these two countries are the same towards travelers from any country regardless of whether it is a Schengen member or not. This means that all travelers coming through an entry point in these two countries pass through the same customs controls gate regardless of the country they are coming from. This is most definitely the case in Iceland where I live and I assume Norway has a similar arrangement while EU nations have a separate customs channel for EU citizens. --Bjarki 01:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

One difference is that Iceland has (almost) only an airport border. Norway has a land border, and I know that cars and train travellers just pass through unless the customs wants to check them, like other Schengen borders. It is true that at air and sea port borders for Norway, there is one customs control regardless start country. Sweden and other EU countries has two customs controls at airports, one if one comes from an EU country, another fron a non-EU country. So maybe I was a little wrong but I thought about the road border of Norway. -- BIL 13:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well in all international airports I've been to (inside the Schengen and outside it), the majority of people just pass through the customs unchecked so that's nothing unique to Schengen land borders although I can imagine that controls are generally laxer at land borders than in ports and airports. The difference in customs controls between EU and non-EU members inside Schengen is that non-EU members treat all travelers the same regardless of Schengen while EU countries have separate customs points for EU arrivals (or abolish them completely in land borders between EU countries). --Bjarki 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting

Category:People who have walked or run around the world or are attempting, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian routes

But why? And the template is still titled "motorways"... Oversight?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the word motorway in English means a road with at least four lanes, divided between directions and no left turns to leave or enter it and all crossings on bridges. These Russian roads does not have this standard except a few places. I have fixed the title on the template. -- BIL (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to make sure. However, if you saw some of those "highways", you would probably have reservations about applying that word to them as well :) Any reason why they can't just be called "auto routes"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have visited Russia as a tourist, but only using train from Finland. I have seen a little of their roads in the TV-show Peking Express when people should compete in hitchhiking the fastest from Moscow to Beijing. There they looked acceptable. The flat siberian landscape allows straight roads. The surface quality did not look so good. Have you seen Norwegian roads? They have good surface quality but are very curvy and narrow. See commons:Category:Roads in Norway. --BIL (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, don't take me wrong, there are decent roads in Russia. But then, there are roads of federal importance that look like this. I never had a chance to experience the Norwegian roads in person (never having been to Norway and all), but from the pictures they look very similar to our American rural highways, although, of course, I can't compare the surface quality by just looking at the pictures :)

Anyway, my question still stands—are there any reasons not to use the term "auto route" instead of "highway" for Russian roads?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they could, but in August 2007 a person named User:Ghirlandajo moved all articles Russian route M1 with numbers M1-M18 to the new names like M1 motorway (Russia). No one has objected, but why not move back. -- BIL (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I left Ghirla a note asking to comment here. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"A person named User:Ghirlandajo" not only moved, but also started most of the pages in question. BIL, please revert your ill-advised changes here and elsewhere as soon as possible. These are not "ordinary roads" as you claim, they are the roads of "federal importance", which is the Russian word for what is known as "motorway" in the UK. Please check M1 motorway (disambiguation) to M4 motorway (disambiguation) for proper nomenclature. See also my unanswered query here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I voice my opinion here? In Russia we call them Federalnaya Trassa such as: Федеральная Трасса М1 - Беларусь, and that applies uniformaly for the blue/green distinction. As for motorway/non-motorway, there is of course a blue distinction whilst green is reserved for top-quality but then by recent visit saw that a blue M7 was in MUCH more better quality than the green M9. Whilst the MKAD does not have a colour code and uses white signs... So its better to keep them all as Motorways imo. --Kuban Cossack 13:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps "Russian federal routes"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Motorway means in British English a road with four or more lanes, middle barrier, no crossing roads except using bridges. We can't call the M-roads that. It does not have with colour coding to do. It has rather little with "motor vehicles" to do. --BIL (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

These roads fit what British people would understand by "motorway", and the current scheme currently brings a lot of natural comprehensibility. "Highway", while yeah maybe, is a little broad. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Your addition to Pluto was correct, but it needs to be cited, and probably rephrased. I'll get onto it tomorrow. Serendi^podous 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)