User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 27

Good luck

Been trying to get Doomer1557 to fix his 'time' signature on his post. Asked for administrative help at WP:AN, but got a rude reply. Anyways, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. It's possible that Nick (talk · contribs) was not aware that Doomer1557 was using falsified timestamps in a format that bots and scripts couldn't parse, which goes against the spirit of WP:SIGN (must be properly signed) and the word (WP:SIGN#Purpose of signatures, WP:SIGPROB). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a shame GoodDay didn't bother to explain the issue clearly. There's a clear competence issue with GoodDay at the moment, they're appearing at a wide variety of administrative venues leaving, as is the case here, completely useless and unproductive reports and comments. Nick (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick: What have I done, that you're being so insulting to me? GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I'm not being insulting. I made a fair assessment of your editing in recent weeks - you're involving yourself in administrative areas leaving comments which are unhelpful or counter-productive; there's dozens to choose from at AN/ANI, where your edits are little more than clerking or providing overly simplistic and frequently patronising advice (I don't know if that's intentional or not). I've even had to ask you to stop providing your advice to blocked users when there are several administrators working on a block appeal, because your involvement was disruptive. The report you filed at AN was lacking in detail and you hadn't discussed the issue fully (or at all, really) with the user. I look, the user is signing posts and your report looks to be completely unnecessary, even if you had explained the issue fully, I'd argue it's still unnecessary given you've not attempted to explain and resolve the issue with Doomer1557. It's what I'd suggest is an ongoing over eagerness to involve yourself with issues. Nick (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I used to be a member of WP:RETENTION, so forgive me for my attempts to helps editors. Recognising that you are an administrator, I shall not get into an argument with you. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: On that point, how does reporting a two month old user (and one who you've suggested doesn't have English as their first language) to AN without any attempt to resolve the issue with them first, aide in editor retention ? Nick (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to get an administrator to help him with his signage. Perhaps, now that you're more aware of it, you'll proceed to do just that. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

As you'll see, Redrose64 has left them a useful message about their signature already. That's not an administrative action, it's an simple editor to editor interaction and is something you could have done. It's only in need of administrative assistance if the user refused, when fully briefed about the problems with their signature, to rectify the issue. We do block people for having disruptive signatures, but it's done extremely infrequently, and it's only ever done after a lot of discussion with the user, something that was missing in this case. Nick (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Easy when you ask nicely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Sirjohnperrot, NPA

That ship has already sailed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

A question

Hello Redrose64, I'm interested in your opinion regarding this Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections RfC. It is regular? I've never seen any RfC started while the disputed version/material is included. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

What part of WP:RFC prohibits it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Signature question

Hello. Recently, a editor sent a notice in my talk page in other ptwiki that my signature was at odds with the rules, however I desagree. I used this tool and there it indicated that the signature was all clear. I also saw you put an emoji in their signature. The Wikipedia:Signatures cite images, it says nothing about using an emoji, which is not classified as an image, but as a unicode character. Could you tell me if you think my signature is WP: SIGIMAGE or if it complies with Wikipedia: Signatures? I will be grateful if I can answer my question. Sorry if I messed up, English is not my native language. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Answered at User talk:Jonesey95; Redrose64, you are welcome to add to my answer there if you have additional insight. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm the fourth person to have received A.WagnerC's question; this is clearly against WP:MULTI and probably against WP:FORUMSHOP as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for WP:MULTI and WP:FORUMSHOP. It will not happen again. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

sorry!

Sorry about the sloppy work! I unfortunately can no longer describe myself as a fast learner, but you'd think I'd be able to remember to check for big red banners on tops of pages! :D —valereee (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Checklinks Thingy Ma Jiffy Flying Off?

Hello there, it's been a while but I have forgotten the link that I was given to the replacement checklinks tool. Or is it permanently gone now? Thanks :D and yes this is one of my periodic returns hello Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Which links are you intending to check? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ref links in an article in general. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:REFLINKS? I never use that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nope, sorry to confuse you. I mean the tool that checks every link in a wiki article. Hope this is the best definition I can provide. :p Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. That's largely been superseded by code that was added to various modules (Module:Citation/CS1, Module:Footnotes and their submodules) a few weeks ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe the user is interested in User:Dispenser/Checklinks. --Izno (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Another one that I never use. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah thank you very much @Izno:. :D Apparently it has become Dablinks now, it has been very lowkey of tools updates. Perhaps a tools update channel/noticeboard needs to be put up? Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion RfC mess

Thank you for sorting out the mess I made here and here. This started as a lengthy discussion and evolved into a set of RfCs. I have never tried anything like this before. I suspected that the way I was doing it might cause bot problems, and I was right. Thank you again. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Railways Act 1921

Hi, I had altered a few railway station pregroup values that I notice you reverted. I had changed them before seeing your note about the Railways Act 1921. I am a little confused with the definition of "pregroup", does it mean which company owned the railway in question up to the publishing of the Railway Act, 19 August 1921? Or, who owned the railway on the date of implementation of the Act, 1 January 1923? The alterations I made about the Princetown Railway and Cambrian Railways were both railways that the GWR took over between the two dates, at least according to Grant (2017) and Awdry (1990).

I would be grateful for any guidance you can provide with this or similar issues, I'm learning fast but some things are not as clear or straightforward to understand. Nempnet (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think pre-grouping is just before amalgamation of several rail companies. One example is the Eastern Counties Railway amalgamating with other railway companies to form the London & Northeastern Railway (LNER). Cheers mate Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nempnet: the GWR did not take over the Cambrian - these two, along with the Barry, Taff Vale and a few others (seven in all, including the GWR), amalgamated on 1 January 1922 under the provisions of the Railways Act 1921. This Act did not lay down what was to happen on 1 January 1923 - rather, it set 1 January 1923 as a deadline by which each group of railways had to agree their own terms of amalgamation; if they failed to agree by this date, the amalgamation tribunal would set the terms and force amalgamation. See my post of 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC) at Talk:Taff Vale Railway#1922 or 1923?.

@Vincent60030: "Pre-Grouping" is a term used by British railway historians to refer to that period which, broadly speaking, ended with the Grouping. Grouping has a specific meaning: it refers to the events brought about by the passing of the Railways Act 1921, but not all of those events happened upon the same day. Indeed, it was not until August 1923 that the Freshwater, Yarmouth and Newport Railway was finally absorbed by the Southern Railway, and there are other examples of late absorption. Regarding the Eastern Counties Railway (ECR): this voluntarily amalgamated with several other companies on 1 July 1862 to create the Great Eastern Railway (GER), and so the ECR is not considered to be a "pre-grouping" railway. The GER amalgamated with several other companies on 1 January 1923 to create the London and North Eastern Railway, and so the GER is a pre-grouping railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that's much clearer and I understand now where I have been going astray. I'll check a little more carefully before making any future edits. Nempnet (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nempnet: According to

• Nock, O.S. (September 1967). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. III: 1923-1947. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 4–5. 1584/387/DXX/967.

two railways, the Exeter Railway and the Forest of Dean Central Railway, were unable to come to terms with the GWR by 1 January 1923; and so the Amalgamation Tribunal had to step in, and Nock gives details of their decisions.

