User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 15

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 23:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Feltham is undue?

Well, Hounslow Council don't think so - they're currently consulting on upgrading the shuttle to an actual line. https://hounslow.app.box.com/LBHounslowsouthernrailaccess

Please take it to the talk page if you disagree.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.182.74 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A consultation doc is a long way short of an actual project that is happening. It is merely a way of deciding whether a formal proposal should be put together, without incurring major expense. As an example, there have been consultations on a southern extension of the Bakerloo line at intervals for over a hundred years. No such extension has yet been formally approved, no funding has been raised, no building has begun. Who is to say that this Feltham-Heathrow plan won't end similarly?

Several railway stations have links to one or more Heathrow terminals. None of them - with the exceptions of the stations on the branch from Hayes & Harlington - were purpose-built for the airport. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for putting up with angry people posting mean things and profanity on your talk page whilst maintaining civility. Wyeson 05:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATA

"don't repurpose an 8-year-old shortcut w/o putting it to WP:RFD first" - I didn't. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ISBNs

There is list of pages that have citation templates with |id= that contains an ISBN number while the the template contains a |isbn= too. There are 2,000 pages. Would you be interested to check it? It's in User:Magioladitis/sandbox. In most cases two types of the same isbn. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am also interested to know how you would deal a case of double ISSNs: [1]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

These are probably cases where the journal is available in print and electronic form, with a different ISSN for each. Only one of them should be given: the one that is applicable to the edition that was actually used as a source. Unfortunately, I don't know which that might be. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Any idea of how to fix this? [2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

13-digit ISBNs can only begin 978 or 979. A 13-digit number beginning 977 is not an ISBN - but it's not an ISSN either. It is an EAN-13 that contains within it seven of the eight digits that form an ISSN. In the given example (9770014124207), 977 is the prefix denoting a periodical, 0014124 are the first seven digits of the true ISSN, 20 is a cyclic number which might correspond with the issue number, and 7 is the check digit (calculated in the same way as the check digit of a 13-digit ISBN). So, put 0014124 through an ISSN check digit calculator (it should yield 0) which means that the replacement is {{ISSN|0014-1240}} which emits ISSN 0014-1240. S Marshall (talk · contribs) should be made aware of this. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry: I'm afraid I treasure my ignorance of the technical details of ISBNs and ISSNs. The Estate's Gazette doesn't print their ISSNs clearly on their glossy magazines, and I remember having the devil of a time working out what the dratted ISSN was for that issue. I may well have got it wrong. Please feel free to fix it, but it's an ISSN not an ISBN.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Our mutual friend

We had some discussion on a user's talk page recently regarding the undesirability of said user adding the

<includeonly>Infobox templates</includeonly>

markup to the bottom of pages. I have examined the User's edits more closely since then and having removed a number of further instances I now agree with you; that this is disruptive - especially in the light of his refusal to stop or even discuss. Additionally, I have since found many instances, in somewhat earlier edits, of the user adding the variant

<includeonly>[[Category:Infobox templates]]</includeonly>

which may explain how the markup we've been dealing with recently has evolved. Do you think there is any merit to this variant e.g. on pages such as Ambrose Bebb or Irish Citizen Army? If not, I will go ahead and remove them. There are a great many, but I have a list.

The user has yet to cease adding the undesirable markup, I removed one today from Royal Horse Guards. I am collecting diffs as I go, as it seems more likely that these edits, together with the failure to engage constructively with the community might need some intervention in due course. Is that something you would support? I like to tread carefully in these matters. Best Poltair (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would ask the question: do pages like Ambrose Bebb or Irish Citizen Army belong in Category:Infobox templates? The answer is surely "no", since these articles are not templates, and although one of them does have an infobox, they are not themselves infoboxes. The next question is two-part, and inspired by the use of <includeonly>...</includeonly>: are these pages transcluded (no), and if they are, do the pages that they are transcluded to become infobox templates by so doing (again, no). So there is not just no pointto this markup, it's misleading and so undesirable. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok. That was the conclusion I had come to, eventually! I just wanted to be sure. I will clean up the mess and put one last plea for the user to stop these additions on his talk page. There is also the issue of the DEFAULTSORT tags having the same value as the page name, but I understand that there is on rare occasions a good reason for that - I'll come back to that one. Thank you. Poltair (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A {{DEFAULTSORT:}} with the same value as the page name - or even a capitalisation variant of that - is basically harmless, and indeed was recommended practice until about February/March 2011 (when the category sorting algorithms were last changed, previous to which they were case-sensitive), as a result of which you will still find a lot of pages with what appears to be a redundant {{DEFAULTSORT:}} (such as Bulwell Hall Halt railway station where it was bot-added in December 2010 and is still there). The main problem with it is that it needs to be updated (or removed) if the page is moved to a different title. I believe that there's a bot which removes these; it may even be the same bot that originally added them.

However, Jgrantduff has sometimes added a {{DEFAULTSORT:}} which is just plain wrong - see for example this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. I'll do a search for where he has added a {{DEFAULTSORT:}}, otherwise I think I'll leave those alone. I have just finished removing all his {<includeonly>[[Category:Infobox templates]]</includeonly> additions that had not been previously removed, some 205 articles, and I put a strong stop message on his talk page. Despite visiting all those articles I'm still none-the-wiser as to why, or where he got the notion it was a good idea. Will he get the message? Time will tell. Best Poltair (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

railroads and advice
... you were recipient no. 383 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Webb

Hi, sorry so I know where I am what's WP:EGG? Hick's page has the only detail about Bolton Iron & Steel, but I can see he is in the see also section already.81.149.141.199 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:EGG, specifically "make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, got it.80.229.34.113 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving at KGX

Hello. Thank you very much for setting up the Talk page archive for Kings Cross. It is one of those WP things that I've never understood properly although I'm sure I should be able to! So, at the risk of looking even stupider, can I please ask you why the archiver has left behind some very old comments, while doing a great job of tidying up most of them? There are comments going waaaaaaay back still on the page and I should know, because I was there! I thought it was just date based? Thanks anyway - if you can explain this in 1-syllable words as to a toddler I might get it. Btw I just stole your setup from KX for my own Talk page as it was working oddly before, and it seems much better now! So thanks x2. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It usually means that the thread has no datestamps, or it does but none of them can be reliably parsed. Of the three unarchived old threads, (Harry Potter films) has three posts but no datestamps at all, whereas (To apostrophe or not to apostrophe) and (Bold warning) have several datestamps, but none of them are valid because the months have all been abbreviated. Other common reasons, which probably don't apply here, include the presence of non-breaking spaces or invisible control characters within the datestamp. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the helpful reply. I've had a try signing and dating as appropriate, in the hope that the archiver will get it next time. I will watch with interest! I'm assuming that for the purposes of this discussion - and for the operation of the archiver itself! - that a thread is just what's between two sets of subheads == SectionHead == // Section text here = "a thread" // == SectionHead == ... is that about right? Thanks again DBaK (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as far as archiving bots are concerned, a thread extends from immediately before one level 2 heading to immediately before the next, or to the end of the page if there isn't another level 2 heading. The bots tend to be confused by level 1 headings, and can break threads if a level 2 heading occurs at any point between a pair of wrapper templates such as {{cot}}/{{cob}} or {{archive top}}/{{archive bottom}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's great - many thanks for explaining this, and for the further sortout back at KGX. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I am really really sorry to look as if I think you are my personal tutor ... I'm honestly trying not to be a nuisance, but I am still a bit baffled and my efforts to research it myself have not proven wholly successful (as I am too thick, basically). At Talk:London King's Cross railway station the last remaining old topic "(Bold warning)" just sits there, despite my fiddling; similarly, two test edits at my own Talk page - "tests 3 and 4" have refused to go. Obviously I am missing some fundamental point here. I hate to bother you and I promise to go away soon, but if it is not too much trouble could you please point me in the right direction for gaining an understanding of what is happening at these pages? It's making me feel elderly and clueless, which may be true, but is not welcome! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @DBaK: User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters explained shows that the default value of the |minthreadsleft= parameter is 5. This parameter is not on the talk page, and there are only 5 threads on the talk page. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha! Brilliant ... thank you so much. So simple now I know but, wow, was I barking up the wrong tree! Many many thanks. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a further query - I'm very sorry! Should I continue here or at User talk:GoingBatty? Happy to try to take The Path of Least Aggro ... :) DBaK (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

What's not been explained? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think nothing's not been explained and I am just not getting it due to my thickness - not a lack of kindness and useful information! I'm so sorry, I hate being a nuisance ... but I don't understand why the last remaining old message at Talk:London King's Cross railway station has still not archived. GoingBatty explained about the minthreadsleft parameter and its default value of 5, but the talk page seems to my untutored eye to meet that spec at the moment, so I don't understand how that message thread is still lurking when there'd now be five left if it were zapped. If you would like to enlighten me, I would be most grateful. Of course, to be honest, it is not now about that particular page, but about my desire to understand what is going on in the hope of being able to use these facilities some time in the future! Thanks again and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice also at User:MiszaBot/config#Parameters explained the row for minthreadstoarchive, whose default value is 2 - it is "the minimum number of threads to archive at one time". There are six threads; five must be left behind, so 1 could be archived - but 1 is fewer than 2 so the bot won't archive that single thread until there are seven threads (or more) on the page, and two (or more) qualify for archiving. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thank you so much - I really appreciate it. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham Old Moor Street Station

I am disappointed with the fact that you have stripped out my comment that the concrete pillars of the old dismantled warehouse are mirrored in the brick of the supporting wall skirting the new road cut through to Deritend. I suspect that the bulk of citizens or visitors are totally unaware of this but, to any historian of railway architecture or civil engineering would probably wish to know. In passing it is ironic that "The Birmingham City Partnership" should be given an award when, without the intervention of the MSSHS, they would have bulldozed it flat to make way for the new Bull-Ring development. Regards B.J. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anketil (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Anketil: Much of the recent editing to Birmingham Moor Street railway station has gone against our core content policies of neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability. Some of these edits also appear to be the work of somebody who has a conflict of interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Category placement

That's...odd. That was an edit made with the Cat-a-Lot tool, which I thought placed categories in the correct place automatically. In fact, I'm pretty sure it used to - why it does not do so any more I don't know. I don't know anything about its code, but I'll see if I can't find an answer for you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I've left a note over at the Commons talkpage. Hopefully we can get a resolution soon. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

East Lincolnshire Railway line diagram/template

Can you please enter the closed station of Riby Street Platform in-between the currently open stations of Grimsby Docks and New Clee on this line diagram/template, please. I note that a formal Wikipedia article now exists on Riby Street Platform.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway

I need some assistance to help to resolve a query on this line. Was there something called Mowbray Junction anywhere along the route of this railway and if so, what type of services would have used it. I have drawn a blank so far, so in a moment of inspiration, I thought that I would approach you.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

RCH Junction Diagram 75 shows a junction 47 chains east of Frizington, this is shown on an OS 1:2500 map of 1925 as "Mowbray Branch Junction". The RCH diagram shows that the junction is for a branch line 58 chains long, at the far end of which is shown "End of Mowbray Branch". The OS 1:2500 map of 1925 shows two iron ore mines along the branch, plus a few "Old Shafts"; and the same map for 1900 shows three iron ore mines, so the branch would have been for minerals, almost certainly iron ore. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Redirect categorization

Hi Redrose64! You've been interested in redirect categorization and the This is a redirect template in the past, so I wanted to let you know that there is a discussion at Template talk:This is a redirect#One parameter that might interest you.  Good faith! Paine  20:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Alliance Rail holdings

Do you have Alliance Rail Holdings on your watch list? I've raised a question at talk:Alliance Rail Holdings on whether a rejected service schedule is notable. A second opinion would be welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review Sock Puppets

Hey Brochacho,

Myself (RockyCoffee19), Mland19, and the_terrydactyl are all learning how to use wikipedia for our critical writing and rhetoric class and we did not realize that we were supposed to post our reviews of one another's attempts at writing a lead on their respective talk pages. We were not in the same room and are obviously learning how to use wikipedia. Sorry for the "sock puppetry" that we did. It, hopefully, won't happen again.

Sincerely, -- RockyCoffee19

ps. Cool your jets man and try not to be as savage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyCoffee19 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 February 2016

@RockyCoffee19: I don't know who "Brochacho" is, but it's not me. Comments about article content belong on the talk page for the article, I don't know where you got the idea that they go on a user talk page.

Please note that if you are carrying out a formal peer review, you do need to be both an experienced Wikipedia editor, familiar with our policies; and also knowledgeable in the subject of the article. Guidance for peer reviews is at WP:PRG. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD closure request

Would you please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalfsen train crash? The nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I've !voted, so would rather someone independant performed the closure. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I take it you mean this post, which does indeed say "I withdraw the nomination", so I'm puzzled why Davey2010 (talk · contribs) has closed it as "Snow Keep" and not "Withdrawn by nominator". --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I did, but let's not be too picky, it was heading in that direction in any case.

Hopefully, more details will come out tomorrow. Unfortunately, I won't be around much during the day as I've a hospital appointment in London. Mjroots (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah my bad I didn't spot that, Now fixed. Thanks for the pingy! –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Southern DEMUs book

Hello, Redrose64. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Settle-Carlisle Line

RedRose64 - Right first off, I didn't do it. Please look at Settle-Carlisle Line. I went onto to it today to try and get rid of an invisible character in one of the citations and found a massive blank space at the top with four citations sitting there against no text. Can you revert to a good stage? Or should I try and fix it? Only when you click edit source, the citations don't appear at the top of the page... (I know that they would appear after the infobox, but they're not there either. Help, please? The joy of all things (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this was caused by some improper edits to Template:BS-map/map which I have now reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@The joy of all things and MSGJ: I've added to my reply at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RDTs incorrectly displaying. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Great Eastern Main Line

Dear User:Redrose64. I have the impression that you have not compared your version [[3]] with the previous version [[4]] that you have reverted. At the end of the page, in my version, {{Railway lines in London}} is not displayed, being replaced by {{kill-Railway lines in London}}. At the end of the page, in your version, the three templates {{Railway lines in London}}, {{Crossrail navbox}}, {{coord}} are not displayed. Guess why ? The page is on overflow, being above the template_include_size_limit. Killing temporarily the template {{Railway lines in London}} is, IMO, the best temporarily fix, i.e. the fix that erases the less from the content. Indeed, it would be better to rewrite the page and lower the complexity of what is before {{Railway lines in London}}. But, for myself, I have not a sufficient knowledge about railways. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: I most certainly did compare them: your edit, adding the characters "kill-" before a legitimate template name and so producing a non-valid template name, had all the appearance of vandalism, hence my rollback. Whatever your intention, please don't remove valid templates and leave redlinks in their place - fix the problem at its source. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: You are the one from "the Railway side", not me. As a passer-by, it seems that {{BS-map}} is an old deprecated template, that must be replaced by {{routemap}}. When doing that, the article Great Eastern Main Line becomes Post-expand include size = 833011/2097152 bytes. And everything goes fine... except if I have messed something. Please check that map User:Pldx1/Great Eastern Main Line is exactly as it should be by comparing with map Great Eastern Main Line RDT. Thanks in advance. Pldx1 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks correct to me. Useddenim (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Test versions of templates should be in the template's sandbox, see WP:TESTCASES - in this case it would be Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT/sandbox. There have been large changes to that RDT, in the last six months it has grown from 6,316 bytes to 8,002 bytes, in particular the addition of road signs by TBM10 (talk · contribs). We should start by removing those: we discourage overemphasis on roads, these diagrams should be about railways. The use of {{UK road}} itself pulls in a significant number of further templates - it uses {{Min}}, {{Str mid}}, {{Str mid/core}}, {{Trim}}, {{Trunc}}, and {{Yesno}}; which in turn bring in Module:Arguments, Module:Math and Module:String. All this complexity for some little green boxes that themselves go against WP:ICONDECORATION.

Also, please see WP:USER#Userspace and mainspace where it says "encyclopedia articles should never link to or transclude any userspace pages". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help fixing the Great_Eastern_Main_Line page. Pldx1 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add the pictorial road signs. --TBM10 (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry it was 86.130.177.49 (talk) in the midst of a sea of edits by you. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the overflow was not due to some additional signs, but due to the old and deprecated {{BS-map}}. Now, the article is Post-expand include size = 833011/2097152 bytes, i.e. largely under the overflow limit. Pldx1 (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Waiting doesn't work.

Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs You said " you need to wait for ClueBot III to create User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs". But it's not doing it. You said " probably a bad idea to start off with OneClickArchiver". Seems so. Please put back my kluge that you removed or fix things so they work better than with the kluge. (Manually create that page?)--Elvey^(t•c) 23:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It won't do, not until it archives off another thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: This morning, ClueBot III (talk · contribs) finally got the chance to do some archiving itself, during which it added to Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs/Archive 1 and created User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:Bare URLs. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Alne railway station

Article is, bar one paragraph, suitably referenced. I've removed the tag and converted those apparent references to a "further reading" susbsection. Mjroots (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Move

Why you did not move my comment to the right place and just reverted me?--Juandev (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Juandev: Did you not see the notice at the top of the page? It's also displayed when you edit. It ends with "Questions that do not belong here may not be answered and will likely be removed." --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Prefer internal wikilink on geonotices?

• [5]

I thought internal links aren't as preferable as HTML links because some other projects (en.wikisource) import en.wp geonotices? Deryck C. 19:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: A link like [[commons:Commons:Cambridge_Images_Workshop_2016|Cambridge Images Workshop]] works everywhere (including Wikisource) - except, perversely, at Commons itself. To get 100% compatibility, including Commons, remove six letters: [[c:Commons:Cambridge_Images_Workshop_2016|Cambridge Images Workshop]] --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Sorry, I put the wrong date (1913) into the George the Fifth steam engine image, it should read 1910, do you have the access rights to correct it?Rstory (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rstory: I take it you mean the image in the infobox of LNWR George the Fifth Class, you should edit the file description page. Click on the image, this takes you to the Wikipedia copy of the file description page, but you need to edit the original, which is on Commons, so click the View on Commons tab at the top, and edit that page as normal. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

All done, many thanks.Rstory (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk header

Hi. Please do not remove the talk header template from talk pages, as you did here [6]. Caden ^cool 00:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please STOP doing this [7]. Do not remove the talk header template from talk pages. Caden ^cool 00:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: Why was it added in the first place? The template's documentation says, near the top,

It later amplifies this:

This template should only be placed where it's needed. Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles. Talk pages that are frequently misused, that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject to controversy, and highly-visible or popular topics may be appropriate for this template.

following this up with

In accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, this template should not be added to otherwise empty talk pages.

If we follow that link (or of you prefer, the shortcut WP:TALK#CREATE), we find:

Do not create an empty talk page simply so that one will exist for future use. Do not create a page solely to place the {{Talk header}} template on it. Template:Talk header and similar discussion warning templates should not be added to pages that do not have discussions on them. There is no need to add discussion warning templates to every talk page, or even to every talk page that contains a discussion.

Consider the histories of the two pages that you mention above. In the case of Talk:Shirley Jones (R&B singer), you created the talk page in such a way that it contained nothing but {{Talk header}}, and so you went directly against the template's documentation.

In the case of Talk:Silver Convention, it was added in this edit - there had been previous edits to the page, but all of these were concerned with adding or updating WikiProject banners - nothing else. So, since there had been no discussion, it implies that the talk page cannot have been misused, so a {{Talk header}} cannot have been needed.

Now consider Talk:Kay Kendall, not mentioned above but where you reverted me, there had been some discussion, but it was relevant and in accordance with WP:TALK#FACTS - so again, this was not a talk page for which {{talk header}} would have been appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The talk header template is very useful and it helps/guides newbies or readers on how to properly post feedback. It also lets them know that the talk page is not a forum but a place to discuss content etc. It is very helpful to them. There is no need for you to remove it. Caden ^cool 15:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If we wanted it to appear on every talk page, we could quite easily do so by means of a namespace-specific editnotice - Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Talk (see for example Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category talk which appears when editing any category talk: page) - and there would then be no need to add it to each talk page individually. There is no consensus for such an editnotice - and if you look through the archives of Template talk:Talk header and Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines, you will see that there is also no consensus for indiscriminately adding {{talk header}} to talk pages. Please follow the advice that I indicated above, and if you want that advice to be changed, please do so at WT:TPG. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Meetups

You have probably seen this but just in case: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/UK_Wikimeet_survey_2015

I hope you saw my article on the Arnos Park viaduct. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm. I never saw any survey, and here's me - the only person to have attended all 36 Oxford meetups. Something went wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Men with beards that like beer are a turn-off apparently. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiding statistics

Redrose64, hi. I have seen this edit in Norwich Railway Station https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Norwich_railway_station&oldid=701820340 and I was just wondering if this is the official policy, or just something to make it look tidier?

Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's to make it tidier, and to cut down on what some describe as "infobox bloat". Some railway stations have as many as twelve years worth of figures; there are those who hold that this is too many (this is a good point when there is little text in the article), and express their opinion by removing all of them, sometimes leaving the most recent one alone. It has been pointed out that a single figure is useless for comparison, and that more than one will allow such comparison; a few years ago we struck a balance, settling on five years. This allows recent trends to be seen, without having the infobox dominated by figures.

At some point we may add a feature to the infobox which allows users to control how few or how many figures are displayed to them, but until that is available, we mask off the older ones without actually removing them entirely. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - I understand now! Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

George the Fifth Class

I changed five to 5 to emphasise the numerical pattern of 5 (also George V) - "Notes and exceptions: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures", e.g. "There were 3 deaths and 206 injuries". Given the information on the talk page there seems to be an underlying pattern of 1*3456***10, where *= a missing integer in a sequence 1 to 10.80.229.34.113 (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.141.199 (talk)

You are getting seriously into WP:NOR territory here, just as you did at Talk:LNWR George the Fifth Class#John Hick. I am now convinced that you and 80.229.34.113 (talk) are the same person. Please cease your unfounded, unverifiable speculation. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

We are all entitled to express an opinion, please answer the query under MOS:NUMBER Redrose, which is why you reverted the minor edit.Rstory (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright: MOS:NUMBER states "Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words." It gives a number of exceptions, none of which apply here. Hence this revert.

The attempt above by 81.149.141.199 to justify an edit by 80.229.34.113 by pointing out something that is not substantiated by reliable sources, but which may be nothing more than a coincidence, is a close parallel with this revert by Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) to another of 80.229.34.113's edits. Now, Andy Dingley and myself may not always see eye-to-eye, but here I agree 100%.

81.149.141.199 (talk) and their alter ego 80.229.34.113 (talk) have a long history of making edits that are very much in the nature of unverifiable opinion, also of making edits that are off-topic (such as talking about the John Hick class at great length on the talk page for the George the Fifth Class). There are a number of things that Wikipedia is not, and among them are such things as pointing out apparent coincidences, looking for patterns where none exist, or speculating on why something was done in a particular way. We work with verifiable facts, anything else has no place in Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The facts on the talk page are clear enough and numbers are a certainly a feature, 80.229.34.113 and 81.149.141.199 are following the advice of the other editors who contributed. Generally, the evidence does not support your expressed opinion.Rstory (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Insects Template

Thank you for your swift reply over at User:Sarefo's page. Is there a guide for adding task forces to project templates? I've been trying to find information, and coming up short. If not, is there some way to test the functionality of the sandbox template? I'm trying to get both task forces up on the template, and have the Hymenoptera one before ants, as ants are a subset of Hymenoptera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. A. Broussard (talk • contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help with getting the template working!

		The Template Barnstar
		For your patient advice and assistance with the WikiProject Insects Template M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Railway station routeboxes

I see that you reverted the IP's edit at Shenfield railway station. Doesn't the IP have a point? The Southend service doesn't terminate at Shenfield. Wasn't it agreed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 31#Routeboxes that the routebox should show "... the stopping pattern/service rather than just the line route", and isn't that what's done elsewhere? --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I already replied at User talk:TBM10#Your unnecessary edit changes!. Please let's not have multiple discussions. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

PHOTOS BEING REMOVED

Redrose I have just found photos have been removed from Woodbridge and Melton station pages all of which I felt helped illustrate the nature of those stations. Is this a decision that has been made in Wikipedia I am unaware of or has the editor/contributor decided unilaterally that they should be removed? Any help you can give on this matter greatly appreciated as I have frequently used photographs in articles. I have asked the question of the user and am hoping he will relent. Thanks --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Davidvaughanwells: You have posted at three different pages on this matter, which goes against WP:MULTI. The first reply was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Photos being removed so I suggest that further discussion continues there. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This weekend

Hi, I hope I'll recognize you, I am intending to come. Thanks also for the info on Abingdon model railways. --TedColes (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Enoch

There have been reverts. What's your response? --George Ho (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My response to what? The reverts which I made myself? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I should have mentioned a request to extend PC. Will you do so? --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave it one month's PC which expires tomorrow evening. In that time, there have been two good and three bad IP edits. If undesirable activity picks up from Thursday, we can look at putting it back on PC for perhaps three months. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Parser tags inside extensions

Re: this – does this also affect the short <nowiki /> markup?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Rats. BTW, where are you picking up this stuff? I do a lot of (non-Lua) template coding, but you and a few others always seem to have "arcane knowledge" I'm missing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header, find the placeholder= line, put <nowiki /> anywhere inside it and go for Show preview - see what gets displayed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No fun. BTW, is there a way to prevent templates from including #if:

... stuff when substituted and just subst in the content? Need to convert all the single-source templates to be be required (in their documentation), to be substituted, and to substitute cleanly, and to either put up an error if not subst'd, or people are going to war-path to delete every one of them. Various other templates need to do this. I gather there's a way to do this; I remember asking why something was suggested in it /doc to be subst'd when it would end up leaving parameter code behind if someone did, and I got a reply that it was coded to not do that, but I didn't examine it at the time, and now can't remember what template it was.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There are at least two ways; here are two that both use safesubst:, hiding this until the template is actually substituted. {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} uses

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#if:

and {{subst:Proposed deletion}} uses

{{{{{|safesubst:}}}#ifeq:

When looking for examples, try not to use templates edited by either Technical 13 (talk · contribs) or by Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs) - they had some unusual ideas, some of which were resource-hungry, inefficient or just plain complicated. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for that; that is probably exactly what I was looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Query on printing out hard copies of Wikipedia "Category : Templates for Railway Lines of the United Kingdom"

Up to the end of February 2016, I had no trouble in printing these out, but now find if I attempt to do so, all I receive is the surrounding text matter, but the template itself is missing.

Have you any thoughts on the matter, or is it just a new embargo on doing this by Wikipedia. Another thought is I wonder if the use of Adblock Plus that my sons put on my desktop computer without my knowledge could cause this to happen, even though Wikipedia has been now shown NOT to be covered by Adblock Plus.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Some drive-by help: Paul Sidorczuk, there's no such page as Wikipedia list of Railway Lines or anything else with a name even vaguely similar to that. I can confirm that individual railway line templates like {{Waverley Line}} are not showing their content when one tries to print them. They're all generated by the (unfortunately named) {{BS-map}} meta-template, which includes the CSS class noprint. That's what's causing it. Someone disabled the class without discussion because of an alleged PDF display problem. I have raised the issue at Template talk:BS-map.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The correct name is "Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom"...I appear to have missed off the last part of the title.

Interesting to hear that you too have come across the same difficulty. Can someone say when matters will be back to normal, please.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Paul was looking for Category:Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom. Useddenim (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The templates listed at Category:Templates for railway lines of the United Kingdom are route diagram templates (RDTs). My interest in RDTs has dropped significantly since the introduction of the {{routemap}} template, which means that you can no longer edit RDTs without retraining, even if you are a pretty experienced at understanding and editing template code. My talk page is not a good venue for this, Template talk:BS-map (mentioned by SMcCandlish) is better (but not ideal), you could post notices at WT:RDT and WT:RAIL, but don't hold multiple discussions on the same topic. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

These seem to be unrelated discussions anyway; WT:RDT is probably the place to discuss the RDT templating situation and category. The technical problem reported has been resolved, at least for now, by removing the noprint class from the template, since no one can reproduce the "bug" reported, and the class being added to "fix" the "bug" was done without consensus. Pinging Paul Sidorczuk per request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish to offer my grateful thanks to all concerned in ensuring the ability to print out RDT was now been restored.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Keynsham railway station electrification

Can i ask what do you mean by "not very encyclopedic" when you reverted some of my changes about the upcoming closure of Keynsham? Merlinhst7 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Merlinhst7: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It does not give travel advice such as upcoming temporary closures of stations and consequent diversions or replacement bus services. This is the sort of thing that rail travellers should be using National Rail Enquiries for, perhaps the information service of the relevant train operating company, but certainly not us. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply to your edit summary comment]

See Template:Rfc#Expiry where it states "If the {{rfc}} template is added at the top of an existing thread where discussion has been going on for some time, it is important to add some text that includes the current timestamp between the {{rfc}} template and the first posting...", followed by this example. fredgandt 11:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

See what was originally added to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia technical issues and templates - a timestamp, nothing else - no hint of what the RfC was about. Following my edit, the RfC listing entry was amended and now has some useful material. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the effect Redrose64. If you feel strongly that the instructions on the template's docs leads to disruption, or that the bot should be rewritten, perhaps they're issues you should address. Your edit will (unless it's confused the bot) have shortened the RfC runtime. fredgandt 12:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Cite web}} vs. {{Cite news}}

Moved to Help talk:Citation Style 1 § Cite web vs. Cite news

 – Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't just add tags

Red,

Re: your edit at Renton railway station. Please don't just add an ugly tag at the top of an article. If you think there are not enough references, please find some yourself - who else is going to do it if not you? And who do you expect to remove the ugly tag? You should be the prime candidate! I feel that drive-by tagging is just telling other editors what they should do, rather than doing it yourself. I hope you understand. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: It wasn't a drive-by tagging. It was a response to your edit which removed an {{unreferenced}}, despite the fact that the only reference supported just one paragraph. Whilst adding a single ref is sufficient to justify removal of {{unreferenced}}, the replacement of that by {{refimprove}} is not precluded. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

May I ask that whenever you add such a tag, that you commit yourself to remove such a tag? As i said, if you don't do it, who else is supposed to do it? And if nobody else does it, the ugly tags, saying in effect "Wikipedia stinks", will just keep on piling up. It will start to look like you are just defacing Wikipedia to enforce your view of what is sufficient referencing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway

Hi, thanks for your revert concerning Pengam railway station. I was probably confused by the "Monmouthshire" part of the name. It looks as though the route of the old B&M line goes through Caerphilly County Borough (current principal area/authority). If an article were to be created for the missing station, should it be named Pengam (Caerphilly) railway station, or something different? Robevans123 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robevans123: No, because we do not invent disambiguators when a real one exists - see WP:NATURAL "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". A recent relevant discussion may be found at Talk:Haverhill railway station#Requested move 9 February 2016.

WP:UKSTATION says that "the last official name should be used for closed stations". If you look up Butt (1995), p. 183 you will find that the former B&M station was named successively: Pengam; Pengam and Fleur-de-Lis; Fleur-de-Lis; Pengam (Mon). By contrast, the present Pengam station was named successively: Pengam; Pengam and Fleur-de-Lis; Pengam; Pengam (Glam); Pengam. It is not clear whether Butt was abbreviating Monmouthshire and Glamorgan, or whether the station names themselves contained the abbreviations, but regardless of that, the county disambiguator is verifiable. An examination of the photos in Country Railway Routes: Brecon to Newport including the Dowlais Central Branch should clarify, but I don't have a copy. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. After posting I realised that Pengam (Caerphilly) railway station wouldn't be very good anyway as the other one is also in Caerphilly now... Yes - I've now seen some photos with Pengam (Mon) on the station signs. Useful to know that it had a name including "Fleur-de-Lis" - there's a "Fleur-de-Lis Platform" on one of the other RDTs as well... Going into town on Friday so I'll be able to get a look at Butt in the library. I hate the fact that when they split Gwent into Torfaen etc they included a much reduced Monmouthshire. Makes categorisation on Wikipedia a mess! I was born in Monmouthshire, educated in Gwent, and my sisters got married in Torfaen - and the family never moved.

I think I was also thinking of the area field in the railway station infoboxes which correctly use the principal area.

I'm compiling a list of Welsh railway stations shown on RDTs that don't have a related article yet. I think it's a little over 350, and that's just limited to standard gauge and railway lines that have an RDT. Thanks Robevans123 (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The two stations appear to have been on opposite sides of the Rhymney valley, and the county boundary ran along the centre of the river. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes - I was thinking it would have been much easier if they'd used West Pengam and East Pengam! It's quite interesting further down near Ystrad Mynach where another valley joins in from the West. Amazing feats of engineering to link all the (fairly narrow) valleys at top and bottom and usually with two lines in each valley. Robevans123 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Have found the OS One-Inch map for the area (sheet 154, revised 1954) and it shows two railway lines along the valley from New Tredegar down to just before Caerphilly, where one (the ex-B&M line, now closed) turns east through Bedwas, and the other (the ex-Rhymney Railway line, which is still open) continues south through Caerphilly. Most of the villages seem to have had two stations, one on each line; but Fleur-de-Lis only had one, on the B&M line. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

disappearing talk comments

I do not vandalize, remove, edit, or in any other way molest other editors' comments on talk pages. If stuff like that happens it is not because I set out to do it. This is not the first time it's happened, and in fact it has happened that comments that you made have disappeared.

I have no explanation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the same post getting removed - I offer in evidence Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Before saving, I use Show changes to check that I'm not going to overwrite or otherwise inadvertently alter somebody's comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Redrose64. It is literally being deleted. If it's accidental, it's a huge coincidence. If it's not, then you need to use show changes and check if anything is being deleted. You may not be editing off the last revision so it's missing the edit just prior. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

This has happened to me before. I have assumed that it is some sort of undetected edit conflict, or a database mismatch between servers that are supposed to be synced, or something. There are many bug reports that might relate to this at T72163. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Drafts

Hello, I actually removed the templates because it's currently occupying Category:Stale userspace drafts (which several of us have been clearing) and felt it was simply best removed since the user is still active. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Somebody has been making changes to the template since I used it. In particular, the category was not present before. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Class 170

Vehicle 56204 - what unit please? Is it 170 204? Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Now confirmed as 170 204. Mjroots (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Rcats throw errors in Wikipedia and Template name space

Hi, Redrose64. I was just thinking today that it has been an awfully long time since you have participated in my edits. Welcome back. This kind of error confuses me too. That is why I always try to remember to a Preview when categorizing redirects. I tried plural too, but when it threw the error I changed it to misspelling because technically Meetups is a misspelling of Meetup. I wonder why all Rcats don't work across all namespaces? What say you? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 11:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: You're right, I didn't preview here, I'd used {{r from plural}} several times in the past without trouble, so I assumed it would work here. But the whole R template set has been Lua-ised, I can't work out what's going on inside Module:Redirect template, so I can't tell why it would complain for {{r from plural}} but not for {{r from modification}} or even {{r to wikipedia namespace}}. Looks like a silly rule to me - perhaps Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) can explain it.

Anyway, it's not a misspelling, since "meetups" is a valid word, it's the plural of "meetup", we have several of them each month - today is London 104, next Sunday is Oxford 38. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64. What I mean is it is a misspelling of the article name. It is not the misspelling of a word. Many times we can spell a word correctly but it is a misspelling of its intention. Anyhoo, I could not get plurals to work, so I settle on another choice that came to mind. I am glad you are on this. See you around the Wiki (or is it the Wikis?). Paine is my wingman for picking the succinct rcat when I cannot find one. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ever since I began work on rcats, I pretty much accepted the originators' rationales in most cases. {{R from plural}}, along with several other rcats, all were originally designed to work in main article namespace only. If you think its a strange rule, then I would tend to agree with you, but I cannot "explain" it – I can only go along with original rationales until someone challenges them. At this point any rcat namespace-bound change should be discussed at the rcat talk page, and any large-scale namespace-bound change should probably be discussed at a central point, perhaps the wp:rcat talk page?  Embrace neutralisms! Paine  01:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

PS @SimonTrew: See also: WT:Categorizing redirects#R from plural – PS added by  Stick to sources! Paine  03:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Selly Oak railway station

Hi, visual editor doesn't give you a choice of where the categories are actually placed. If you think this is important enough, I can report it as a "bug" though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, file a bug please. There are too many things wrong with VE as it is. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, obviously it seems to make sense to put categories together, but I couldn't find any reference to their optimum position at MOS:FOOTERS. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It used to be there, page has been rearranged, it's now under MOS:ORDER → Bottom matter → