User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 13

False admin status claims

Are there any repercussions for false claims to be an administrator? User:Obaid Raza has this on his user page, I left him a note that he should probably remove that statement since he is not an admin but despite AGF, given his the discussion here about vandalism I suspect this is deliberate mischief. He manually changed that setting. Is there policy somewhere on Wikipedia clarifying this, do you know? Also pinging @Elee: from above. Ogress _smash! 19:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This user has admin rights on the Urdu Wikipedia. (verify)

on Urdu wikipedia,--Obaid Raza (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Ogress: It's a user rights box, used in accordance with the documentation here: Template:User rights. I believe he is an admin on the Urdu Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

TPS as well, yes sysop on Urdu. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

WHY when I clicked on VERIFY did it not list him? It has the correct "where" listed? Ugh. Ogress _smash! 19:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or even here. What's misleading is the "verify" link in that userbox, which only verifies the claim for the English Wikipedia. That's a fault with the way that the userbox is used, not with User:Obaid Raza. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Obaid Raza: You need to add |lang_code=ur to the userbox so that it links correctly. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am aware, I apologised on his page already. I was annoyed at the userbox having a flag for listing on which wiki when the verify does not use that information in any way. Just embarrassing is all. Ogress _smash! 19:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ok, and thanks, --Obaid Raza (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Just wondering why a recent edit of yours to this page made changes in several threads unrelated to this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The HTML tags were not closed properly, leaving people using some wiki tools (like me) seeing the page spammed with visual error notifications; I hope it was not taken negatively? Extremely minor HTML errors. My apologies if I was out of line. I am happy to undo them. I got stuck in an edit conflict so the entire page showed up with error notifications everywhere... *sigh* I'm having a stellar day as an editor. Ogress _smash! 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In XHTML (which Wikipedia served a few years ago) only the <br /> form is valid (the space is optional, but the slash is mandatory). For two or so years now, Wikipedia has served HTML5, where both <br /> and <br> are valid (the space and slash are both optional). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess Syntax highlighter has not gotten the message. Ogress _smash! 22:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing protection icons

I noticed you've been removing expired/incorrect protection icons, probably by going though Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates? There's no bot that can do that? Seems like a fairly tedious job. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: There are at least two, but none does a complete job. DumbBOT (talk · contribs) misses some, mostly (but not exclusively) {{pp-move-indef}} where the page never had move protection. lowercase sigmabot (talk · contribs) hasn't done any removals since 3 November 2014, and stopped completely six months ago. I do this task two or three times a year, last time was about March 2015, before that October 2014. Sometimes I clear the cat, but it quickly fills up again - either legitamately, with expired prots, or improperly, when people put prot icon templates on their new pages because they think that it's the correct thing to do. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you seem to deal with protection a lot, do you have any tips on making sure a semi-protected article that you've fully protected is restored back to semi-protection after the full protection has expired? Is it simply just a matter of adding a note for yourself somewhere? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This came up recently at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Enabling full protection on semi-protected articles; you can leave yourself a note, or if you have personal organiser software like Microsoft Outlook, you can set an appointment or equivalent. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That setting PC as a fallback tip is handy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Related: Cyberbot II (talk · contribs) adds and removes {{pp-pc1}}, don't think it handles other prot icon templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not true. It handles {{pp-pc2}} as well. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice any edits that added or removed {{pp-pc2}}, but that's not surprising since we use that PC level so very rarely that any additions of {{pp-pc2}} are almost certainly errors. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I found one!! --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. In working with this cat I have noticed that articles wind up there the minute (I am assuming that is 0:01 GMT - though I could be wrong) it becomes the day of expiration. This is in spite of the fact that the hour set could be much later in the day. Here is an example. When I see one of these I now leave the PP tag. But this brings up the question - is the page still protected until the hour and minute set or can anyone edit it at 0:01? I don't know that it is anything to take to VP:TECH, I'm just curious. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That happens when the |expiry= parameter has only the date - it's treated as 00:00 (UTC), i.e. at the very start of that day. Any pp icon template that has a past |expiry= parameter will put the page in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates but that doesn't necessarily mean that the page is no longer protected - the presence, type or parameters of a pp icon template have zero effect on the actual protection. The protection on a page lasts for so long as the protecting admin actually set it in the page's "protect" tab, and any pp icon templates that are present have two purposes: categorisation and a visual reminder that there is protection. In the case of categorisation, they may put the page into such categories as Category:Wikipedia temporarily semi-protected biographies of living people (if there is protection regardless of any |expiry= parameter) and possibly into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates if either the page is not protected or the |expiry= is in the past.

If you examine the protection log, it says "expires 22:28, 5 July 2015", so you have two choices - either add the time, as in |expiry=22:28, 5 July 2015, or ignore it and put up with the miscategorisation for a few hours. In both cases you should wait until no earlier than 22:29 (UTC) before actually removing the {{pp-blp}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I know there is no hurry to remove the templates - and some even get renewed quickly after the expiration time - so I will leave them until a day or two later. MarnetteD|Talk 20:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you have to be so rude?

I cannot believe you edited the Marlowe Peyton page! She said that she was born on August 2, 2004 and she was born on Glendale, California!! 2602:302:D17D:DF90:94FA:2091:E70D:D9C4 (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, 2602, birth dates of actors can be quite contentious so we require a reference to back up your claim. Where did you find that birth date? Was it from a reliable source? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I noted on your talk page, you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people; persistent violation of that policy can lead to a block. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:History of Korea

Hey there, it looks like Template:History of Korea's annoying IP edit warrior has returned. Can you give me any guidance about when the best time to file for PP again is? It's only been one edit, but it's the same IP edits it was before, so it's not like a mystery as to whether it's happening again. Should I wait for another revert? Ogress _smash! 20:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I count six edits in three months - two by you, two by Dustin V. S. (talk · contribs), one by me, and one by an IP who has made no other edits anywhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think protection appears to be necessary considering how few problematic edits there have been in the past few months. I know this isn't the templates talk page, but I was notified, so I thought I'd leave my say here. Dustin (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason for that is that the page has been IP-edit protected since February, before which there was an IP hopper. It's a long-running slow edit war between an IP-hopper who refuses to use the talk page. Ogress _smash! 23:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Still, it looks like a month and a half passed without vandalism, so I'd be cautious about reapplying protection. One way or another though, that decision is not up to me. Dustin (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, your math is off, it was 16 June that the template was removed. I also don't like locking down pages, which is why I'm asking. Ogress _smash! 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit of clarification Ogress. As you say the template was removed 16 June but the actual page protection expired 00:42, 15 May 2015 so Dustin V. S. is correct about the amount of time that has passed. There is often a lag between the expiration of protection and the removal of the tag. In fact this thread User talk:Redrose64#Removing protection icons above explains some of the whys. MarnetteD|Talk 00:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Ogress _smash! 03:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome Ogress. I know how frustrating this can of thing can be. Don't let it get to you. On the one hand your vigilance helps to keep the template in its correct form and also increases your edit count :-) On the other if things get worse I'm sure an admin will protect again. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I removed the {{pp-vandalism}} template for two reasons: first, as MarnetteD observes, because the protection had expired - the protection log for the page shows that the prot that was set at 00:42, 15 February 2015 "expires 00:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)", which was more than a month earlier than my removal of the template. Protection icons that are left on unprotected pages do nothing useful, and put the page in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. The second reason is because the {{pp-vandalism}} template was not necessary, even when the protection was still current - Template:History of Korea uses {{Documentation}}, and that template automatically adds a protection padlock when appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The IP continues to revert and not go to talk. I have not reverted them so as not to edit-war. Ogress _smash! 22:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: Have you filed a request at WP:RFPP? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Evelin Banev Vandalism

Hello, the protection for Public Person has expired, and immediately, the page contents have been deleted very biasly. Can you please protect again? Thanks--DiscSquare (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@DiscSquare: You should file a request at WP:RFPP, or possibly contact Swarm (talk · contribs), who protected it last time. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

Hello. The time period has expired, and there was a discussion on the Talk page that resolved the "Public Image" section disagreement. Can you please change the protection level back to semi-protect? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The time period has not expired: KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs) set the full protection at 21:43, 5 July 2015 to last three days - that is to say, it expires 21:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC), which is just under seven hours from now. To get the prot reduced before expiry, you should ask the protecting admin, KrakatoaKatie. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Louis Williams

It is official. Botend (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

@Botend: Although I did edit the article Louis Williams, I have no idea what you're talking about. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad, for some reason I thought you added the Current sport template. Never mind, have a nice day! Botend (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Botend: That was Pmaster12 (talk · contribs), see this edit --Redrose64 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Harej: As long as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hampshire remains a "Flow" page, I am not interested. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear. The Flow deployment is totally separate from this, of course, but I understand your frustration. Harej (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

British rail

You can finally stop irritating me now because I have my own British rail info site Jpbuckland (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice

Thank you so much for explaining to me how to 'fix' the 'dash' problems that I might find in an article. LOL! All those dashes look the same to me! I am going to re-read the post you left on BGWhite's talk page to try to fully understand because I would like to work on more medical articles and help them reach GA status so it is probably important that I learn the difference. I am glad you are a talk page stalker and you are welcome to stalk my page anytime. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Template:Period color

Actually, the discussion in question ended with partial conclusion and that's what I'm talking about. Check again: first question, two votes for interchanging the colors. Agreed, second question is left without conclusion, but that's another topic. Szczureq (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Oxford meetup

I have retrieved the device and its box. The device, still fully assembled, was on a different table. Its box had been handed in to the bar staff, and now has wine stains. Maproom (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Bicester Town/Village

Based on this news report, any objections if I move the page? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As that report shows, there is local opposition. NR may yet decide to stick with the existing name, I really don't think it should be moved until it reopens and has a new name, see User talk:Mark999#Bicester Town. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Help:Template

I also think Cpiral's version [1] made it worse but do you think my version [2] satisfied your clarify-span? PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yours is basically correct, but later-overrides-earlier precedence still applies when the same name is used twice. Let's assume that a template (such as {{WikiProject Fire Service}}) has an alias coded as

|note 1={{{needs-image|{{{needs-photo|}}}}}}

If I use either of these:

{{WikiProject Fire Service |needs-image=no |needs-photo=yes }}
{{WikiProject Fire Service |needs-photo=yes |needs-image=no }}

the effect is the same: in both cases |needs-photo=yes is ignored, because the template has the test for |needs-photo= coded "inside" the test for |needs-image=. But if I put

{{WikiProject Fire Service |needs-image=no |needs-image=yes }}

then |needs-image=no is ignored, because another instance of |needs-image= is later on in the same template call.

The problem is to describe that in a non-technical way suitable for a Help: page. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool meetup

Hi Redrose, unfortunately Sunday's Liverpool meetup has been cancelled due to lack of interest. Could you please remove it from the geonotice? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bazonka: I did it like this. There is precedent. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not an admin, so I can't edit the Geonotice myself. Bazonka (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Photograph of Lewisham rail accident 1857

You removed the photograph out of the article Lewisham rail crash (1857). Actually the headline of it ("St. Johns 1898") is misleading: The whole of its decription on File:St_Johns_train_crash_1898.jpg gives it as an impression of the 1857 Lewisham accident. Also the Railways Archive (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=2209) gives it as Lewisham 1857. -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Reinhard Dietrich: It's definitely not as early as 1857, for various reasons, see File talk:St Johns train crash 1898.jpg#Not from Lewisham train crash in 1857?, so I really do think that you should revert this edit to de:Eisenbahnunfall von Lewisham (1857). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Quietbritishjim and Rickedmo: you were both involved in the 2013 discussion, so notifying you of this, which concerns c:File:Accident St Johns 1898.jpg on commons, recently renamed from c:File:Accident Lewisham 1857.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I'll try to get it fixed with Railways Archive. -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Information by Railways Archive on the said photograph (I guided them to the discussion in WP which you lead me to): "Reinhard, Thanks for the email, and for the information. I have removed the image from the 1857 accident record, and quarantined it in our "unknown images" store pending further info. [...]Garry (the Archivist)". -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Reinhard Dietrich: Thanks; but "unknown images"? Did you tell them that we were certain that it related to St Johns train crash 1898? I'm sure they have a page on that, but their website seems to be down at the moment, throwing "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Apache/2.4.12 (Unix) OpenSSL/1.0.1e-fips mod_bwlimited/1.4 Server at www.railwaysarchive.co.uk Port 80". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I forwarded the link to the discussion. -- Reinhard Dietrich (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Azylicure 2

This blocked editor continues to edit as User:Azylicure 3 although thus far it has only been to their user talk page instead of creating hoax articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: If Azylicure 3 is only writing on their own talk page, it's not really WP:BLOCKEVASION. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I thought there might be issues with having multiple accounts but if you say it's fine, no big deal. Just wanted to check! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts are permitted in some circumstances - see for example Redrose64a (talk · contribs). There are several things that are not allowed - so far, they've not violated any of those. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: However, being a WP:SOCKPUPPET of Hasfie (talk · contribs) is a crime punishable by indef block. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that socking is the one "go directly to jail" offense that one can commit on Wikipedia. I'm not very adept at identifying sockpuppets but I understand how disruptive they can potentially be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

There are others. WP:THREATS, for example; going a long way beyond WP:3RR; some forms of WP:OUTING. Attempting to coerce minors into disclosing personal information is also a crime (see WP:CHILDPROTECT) but it's ArbCom who hand out the block, not regular admins like me. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:RexxS/AltText

Thanks for the amendment to User:RexxS/AltText. As it turns out, if you use Chrome's "Inspect element" function you see a bare alt, while if you use "View source", you see alt="". I'm happy to go with your change. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case I used "View Page Source". Firefox does have an "Inspect Element" feature, but I've noticed before that it rearranges some elements, so if I want to know what's really in the HTML for the page, I always use "View Page Source". --Redrose64 (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Virgin Trains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EMU. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Jim Carter 09:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: Thank you It's a page that is frequently targetted by an IP who has a habit of replacing valid links either with links to dab pages or with redlinks. One of their favourites is to alter [[Electric Multiple Unit]] to [[EMU]] - it seems that in this case they did the opposite. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

protected edit request

Hi Redrose64, A few days ago I requested a protected edit request on Template: infobox building and you answered explaining I needed a consensus. I posted on two associated project pages, and a few other editors have inserted their opinion. Can you please review my request Add a Project Manager Parameter Template talk: infobox building? Thanks Keelsh01 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Keelsh01: You added a {{rfc|tech}} with this edit (it was added to the RFC lists with this edit, less than an hour ago). RfCs run for thirty days. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never attempted to do a complex edit that involved on a protected template page, and wasn't positive of the typical protocol to ask for editor opinions, so I added to both project pages and RFC- although I may have not needed the RFC. Are you saying I need to wait 30 days to possibly get this added? Keelsh01 (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Great Eastern Main Line Template Problems

Redrose64 why did you revert the edits on the GEML, they are correct because London Overground does serve Romford ever since 31/05/2015 to Upminster that makes it an interchange station for Overground because the Line to Upminster is different than the GEML, also at Liverpool Street it is an interchange for London Overground to Enfield Town, Cheshunt and Chingford ever since London Overground took over on 31/05/2015 as well that makes it an interchange because its not on the same line as GEML, also the Wheeler Street Junction is not even used anymore, also Ilford is a minor station, so can we revert it to the correct version please. 151.227.129.136 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Because you persist in adding information that is either irrelevant, unsourced, misleading or downright wrong, and you wilfully revert those who are trying to clean up after you, and you refuse to discuss the matters on the relevant talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok fair enough some things I shouldn't have taken out, i.e. the line linking the fast to slow just east of Seven Kings station because that is used by freight and empty rolling stock to Ilford depot, but the only changes I'm making is adding the Overground roundel signs at Liverpool Street and Romford and removing Wheeler Street Junction as no services use that anymore and Ilford is a minor station because it has no interchanges with other lines and is only served by slow TfL Rail services, no Abellio Greater Anglia services stop there. 151.227.129.136 (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for notifying me about the speedy deletion tag. I checked back in the page history and what you were asking to be speedy deleted was in fact a vandalized version of the page. I have restored the original.