Nock also describes (on pp. 1–2) and lists (on pp. 240–2) the various "Constituent Companies" (of which one is the Cambrian Railways) that amalgamated to create the new GWR; the various "Subsidiary Companies" that were absorbed (of which one is the Princetown Railway); and those joint railways that fell partially or wholly within the new GWR. A second list gives the makeup of the post-1922 GWR Board, showing which railways each director had previously been with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, very helpful, I've found a similar list in Ottley's Bibliography, I'll make a point of checking it.

• Ottley, George (1983). A Bibliography of British Railway History (2nd ed.). London: Her Majestey's Stationery Office. pp. 469–476. ISBN 0112903347.

Nempnet (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The table on pp. 469-471 looks like a very close copy of the schedule that I referred to in my edit summary here. You will find the Princetown Railway mentioned on p. 470, column 3, lines 4-5 (counted from the top of the continued entry for the Western Group). In the original Act (downloadable here) it's on page 70 of the PDF (numbered 486 in the scan), lines 10-11. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard Gauge Proportions

Re your revert, I have put the CIA data into a spreadsheet and get a similar but more detailed answer. See CIA data. May I revert you revert? ----MountVic127 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have found a similar table in Track gauge#Proportions and have updated it. ----MountVic127 (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

In an article like Track gauge, it may be justifiably included; in an article that deals specifically with a single gauge, it's out of context. But wherever it is included, WP:NOR and WP:V must both be observed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Special

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special purpose UK railway stations as this is more your department than mine. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Special purpose UK railway stations

Hi, thanks a lot for your comment on my AfD nomination for Special purpose UK railway stations, which I realise was in error. Would it be okay if I added a paraphrasing of your definition of a special-purpose station to the top of the article, to more-clearly define its purpose? Thanks. YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 20:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Help please

Hello R. All sorts of admin dashboards are in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I thought I had taken care of it when I found the template on an admin noticeboard that didn't need it but that was yesterday and they are all still there. This is the first time I've been unable to locate the problem since you gave me the code to have the transclusions display in chrono order so I am hoping that it is something that will be easy for you to find. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)  Fixed, I'm pretty sure, with this edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

That has taken care of things Jonesey95. Much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 18:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Keepitreal42 and Michael Jackson 4

I believe that Keepitreal42 and Michael Jackson 4 are the same editor, see my comment at User talk:Keepitreal42#Possible sock. Should they be blocked for vandalism-only accounts as well as abuse of multiple accounts? C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 07:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I'm certain of it. But with this post and now this one, you have showed your hand too early, now they know we're on to them. I was hoping that they would exhibit a few more instances of similar behaviour, as with Jubilee line. I also don't think you should have asked for their user pages to be speedied. Really, you should have gathered your evidence and used it to file a WP:SPI (using Keepitreal42 as sockmaster, since they both registered and edited first), listing not just those two but also the various IP addresses that have had similar behaviour. In that SPI you can present all of the evidence together. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Keepitreal42. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 11:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any diffs, other than of posts to their user talk page which won't stand up in court. You need diffs of similar and problematic behaviour elsewhere, preferably in mainspace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR?

FYI in case you hadn't noticed their edits after the first block. I'm not a subject matter expert on London transport, but had noticed that at least some of their edits were flat out incorrect. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

See two sections above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixing RfC that was never listed

I believe you do some work on cleaning up RfCs. Is this the correct way to fix an RfC that was never listed? Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: It was listed, see this edit and this one. It was delisted after the standard thirty days, see this edit and this one. Why do you think that it was never listed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. I didn't see the template there or any close so I assumed it hadn't been listed. Thanks for looking at it. Is reverting my edit adequate to delist the RFC now? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga conversion

Hello Redrose64, I wanted to ping you about the status of the WP:ANIME WPBannerMeta conversion (at Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga § Comments related to WPBannerMeta conversion). User:WOSlinker gave the sandbox version the go-ahead about a week-and-a-half ago; could you give it a look over yourself and merge it with the main template if ready? — Goszei (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

There's been so much activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Lead sections for Latin titles that I kinda tuned out from that page. Will look at it soon, but maybe not until Tuesday. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

45699 Article

Looking through the article the photographs are out of date. From researching photographs over wiki the only photographs of Galatea in it's present form which is BR green and dressed up as Alberta are those from a user has been put down as blocked. The article needs a massive refresh with new photographs and more recent information including into the article as the present photographs are over 5 years out of date showing an engine which doesnt look like what it now is and could end up confusing people. These photographs of the blocked user are at present are the only ones which could be ideal for the article until other new images from other users can be uploaded to the article which are of the engine in BR green.(talk) 23:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC98:DB00:6DA8:719F:B2B9:CD51 (talk)

You don't say which article - as it says in the box at the top, if you wish to draw my attention to an article, it's always best to link it. Besides which, you should express your concerns at the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the article in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Jubilee_Class_5699_Galatea. The photographs in question for this article are over 5 years out of date and the information hasnt been updated either aside from saying what its dressed as now but there is no photographic proof in the article apart from some photos by a blocked user. These shots of which are the only photographic proof there is of the engine dressed as 45562 Alberta at present. For the talk article then if it needs bringing up there could you provide a link.(talk) 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC98:DB00:6DA8:719F:B2B9:CD51 (talk)

WP:Link is clearly not the article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The article link is for 45699 Galatea. It needs a complete refresh with recent information including links to prove that it's dressed as Alberta or images confirming the information is genuine.(talk) 00:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC98:DB00:6DA8:719F:B2B9:CD51 (talk)

• The IP is Moylesey. Blocked again. Black Kite (talk) 11:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Much thanks for willing to help me with that tricky SVG image. Mike like0708 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind help

Thank you for your kind help on how to get a template saying "This article of interest to..." on the talk page of Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism. I have been editing Wikipedia for many years, but I am still learning about it! I shall trying to get consensus from the members of the WikiProject to see whether they are happy for the template to go on the talk pages of selected articles. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you from me as well. You helped fix an RFC on the baps pageApplebutter221 (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nir Eyal

Bioethicist Dr. Nir Eyal works and lives in New Jersey at this time (although he was in Massachusetts before, as the article states). You had removed mention of NJ. MaynardClark (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@MaynardClark: What is this about? If you wish to draw my attention to an article (or other page), it's always best to link it. Use diffs if you wish to discuss a particular edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Congleton station

Hi so I have noticed that a while back on the page for Congleton station in the current services section you changed “Stoke-on-Trent” back to “stoke on trent”.

I wish to ask you wether it could be possible if a standard way of spelling for the railway station of stoke on trent could be agreed upon for the page for Congleton station, as on most of the page the spelling “stoke-on- trent” is used but that one sentence in current services is different.

I just wish to notify you of this issue and ask if we can reach an agreement on solving this matter.

