This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Trams, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.UK TramsWikipedia:WikiProject UK TramsTemplate:WikiProject UK TramsUK Trams
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Even as the person who made the article, I would agree but don't put it in 61016 (keep the same article in same place, just a move, and possibly delete the old redirect. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
That is a corporate blog, it is not a reliable source. I have removed it from the article. Such an error (the wrong date) is a great example of why self published sources WP:SPS should not be trusted. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the zoomed in image, this is because that you are able to see the text and the advertisement more closer, as this article is mainly about that train with the advertisments that do not need to be repeated again with the other cars (carriages) Wikiediter2029 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of using the image of the full length of the train is that it shows the extent/scale of the advertisement along every carriage. Seeing the text in a thumbnail even on the cropped version is difficult, but anyone who wanted to see the detail needs only click on the thumbnail to see it in its full glory - which is the point of thumbnails. I support the change made by @S5A-0043. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second image added was exactly the same as the full-train image already in the article - albeit a mirror. If you want to show another picture then show a poster/advert in a station or inside a train instead of on the outside a train. Check flickr - there might be something. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the reasons above said by @10mmsocket, there's two other reasons I reverted to the full image.
1. When the smaller image was added, no relevant information about its copyright status was added. The source only stated that it was from "Wikimedia Commons" and author was "Unknown". With such vague licensing attribution, had the original photo came from any other site it would immediately fail WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT, but since the source was Commons I decided it was better for me to investigate more and replace with the original file (which I did).
2. Cropping to focus on the portion with the advertisement most clearly shown may fail British copyright laws under c:COM:FOP UK and would not qualify as de minimis (the original most likely would qualify) since the whole purpose of the crop was the BTP ad and the text on it. I will add that normally I'm more flexible when applying the DM criteria (and have disagreed with others on the extent of application previously) but since the original was a better illustration anyways (10mmsocket already gave the reasons above) I just replaced it to save the debate. S5A-0043🚎(Talk)14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only (relevant) document I can find that mentions 61016 is the 2025 annual report which mentions a) the fact it is now free on the four major networks and b) the number of messages sent compared with the previous year. It doesn't establish any correlation between those two facts though. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It only brings up info about the BTP text service. Its very unlikely someone would be searching 61016 for anything else. Also, the request is a little malformed. JuniperChill (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
