This is an archive of past discussions about User:Redrose64. 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.
Yeah I see that. True Ward20 should have checked that the URL was correct, but I would also point out that a simple Google search of the title immediately brought up the correct article, and it could have been fixed without needing Pokelova or yourself to revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
What unmasks this photo as a composition (apart from the pretended main content) is "the girl's" hand. The fingers are almost twice as long as they should be in relation to her face. And they are bony, whereas the forms of her face are softened by a very little amount of fat.--Ulamm (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Did my post got caught in a cross-fire? My source was a peer-reviewed nature paper about the perceived reliability of sources. Recently published on mar 20. It was absolutely relevant to the guideline page. Could you reconsider your revert please? I do, of course, agree about your first revert, it had no place in that talk page. [1]Iluvalar (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, your edit appears to be suggesting a source for some information for adding to an article (the identity of which is unclear), and that is not what the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page is for.
There is a box near the top of the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page beginning "Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard". The next box down begins with the text "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page." The next box is headed "Frequently asked questions". It seems that you failed to notice those boxes.
Hello, I have noticed that you frequently clean up edits on the List of rail accidents (2020–present) page, often due to the entries not involving deaths/injuries or the spillage of hazmats. I fully support your moderation, but was wondering if I should mention these criteria at the top of the page. It clearly mentions that pedestrian accidents are not listed, but says nothing about injuries or hazmats. I look forward to hearing your input. Thanks, Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
We need some sort of control, otherwise these pages degenerate into lengthly lists of minor occurrences. There's one person (who uses various IP addresses) who frequently adds an entry concluding "no deaths or injuries reported". One inclusion criterion which should definitely be enforced is that of verifiability - the list entry must have either a direct source, or a link to an article (or article section) which describes the accident with sources.This one clearly fails the first, and there is no mention at either Sweden or Hisingen, so it also fails the second. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have written a sentence at the top of the page further explaining the criteria for entries. It is currently hidden as I thought it would be better for you to review or possibly tweak the wording at your discretion, as you clearly know your way around the site better than I do. Thank you for your time! --Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Stoarm: Ah crap, I completely missed this edit, and I reset the wrong rfcid, which means that Legobot's tables probably now include a pair of crossed links. I don't want to revert and re-do, it might make the problem worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Why did you close the TfD nomination there as "disruptive" when it is done at a page clearly demarcated for April Fools? Not·Really·Soroka21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Although R4F does say that, that section of the rules reference jocular edits that affect templates (for example), not jocular edits about templates. Not·Really·Soroka00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mjroots: I was crossing that bridge twice on alternate Tuesdays, plus twice on the third Sunday of the month. Over the last few months I have noticed a temporary speed restriction, which (I think) started off at 50 mph, was reduced to 20 mph, finally 5 mph in the days before the bridge closed. Also, an engineering team started working on the offending abutment about a month ago. But road access to the bridge is difficult (OS 1:25000 map), plus I don't drive - I'd need to take a bus, but the nearest bus stops (routes 33, 35, 41, 45) are each about 2 miles away from the bridge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
It appears there will be plenty of time to get some photos. I've not heard of the Thames being closed to navigation, so access by boat could be an option. Are there boat trips in the area? Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
There is three dates given the web page for it opening and they are 1844, 1856 & 1907 but none of them are 1929 is what the header thinks it is. Also it should be 1844 since that is when it first opened and embankment might be the original ones which would make it 1844. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Part of it is the expansion when displayed. Some browsers will preserve the tab character, some will convert to a single space, some to a row of spaces. For those preserving the tab, the tab stop positions are undefined - they are browser and operating system dependent, and behaviour can also vary with the font family. The tab is also not easy to enter, most browsers will treat the tab key as an instruction to move to the next focusable object. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
It is really the first time I hear this. Could provide some concrete examples of browsers that have problems at displaying tab characters? The tab key as instruction to the next focusable object is the standard, but that never applies to the tab character. --Grufo (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I have been consistently using tabs for indenting wikimedia templates for several years; in absence of a stronger motivation I am going to revert your edit. I find tabs clearer and easier to manage in a text editor – where you can increase and reduce the indentation simply by pressing the tab key. We can imagine to add a |indent= parameter for specifying a custom sequence of characters for the indentation, but I would prefer if there were no named parameters at all in the {{tj}} template (or otherwise it is quite likely that people will get confused with the named parameters to showcase). --Grufo (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this comment: as I recall, the editor in question asked for help on at least one other talk page, so you may be recalling the multiple threads. isaacl (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
The issue is you're trying to be bold without understanding what it is you're doing or Wikipedia policy, and creating lots of cleanup work for other editors in doing so. This is becoming disruptive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@I Like The british Rail Class 483: Once the {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} tags have been added, BOLD is no longer an option. Discussion should take place for at least seven days, so that others may comment. Starting the discussion and then acting upon it just eight hours later without there being any other participants is not BOLD it is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Don't do it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but you must not empty a category out of process. If you believe that only one category is necessary, you should take both to WP:CFM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello! sorry for the issues with the MOS:GENDERID rfc. I misinterpreted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Multiple_simultaneous_RfCs_on_one_page—which I thought was using "question" as the basis of distinction (i.e. "add one question with the tag ... then add the next question with the tag"), so I figured I needed 3, since I was presenting 3 questions. If there's a next time I'll know one per thread suffices!--Jerome Frank Disciple21:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jerome Frank Disciple: You're right, it's not clear. But WP:RFCST says Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page' of the article or project page that you are interested in. and Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag. Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). The first two {{rfc}} had no valid signatures. It's not uncommon to have one RfC asking a multi-part question, or multiple related questions, but there is always one {{rfc}} tag before the statement, and at least one signature after it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Yes, technically each question had a signature—I was following the "multiple RFCS on one page" instructions (which said put a signature after the question so the bot would know when the question ended ... so I did {{rfc}} for the first question with a signature after the first question ... then {{rfc}} for the next question with a signature after the second). But—and I admit I was improvising a bit here—I saw how distracting the multiple signatures looked on WP:RFC/A, so I commented out the signatures (<!-- -->). Sorry if that was the wrong thing to do—was really just trying to think of how the questions would display and not wanting to make it super distracting.--Jerome Frank Disciple02:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking of adding something like this:
Where two questions overlap in their subject matter, present them in the same RfC, like this:
==RfC on the ship's history==
There are two related questions regarding the history of this ship.
#Should the vessel be described as an ocean liner that was later converted to a troopship, or as a troopship converted from an ocean liner?
#Should the lead photo show the vessel during its initial career as the ocean liner, or during its final career as a troopship?
Other suggestions are welcome. --~~~~
Try to avoid having separate discussions for each question in order to reduce duplication.
I think the multiple RFCs might be a good place! Turn it into a "If X, then Y ... but if Z ... then W" type of instruction. (And technically the section heading does capture both scenarios)--Jerome Frank Disciple11:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of this bug in Rater. Seems like it always brings up the WikiProject templates to where the Vital template is; it didn't do it here for example. I've gone through all my edits from yesterday and fixed the rest. Will avoid Rater for now, or at least double-check it when I use it. DFlhb (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi,
Why are you removing my comment regarding the loco having crossed all three Forth Estuary bridges? This is factually correct and is of interest so please tell me why you have removed it possibly twice?
OK, I have gone through both pages and please excuse my ignorance but I fail to understand what I am doing wrong. The locomotive crossed the Queensferry Crossing bridge on its journey to Fife, I have been sent a photograph of it doing so by a friend. Many years ago I added the piece about it passing over the Forth Road Bridge therefore becoming the only steam locomotive to do so, now it has crossed the third bridge. So why is that not relevant and worthy of inclusion? I honestly fail to understand why. Windcutter (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not carry out research, original or otherwise, a friend sent me a photo of the lorry carrying the loco whilst crossing the bridge. Would it help if I uploaded the photo? I live in Fife and have been involved with the loco since 1990 I can verify it happened, it is in the public domain. Windcutter (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
From WP:NOR: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
From WP:V: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
OK. I did ask you if a photograph of the event would be acceptable but you did not answer, so I shall ask you again, would a photograph be acceptable verification or not? Windcutter (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
OKAY! What then Redrose64, would I have to do, say, verify, publish elsewhere, for you to allow me to say that the loco crossed the Queensferry Crossing and therefore passed over all three Forth Estuary Bridges? What does it take? Windcutter (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Alright, let me put it this way. You have a photo of 60009 on the Queensferry Crossing bridge in April. That is evidence that the loco was in that place on that date, nothing else. Is it published anywhere? If not, it is inadmissible.
What it certainly is not is evidence that it has used either of the other two bridges, nor that it was the first to use all three. You need a WP:RS explicitly backing up your claim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Right, I take your points and I give up! The towel has been thrown in, life is too short.
Collapsing may not be needed. Since the next response came between Sandbh’s response and our discussion, I simply added a === header to separate the discussion. YBG (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Did the Wedglock coupler cease to be LU standard at some point? I was wondering as to how I hadn't encountered the correct spelling before – and how my (admittedly cursory) search hadn't turned up any indication of error – and seems that the word simply doesn't appear in any of our articles on LU's current stock, nor in the master London Underground rolling stock article. XAM2175(T)22:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
The fact that the incorrect spelling had been present in some form or another in the railway coupling article for a touch over 17 years until you corrected it just now probably didn't help either. I'm glad to have inadvertently helped in fixing this problem. XAM2175(T)22:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@XAM2175: All the books that I've checked show Wedglock spelled without a second "e". Bruce in
Bruce, J. Graeme (1988). "12. The Experimental Streamlined Stock 1935". The London Underground Tube Stock. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 73, 76. ISBN0-7110-1707-7.
writes that Before the final design of the 1935 tube was settled, a number of equipment and operating experiments had been conducted. ... Two other cars were fitted with Tomlinson couplers which provided automatic coupling mechanically, electrically and pneumatically, these being a modified version of a coupling already in use on American tramway systems for the multiple operation of street cars. and The two-car units were coupled together to form a train by means of a new type of automatic coupler known as the Wedglock – developed from the Tomlinson coupler – which coupled the units together mechanically, electrically and pneumatically. I don't know whether LT engineers did the design work or not. I suspect that they did, as they weren't likely to pay royalties for a third-party device when LT was already extensively using the Ward coupler, which was developed in-house during the early 20th century. LT trialled the Wedglock coupler at the outer ends of each unit of the 1935 Tube Stock, and proving successful, was used for the outer couplers of the 1938 and subsequent Tube stocks, also for the outer couplers of the O, P, R, A, C and D surface stocks. It wasn't used for the Q stock, which had the Ward coupler at both ends of every car, in order to be compatible with older stucks on the District line, and I don't think that it has been used on the S stock, where coupling two units together is rarely done except in emergency. As stock types have evolved, the Wedglock coupler has had periodic updates, mainly concerning increases to the number of electrical connections that are carried through the coupler. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I don't doubt that the correct spelling has only one "e" now that you've demonstrated this, but I'm 1) disappointed that the erroneous second "e" persisted here for such a long time, and 2) curious as to how the term – in either form – does not appear at all in our article on London Underground rolling stock, and 3) curious as to how it does not appear in any of our articles on current-day tube or sub-surface stock (but this could be explained by LU having stopped using the coupler before the current stocks were introduced). XAM2175(T)12:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, for stock types where it's possible to split a train into two or more units (i.e. everything except the S stock), Wedglock couplers are used at the point where the train can be split. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
If you view the HTML source for any section heading on any Wikipedia page, you will see that the first tag inside the <h2>...</h2> is a <span id="...">, where the value of the id= is the section heading text (encoded, so that e.g. underscores replace spaces). Inward links to that section work just fine. Not only is adding an additional anchor redundant, it also creates invalid HTML since the value of an id=must be unique within the document. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Why the comment? The reason I bolded the question is because somebody in a past RfC told me it was unclear what the question was. I appreciate you improving my RfC, but I would also appreciate some humility. I'm trying to improve the encyclopedia just like you. The void century22:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I know that you're right. It's the comment-- that was unnecessary. Something like "removing unnecessary bolding" would suffice. The void century17:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Fine with me to put it wherever, I was just trying to put it where it had been relative to the header on the talk page, and to fix a situation where the whole talk page was marked as not to be edited. - Jmabel | Talk23:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
@DuncanHill: Indeed; but that's the way that mileages are measured on all lines beyond Cornwall Loop Junction (just west of Plymouth North Road), where the milepost mileage jumps from 246 miles 15 chains to 247 miles 28 chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
So it's a conventional mileage not a real one. Might be worth mentioning that for the benefit of readers who aren't experts. DuncanHill (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
All railway mileages are conventional. Consider: a train runs from Paddington to Penzance. How far does it travel? There are several factors to consider; first, it won't start touching the buffer stops at Paddington, and will stop short of the buffer stops at Penzance. So it won't run the whole length of the line. Second, the train has length, probably about eleven chains altogether, so even before it starts, the front end is already eleven chains closer to Penzance than the rear; and when it reaches its destination, the rear is still at least eleven chains short of the buffers. Third, which way does it go? There are three principal ways by which a train can run from Paddington to Penzance (not counting the small variants that bypass certain stations such as Frome), from oldest to newest, these are: via Box; via Badminton; and via Castle Cary. The difference between the shortest and longest of these is just over 20 miles.
Railway mileages don't take service variations or train lengths into account. When a railway is built, its length is surveyed and distance markers are erected at intervals, there is in fact a legal requirement to place these not less than a quarter of a mile apart. If a route is altered, the existing markers are left in place and the new route is given its own distance markers. At one end, they may correspond with the disctance along the old route, or may start at zero. At the other end, there will be some indication of the change of distance. Take the Frome avoiding line as an example. Its eastern end is at Clink Road Junction, 114 miles 44 chains; the western end is at Blatchbridge Junction, which is both 116 miles 37 chains (via the avoiding line) and 116 miles 52 chains (via the station). Distances west from there are via the station, although few trains running beyond Taunton go that way so will actually run 15 chains less than the mileposts suggest. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
You've just made my point. If the mileages are to mean anything to the vast majority of readers who are not experts on railway mileages, they need to be explained. Otherwise it might well be better not to have them at all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I also got this message [3]. I am not sure what I did to restore something. Was it that I shouldn't comment in the close request as it was already locked? I didnt see a locked template or color, maybe missed it in my haste. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jtbobwaysf: Did you follow the links? Basically, in this edit, ClueBot III archived three threads; and eight hours later, you made this edit which undid that archiving edit and also added text to one of the three threads. If you ever need to restore a thread from an archive, you must (a) only restore that one thread and no others; (b) remove the thread from the archive to ensure that no duplication exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, super clear now. I do see cluebot archiving it in this edit. I am not sure how I found the close request, I dont see the close request in any of my notifications. Maybe I looked at the closers "User contributions" and noticed the closers recent note inside the close request. I think I must have followed this link. I was unaware that I was leaving a comment in an archived discussion. I will try to be more careful of this. Still a bit confused how I did it and I apologize for the hassle. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
You weren't leaving a comment in an archived discussion, if you had done that your edit would have been to Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 36. There are two possible explanations: (i) you went to an old version of Wikipedia:Closure requests and edited that, or (ii) you started to revert ClueBot's edit and whilst doing so, commented on one of the threads. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Question
This is one of those "I think it's possible, but not sure", lol
Is it possible in a template to set a date (presumably the timestamp of template placement), and without any further editing, for the template to note that a certain length of time has gone by since that date, and due to that, place the templated page in a category?
@Notrealname1234: Which I shall probably ignore, perhaps won't even bother opening. I don't recall interacting with you before, if you have a problem with my edits please do so on this page, or on the talk page of the article concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding the navbox at the foot of the article to show those two former GNR lines.
As the former LNWR Birstall branch line also left the line from Batley with its intermediate station of Carlinghow, would it also be possible to add that to the same section of the navbox?
Why are you asking me? I have never made any decisions (let alone consequent edits) in that area. I don't even think I have offered any opinions either. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
You have reverted my corrections on the Astley Bridge station and branch line. In particular you have re-instated the entry for Helliwell station. After much research I have found reference to it as a goods only station and not a passenger station. It is not listed in "Railway Passenger Stations" by M.Quick. Can you please state where Helliwell is stated it was a passenger station? You have even reverted the spelling mistake of "tras" instead of trains. Steamybrian2 (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
As I noted in my revert, it's in the cited sources. For instance, Butt (which lists only passenger stations) shows both Halliwell (p. 112) and Astley Bridge (p. 20) as opening 15 October 1877 and closing 1 October 1879. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
In my copy of The Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway, Volume 1, there is a section on the Astley Bridge branch line on pp 198 and 199.
"The Astley Bridge branch at Bolton was authorised by the Act of 1871, along with the Chatburn to Hellifield section and was intended principally to provide station accommodation in Bolton and to serve a large business population. On 5 June 1872, the contract was awarded to Abraham Pilling for £28,400, which was £4,800 less than Monk's estimate, and work began soon afterwards. Thomas Newman of Preston undertook to build a goods warehouse on the branch at Hallwell for £6,650 on 17 June 1874. On 12 February 1876, it was at last possible to run goods trains as far as Halliwell. The completed line was inspected by Colonel Yolland on 7 June 1877, but opening was refused until a bridge had been strengthened and two 10-chain curves check-railed. On 13 August 1877 Board of Trade sanction was received, but the branch was not opened until 15 October 1877"
Mention is made that there was no platform at Astley Bridge and only a wooden shed for shelter,.
No mention is made of a passenger station at Halliwell, but besides the goods warehouse there referred to above, in 1902, a cotton and machinery shed there was erected by T & W Meadows at a cost of £5.862.
I am a long-served member of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society and in my rail archives, in the society binders, LYRS Focus Journal 70 (£7.00), there is a fully comprehensive article on the Astley Bridge branch line on pp 6 to 27, with full text matter and good-sized photographic images showing both sites at Astley Bridge and Halliwell. With regards to a matter of query, the society senior historian has just made contact with me to confirm that no passenger station ever existed at Halliwell, only the goods station premises.
I had the pleasure of meeting at the Wikimedia meetup in Oxford with Chris.
I have been in touch with Chris since then, requesting him to review the page in question. However, he has informed me that he currently lacks the time to thoroughly examine it until approximately the second week of August due to other commitments outside of Wikipedia. He has assured me that if no one else has reviewed it by then, he will make it a priority.
Considering this, I was wondering if you could kindly spare some time to look at the page.
Your feedback is requested - New consensus on Millennials Talk page
Hi Redrose64,
Thank you for your recent contribution at Millennials. I have taken on board your point of view.
I have proposed to improve the Date and age range definitions section of the article to address your concerns, to ensure the section is not unbalanced towards certain viewpoints and to add more information on neglected viewpoints. There is an encouraging sign that a new consensus is forming to support the change as one of the main objectors has noted that concerns have been taken on board and now supports improvement. I would really appreciate if you could add your new opinion to this section of the Talk page to avoid the article being stuck at Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling.
Hi Redrose64! Hope you're well. I've created meta:Meetup/Bristol/4 and I know the standard thing now is to request a geonotice. I also know that geonotices usually mention multiple UK meetups rather than a single one. Could the Bristol meetup be incorporated into an upcoming geonotice, or do I need to put in a dedicated request? Grateful for any advice, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to navigate the awkward internal processes of Wiki and now I fear I have messed everything up for myself.... I.... strewth its so confusing.... 𝔖𝔱𝔬𝔩𝔦𝔱𝔷 (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Rail Class 114, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
@I Like The british Rail Class 483: It has been explained to you before, on several occasions, by various people including myself, that Wikipedia reports on what reliable third-party sources have already published; also, that there is no deadline, and so you should wait until the information is given in e.g. Modern Railways, The Railway Magazine, Today's Railways UK and others. Please don't bother organisations like TfL with freedom of information requests, particularly when the information concerned is extremely likely to be published in due course through the normal routes. What you are doing is tantamount to WP:NOR, you must also respect WP:V. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi RedRose64, thank you again for your comments in the discussion section of the RfC; in reviewing the page you linked, I can see how I can do better in the future. I would be happy to further discuss this either at my user talk page or here, but please also note that I expect my on-wiki participation to be limited for the next few days due to a medical issue that is making typing a bit challenging. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Is this offensive? Alternatively, was the person caricatured offensive? You decide@Cwater1: Then you need to take it up with Mr.Z-man (talk·contribs) - I do not (indeed cannot) maintain other people's scripts. Indeed, what some people find "offensive", may not be thought as such by others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I see your point. I don't consider that picture offensive. Sorry for bugging you in the beginning and now. Everyone has different opinions. My opinion is that looks interesting. Hope you have a great day/night and I wish you happy editing. I do enjoy Wikipedia. Nothing is stopping me from enjoying it. Cwater1 (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
That's an automated function in WP:SDHELPER, primarily for groups of years (e.g. 1890–1942) that might reasonably be in biographical descriptions. I did not intend that to trigger and am not sure how to bypass it for specialty cases like short descriptions of locomotives. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Where did you get 4–4-2T (with one en-dash and one hyphen) from? It certainly does not occur in the article; however, 4-4-2T (with two hyphens) does, in the infobox and also the first sentence (to name just two places) - you could have copied one of those. Please note that the use of automated scripts does not absolve you of the responsibility for ensuring that your edit was correct. Whilst WP:PREVIEW is not much use for shortdescs, you can still use the Show changes feature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I typed "4-4-2" originally. There is text handling code that turns it into "4–4-2"—and that happens after you hit Submit, so that the end user has no final control over this (there's not even an option to force showing the preview). Searching DATEREPLACEMENT in MediaWiki:Gadget-Shortdesc-helper.js will show you the code in question. I'm going to put a note pointing here from Wikipedia talk:Shortdesc helper as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: You did it again, here. If a script is buggy, which this one clearly is, report the problem to the script maintainers but more importantly, review every edit that you make to ensure that it is valid. If you cannot even do that, stop using the script until it is fixed. Don't continue to leave a mess for other people to find. We should not have to clean up after your bad edits, script or no script. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I tried to mitigate the issue by initially adding slashes to escape. My mistake, and what I had intended to do but didn't, was edit manually instead of using the helper. My apologies. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Request for advice - user not using citation templates
Hi Redrose,
I’ve been noticing over the last month or so that one specific IP user has been adding info to articles with citations that either consist of nothing but a bare URL, or a bare URL with a very short “summary” title, which then doesn’t allow tools such as ReFill to operate. I’ve left numerous notes on their talk page, but they haven’t responded to any… is this something I should take further or is there nothing that can really be done?
@Danners430: It's not a crime. If the URL leads directly to a page that supports the material that was added, then WP:V is being observed and we can't complain about that. For newly-added refs, WP:CITEVAR is a useful guideline, but not an enforceable policy. If the IP was altering existing templated refs to bare URLs, that would be a different matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Dear Redrose64,
You sent me a message drawing my attention to the wikipedia guidelines. I have just joined. I see that you edited out my contribution to the page relating to the Upwell to Wisbech Tramline memento project. Not quite sure why. I thought that as the page was to enlighten enthusiasts about the tramline that reference to this project for documenting and recording the history of the line on site would be of interest. The connection seemed appropriate. However if I have been mistaken in this respect or not followed protocol I apologise. No disrespect was intended. I do think that as the page appeared to be considered low importance that whatever can be added to encourage greater interest would be worthwhile. I am a supporter of the project and do what I can to assist educating people about the history of the Tram Line and its importance locally.If you have any suggestions for improving and elevating interest and awareness please share. I want to help. Cameron Spade (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for breaking the RfC that happened earlier; that wasn't my intention. I just didn't know how to get the description to show up without resetting the RfC, which later turned out to be a mistake, my bad.
Thank you for sorting out the references on the LSWR G16 class and LSWR H16 class pages - I have now read Wikipedia:CITEVAR and realise that I was wrong to alter the format. Whilst learning how to edit, I have realised how many articles are really weak in the citation / reference area, so whenever I'm reading something that I think could be a useful source, I'm trying to add it to the relevant article. However, I'm also learning that there seem to be almost as many different ways of citing references as there are articles! In this case, I was struggling to work out how to add a new one without breaking the existing ones, so I ended up changing the format of all (but was careful to leave the list intact). Cheers, ~~~~ Mwsmith20 (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The article featuring the interview stated that one of Tyseley's engines is possibly going to be oil converted. There may be other great western engines preserved but no heritage railways are looking at having any of their great western locos converted to oil firing, Tyseley is a train operating company and Michael Whitehouse did say one of their mainline engines is possibly going to be converted so it narrows it down to either: 5043, 5080, 7029 or 4965. It doesn't say which one it will be but it does state that it will be a Tyseley resident & would be cheaper to do than overhauling Kolhapur.
Your use of the word "possibly" (twice) is what we call a red flag; you're deep into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Unless the source explicitly states that 4965 (for example) has been selected for conversion, it doesn't belong on the article GWR 4900 Class 4965 Rood Ashton Hall. Similarly, unless the source explicitly states that a Castle (for example) definitely will be converted, it doesn't belong on the article GWR 4073 Class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
You reformatted the notes on this article. I have been doing work on the table to reduce its width and improve its conformance with policy, but had balked at doing the notes until this weekend. You've beaten me to it! Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: There were three different, incompatible, systems all going on at once. (i) use <ref>...</ref> to drop the note among the references - easiest, but not ideal where there are more than one or two; (ii) {{ref label}}/{{note label}} - not only is it complicated to implement, this was deprecated way back in 2006; (iii) {{notetag}}/{{notefoot}} - used similarly to {{efn}}/{{notelist}}, but the superscript markers look like this:[note 1] although the matching entries in the note list are plain numbers; this can also be confusing since they look like entries in the ref list. The advantage of {{efn}}/{{notelist}} over the third one is that the superscript markers look like this:[a] and the matching entries in the note list are the same letters. It's also narrower, if table width is your concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Klbrain: I often see people setting an explicit value for |class= when there really is no need, because the template (and more recently, the module) will autodetect several of the values, including redirect. It's normally only necessary for actual articles and featured content. See also User talk:Enterprisey#Removing class=redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Redacted username on WP:WPDAB
Just wanted to point out that you hid the edit summary and username of a recent edit to WP:WPDAB but the username in question is still visible in your edit summary of the reversion! The username seems relatively innocuous on its own, but of course I can't see the content of their edit. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Hmm. Okay. Well, that's very confusing, and would be better done as "horizontal" and "vertical" since "inline" and "block" already mean something else in this kind of context. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, VE is still a mess after all these years, and TemplateData code still lives on unprotected /doc pages even though it is programming code that governs how VE interacts with templates. In a somewhat poor analogy with the HTML terms, inline means "all of the parameters go on one line with no line breaks" and "block" means "each parameter goes on its own line". But the terms as used in VE's TemplateData have nothing to do with how the template is rendered. As I said, a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Can I pick your brains again in relation to station/rail templates and Hayato Station. There are several articles which link to the dab page (shown here) but I can't work out how to link to the appropriate station. Any help appreciated.— Rodtalk15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It didn't in this case, but could have done if another RfC also has refs. This is why the footer for the RfC listings has its own reflist. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All where all of the refs are gathered together at the bottom, instead of cluttering up the statements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the cite types on Mélusine (album) as I tried to several times, but QuietHere is actively opposed to such changes on any articles they've created. They've even set about putting Template:Bots with citation bot specifically denied on several of them. I've opened at least two threads on their talk page about it (one yesterday), and they've proven they will not budge on the matter because "it doesn't change how it renders". I don't know why they're so set on using cite news that they will go to the extent of changing any citation added to articles they've created and actively undoing edits that change the type of cite, but it definitely is silly and pedantic personal preference. Ss11203:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002E-QINU`"'<citeid="CITEREFHochman2023"class="citation magazine cs1">Hochman, Steve (March 28, 2023). [https://www.spin.com/2023/03/cecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling/ "Cécile McLorin Salvant's ''Mélusine'' is Imaginative and Thrilling"]. ''[[Spin (magazine)|Spin]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Spin&rft.atitle=C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+M%C3%A9lusine+is+Imaginative+and+Thrilling&rft.date=2023-03-28&rft.aulast=Hochman&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.spin.com%2F2023%2F03%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64%2Funclassified+31"class="Z3988"></span>
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000030-QINU`"'<citeid="CITEREFHochman2023"class="citation news cs1">Hochman, Steve (March 28, 2023). [https://www.spin.com/2023/03/cecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling/ "Cécile McLorin Salvant's ''Mélusine'' is Imaginative and Thrilling"]. ''[[Spin (magazine)|Spin]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Spin&rft.atitle=C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+M%C3%A9lusine+is+Imaginative+and+Thrilling&rft.date=2023-03-28&rft.aulast=Hochman&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.spin.com%2F2023%2F03%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64%2Funclassified+31"class="Z3988"></span>
Ignoring the stripmarker identifiers, those two renderings are identical except for the classes listed in the <cite> tag. One has magazine and the other has news. That is not part of the COinS metadata. Because Spin is a magazine (according to our article about it), {{cite magazine}} is the more semantically correct.
It is true that {{cite web}} vs {{cite news}} have different COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000032-QINU`"'<citeclass="citation web cs1">[https://www.nonesuch.com/journal/cecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16 "Singer/Composer Cécile McLorin Salvant's New Album, ''Mélusine'', Due March 24 on Nonesuch Records"]. ''[[Nonesuch Records]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Nonesuch+Records&rft.atitle=Singer%2FComposer+C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+New+Album%2C+M%C3%A9lusine%2C+Due+March+24+on+Nonesuch+Records&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.nonesuch.com%2Fjournal%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64%2Funclassified+31"class="Z3988"></span>
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000034-QINU`"'<citeclass="citation news cs1">[https://www.nonesuch.com/journal/cecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16 "Singer/Composer Cécile McLorin Salvant's New Album, ''Mélusine'', Due March 24 on Nonesuch Records"]. ''[[Nonesuch Records]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Nonesuch+Records&rft.atitle=Singer%2FComposer+C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+New+Album%2C+M%C3%A9lusine%2C+Due+March+24+on+Nonesuch+Records&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.nonesuch.com%2Fjournal%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64%2Funclassified+31"class="Z3988"></span>
Again, ignoring the stripmarker identifiers, and noting the different class attributes (web vs news), these two renderings are identical except for &rft.genre=unknown ({{cite web}}) vs &rft.genre=article ({{cite news}}) in the COinS metadata. Because we can never know the genre of the source identified in a {{cite web}} template, we unconditionally set &rft.genre=unknown in those templates. What Nonesuch calls their 'Journal' looks more like unsigned blog posts than news articles from a 'news' source so it seems to me that {{cite web}} is more correct than {{cite news}}.
@Rodw: Normally this would be fixed by setting |county2=Suffolk or |county1=Suffolk in the {{s-rail-national}} of each respective article, but this fails, giving a redlink. Not sure yet of the best way forward.
As to why the situation has arisen: the station article was moved from Melton railway station to Melton railway station, Suffolk at 07:59, 15 August 2023 by PK2 (talk·contribs), and I cannot find a discussion where that was agreed. The resulting redirect was retargetted fifteen minutes later, also by PK2, also without discussion. Before taking the second action unilaterally, they should have fixed up all the inward links to Melton railway station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Thanks for blaming me by name for a "mess" on me at Donald Trump when I copied some topics to attract broad participation to the talk page. Really kind of you. Here's a little something for you. SPECIFICOtalk22:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
@Sideswipe9th: First, it wasn't a revert. Second, the bot is not Logobot but Legobot (talk·contribs), which is operated by Legoktm (talk·contribs) and not by me. Third, yes, they are redirects to {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}, and have been since the templates were moved to their present names from {{rfc top}}/{{rfc bottom}}, see Template talk:Closed rfc top#Requested move 12 May 2020. Template:Closed rfc top#Usage states It is important to use the direct transclusions {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}}. The problem is that your edit added two instances of two opening braces followed by the three letters "rfc". When Legobot comes across this sequence of five characters (case-insensitive), regardless of what follows them, it assumes that it marks the start of an open RfC, with this effect leading to this. If you use the unredirected form, there is no problem at all. Fourth, Legobot won't be "fixed", unless somebody is willing to take the whole thing over, as I have explained many times before. Fifth, neither will the template be deleted and salted, because the template is not the problem. This is the third time in as many days that I've had to fix up an issue with the RfC listings caused by people who didn't WP:RTFM. Each time, I get the blame, and it is not my fault.
Whoops, didn't notice I'd misspelled Legobot there! Also the edit wasn't mine, and there was no inference of blame in my question. I just spotted it on my watchlist and was interested for why it's an issue. If it's a regularly occurring issue, and it can't be directly (by patching the bot) or indirectly (by deleting and salting the template) address, then perhaps adding an FAQ to your talk page's edit notice would cut down on the number of folks who message you about this? Respectfully, you having to fix issues like this on an adhoc basis is not sustainable, and is a good way to lead to burnout. If patching Legobot is not an option, because no-one is able to maintain the code, then removing the template redirect that's causing issues seems like an acceptable alternative to reduce the amount of work you are taking on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Just so you know, I've just left a note on Legoktm's talk page, with a possible fix for the issues relating to the {{rfctop}}, and {{rfcbottom}} matches. Hopefully he can merge it in, if it passes the rest of the tests, and then you won't have to fix this sort of edit going forward. The change I've left him a note over fixes an oversight in Enterprisey's pull request from a couple of years ago, where he made it not match for {{rfc top}} and {{rfc bottom}}, but didn't account for the existence of the other two redirects rfctop and rfcbottom. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld20:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I can't edit Module:Footnotes/whitelist as I'm neither a template editor or administrator, and I didn't believe it to be worthwhile in this case. If you wish to do so please go ahead, but you advise isn't very helpful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
@BEN9191: You need to read WP:REFBEGIN, also WP:V and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Please also read WP:SPS particularly the bit about not using open wikis as sources. This includes Wikipédia en français. In addition, a lot of the recent additions to the article Railway speed record have messed up the formatting. Note that a record is an improvement on a previous record: subsequent achievement of a lower speed cannot be a new record by any stretch.
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing the substitution on the railway accident page. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Template:Commuter Stations: Cardiff Local Lines run by Arriva Trains Wales has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Requesting immediate archiving... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Talk:5?-Reductase deficiency has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:5?-Reductase deficiency until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 07:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Rail Class 114, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
.jpg)
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Cremastra (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC) 
.JPG)