Many Thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Diff please. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

State leaders by age

How about continuing our discussion in Talk: Lists of state leaders by age. It seems to me that we have not reached a consensus. 'Doomer1557' ( talk) 12:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Ivatt

There's only one person known as Henry Ivatt: Henry Ivatt. His son Henry George Ivatt is known as George Ivatt. Sometimes referenced as H. A Ivatt and H. G Ivatt respectively. At least, that's according to the books I have, though the Ivatts, père et fils, figure less in my collection than Sir Nigel. Guy (help!) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Whenever

you want it. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 21:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What is this about? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

DRV

Please can you and Thryduulf let me know if you plan to make a DRV regarding the stations infoboxes, so I know whether to pause my work on the merge for now? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry, I'm new to submitting on Wikipedia. I don't understand what your comments on my submission means: "no such template - these are the best fits - please WP:PREVIEW your edits".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Aslam_H._Anis — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHEOS CTN (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@CHEOS CTN: I have never edited that page: see the page history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Help:Notifications

I've finished up the bulk of the edits. Feel free to take a look and give feedback, or just rollback wholesale :) — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes, and I mean a lot. Have you fixed the inward links to sections? Help:Notifications#Triggering events also Help:Notifications#Alerts both now go to the top of the page, but I am certain that these links exist other than on this page, because I've used them myself when explaining to people that edits like this won't work. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I added those two where I think they fit best, and went through the old version and restored all the anchors and also added relevant section titles as anchors. Are there ways to check for incoming section links I should be using? Hopefully "a lot" of changes doesn't mean it's worse! I see you're busy, so no rush to look it over, I just thought I'd drop you a note about it since we edit conflicted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately not: the "what links here" feature lacks that ability. For redirects, it will show which ones involve a URL fragment: it shows '(redirect to section "FooBar")' instead of '(redirect page)'. It does this whether "FooBar" is an actual section name, a valid anchor or not valid at all. But for unredirected links from other pages, it has no indication whether the link has a fragment or not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Some falafel for you!

Thanks for the talk page stalking, friend. →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you It's surprising just how many people don't read the directions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Misapplying WP:BOTTOMUP

Context: this concerns these three edits --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You are misapplying WP:BOTTOMUP. As it says, "The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page." That's what I was trying to do, put the *most recent* discussion on the bottom. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelbluejay: As you note, WP:BOTTOMPOST (there is no WP:BOTTOMUP) says The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. That is the latest topic, not the topic having the latest post. It also says This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. It says nothing about moving active discussion to the bottom of the page.

When deciding which topic is latest, we use the date/time when each topic was first raised, not the date/time when a topic was last commented upon. Otherwise we'd be forever rearranging talk pages. In the case of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, there were eleven topics in total at the time that you moved them around; you moved "Bringing this article in line with Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works" (initiated 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)) to be after "What is the purpose of ABOUTSELF?" (initiated 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)) instead of between "AfterEllen as a reliable source" (initiated 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)) and "PinkNews as a reliable source" (initiated 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You are inventing policy. Your interpretation isn't prescribed. "The latest topic" is easily interpreted as the one with the latest activity, which is the logical and more useful interpretation. It's not easy to see the chronological order of posts when an active discussion is buried in the middle of the page, with several dead discussions after it. Your argument isn't compelling, and I intend to keep moving the active discussion to the bottom of the page so it can be discussed and resolved. If you can't stand that, then I encourage you to do what you can to help SPS get defined so that topic can be closed. I'm having a hard enough time spearheading that effort without pedantic interference. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

No, no RR64 is not. Latest topic is at the bottom. Threatening to edit war is not generally a good idea, especially when yours is the weird interpretation. --Izno (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: On that matter, diff. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Easton railway station (England)

Thanks for the feedback about the dates, it's been a long time since I've edited much on WP! I shall remember for future reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BennH (talk • contribs) 09:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

5593 Page edit

The information included regarding 5593 Kolhapur being overhauled is genuine and a genuine link from vintage trains itself was included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC8F:9100:5516:42B7:C392:63F2 (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia to appeal for funding. That counts as promoting a cause, which is forbidden. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The article isnt appealing for funding it's just advertising what Tyseley are running. The RailAdvent link can be included as the only link if required.2A00:23C5:FC8F:9100:5516:42B7:C392:63F2 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What part of "an appeal was launced to fund an overhaul for 5593 with the goal of returning to steam" is not an appeal for funding? The railadvent link that you provided even has the line in it "You can donate or join The Kolhapur Club by clicking here." Even if you are "just advertising what Tyseley are running", that is still promotion. We are not in the business of running adverts: try Fandom, a.k.a. Wikia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Moylesy98, what part of "you are evading a block using IPs and all your edits may be reverted" is proving difficult to understand? Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Template : Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway

Could I seek your opinion on the validity of station name edits on Template:Aberystwyth and Welsh Coast Railway made by @NT79 in June 2020, as no-one has seen fit to make these type of amendments, including highly respected editors such as your good self, in past years. Do you think the changes made should be reverted?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: As ever, please provide a link to the page that you are referring to, ideally with diffs where appropriate. I neither have the time, nor am in the mood, to go hunting for whatever it is you are currently having difficulties with. Unless you know the identity of the six juveniles who went for me on three separate occasions this evening. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, the required link has been added to my original query, as requested. I was unaware that you had been targeted by a group of six juveniles. I trust that the police will be successful in tracing these miscreants.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you bring up the matter at the template's talk page (no), at the talk page of WT79 (talk · contribs) (no) or at an appropriate WikiProject talk page (also, no)? Am I the primary editor of the template? Again, no - all I ever did there was this which hardly puts me in the number 1 position for explaining somebody else's edits. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Take care, Redrose. I know it’s awkward for me to say this but I hope for the best for you. At times like this, crime rate is high. We can get through this Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask therefore one final question. Is the the policy for Wikipedia to use the final used station name in articles when earlier station names have been carried?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NCUKSTATIONS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

RFCs on Korean Television Show

Okay. Are you saying, first, that the bot is looking at the sentence immediately after the RFC tag as the topic sentence to publicize? If so, okay. Second, are you saying that starting two RFCs in the same edit causes some sort of confusion? If so, I will remember to avoid it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: As shown at WP:RFCBRIEF, Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs. That is what it did here - notice that only one of your two RfCs was copied, and that it lacked the question. Second, see this edit - Legobot set the two |rfcid= to identical values. They must be unique, since not only are they used as the anchor for inward links, they are also used by Legobot in its private data tables that list current RfCs. If two have the same rfcid value, only one of them can be monitored by Legobot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Question: "Normal order of cat[egorie]s?"

Greetings and felicitations. In the comment for your reversion of my edit to the article "Spean Bridge railway station" you wrote in part "restore normal order of cats". The only rule with which I am familiar is to place the primary category—the one with a space—at the top of the list. E.g., [[Category:World War II| ]] for World War II. I was informed years ago of a system for ordering film and television, but have not seen much of it recently. However, under this impetus I just dug it out: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Categorization. But there does not seem to be a similar rule for WikiProject Television.

Anyway, what is the "normal order" of categories? The Manual of Style does not seem to mention this. (While per your request I've added this page to my watch list, a ping or the equivalent mention of my username is a much better guarantee of getting my attention.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: I didn't revert you, not entirely - if I had, the images would have moved back to their previous positions, and the shortdesc might also have been lost. Anyway, it's a question of relevance (Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.), of defining characteristics. What is it? A railway station. Where is it? Highland (council area). Who owned/operates it, when did it open? These are all more relevant than the fact that it is a Category C listed building or that it was designed by James Miller. Some years ago, I worked through a large number of railway station articles that other people had worked upon to see what the favoured order is, and broadly speaking, I came up with User:Redrose64#Railway Stations (although I need to update that redlink, and check some of the others). Any cat that is not covered by that table would be placed after those. At Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 16#Proposing a change to the WP:CATDEF wording, look for the phrase "dog monuments" to see how irrelevant some cats can be, and how alphabetical ordering can boost their prominence above more significant cats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks!

I honestly didn't know about those birth and death templates! Really appreciate your advise, I'll have to note this for any articles in create for the WiR project in future. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock: They are linked from the navboxes at the bottom of the various template doc pages, although you may need to expand the navbox sections. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh... never noticed that before. Thanks once again! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rail-header2

Template:Rail-header2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Appeal for help

Profound greetings I just want you to edit template wikiproject football and extend it for Greece as well as Greek task force of association football is created and it requires extension of Greek lag and the text on that template.

Regards

SHISHIR DUA 12:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@SHISHIR DUA: First, you need to make your proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and gain consensus there - this will take a minimum of one week, probably longer. Once that has been achieved, make a WP:TPER request at Template talk:WikiProject Football, linking to the consensus discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for endowin' me with the procedure SHISHIR DUA 08:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Protected drafts

Hey RR, saw you deleted/create protected the single letter drafts, thanks for that. Do you want to do the same with the single numbers, Draft:0, Draft:2, Draft:3, Draft:4, Draft:5 etc.? Best, UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: Draft:0, Draft:2, Draft:3 are  Done; Draft:1 is  Already salted; Draft:4, Draft:5 are  Partly done - along with Draft:6, Draft:7 and Draft:9 they have too few create/delete cycles to justify a salt; Draft:8 has never been created. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ashford International

Hi, thanks for the edit and message. I must admit to using the automatic reference tool, which as it looked ok, I pressed ok. Thanks for the reminder, will take more care in future. Bellminsterboy (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Template : Brighton Main Line

Could you kindly clear up the "kink" halfway down the template where Jolly Sailor station is.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: You refer, I presume, to Template:Brighton Main Line. This uses {{routemap}} and some years ago I stated that I would not maintain RDTs which use that template, so the breakage is not mine. All I can do is revert the most recent edits, prior to which it seems to look OK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: I've fixed it. Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help in this matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

High Speed North

Hi, we met a couple of years ago at a meetup in The Four Candles. I am seeking help with correcting what I think is a serious error. The Article 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' was re-named 'High Speed North' (Moved? - I don't understand the terminology). See Talk:High Speed North#Re-naming mistake?. I have tried to do what I can, but have not succeeded in getting a response either on the Talk page or from a talk message to User talk:Ejosm#Possible mistake in renaming 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' 'High Speed North'?. I would be most grateful if you would review the evidence that I have provided and, if you agree, advise me as to how to put things right.--TedColes (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Northern Powerhouse Rail#Re-naming mistake?. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding your revert of my addition of a Short Description on London Underground C69 and C77 Stock, I did read the article and still don't see what is wrong with my SD. But if you thought it could have been improved, why did you not do so in the spirit of collaboration instead of reverting with a snarky edit summary. MB 22:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

MB, while you may mean "passenger car" as rolling stock, to most people it means an automobile. Even if you meant it as rolling stock, a car is a single carriage of the unit, not the unit itself - it would be like saying that a house is a type of kitchen. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Mattbuck, We have rolling stock that says it means anything that rolls - engine, freight cars, cabooses, etc. Yes, I meant a passenger coach, whose article is at passenger car (rail). So since that is the title of the article, and, in the context of the "Underground", it should be clear this is about a train car and not a automobile. I stand by my SD as not "rubbish" and not "a guess" by someone who did not read the article. Another editor has added a SD which just says "vehicle", which is fine also for the purposes of a SD. MB 14:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not about a car/coach/carriage/vehicle. It's about a group of coach designs collectively known as the C Stock. There are C69 driving motors, C69 trailers, C77 driving motors and C77 trailers. One driving motor and one trailer (usually both C69 or both C77, but not necessarily) were semi-permanently coupled into pairs, known as "units", having a driving cab at one end. A train could be formed of either two or three units (which need not have been all C69 or all C77), having a driving cab at both ends. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead of rolling stock may be of interest, then. It says "The term rolling stock in the rail transport industry refers to railway vehicles...". If the short descriptions are going to reflect reality as you and reliable sources understand it, the leads of relevant articles need to reflect that reality. In any event, the current local short description appears to be a far sight better than the Wikidata one that was being shown before. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding my edit

You recently removed my edit on the named Class 323.

I can confirm it is notable as it so far the only class 323 to have ever been named as far as Information on named class 323s goes.

I have a photo of 323241 baring the names I listed and I have permission to from the photo owner to upload the photo as long as they are credited which I would credit them, would this be allowed on Wikiapeda and would be be acceptable as evidence?

Also I’m sorry for what I put being contradictory, I should have checked what I wrote before publishing it.

For the moment I have now asked WMT about this on Twitter, if they confirm that 323241 carries the names I added would this be acceptable as evidence? Maurice Oly (talk) 11:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Please find a third-party reliable source, in accordance with the policy on verifiability. Photos and tweets are not sufficient. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the source

Hey I just want to say I’m really sorry about having to use twitter as a source on the class 323 page but sadly that’s all there is.

Sadly West Midlands Trains did not do a press event for the naming of 323241, it was only done at soho TMD and by depo staff not head office staff.

I asked West midlands trains on twitter to confirm it but sadly somebody else confirmed it before WMT did.

Sadly due to the naming ceremony being held at soho TMD no members of the press were aware of the event, I only found out about the event via a facebook group of which some WMT train crew who attended the event are a part of.

I hate using twitter as a source as I know it can be unreliable but sadly that’s the best source there will be, well as well as the photo I uploaded.

Again I’m really sorry for using Twitter but as I’ve said it’s all there will ever be source wise.

Many Thanks Maurice Oly. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I ment West Midlands railway as the TOC not the brand west midlands trains which is used my West midland Railway my bad. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Like Twitter, Facebook is not appropriate. Try the railway press, such as Modern Railways, Rail, and The Railway Magazine - these are generally considered reliable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thx much

for selecting the topic areas. Humanengr (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Spanish sports categories

Hi Redrose64: The appropriate category for the 2020 Pinatar Cup article is Category:March 2020 sports events in Spain (part of a tree) not Category:2020 sports events in Spain. Hugo999 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hugo999: Why are you telling me this? I have never edited that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Milhist

I have removed the RFC tag which I assume will correct the issue. Apologies for the inconvenience. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bookku

They have almost 4000 edits - I'd assumed they were a new editor until I checked. You'd think they'd be more capable. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Request to use part of a photo

I needed part of a photo for an article and it shows you are the one who created it. I just discovered this photo and realize while the middle section is not ideal, it's better than the current photo of St. John's Lutheran Church (Salisbury, North Carolina).

Do you know who could make this happen?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: My part in creating File:Mint Museum in uptown Charlotte, North Carolina crop.jpg was, as shown in the summary on the file description page, limited to cropping down an existing image - File:Mint Museum in uptown Charlotte, North Carolina.jpg. You could crop down File:SalisburyNCMontageUpdated.jpg, but since it's a montage of several component images, it would be better to ask its uploader, Kharris0317 (talk · contribs), where to find the component you wish to use solo. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I don't know how to crop but you apparently do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

There are various utilities. I use one called ZoomBrowser EX which came with my Canon camera, but you can use Adobe Photoshop, IrfanView, Microsoft Office Picture Manager, or even Microsoft Paint. With most of them, you load an image, select the crop (or trim) tool, drag the edges about, click an "OK" (or "Confirm") button, then save it. Make sure that you save it with a new name so as not to damage the original, just in case the new version was unsuitable and needs to be redone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone did show me how to use Paint for screenshots when I was asking questions on WP:VPT or the reference desk. And I have used something similar with NewsBank and newspapers.com.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will need that person to help me again and during COVID-19 that's unlikely.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me for joining in. The best software by far for simple cropping and rescaling is Irfanview (mentioned above). I've used it for years for mostly just those two simple tasks. If you want help with a specific image, happy to help/instruct. Bazza (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Crewe to Shrewsbury Railway

Hi RedRose64

I saw you reverted my edit on the article of Crewe and Shrewsbury Railway but called it constructive. May I just ask why as the line still sees use and isn't a former railway as the article mentioned "was a railway that connected Crewe to Shrewsbury". I understand the line isn't under that name anymore but it's still in use aside from the branch lines.

I'm just curious why its constructive but I've reverted to a more constructive lead. If you can fill me in on what is unconstructive about it. I'd appreciate it.

Thank you kindly

Signed: RailwayJG, 25th September 2020, 19:25. RailwayJG (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Meant unconstructive sorry auto correct RailwayJG (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You refer, I presume, to this edit (when querying an edit, you should always provide a WP:DIFF), The grammar and spelling are bad. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent

I have made the correction you suggested, and that helped to get some comments already. But won't you participate? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Busy in real life? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. I have a job, and unlike a lot of people in this country, I have not been sent home to mooch around for weeks on end. Since March, I've done extra time covering for people who have stayed at home; and that will include tomorrow. My taxes pay for their furlough. No, I won't participate, my interest was solely on getting the bad entry in the RfC listings fixed, and this fix to a badly-constructed list. I do wish people would read the directions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering. I am. Doing 70+ hours a week myself, plus some 20 hours of commute (transport is difficult these days). I think I understand the pain somewhat. Hopefully we shall meet again on nicer grounds someday. Thanks for the help. I was just impatient about low participation (which partly is because the RfC was "malformed", unfortunately). As for instructions... I think only the most work-free people has the time to read the thousands of pages of instruction WP has these days. I am not one of them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A dog

Hi Redrose...I was about to create an article titled "Gerberian Shepsky" but I can't....can you help. It has a redirect to cross-breeds but I think it can have its own page. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

It was redirected following (but not as a consequence of) this AfD. You could ask Cunard (talk · contribs), who redirected it, or just WP:BEBOLD - it's not protected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to be bold but I don't know how...maybe Philafrenzy or Edwardx could kindly stub and I'll expand. One of them kindly forwarded some scientific evidence on dog eye muscles. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

First follow the link Gerberian Shepsky, this takes you to a point part-way down List of dog crossbreeds. Go to the top, and below the page title and the familiar text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is a line reading "(Redirected from Gerberian Shepsky)". Click that link, and you reach the redirect itself. Either edit that directly, or click its history tab and select an old version to view. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a go...thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Something about how their eyes have evolved to appeal to us I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Track layouts

If track layouts for New York Subway stations can exist on their respective pages, why should London Underground stations not have the same thing on their pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonRider1563 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@DragonRider1563: One, the London Underground is not in New York. Two, it was agreed some time ago that track layout diagrams should not be included in the articles for UK stations. Three, your repeated re-adding without seeking consensus is becoming disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in NBR 224 and 420 Classes

You have added a short reference to "Ellis 1959" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I started off by using the first edition of 1955 but switched to a second edition of 1959, forgetting to amend in both places. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Images in correct sections

Saw your mention on the Networker article; apologies for unintentionally causing accessibility issues with the replacement of images. However, I don’t seem to understand how the new images I am putting in are ending up at the bottom of the previous section, as I am pasting the new images in the exact location of the ones I am replacing. When doing this on PC, the replacement images appear in the correct place they should be whereas on mobile, they aren’t like this at all (for me anyway). Is there anything I can do about this in the future as I use PC to edit images on articles and if the placement of them isn’t different when it actually is, I don’t see much I can do about it?

Thanks, hope this makes sense. --SavageKieran (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

What is PC - personal computer, pending changes, or something else? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean my personal computer by this. --SavageKieran (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that instead of editing the whole article, you edit only the section concerned - use the [edit] link that appears to the right of the heading text. When doing so, you take care not to put anything above the section heading - that's the line that looks like this:

=== Class 166 ===

In a section, the order should normally be: heading; {{main}} (if relevant, as with Networker (train)#Class 166); image; text. Use a single newline between each of those elements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Appreciate that, thanks. I will aim to do this in the future, apologies for any inconvenience in my edits. --SavageKieran (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Expired editnotices

A tag has been placed on Category:Expired editnotices requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Coding hero

Thank you for this fix to my edit on WP:MERGETEXT! Your solution is almost where I started, but I didn't think to included the 4= and then just drifted away from the clean code I envisioned as I kludged together the behavior I was seeking. I'm not surprised you were the one to come to my rescue, but I appreciate it! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 01:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

October?!

Hi - okay that's really weird. In making the most recent edit on London Underground, all I did was change the month from February to October. Why did it change to "US"?! The tone is a bit accusatory for something that ... I suspect the visual editor changed in the process. Obviously London isn't in America, I'm not an idiot. Turini2 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The "US" appears to have been added by the Visual Editor. SUM1 added "autovalue: US" to {{As of}}'s Visual Editor Template Data code section in this edit on 10 March 2020 (or March 10, 2020, for those of us on the wrong side of the pond). I don't think that addition was valid, but I don't edit Template Data. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Redrose64 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 04:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Apology!

I am truly so sorry for being a doofus about how to do an RFC. Thanks for your notes on that! Novellasyes (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ANRFC

Hey Redrose,

I’m new to Wikipedia but I saw that you closed another RFC as well. Could you close the RFC on the page Arameans as well? There has already been done a request Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Talk:Arameans#RFC_on_purpose_of_this_article

Kind regards and thanks in advance! Velonici (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

When you wrote I saw that you closed another RFC as well, which RfC are you referring to?