All the best. Bobo. 20:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bobo192: Looks like it was improperly moved from Lakshitha de Silva too - I've moved it back. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed! That's what happens when I stay away from Wikipedia for so long! Thank you. Bobo. 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Invalid Navbar links

You appear to often fix all templates at Wikipedia:Database reports/Invalid Navbar links. Thanks for that. Could you add a note with a dated signature below the first line saying something like "All pages in this report have now been fixed." Then others will know there is nothing left to do. At User talk:Bamyers99/Archive 2#Election tables with invalid "Navbar" links the author was OK with others adding such statements. The whole page is simply overwritten in the next update. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Needham Market railway station

I notice you have undone a change I made to the Wikipedia page on the railway station in Needham Market.

I live in Needham Market. Over the past few months I have been engaged in a long dispute with Abellio over the works they have undertaken at the railway station.

There is NO wheelchair access to the Ipswich bound platform. The ONLY access to that platform is by a long flight of steps from the tunnel that connects the two platforms - there is NO access at all from the land to the east of the station. There is NO ramp access to the Ipswich bound platform. There is no "lift" on the steps down to or up from the tunnel.

Suffolk COuncty Council were saying that the platform was wheelchair accessible via another tunnel under the tracks - they are wrong - and earlier this year I contacted the author of that statement, arranged to meet her on site and she immediately saw her error.

As a matter of accuracy even the access to the Stowmarket bound platform fails to meet the criteria for wheelchair accessibility as the approach ramp is far steeper than is allowed by the relevant standards, though I know at least one wheelchair users that can manage the ramp on his powered cart. I doubt a manual chair user would manage the ramp.

If you doubt my statement I would be happy to meet you at the station. I can send you photographs, but photographinbg the absence of smoething is not going to be particularly easy!

One last point, if you check the railway industry accessibility informaiton here: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/nmt/details.html you will see they say the same as I am sayiing.

It is very sad that despite all the work Abellio carried out on the Ipswich platform, which was essentially totally rebuilt, and having had cranes on site, even building a temporary access track from Coddenham Road, that Abellio did not find it sensible to build an access ramp. The TOwn COuncil have been pressing for this for some considerably time. One of the Councillors is a chair user and has had difficulties using the train. But so far the case has not been made.

GSpanners (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@GSpanners: I don't doubt what you have personally observed and experienced, and it must be very annoying for you. Unfortunately, that is not how Wikipedia works.

The thing is, your edit altered text that was sourced - that's what the <ref>...</ref> tags are for - and replaced it with contradictory information whilst leaving the same source in place. There is little chance that the given source could support both versions, but a source from 2003 could not support a description of the 2015 facilities. This all comes down to verifiability, which is a core content policy. Another core content policy is that of neutral point of view - using all-capitals for the word "not" in a phrase like "the opportunity was NOT taken" is not neutral. Hence, in the edit summary of my revert, I wrote "rv per WP:NPOV and WP:V", which has links to both of those policy documents.

A third core content policy is that of no original research - what this means is that you shouldn't describe the facilities based upon what you have personally observed, they need to already have been described elsewhere. There are several magazines, including reputable titles like Modern Railways and The Railway Magazine, which in most issues have short pieces describing station improvements. There is also the local press - has it been covered in, for instance, the East Anglian Daily Times? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on User talk:Weydonian

About this: I reverted my addition of the PROD notice because it was placed on the wrong user talk page. I copied and pasted it over to User talk:Cmlyons61 as he had created the page. Weydonian created a redirect, so notifying the creator of the redirect rather than the substantive author of the page is less than useful. My intention of removing the PROD notice from Weydonian's talk page wasn't to hide something, but simply to ensure that the right person was notified: I should have been clearer on the edit summary. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Your friend Oranjblud is still around here & on commons see User:Prof.Haddock, User:Jonathancarroll.hull, User:Xiiophen from User:83.100.174.82 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.38.72.132 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Help for new articles

Hello Redrose64, I wanted to let you know of a few pages I have created on Wikipedia one is called London Buses Route 498 & London Buses Route [London Buses Route 344|344]]. If you could please help me by adding some of the routes history if you can. I appreciate your help! Thank you, Wizzy011 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse

Hey, the bot will only revert you again like it does to me. It's really annoying.  — Calvin999 16:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse: Revision history

It will continue doing this.  — Calvin999 09:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: I wondered if the bot based its book report upon the content of the Book: page, and after this edit, I was sure that it did. So I looked at the entries which were correctly formatted, and noticed that on the Book: page, none of them had quote marks outside the links - where quotes were used (e.g. :[[Thirsty (song)|"Thirsty"]] they were inside the link. So, I've altered all the lines which had quotes outside the links to the same format, so that they're inside the links. Let's see what happens next. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999 and Cyberpower678: It seems that these edits fixed Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse completely. Apparently, each entry must be formed of a colon and a wikilink, with nothing outside that link (other than the initial colon). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :)  — Calvin999 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring that out for me and lightening my load. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

engb

Re [3], please see [4]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Filter logs

Hi Redrose64, can do with a bit of your experience. Wondered if you can you butt in on this discussion on my talk page to help out a user. Keith D (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for response. Not seen that log before. Keith D (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Keith D: Go to the user's contribs, there's a row of links at the top beginning "(talk | block | block log ..." - it's second-to-last, titled "filter log". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

F(f)estiniog

Apologies for the Festiniog/Ffestiniog changes - I hadn't realised that the original name was Anglicised. Sorry for the inconvenience. Paul W (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulwell station - service information placement

Hi RedRose.

I recently made a series of (what I thought were) improvements to the article Bulwell station. Amongst other things, I moved the service info into the station infobox, a placement that is specifically catered for in the infobox specification and seems to be the global norm for such information. You reverted this with the message:

don't put the routebox inside the infobox - makes it overlarge; some components such as {{tram line}} aren't handled well; also this isn't done on other UK stations

I appreciate that this is subjective, but I personally think the article looks a lot better with the service information in the infobox rather hovering around in a bizarrely centered fashion in the body of the text. It also seem to be increasingly the norm for station articles everywhere but the UK. And whilst it makes the infobox bigger, it doesn't make it out of scale with the rest of the article. In any case, I find it a bit hard to take seriously a complaint about making the infobox overlarge by adding useful information when a huge amount of real-estate is taken up by no less than 9 years of detailed usage data that is probably of interest to half a dozen readers worldwide!.

Probably this needs to be discussed more widely, if it hasn't already been. What do you think?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Also can you expand on the comment "some components such as {{tram line}} aren't handled well", as I cannot spot any issues with this on either the Bulwell station article, or the handful of NET tram stop article's I've similarly laid out (eg. Cinderhill tram stop). Or, for that matter, with the several hundred articles for (mostly) Swiss and Spanish railway and metro stations that I have formatted in this way. Although to be fair I didn't use {{tram line}} on any of them; I only discovered this template when I started editing existing NET tram stop articles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Beginning to wonder if this is a {{Infobox GB station}} v {{Infobox station}} issue?. I've managed to keep out of that war until now; it has all the hallmarks of another Central Station v. Hauptbahnhof gig. :-( -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of differences between {{Infobox GB station}} and {{Infobox station}}. Whilst it is certainly true that many articles using {{Infobox station}} have the routebox inside the infobox, I don't know of any other case where an article using {{Infobox GB station}} has the routebox inside the infobox. They're normally in either of two positions: at the very bottom of the article (but above any navboxes) in accordance with WP:ORDER - routeboxes have much in common with succession boxes; or they're in a section dealing with the routes that the station is on and the services that call at the station. The matter was briefly discussed (among other things) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 31#Routeboxes also at Template talk:S-start#Order of article elements. There isn't a clear majority either way; in the case of Bulwell, the section named "Operation" was clearly about routes and services, and I put it at the bottom of the section - not under the "Tram" heading specifically.

Putting the routebox inside the infobox increases its dimensions both horizontally and vertically. A widening of the infobox will tend to sqeeze out the text to its left, especially if there are photos here (not the case with Bulwell).

The usage figures can certainly be cut down; there has been an understanding for quite some time that it is not necessary to show more than five years of figures, and this may be done like this.

Regarding {{tram line}}: in this version, I see four kinds of problem on both {{tram line}} rows: (i) some of the text is only 9.2px high - this has MOS:ACCESS#Text implications, where the minimum is given as 11px; (ii) the text is top left-aligned when it should be vertically and horizontally centred; (iii) some of the cell borders are double-thick; (iv) constraints of width mean that the text is wrapped to three lines. There's also a stray |- that has crept in below the routebox somehow. None of these five problems exist in this version --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the differences between {{Infobox GB station}} and {{Infobox station}}, I think you make a good case for either transitioning GB station articles to use {{Infobox station}} or a creating a new {{Infobox GB station}} that is simply a wrapper for {{Infobox station}}. However I'm not interested in initiating the huge and heated debate that would undoubtedly cause. In that context, it is interesting to note that the pre-existing NET tram stop articles used {{Infobox station}}, and I've continued that in the ones I've started.

With regard to routeboxes being similar to succession boxes, it is interesting that, WP:ORDER notwithstanding, WP seems to be evolving on that too. For some high-visibility articles that put their succession information in the infobox, see John Major or Jimmy Carter or many other PMs/Presidents.

With regard to placing the routebox at the bottom of the section and not under the "Tram" heading specifically, I'm not sure I understand that. Whilst sections might have lead paragraphs before their first sub-section, they don't have any concept of a footer - anything placed at the end of a section-with-subsections is by definition placed in the final subsection.

I guess that in the end it comes down to aesthetics, and I find the article as it currently stands less easy on the eye than it was with the routebox in the infobox. If I'm honest with myself, that is one reason why I havn't done much in the way of editing UK station articles in the last few years, as compared to my volume of edits on foreign stations. But, hey-ho, that is my problem. I'm happy to leave the article as it stands, and go and deal with the tram-only stops where the issue doesn't appear to arise. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nathan A RF

I've given Nathan A RF (talk · contribs) a second uw-disruptive warning about cramming level †ing info into railway articles and WP:RDTs, but I suspect he'll just simply blank his talk page, same as last time, and merrily go on his way. Any suggestions about what to do about him? Useddenim (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Why warn now, when the last such edit was three weeks ago? Perhaps they learned by being reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Because I just now (yesterday) noticed another cluster of similar edits, this time to article pages. Useddenim (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Redrose, regarding this: does this apply for all templates? Airplaneman ✈ 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Airplaneman: Any template that uses {{documentation}} or {{collapsible option}}. Those two templates - which are normally only used on template pages inside a <noinclude>...</noinclude> - contain code to auto-detect the prot level and display a padlock icon if appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, thank you so much. Cheers, Airplaneman ✈ 20:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: NACK revert

The NACK revert was basically me receiving your message; there wasn't a need to replace it or repost. Any ACK or NACK is basically my way of marking it seen. I use ACK and NACK to mark things acted/not acted upon, as I may be in a whirl of patrolling edits or too busy to immediately action on receipt. ♥ Melody ♥ 10:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Melody Concerto: Your signature is now short enough; unfortunately, it now violates WP:SIG#NT - "Transclusions of templates in signatures are forbidden". --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How to add this

to use the page [5] in a way it supports readers needs? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As it stands, it is a page about a name. If you want to repurpose it so that it becomes a dab page, start a thread on its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Neighbouring communities

Hiya Redrose, I noticed you have added neighbouring communities to some places in Wales (I've been working on some of these articles recently too). Great work. Would you mind adding links to the sources for your additions to make sure the articles are referenced? If you're not sure how to add reliable source citations, just add the url to the article, let me know, and I'll do it for you. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Daicaregos: It's something that I started doing some months ago, I had got through the Carmarthenshire communities as far as Llannon, but got interrupted. Your edits to Llansawel reminded me that I'd not finished.

I know how to add sources, but the source that I'm using doesn't lend itself to easy citation. It's the OS mapping service called election maps - it can show several kinds of boundaries. I've checked through its help page, but can't find a way of having the map start off centered at a particular point, at a particular zoom level, with particular boundaries shown.

When I first go to that page, it shows England, Wales and southern Scotland, centred on Wath-upon-Dearne, and no boundaries. I then use the mouse to drag the map about and so recentre it on the part of Wales that I'm interested in (Llandeilo is easiest to find), and then use the mouse wheel to zoom in a few steps. Then from the menu on the left I select "Unitary Authorities" and "Civil Parishes or Communities" (it won't allow more than two selections), and then mark both of the "Show names" boxes at the top, then click "Close" upper left. I then slide the map about, zooming as necessary, so that I can see which communities border the one that I'm currently interested in. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see the problem. I had a look at the OS site you linked to. Really interesting, isn't it. Reckon I could have hours of fun there. Couldn't see a way round our problem though, so I dropped them a line. You never know. In the meantime, perhaps we should cite to the site, which would at least allow a reader the option to interrogate the OS page they choose. Might be worth leaving a note on one of the noticeboards - WP:NOR/N or somewhere else. What do you think? Daicaregos (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

166 IP on oldest people article, ANI etc.

FYI, since User talk:166.176.57.66 continued editing in exactly the same way after a final warning at User talk:166.170.51.185, I have blocked them for a week. Any further disruption from IPs in that range can be safely blocked as block evasion. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)‎

Penzance railway station

Using the {convert} template in the second sentence of this article means that it reads "The station is the western terminus of the 305 miles (491 km) Cornish Main Line from London Paddington station".

But to me, that doesn't make as much sense as "The station is the western terminus of the 305-mile (491-km) Cornish Main Line from London Paddington station", with hyphens between the numbers of units and the unit names/abbreviations, and "mile" instead of "miles".

And with the very greatest of respect, who does say, for instance, "the 215 miles River Thames" instead of "the 215-mile River Thames" or "the 215 mile long River Thames"?

Thanks and regards, Bluebird207 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bluebird207: In which case, add the relevant parameters, for instance |adj=on. There is no need to remove {{convert}} entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose. :) Bluebird207 (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Driverless tube trains

Please could you help me out again with Absolutelypuremilk on my talk page? We seem to be going round in circles. -- Alarics (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned you

You'll probably get a ping, but just in case you didn't, I've mentioned you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Involved TfD closures. Jenks24 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I did, Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've got a problem, would appreciate some advice

I don't like having to discuss the conduct of fellow admins, but I have a problem with Crisco 1492. It concerns the nomination for deletion of two images currently in the Hastings Line article File:1066 ticket front.jpg and File:1066 ticket back.jpg. Both these images illustrate a very important point in time in the history of that line, and are therefore vital to the article. I'm not that worried if they do get deleted as I've taken a copy of each and will upload them to en-Wiki with a FUR. Subsequent to the nomination of those tow images, a mass nomination of dozens of railway ticket images has been done, but the Commons mass deletion process has not been followed. Where the uploader has objected to the deletion, I see what can only be described as an attempt to bully the objector into submission. Now, I appreciate that Commons is not en-Wiki, but would welcome your advice. Should I raise this at the Commons AN? MilborneOne, I'd appreciate your advice here too. FYI, I've currently got the Hastings Line article at FAC. The image issue is one thing that is holding it back, along with commentors not responding to requests to reply to comments in respect of issues raised. Mjroots (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds familiar - where was that sort of behaviour last mentioned? Ah, here, second sentence. So yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the issue at COM:AN. Mjroots (talk)

WikiProject Insects|Start|high

If {{WikiProject Insects|Start|high}} is used, the article will say it is unassesed. Is that what you want for the article you reversed?--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: This is the page as it was. This is how you left it. You broke both of the WikiProject banners, by leaving a redlink where they had been. This was by no means the first time that you have left redlinks when attempting to add or assess WikiProjects.

Regarding my revert: it left the WikiProjects in an assessed state - notice that in the version that I left, both WikiProjects say "(Rated Start-class, High-importance)". {{WikiProject Insects|Start|high}} is not incorrect syntax; {{WikiProject Insects}} is unusual, perhaps unique, in recognising the first and second positional parameters as equivalent to |class= and |importance= respectively.

Also, the act of creating this thread broke this talk page too. You really need to preview your edits before saving. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it please take a look at the article on Saga Becker. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And Anna Bråkenhielm and Lo Kauppi. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate link to d:Q18816550#sitelinks-wikipedia and some parameters at Talk:Saga Becker. What specifically did you want doing? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically anything you can do. I appreciate it very much.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Aldwych Tube Station.

I find it unlikely that there was ever a public service from Aldwych further than Holborn. Whereas a train eastbound could make a viable journey beyond Holborn stopping at the correct platforms, a westbound train (to Aldwych) is forced to adopt wrong direction working beyond the crossover just west of Kings Cross. This means that the this hypothetical westbound sevice to Aldwych is forced to call at the eastbound platform at Russell Square.

The London Tansport Museum depot at Acton have an extensive collection of enamel signs from The London Underground's history. I am told by one of the curators that they have no sign(s) for the eastbound platform of Russell Square that also mentions services to Aldwych. They also state that they are unaware of any such service. Indeed, I can find no evdidence at all that any public service operated serving Aldwych originating from anywhere other than Holborn suggesting that the branch has only ever operated as a two station line. This would also mean that Holborn was a terminus for the public services on the line. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

There was a regular evening service (Sundays excepted), mainly for the theatre traffic. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a very ephemeral service of just one train per day when the branch first opened. It was axed within a year. For the vast majority of the branch's life it has only ever operated as a shuttle between two stations. –LiveRail < Talk > 10:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Navbox default colors

It was an edit conflict. Don't walk off in a huff. You're better than that, old man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed at you - it's Alakzi and a few other non-Admins who have issues with admins as a group. They would do well to read and understand what HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) wrote on a recent RfA and its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. Even when they're doing otherwise good and valuable work, I wish they would take a less confrontational approach. EvergreenFir has opened an RfC on the template talk page; I would be grateful if you would register your opinion there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Guiseley A.F.C.'s stadium

Please could you visit User talk:Mattythewhite#Stadium_notability? Do you think that the stadium passes the GNG? Leeds United FC fan (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Answered there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Apology for absence

Hello Redrose64, I'm going to be offline for the weekend and hence unable to update Borders Railway in time. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Skepticism banner doc

Rather than just revert your reversion I thought I'd ask you, why do you think that needs-infobox is not a valid parameter, and why do you think that the various params for WPBannerDoc are necessary in our case? Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The {{{needs-infobox|}}} markup does not appear anywhere in Template:WikiProject Skepticism. As for the {{WPBannerDoc}} parameters - have a look at who wrote that template. It was designed to be robust, with provision for redundancy. Yes, if |ATTENTION_CAT= and |ASSESSMENT_LINK= are missing, it will attempt to construct replacement values using |PROJECT= - but it was always intended that if the WikiProject template used |ATTENTION_CAT= and |ASSESSMENT_LINK= explicitly, the same params would be used by {{WPBannerDoc}} to avoid ambiguity. Should |ATTENTION_CAT= and |ASSESSMENT_LINK= ever be removed from {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, they may then also be removed from Template:WikiProject Skepticism/doc. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I swear I added the needs-infobox when updating. I figured that given it would build the correct version with only PROJECT that it was redundant, and not required to include the other two. Seems odd to me to have that stuff. I'll look at the main template and see if the parameters need removed there. Seriously, I swear I added the needs-infobox, maybe I'm going nuttier than I realized. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your only recent edit to {{WikiProject Skepticism}} was this one, where you altered |QUALITY_SCALE=extended to |QUALITY_SCALE=subpage, which is what took me to the doc page so that I could bring it in synch with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, turns out I still had the tab open with the needs-infobox change. I've been trying to cleanup WikiProject Skepticism's assessment stuff to make it easier for me to start doing a massive assess and improvement cycle. My goal is to have no stub nor start class articles in the next 12-18 months in the project. Jerod Lycett (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your most recent changes are fine. As for eliminating stubs and starts - big task, there are 132 and 1,690 pages respectively. You might find that some cannot be raised to C-class using available sources, and that the only way of emptying Category:Stub-Class Skepticism articles and Category:Start-Class Skepticism articles is to decide that some of the pages aren't within the project's scope. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

York Station

Hi Redrose,

Thanks for correcting me on my infobox error, but the wikipedia page is a little confusing - in the "Recent Developments" section, it states that in June 2015, York became a Network Rail managed station. This link http://www.railstaff.uk/2014/05/30/network-manages-stations/ partially supports the idea, in that Network Rail will manage the admin leaving VTEC to face the passengers. Do you stand by your decision to keep VTEC as the manager or should we include both? The same thing applies for Newcastle Central too.

Thanks very much, Jack Bellminsterboy (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox of York railway station there is a link station information. If you follow that, you will see above the photo and below the large text "York (YRK)", the normal-size text "Managed by Virgin Trains East Coast". Similarly at Newcastle railway station, follow the station information link and below "Newcastle (NCL)" it says "Managed by Virgin Trains East Coast". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Help

Could you please take a look at the article on Christopher Wilder. Any help is appreciated as always, c/e, expansions, comments at talk page etc...--BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked WT:GOCE? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of categories Quux and Baaz

Hi Redrose,

in your note you explained your reasons for the above captioned categories should be deleted as: "G6: unnecessary test category - we know that MW doesn't prevent self-categorization (there's lots of category loops in en wp), WM2015 is over"

I agree that as WM2015 is over, the categories may be deleted. However, I also feel that Wikipedians should get together to trash out the category loops that exist in en wp. Can something concrete be done about these loops, do you think ? Joe Gatt (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I deleted them, but the deletion was requested by DexDor (talk · contribs) who used {{db-g6|rationale=unnecessary test category - we know that MW doesn't prevent self-categorization (there's lots of category loops in en wp), WM2015 is over}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Things that can be done include fixing those listed at User:Danilo.mac/Category loops (by identifying which link in each chain is incorrect and fixing it) - that's something that can be done by individual editors (I've done a few). If there are any listed there that you can't work out how to fix then you could ask the relevant topic wikiproject, but in my experience asking a topic wikiproject about categorization problems doesn't get much/any response. It would also be helpful if this was one of the standard database reports (e.g. updated monthly); that it's not is one of the reasons why I currently prefer to use other techniques to identify sloppy categorization. DexDor ^(talk) 06:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)

Hey, I'm having a problem with getting the album to show. The table isn't fortmatting properly. It's making all of the book links on the single and song articles appear dead too. Can you help me please?  — Calvin999 09:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The main problem is that equals sign in the title. These changes to the talk page make it display properly, but I don't know what the bot will do to it. One possible solution is not to link to E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) directly, but to go through a redirect that doesn't involve an equals sign. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay thanks. Didn't know about the "1"'s and what they did. Will wait for the bot to update.  — Calvin999 10:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: As you probably know, there are two ways to pass a parameter into a template, and this largely depends on how the template was designed. One is by using named parameters, such as with {{cite web}} where you might put |work=Billboard - the param name is work and its value is Billboard. In named parameters, the values can be pretty much anything apart from a pipe |.

The other is with positional parameters, such as the single parameter of something like {{Wikipedia books|Merry Christmas II You}}. These have certain restrictions that named parameters don't have, the main one is that they cannot contain an equals sign. If the value of what should be a positional parameter contains an equals sign, it's treated as if it were a named parameter, so for {{Wikipedia books|E=MC² (Mariah Carey album)}} this is treated as if it had a parameter named E whose value is MC² (Mariah Carey album) which is not at all what we want. To force this parameter to be treated as a positional parameter, we need to explicitly number it - |1=E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) which means that for parameter 1 its value is E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). When doing this, it's also necessary to explicitly number all subsequent positional parameters, which is why I needed to do this - even though that parameter didn't contain an equals. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.  — Calvin999 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Userpage

Hello Redrose64,

I thought I might let you know that it was a bit tedious in verifying that you were an en-wiki sysop. I just wanted to suggest that it might be helpful for editors if you had the sysop userbox towards the top of your userpage. Just a thought. --JustBerry (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: I never rely on userboxes, they can be faked easily. If I want to know if somebody's an admin, I go to their contributions, at the bottom of which is a box with some links, and in that I click on User rights. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understood me.

{{User wikipedia/Administrator}}

You can verify sysop by clicking the subscript verification link and verify the certification of the page you're visiting. Anyways, not my user page - thought it might be helpful to other users. --JustBerry (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I understood you perfectly well, and I have known for several years what that userbox does. My point is that its use is not obligatory, and its position, when used, is not mandated. There are many ways of finding out what a user's rights are, and userboxes must not be relied on. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC

I've opened a RFC on the use of the Lua-based diagrams at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RFC. I've given Useddenim a warning for disruptive editing for changing the {{Waverley Line}} back to the new system after I had told him not to. There is no consensus that I can see for the introduction of this new system; as such, RDTs should not be changed to it now that their use has been challenged pending the formation of consensus. I tried editing the Waverley Line template under the new system and it was hopeless. I couldn't even move a line of text within the diagram. Mjroots (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A straw man argument, if one looks at the net changes and checks the page history. Useddenim (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Discuss on the RfC itself, please, not here: WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Coventry Arena station

• Hi there, I've put my rationale for the change on the talk page. The reference does say (to me anyway) that the station isn't useful for the stadium. I've quoted the part of the article there. Cls14 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Need part of a photo

Am I remembering correctly that you were able to help me with this? If so, I need the upper right portion of this photo for the infobox here. True, a better photo should most certainly be found, but it's all I have right now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you thinking of File:Mint Museum in uptown Charlotte, North Carolina crop.jpg? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Can you help me with the other photo?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you need something done, ask someone who's bussy!

Once again, I come to ask for help! Mutations happen in Welsh, where constanants soften after feminine words / numerals. cy:Nodyn:Years_or_months_ago needs to be amended. The mutations/exeptions are few, mainly 1 - 10, which I've noted on the Talk page. Can you take a look, and amend so that the words are produced on screen, rather than the default 'xx blwyddyn' (year). PS the nouns that follow a numeral in Welsh are always singular (which really does make sense!) eg 21 table, not 21 tables; 15 year, not 15 years. I've also created a test page (ready for our 'On this day...' feature here). Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Will have a look, can't promise a solution. I've come across mutations before, when I was small I didn't appreciate that goch and coch were the same colour. The concept is clearly so important that it's introduced as early as chapter 2 in

• Jones, Christine (2007). Welsh Grammar. Teach Yourself. London: Hodder Headline. ISBN 978-0-340-88786-8.

Apparently it can help to distinguish nouns that are spelt similarly in Welsh but have different English meanings - rhos goch and rhos coch are not the same. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks; copied onto the actual page, as we have only a few articles sucking it in. With all numbers (other than the exceptions 'blynedd' is used). I've listed the exceptions here, so we need a code for each one, which changes the default to the one in the list. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Hi Redrose64. Been a while since we bumped into each other. I was just looking at the Weston-Sub-Edge article and your recent changes and was hoping to have a little chat about your edit summaries as it's a little bug-bear of mine. Edit summaries are meant as a summary of the edit or perhaps a way of expressing your motive behind making an edit. Unfortunately, they are sometimes used as a method of general communication by some wikipedia users, which has a number of issues.

• As there is a limited character count, notes can often appear curt.
• There is no way of altering statements made if inaccurate
• The statements are not searchable.

In the case of Weston-Sub-Edge, the curt statements, especially this one can come across as rather bitey from my perspective, as we're looking at a new editor who appears to be doing a pretty good job. I don't think there's a massive issue, but I do think it's something to keep in mind. A guiding hand in a situation like this can go a long way. Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I came to that page - and that section in particular - because Lsces (talk · contribs) had previously renamed Weston-sub-Edge railway station to Weston Subedge railway station, a name not actually used by the railways (I moved it back, per WP:NCUKSTATIONS, because photos of the station nameboards (and indeed all reliable published sources) show the name hyphenated in that manner). At the section as I found it, I noticed that it had been written not so much as a summary of different spellings and hyphenations through history, but more as an attempt to assert what is "right" and discredit some sources. When I tried the four references within that section, I found that none of the first three supported the preceding text, and all four of them led to pages whose titles were significantly different from the link title that had been used. One was not a web page as such, but a search results page; and it is known that search results pages are not reliable sources, since their content is unstable. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Need help about a script: stubtagtab.js

Hi, Redrose64! I found your activity on this talk page and that is why I'm writing you here. I am mostly active on bh.wikipedia and wanted to use the above mentioned script for stub shorting. But, I am stuck at the very initial point and need some help because I know very little programming stuff. Would you please give some of your valuable time to help me??

I have copied this script on bh.wiki here and using it through globle.js and calling user:सत्यम् मिश्र/tagtest/Geography to get stubs for testing ! when I use this on en.wiki stub templates links load properly but on bh.wiki they are not loading as links. That is my problem. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@सत्यम् मिश्र: All I did was copy the whole of User:MC10/stubtagtab.js to User:Ais523/stubtagtab2.js. I don't know how it works. Have you tried asking MC10 (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I visited his talk page and found no recent activity, thus, thought he is not active these days. I have asked him now! Thank you for such a quick response! I will try to find solution.--Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 01:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Croxley link talk

Apologies for my failing to remove that stray " from the Survey section. Thank you for cleaning it up! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Learning wikipedia ropes

Redrose64 - I'm having to address some pages in wikipedia because of their use in sites such as facebook. 'Weston Subedge' and a few other places were causing problems and so I sat down to correct the underlying stuff, such as miss spellings. I've no doubt 'Weston-sub-Edge' is what the current parish council would like to use, but it would seem we have no OFFICIAL minute to support that so other official bodies have not made the change. NOW I'm trying to learn all the extras when all I wanted to do was change a name. We have several hundred mistakes logged on facebook places and many of them are down to miss use of wikipedia so it looks as if I need to learn all of the quirks of citing documents :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsces (talk • contribs) 11:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lsces: We have so many policies and guidelines that I don't think that anybody knows them all (indeed, most decisions on cases handled by the Arbitration Committee start off by quoting extracts from relevant policies, so that everybody involved is aware of what the agreed policies actually say). But we have some core content policies that everybody needs to be aware of, and should follow as far as possible. These are: Verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. So if, for example, you want to move an article about a railway station to a different title, that title must be verifiable. We use the station name that was used by the railway company, rather than the name of the locality in which the station lies, for two main reasons: first, it's easy to find out (there are dozens of books on railway topics from reliable publishers that name stations, and often show photos of their nameboards); second, it avoids the confusion that would ensue if we invented names - did you know that Clapham Junction railway station is not in Clapham? It's actually in Battersea, so if we were to name that article Battersea Junction railway station, there would be many puzzled people. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The saga of Weston Subedge is ongoing, and for the railway station then yes when looking for it on timetables Weston-Sub-Edge is the right spelling, but all of my own data about the station is map and property based identifies it as 'Weson Subedge Station' so I think the point here is that one needs to know all the names and where they are used. I'm going to add my recent research to the talk page of both articles and take it from there ... Lsces (talk) 07:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lsces: I must again draw your attention to the core content policy on no original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lsces: What's important is how the railway company actually called the station, not how it was considered by Ordnance Survey or local authorities. If you have a look at this timetable, you will see the station as it is currently spelt in the article title. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: - see Talk:Weston-sub-Edge railway station. But Lsces has been working mainly on Weston-Sub-Edge, which is the one with the most WP:NOR issues. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: I've now got a bit more evidence on just what has gone on over time, but I'm not sure if it's 'original research'. I've posted a small part on Talk:Weston-Sub-Edge and the current situation is that both names are being used actively today. Re the Station, if one looks at railway documents, the hyphenated version is used, but all of the legal stuff such as planning used the Weston Subedge spelling, so both are relevant depending on what you are looking for. Lsces (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Lsces: For the names of railway station articles, we use the name that is or was shown on station signs and in timetables; not the locality, not the name shown on maps; but the name that was actually used by the railway company. If that differs from the name of the town/village/whatever, then Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. If the station is still open, take it up with the railway company. If it's closed - tough. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm quite happy with the station page now ... as I said originally it was and actually still is recorded as it appears on the maps in my archive so I was not aware of the difference. My problem is only with the village page which needs better explanation as to why both spellings are currently correct. Not Right Great Wrongs but simply documenting the current verifiable diversity. Lsces (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello

No doubt you will all be devastated to hear that I won't be able to make it to Oxford tomorrow, so sorry about that. Anyway, I just wanted to say hi, and cheers for helping out so much. Thanks, Rubbish computer 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer 00:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Hi, yes, we had myself, Maproom (talk · contribs), Geni (talk · contribs), MinorProphet (talk · contribs), Thryduulf (talk · contribs), and Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff. --Rubbish computer 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You missed it!

While you were away yesterday, you missed all the drama over the Great Western Railway (train operating company) article. At least I was proved correct when I wrote this though. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

if we want a location map, it would be far better to add it to the code inside Template:Infobox GB station

You say "if we want a location map, it would be far better to add it to the code inside Template:Infobox GB station". You haven't done this, so why revert when it will do for now? Why get rid of progress? Why be such a rampant reverter and not even come to discuss it? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There are some 2000 railway stations in the UK, and that's not counting Underground, Metrolink and so on. Why waste time hand-crafting a location map for each one of those, when all you should need to do is set one parameter (perhaps two) on each article? Have you forgotten what happened back in January 2011, when edits like this meant that several of us than had to go around cleaning up after you?

As with those edits in 2011, you are making a lot of pointless edits, each of which adds a lot of markup to the infobox, most of which simply does not need to be there at all. You are also adding redundant information: the {{Infobox GB station}} template already has parameters for latitude and longitude, so there should be no need to duplicate those.

Before adding location maps to articles, you should have initiated a discussion, at (say) WT:UKRAIL; if there was consensus, somebody (not necessarily myself) would have suggested incorporating location map code directly into {{Infobox GB station}} in such a way that article editing would have been kept to a minimum.

Templates like {{Infobox London station}} generate a location map using the |latitude= and |longitude= parameters as a minimum requirement; two further optional parameters (|map_type= and |label_position=) exist, but in no case is it necessary to have a whole {{location map}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You do make a few good points. I was did think about putting a parameter for it straight into Temokate:Infobox GB station beforehand, but I only have a base map for Greater Manchester, which is only a chunk of the whole network, so I thought it would be easier to addition manually. Do you support, in principle, adding maps to station infoboxes? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (pronounce) 22:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In principle, yes (see for example this edit to Dartford railway station); but with caution. A location map will add height to the infobox, and in some railway station articles (e.g. Hattersley, Godley, Flowery Field) the infobox is already so tall that it causes a large blank space at the bottom, in the "External links" section. So maps should only be added if they will not cause further imbalance and so give ammunition to the anti-infobox brigade.

But before general addition of maps commences, a central discussion should be held - either at WT:UKRAIL or at Template talk:Infobox GB station as to whether it's desirable. See for example Template talk:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station#Rewrite, plus new features. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Query: Correct redirecting

Hi User:Redrose64 - I noticed that you had deleted my request to delete the redirect that is present on the Susan Foreman article and I was hoping for some advice. Currently a search for 'Susan Campbell' redirects to Susan Foreman, which I think is incorrect, as there is no obvious link to Susan Foreman. There is another article on Susan M. Campbell, which I think should be what shows up when one searches 'Susan Campbell'. Obviously I've gone about this in the wrong way, but would appreciate any guidance on how to do it properly. Thanks in advance Fbell74 (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Fbell74: With this edit, you put the {{db-g6}} on the article Susan Foreman, not on a redirect; it was therefore a request to delete that article under WP:CSD#G6, which does not apply in any way.

If your intention was to get a redirect deleted, criteria specific to redirs are listed at WP:CSD#Redirects, but one or more of the general CSD criteria might apply. Try to avoid using G6 - when no other criteria fit, some people try to use this as a catch-all wildcard criterion, which it isn't. {{db-move}} is a case within G6, but it's best to use that as a follow-up to a successful discussion, such as a WP:RM. I assume that you are thinking of the redirect Susan Campbell - this is a long-established redirect (8+1⁄2 years since it was created), so it would be difficult to get any CSD criterion to stick without prior discussion. I would say that your best bet is to take it to WP:RFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right - I put the note in the wrong area. I wasn't looking to have the 'Susan Foreman' article deleted at all, only the redirect from 'Susan Campbell', which takes visitors to the 'Susan Foreman' article. I'm unsure why it was set up like that in the first place but maybe there was a reason at the time. I'll follow your suggestion and see how it goes. Thanks for taking the time to respond Fbell74 (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Redrose64 - I saw that you had closed off the request I raised because I'd submitted it in the wrong area. I couldn't reply on that page because that query is closed now, but sorry about that. I've resubmitted the request, but this time in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, as well as on the Talkpage of the actual page containing the redirect. Hopefully I've done it properly now. Thank you for your help with this.Fbell74 (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't do it properly. This is what you did: notice how the rendered page now shows

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT Susan Campbell

at the top - that "{{subst:" is a dead giveaway that something wasn't right; you also added an unwarranted {{R from move}} template which wasn't there before - the redirect wasn't created as a page move so that template should not have been added at all. If you had done it properly, it would look like 2018 NHL Entry Draft - notice how that has a box at the top explaining that the redirect is at RFD, that box also contains a link to the RFD discussion page. Yours did not.

The whole matter seems to have been resolved by Tavix (talk · contribs) who merely converted the redirect to a dab page, the sum of the edits being this. There was no need for any deletion. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I really didn't do it properly at all. The end result looks quite clean and makes sense in terms of directing users to the various pages they might be looking for with a search on 'Susan Campbell' Fbell74 (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Promptsecretariat

Promptsecretariat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) Can you as an admin do something about this new user? All edits so far are racist vandalism. Admits to being anti-Jewish on user page. -- Alarics (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Alarics: Surely it's better to report such matters on a noticeboard, rather than the user talk page of one admin? --Redrose64 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I feared you might say that. I did have a look but it's not very clear to the uninitiated which noticeboard or what exactly one is supposed to do. I asked you because I know you are familiar with these things and you have helped me out before. Do you at least agree that some action is required in this case? -- Alarics (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits to three articles, all reverted. You could inform WP:NPOVN. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice on warning users for unconstructive edits

Do you think the warning I gave to the user for his unconstructive edit on Radiochemistry was suitable? Thanks. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@Leeds United FC fan: Yes, except that you used {{Uw-vandalism1|Radiochemistry}} where you should have used {{subst:Uw-vandalism1|Radiochemistry}} --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember to use the substitution template in future. Leeds United FC fan (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Llanpumpsaint station on the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth line template/ line diagram

Many thanks indeed for your speedy reversion to Llanpumpsaint. Had the other name of Llanpumsaint ever appeared on that particular line diagram (which is mostly repeated on that of the Manchester and Milford Railway one) or ever appeared on any previous editions of it? I am sure that I saw the name somewhere, but now cannot recall where.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 07:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: The locality is Llanpumsaint with one "p" but the station was always Llanpumpsaint with an extra "p". I don't have any books specifically dealing with the Carmarthen and Cardigan Railway. But see for example

• Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 146. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.
• Holden, J.S. (2007) [1979]. The Manchester & Milford Railway. The Oakwood Library of Railway History (2nd ed.). Usk: Oakwood Press. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-85361-658-0. OL50. (reproduction of GWR 1882 timetable)
• MacDermot, E.T. (1931). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. II: 1863-1921. Paddington: Great Western Railway. p. 341. OCLC 55853736. with an intermediate station at Llanpumpsaint
• Price, Martin R. Connop (1995). The Lampeter, Aberayron and New Quay Light Railway. Locomotion Papers. Headington: Oakwood Press. p. 43. ISBN 0-85361-480-6. LP191. (reproductions of two GWR posters advertising cheap tickets to Lampeter)

For the names of railway station articles, we don't use the name of the locality but the name that was actually used by the railway company, and shown on station signs and in timetables. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). --Redrose64 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Contractions are common in placenames. It's surprising that the explanation of the name in the Llanpumsaint article doesn't simply say that pump is the Welsh word for five, even though it does mention the five saints. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: There should be a photo of the station, including its signage, in

• Mitchell, Victor E.; Smith, Keith (February 2011). Aberystwyth to Carmarthen. Western Main Lines. Midhurst: Middleton Press. figures 57-58. ISBN 978-1-906008-90-1.

unfortunately I don't have a copy. It's available here.

@Martinevans123: Railway companies that were ostensibly Welsh often had English shareholders, directors and management. Ignorant of the Welsh language they would anglicise Welsh place names - or simply mis-spell them - without understanding the words and syllables, or the significant change in meaning that a subtle alteration - like adding one letter - can make. As Price notes in The Lampeter, Aberayron and New Quay Light Railway (p. 37) concerning the halt close to Neuaddlwyd, "Never very sensitive towards either the Welsh language or Welsh spellings, the authorities at Paddington disregarded local objections and called the new platform 'Llanerch Ayron'." It was located at 52.2178°N 4.2331°W / 52.2178; -4.2331, and there is a nearby village Llanerchaeron. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, how things have changed! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Extra 'via' stations on Horsham station

I've just been looking at recent edits made to Horsham station by Railway56 and notice that when previous almost identical edits were being made by a user called Towns21 (who incidentally stopped editing at the same time as Railway56 started) they were reverted. Since you were involved then, are you able to help me work out if these need reverting again now? Thanks. - Shrewdoliver (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Shrewdoliver: Railway56 (talk · contribs) has done this before. When reverted, they WP:EW and include the phrase "but not excessive" in the edit summary. They simply won't be told. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Plots

You recemtly sent the following message to me. "Please see WP:TVPLOT "As a rough guide, summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words." Therefore, please only remove {{plot}} if it is shorter than 500 words".

First, the suggested summary length quoted is only a rough guide and not prescriptive. Second, the articles I have removed {{plot}} from are not episode articles, they are serial articles covering multiple episodes. Third, I am using WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Manual of style as my guide. The section 'Episode pages/Plot/Synopsis' states: “A concise but legible summary of the episode written from the real-life perspective. A common length is approximately ten words per minute, however this can be lengthened in the case of a complicated plot”. So, for The Daleks' Master Plan, for instance, that’s 12 episides at 25 minutes each = 300 minutes x 10 words/minute = 3000 words. At the time of writing the plot summary for this article contains 1301 words. So on that basis it’s well within bounds, the use of {{plot}} is unjustified and that's why it has been removed from the article and others like it where similar circumstances prevail. 86.174.107.13 (talk) 15:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Gutenberg author

Hi Redrose. I have rewritten the template in WP:Lua, seen at Module:Gutenberg - it adds a new feature, the ID can be either a name or a number (the later goes direct to the author page bypassing the search result page). The testcases page is Template:Gutenberg author/testcases where it verifies. This is a simple template with no options besides "id" and "name" so it won't break existing instances. The template is protected and I don't have permissions to edit. Since you have helped in the past, would you be able to change the template to what is currently at Template:Gutenberg author/sandbox? Replace this line:

• [//www.gutenberg.org/author/{{{1|{{{id|{{PAGENAMEE}}}}}}}} Works by {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAMEBASE}}}}}}}}] at [[Project Gutenberg]]

With this line:

• <includeonly>{{#invoke:Gutenberg|author}}</includeonly>

-- GreenC 19:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Sorry, but I cannot assist in converting a template from a form which I do understand to one that I don't. As a computer programmer I feel that those who write or amend code should be responsible for its maintenance: if I carry out that edit I will be placing myself in the position of being unable to assist should any problem arise. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Umm... can you remove the protection so I can do it? Or give me the perms? I'm an experienced programmer and have written other templates. -- GreenC 23:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I opened an edit request. Since you answered the other edit request, can you help again? You are not responsible for the code, the code is my responsibility. If there is a problem with the code it is with the Lua module which I will take care of. The template page is basically just a redirect to the Lua Module:Gutenberg. But believe me, there is no problem. -- GreenC 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

em-dashes, en-dash & advisor.js

Thanks for correcting my em-dashes and en-dash (although I've never understood why this is important) I used User:Cameltrader/Advisor while fixing some reference CS1 issues. It might be worth talking to the developer/operator of that tool to stop it inserting the wrong ones (if they are wrong but as I say I can't see any difference).— Rod ^talk 20:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

On the rendered page, em-dashes (—) are normally twice as long as en-dashes (–). In the edit window, there isn't much difference, if any - it will depend upon the fonts installed on your computer. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

OK maybe its the fonts I have as I don't see any difference. I'll just not use the advisor tool and leave the error message I get from it above the edit window telling me that they need changing.— Rod ^talk 20:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Judging by comments at User talk:Cameltrader/Advisor, the script maintainer hasn't been around for some years. It's not likely to be fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Cross section of cleanup category & WikiProjects

Hey Redrose, do you know of a way to get a list of articles tagged for a category (e.g., Articles needing cleanup) within a specific WikiProject? The former is tagged on the article page and the latter is tagged on the talk page, so CatScan doesn't do an easy cross section, as far as I can tell. Open to suggestions czar 01:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I do this with Catscan. Here's a link to a search that looked within some copy-editing tracking categories for articles with a WP Biography template on their Talk page.

Remember to also check for aliases of the template that you are looking for (using What links here in your left nav bar). – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Aha, I see! Took a few tries to get it to run, but it's doing what I want. Thanks so much! czar 13:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

St Austell railway station

Just wondered if you realised that First Great Western have re-branded themselves as Great Western Railway when you reverted at St Austell railway station? Poltair (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Poltair: Yes, I do; what you probably didn't notice is that Merlinhst7 (talk · contribs) broke links when they edited that page, as well as introducing totally unnecessary <br> tags. I've been cleaning up after them. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Category: Assyrian (Ashuri) script

The current category should definitely stay, insofar that it is the correct term and designation for our modern Hebrew script, whereas the original script was the Paleo-Hebrew script. This is evident in all of the writings of the Mishnah and Talmud, and is well-known by those who are engaged Judaic studies.Davidbena (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Davidbena: No, the simple fact is that you put the category inside itself, and gave it no parents other than itself. This is not how we categorise categories. See WP:SUPERCAT "Category chains formed by parent–child relationships should never form closed loops; that is, no category should be contained as a subcategory of one of its own subcategories." --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, the parent category should be "Semitic languages."Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a category for a language, but a category for a script or writing system: therefore at least one of its parent categories should be a broader category for scripts or writing systems. See for example Category:Arabic script which has five parent categories, amongst these are Category:Abjad writing systems, Category:Semitic writing systems and Category:Writing systems derived from the Phoenician. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The best choice would be the parent category, Category:Semitic writing systems. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bournemouth station

Hi, thanks for pointing out that error in the image caption box, I don't know what I did, but obviously didn't finish writing what I wanted to write! Jack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellminsterboy (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)