Talk:Duffws

Right then - I've added some pix: is that alright; or do I need to tidy up my coding a bit?

MdecMarquis DeCarabas (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would suggest that the two drawings are together and are moved to be with the photos of the station building.Heritagejim (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well.... I have a plan and (somewhere downstairs) a likely elevation of the station at Dolgarreg-ddu i.e. the "first" Duffws to go in. I've also got some Newborough estate plans that shew the evolution from Horse to Station I to Station II which I'm going to try and work in somehow. It might mean a first/second station page.

Happy with your suggestion - do you mean *after* the staff list, and without the JT 1875 picture? I'd argue for retention of the JT picture, because the paved/cobbled bits become more prominent if you factor in this picture - this could usefully have some annotations before being made more public, as well as deciding where the stables eventually ended up, the later plan I have of the station grounds has the stables in the 'lee' of the bridge, parallel to the new goods shed.

Goods Yard before 1874

More to follow in a gallery post when I've uploaded the files Marquis DeCarabas (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are the images that I'd like to try and work in (people more familar with this coding malarkey are more than welcome to have a go)

Duffws Oct. 1860. Old horse route noted, slewing of 'main line', acquisition of land for SMs house, station building and extension to FSCo.
Duffws Dec. 1860. Land boundaries suggest 'loop' in old horse terminus
First passenger station, ninety degrees to the track.
Expansion of site for second station building.

it may be worth including more of XD97/410777, as it includes the siding in the road to Rhiwbach (above the ¾MP in the 1869 diagram) and some urinals right up in the apex of the Newborough land (near the 'ng' of 'arranged' in XD97/419014), but I will probably draw out a diagram of it. All I'd like to do is to try and reflect the early evolution of the site. I think from these thus far it is clear that single track/terminus loop for horses, move over into land Bgg as a preparatory for steam then get more land for the better buildings.

If someone fancies incorporating these into the text, as I'd like to give a chronological progression as the reader goes down the page, then I can tweak the captions a bit more. Once I've seen how to do this then I can replicate it elsewhere. The keen eyed will note clues to signals and point levers! Marquis DeCarabas (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest the LW picture then old Station building then drawings then recent photos and all after the staff list. I bet you did not know (because I only just found out) that you get a different page layout whether you are logged in or not!

With more drawings it complicates it all but I think keep all the drawings together. Heritagejim (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The layout will change if your user preferences relating to appearance are different from the defaults. As a long term user of the site it is quite likely that you are using the Monobook skin when you are logged in as opposed to the Vector skin that is now the default. You may also have changed the default size of thumbnails which can have an effect, although I note that most (possibly all) images on this page override the default. I pointed out to Keith repeatedly that overriding the user's settings was poor behaviour but he persisted with doing so. --Peter Harrison (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new layout is much better. However might I suggest that the drawings are replaced with ones of higher resolution as I find the present ones are not easy to see. The software apparently supports up to 20Mb but I am not suggesting that high. I was going to see if I could clean them up a bit but it is not worth doing with present images. Heritagejim (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you actually clicked on the images, Jim? The reason I loaded them up as a gallery post is that editors could have a synopticon of what's on offer. Unless my version of Festipedia is so different to yours of course....

If they're coming out as low res images even after clicking, I might as well just not bother and retire my A3 scanner. Please check, because if it isn't working I shall be fairly annoyed. All of them were uploaded at 300dpi, and in a gallery post so people could have a chat about their ordering. Marquis DeCarabas (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aha! I like what George has done - surely you can't be talking about those images as low res, can you Jim?Marquis DeCarabas (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was looking at the 1875 building plan which seems to be the worst one. It is only about 220kb but I now get the impression that the original document may not be too good. Probably nothing can be done but I might try to clean it up when I get some time. Heritagejim (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've uploaded a higher res version here: that's about the best you're going to get from the original - and at max resolution. If anyone wishes to put that as a clickable image into the Duffws page, feel free. I must admit, I'm chary of altering images for alterations sake. The original isn't much cop, admittedly. Marquis DeCarabas (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]