As for the Arameans one, that's been closed by Rosguill (talk · contribs) - normally all you need to do is wait for somebody to pick it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal at RfC Closure

I guess I misunderstood the instruction, and thought I were supposed to replace the text and mark up with the request text and mark up. Sorry about that. Aditya^{(✉ • ⚒)} 20:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Derivative work on sport current events

Hi. There is a wishlist at noWP for more work that can be created via File:Current event template.svg and sports pictograms. Are you the right person to make those? The wishes are for Nordic combined, Cross-country skiing, Alpine skiing and futsal. I can see that you made the file File:Speed skating current event.svg. Thanks! --- Løken (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Løken: What is noWP and where is this wishlist? As advised when you were posting here, if you wish to draw my attention to a page, it's always best to link it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry for that. noWP is the norwegian Wikipedia. It is a user thats wants more icons for use in Mal:Ikon (wich is used for Infoboks sportsliga). The discussion is here. Thank you. --- Løken (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC matter

Hi

You are false. The topic is clearly a RfC matter because there are dispute if Anez is an interim president. --Panam2014 (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Panam2014: What dispute? You have made a post which at best reads like a general question that would be better off at WP:RD/H, and at worst is mere chitterchat that is forbidden by WP:NOTFORUM. If it is a genuine question about improving the article, you could have phrased it better. If a dispute is involved, diffs should be provided, and all parties informed. You should also consider alternative methods of resolution before reaching for the {{rfc}} tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not a forum. The answer is necessary for having a solution for infobox, article content and the article President of Bolivia. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

1. NOTFORUM is not a part of the items:

• Help needed
• Deletion processes
• Did You Know suggestions
• Featured Article/List/Topic discussions
• candidates, Featured topic candidates, Featured topic removal candidates or Today's featured article/requests
• Good Article/Topic discussions
• Merge proposals
• Split proposals
• Peer review
• Renaming categories
• Renaming pages

2.My answer is not a forum answer. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I never said that NOTFORUM was one of those items (and I should know, because I wrote the list at WP:RFCNOT); it includes those discussion areas that WP:RFC is often misapplied to, and is not an exhaustive list - we deliberately avoided listing every possible minor misuse. WP:NOTFORUM is on a different page, and part of the specific entry reads:

Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. ... In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. ... If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages.

RfC is not intended as a first-step process. WP:RFCBEFORE says:

Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC.

So, your post being "Hi Is Jeanine Áñez constitutionaly and officially an interim or a full-term president?", I find this hard to take as anything other than a request for information. Are you essentially asking the question "who is the president of Bolivia?" - if so, send it to WP:RD/H. If you are starting a discussion about the content of the article, make that clear and don't jump straight to RfC until and unless the discussion becomes unresolvable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest

thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

rendering bug for flag of trondheim

Hello, I'm sorry for linking imgur uploads. I was simply not familiar with WP:WPSHOT. I have replaced the images with commons hosted counterparts. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

liverpool Central High level

Hi RedRose

I am willing to accept that, despite the box inferring that both St James Station, and the line through that station is closed, when it is not, that it actually means the line out of Central High Level is closed, which is true as it was rerouted to Low Level.

however I am intrigued to know what the box will be changed to if they reopen the station, as the council and Merseyrail plan to do? Station open but line closed? Station reopened but line closed? I am not trying to be awkward, I just want to understand the logic behind how this region is used.

thanks! Pwilkinsonliverpool (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pwilkinsonliverpool: (also notifying LicenceToCrenellate) Reopen which station? High Level or St James? They can't reopen High Level (which was a terminus on the surface), the station is long since demolished and the site has been redeveloped. Reopening St James won't have any bearing on whether the line out of High Level is closed or not, since northbound trains from St James will use the existing tunnel line to Central (Low Level). If St James does reopen, then on the routebox of High Level, the cell for St James will show "Line closed, station open"; on the routebox of Brunswick, the cell for St James will show "Line and station open"; whilst on the routebox of St James, the cells for Brunswick and for Central (Low Level) will both also show "Line and station open" but the cell for High Level will continue to show "Line and station closed". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121

I agree with you that my <code>...</code> markup in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121 is "ugly", but it did preserve the appearance exactly and it did solve a misnested <code> tag, which, after your edit, is the only remaining lint error other than obsolete <font> tags. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Which lint error have I left behind? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I received an alert "Redrose64 mentioned you in an edit summary on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121." I clicked and went to the Difference between revisions page, edited it, and saw the misnested <code> tag. I should have checked to see if I was editing the most recent version. I see you have cleaned this up elegantly. Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert

Is there a reason a talk page of a redirect needs to stay active and can't be redirected to the actual talk page of the working template? --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: None of the threads that had been on those talk pages bore your signature, and I could find no evidence that you moved any of those threads to another talk page (or archive); therefore, you deleted threads that were not yours to remove, contrary to WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question though... --Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to redirect a talk page, please preserve the discussions somewhere, otherwise they will appear to have evaporated. Some people may get the impression that the threads have been deliberately squashed in order to prevent any further discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Roll back bot class 322

Please could you send the roll back bot onto the page for the British rail class 322 and have the bot roll the page to how it looked as of the edit made by SK2242 22:11 13th November 2020.

There has been major vandalism to the page and It could do with being rolled back to how it looked before it was vandalised.

Many thanks Maurice Oly. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've had a go. Maurice Oly you can go back through the edit history of a page and restore it to a pre-vandalism version. I went to one later than the one you mentioned, in fact, as Narky Blert is an always-safe pair of hands. Hope this helps. DBaK (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@DBak: thank you sooo much you have fixed all the issues with the page.

Kind Regards Maurice Oly (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maurice Oly and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I don't hunt out vandalism (though I hammer it if I spot it), and it can be easy to miss. Subject specialists are the people most likely to get suspicions about the subtler wrongnesses, and be motivated to look. (Earlier this year, a WP:INCOMPETENT IP-hopper was breaking multiple links in Indian film lists. It was about the fourth time I came across them that I noticed a DABlink so peculiar that an alarm bell began to ring faintly. It took me two hours research to build a case for WP:ANI, which resulted in a WP:RANGEBLOCK. I was one of three or four DABfixers who hadn't realised for several months what they'd been up to.)

If I get reverted on the way through to hitting vandalism behind me, I applaud.

Anyone can use WP:TWINKLE to restore an older page version, reverting one or several editors in one go. If something more complicated (such as WP:ROLLBACK) is needed, it can be handy to know a friendly admin. If there's persistent abuse, a trip to WP:RFPP or ANI may be justified. I would be happy to advise on how to present a case, should it be needed. Narky Blert (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both @Maurice Oly and Narky Blert: – a pleasure doing business with you! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks {@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: and @Narky Blert: for all your help pleasure doing business with both of you. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Template parameter use question

Hi RedRose64, we met at the WP Banner discussion page. Could I pick your brains about something? Is there a way to track whether parameters are used on templates apart from creating a particular tracking category? I am looking at Template:WikiProject China and strongly suspect there are a couple of parameters that are likely to be unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A tracking category is normal, but I have seen another method - a hidden link to a non-existent page. It's very rarely used, and I can't find a current example. It's probably best to stick with the commonly-used techniques. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stick with the conventional route. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for educating me about references within an RfC statement (diff). I had no idea I was messing things up! Now I know. Much appreciated - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment

I'm not here to tell you what to do or how to feel, but I will say that what you're doing now is a bad look and can only have one outcome. Please consider carefully. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Daleks

In this edit, you say The Daleks is an episode rather than a serial (which may be true), but the article The Daleks seems to be about a serial with the same title. i know very little about Doctor Whatsisname (you know who i mean), i was just bothered by the way Mutant (disambiguation) had these two Mutants listed. If The Daleks was in fact an episode rather than a serial, please correct Dalek (disambiguation) and Mutant (disambiguation); if it was a serial, please revert your edit.

Um... live long and prosper?

96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. For clarity:

• The Daleks is one accepted title of a seven-part serial broadcast in 1963-64, the official title of which has been given as The Mutants in some sources, such as those by Howe, Stammers and Walker
• "The Daleks" is the second episode (broadcast on 28 November 1964) of the six-part serial The Dalek Invasion of Earth
• The Mutants is a six-part serial broadcast in 1972

I've reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chad Wolf RfC

I couldn't figure out what was wrong with the listing. What did you do to fix it? I know you gave me a diff but I don't know what part of your change fixed it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's still not showing up correctly. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC statement should be brief. It wasn't brief - there were more than 2,000 bytes, measured from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp, which made it too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle. Adding another timestamp (or signature with timestamp) at an earlier point shortens the statement to a point where Legobot can handle it without a problem. This doesn't happen immediately, because Legobot runs once an hour. Check again after 23:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hover title

Template:Hover title has been nominated for merging with Template:Tooltip. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Mainline45

Hi Redrose64 I've noticed some edits made by Mainline45 they made edits around the restore my railway bids. Is this verifiable? Special:Contributions/MainLine45 Thanks RailwayJG (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Which articles, specifically? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Manchester, Buxton, Matlock and Midland Junction Railway to the Leamside Line ones. It mentions on some they failed in a bid. So what relevance is the link as it was a bid. Not an actual solid reopening strategy and stuff. Almost like a proposal then a fact. If you see their contributions. You might get a rough idea on if they are verifiable. RailwayJG (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It reminds me somewhat of the activities of TarzanBoy24 (aka JoshuaIsTheFalco) who was using local government documents such as long-term transport strategies and feasibility studies as evidence that certain lines or stations would definitely be reopened. WP:SYNTH, perhaps? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably is RedRose64. Again I noticed this while browsing the Oswestry page you helped me to fix services on that were missing. He added it but it was nothing to do with Oswestry. But rather Warrington and Stockport railway. And also he edited the South Staffordshire Line and Sutton Park Line. And the Bolton to Bury line. I'm not sure he might be the person you mentioned. RailwayJG (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry for the way I wrote the capacity numbers on the 323s, I only did it that way because it had been done that way in the past.

Thanks for cleaning it up, oh and many thanks for cleaning the cite up as well I could not get that to work last night. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I was counting fold down seats if I remember. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REFBEGIN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for that link. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Class 170 lead text

It began with "The Class 170 Turbostar" for years, but apparently 2020 is the year in which it has to be changed, so now "British Rail" appears *3* times rather than 2 at the top of an article about a *post-privatisation* class of train (!) Apparently the rule doesn't apply to the 196 and 197, for some reason. Anamyd (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE applies. Regarding the name of the article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking

I just wish to apologie for when I updated the infobox for the class 323 to add in the link to the British rail class 319 for not checking the code and the link went to the page for the class 319.

Many thanks for reverting my edit, I have updated the infobox again but this time I have put in the right code for the link to the British rail class 319. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You can avoid such mislinking problems by using Template:BRC. For example, {{brc|319}} produces Class 319. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All the best

Hi Redrose64,

I hope you are doing well, as I know this is a busy period of the year for you. I miss our meetups and wish they will be able to resume soon, although I am unlikely to attend in person since I have moved out of the country. I live in Germany now. I wish you a great next year and a lot of strength to go through this winter!

Best, − Pintoch (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Corrections

Hello! You said that "Stadia"[1] is the correct spelling for the plural of stadium , so I asked around, asked some experienced wikipedians and we all came to the agreement, in the context, the plural is stadiums, if the article was in Latin or based on Roman history I believe it would be fine, but since it is based on football stadiums and that stadia makes no sense. Sincerely, Neon (Talk)

Ah, but you didn't alter it to "stadiums", plural; you altered it to "stadium", singular. Anfield and Goodison Park are quite close together, but are not (and never have been) a single entity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

TfW heading in wrong place in British railway rolling stock

I hadn't noticed that it had moved up there; I had initially used the visual editor but again hadn't noticed that that happened.143.159.50.70 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

VisualEditor is buggy, and always has been (after eight years, it is still at the beta stage). I never use it because of the problems that it causes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Heathrow express page

Hi

Could you or somebody else please role back the Heathrow express page to my edit from last night please as the page has been changed to say that the class 387 have entered service while not updating references to prove this.

Old references from march of this year are being used to back up that the 387s have entered service and no reference is given to back up that the class 332 has been withdrawn. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks

Thank you so much for changing the page on the British rail class 332 back to how should look given that there is no evidence to back up that the British rail class 332 has been withdrawn from service with Heathrow Express.

Could you please edit this page as well please as it too was updated to state that the British rail class 332 has been withdrawn and that the British rail class 387 has entered service with Heathrow express.

Heathrow_Express

I feel it would be better that an admin an editor with more experience look at the page and make the needed changes. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh and forgot to add, I would have used twinkle to revert the edits to the page on the Heathrow express, but there are two reasons why I haven’t.

1. I edit on mobile not on desktop so I don’t think twinkle will work for me.

2. Not sure if using Twinkle to rollback yesterday edits was really the right thing to do in terms of what would be seen as an appropriate use of Twinkle. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback (whether it be true WP:ROLLBACK or Twinkle's version) is only for use in certain cases, including vandalism, not for general reversion of good-faith changes, even if those were unsourced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Class 387

Regarding the class 387 infobox, the class 387 is due to enter service with Heathrow express in the future. The entry to service date is unknown at this point.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2020/02/27/heathrow-express-unveils-images-of-new-fleet/

Further this letter from the office of road and rail was released to the public today, in it there are pages where the words “HEX class 387” can be seen.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/2020-12-14-prm-iop-0337-etcs-authorisation-letter-387.pdf Maurice Oly (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Erm edit that letter was released to the public on 18 December 2020 which was 2 days ago, my bad for getting the date wrong. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your changes are badly formatted, creating accessibility issues; and since the infobox should really only show the present situation, you should leave out all future speculation until it does happen. Remember, there is no deadline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah right ok then, thanks for that infomation. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

*Treker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Merry Christmas
	Sending you my warmest wishes. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Strickland / Class 47

Hi - does the Strickland book specifically say that D1101-D1111 were fitted with ETH from new? I have never seen any other source claim this. Apart from the pilot series D1500-D1519 which had a non-standard ETH system, everything else I have read says that D1960 and D1961 were the first fitted with the "standard" AC ETH fitment in 1967-8 (the two were allocated to Derby RTC for use on test trains), and D1101-D1111 were built a year previously and at a different builder. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's a table on p. 106, I won't reproduce all the rows but it includes:

Various batches differed as shown

		Boiler water tank capacity	Boiler type	TM type	Main generator type
D1500–19	ETH+SG	1250	Spanner Mk. III (2500 lb/hr)	64-68	160-16I
D1520–49, D1682–D1718	SG	1250	Spanner Mk. III (1850 lb/hr)	64-68(I)	160-16II
(5 rows omitted)
D1782–D1836/75-D1900	No T/H	—	—	64-68(Ia)	172-50
D1960/1, D1101–11	ETH+SG	1200	Stone-Vapor 4625 (2750 lb/hr)	64-68(Ia)	172-50

D1960/1 were the last two from Brush (delivered 1967 and 1968 respectively), and D1101–11 were the last eleven from Crewe (delivered 1967). In the list of initial TOPS numbers on p. 108, these 13 are shown as 47514/5/8-28 respectively. On the same page, D1960/1 and D1101-10 are all omitted from the list of conversions to dual or electric heat, but D1111 is listed as converted to ETH only March 1971 1972. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at this, and it is wrong. A quick search for early photos of D1101-D1111 show that they weren't fitted with ETH i.e. [2] [3] [4], and compare this photo of D1103 in 1970 with this one, now fitted with ETH in 1971. Furthermore, D1111 being ETH-only in 1971 can't be correct. Most ER passenger trains were still steam-heated at that time, so it's unlikely anyway, but here's an image of it steaming in 1978. So I wonder where the author is getting their information from. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

My mistake, March 1972. But the ECML had Mark 2a stock from 1967, which was dual-heated; and Mark 2e from 1972, which (being air conditioned) was electric heat only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they did. But the ER 47/4s found a lot of their work on such as the overnight trains (both passenger and postal), Trans-Pennine services and additional, relief and charter services, all of which were steam-heated; not to mention that they had diagrams into Scotland where (off the Aberdeen corridor) steam heat was the norm. Thus (and unlike the LMR and WR 47/4s) the ER (and ScR) steam-heat and dual-heat 47s didn't really start to have their boilers isolated until the early 1980s - indeed, a few diagrams for boilered locos existed into the 1985 timetable. I believe 47522 was the first to have the boiler removed in 1982. Anyway, given the images mentioned above, I have removed the reference to D1101-D1111 being as-built in the article, I think it reads OK. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC brief

Do you mind if I delete that RfC section (your comment included) and start it over again? --Steverci (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If you like. WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST are good places to begin, there is also WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a word

Thank you for correcting my mistakes with the disambiguation pages formatting - I'll keep them in mind, and be careful in future! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Empire AS ^Talk! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! It's the last day of 2020 and tomorrow will be 2025. Hope the coming year brings pleasures for you. Have a prosperous, enjoyable and a productive 2025. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Empire AS ^Talk! 18:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Meridiano de Oro Awards has been nominated for listification

Category:Meridiano de Oro Awards has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect: Why are you informing me, and not the page's creator? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Oops, that was my intent but I misread the edit history. Thanks for the ping! - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sigs and RFCs

Regarding, either the RFC or the comment immediately after needed a name. I have no interest in arguing which of those should have gotten it. :^) --Izno (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Izno and GiantSnowman: Comments after the RfC's statement (such as opinions in the survey) should indeed have the full four-tilde signature (which, if forgotten, may he retrospectively added, such as this edit by Sdrqaz). But WP:RFCST explicitly permits (in item 3) the opening statement to be ended using the timestamp-only five-tilde form, and this choice by the originator should be respected. The originator may subsequently add the portion of the sig that identifies them, if they so choose; but that decision is theirs to make alone. I therefore respectfully request that this edit be reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It is for the originator to make clear what they want, not you. Should @Sdrqaz: wish to restore timestamp only then let them. GiantSnowman 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Exactly, so on that basis, what right did Izno (talk · contribs) have to make the first part of this edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I see the benefit of adding the user name. GiantSnowman 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Which was not required per WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You're making this harder than it needs to be. My choice was a coinflip. I anticipate no one else would be so worked up about it. The work you do making RFCs approach presentability is helpful, but "he put the name before the RFC timestamp" instead of "he put the name before the response timestamp" is not a hill that needs dying on. I did it because I thought it would be helpful to forestall someone being confused there was no name attached at all. I am happy not to be helpful in the future if you prefer. (That is phrased so just to be ornery. ;) --Izno (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdrqaz has affirmed their original choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, I think I made my intention clear when I chose to use five tildes instead of four. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: I take full responsibility for not putting my signature on the vote, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I'm sorry that my lack of signature has caused such a kerfuffle amongst administrators; I hope that this discussion won't dampen your working relationships moving forward. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tagged as a copyvio since March. Thank you. re: Robert Riddles. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dartmouth Steam Railway

Can I please invite you to think about which CS1 template is appropriate for the two references I changed. These are NOT journal articles which are described on the template:cite journal template as: "for academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals". At present it is generating silent CS1 errors which add to the huge maintenance backlog on the Devon Wikiproject. The reason I changed to citation template was that I can see no suitable CS1 template for this type of source.NHSavage (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, so they're not journal articles. That doesn't mean that you should switch those two refs to {{citation}}, because the article as it was didn't use {{citation}} at all (which is WP:CS2): it used {{cite book}} six times, {{cite journal}} twice and {{cite web}} six times - and all of these are WP:CS1. You shouldn't mix CS1 and CS2 in the same article, and switching from one to the other without consensus is a WP:CITEVAR problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Setting {{citation|mode=cs1}} (vice versa for any of the CS1 templates) will make it render as CS1, so that alone should rarely be used as a reason for a revert. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@NHSavage: To your last sentence: {{citation}} doesn't mean "I can't work out which one is best", if you're stuck you can post at Help talk:CS1, where the CS1/2 experts hang out (including Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) who knows more about these templates than almost anyone else). But these sources are titled "DVLR Report and Accounts" and "DVR Report and Accounts", and at WP:CS1#General use I see that {{cite report}} is part of the CS1 family, so you can do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Having done some more homework on the citation templates, I now realise that they are different styles (which I didn't before) and I agree that I made a mistake there. I don't plan to do any more on this article. I simply wanted to alert you to the fact that as they are, they are incorrect - you can't use cite journal without stating which journal these use. I will leave it there.NHSavage (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Query regarding the validity of the re-entered Swindon station on the Topography section of the Birmingham and Gloucester Railway

On 26th December 2018 at 11:50, you noted the "thirty mile distance" and that station was later removed from the topography section. It has just been re-entered on that section, so I bring the matter to your attention in case you wish to comment upon its validity.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking at maps of the area, I see that there is a village named Swindon on the northern edge of Cheltenham, just to the west of the railway line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As I said, it was because you had made a comment at the end of 2018 that I thought it only a matter of courtesy that I brought the recent matter to your attention.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)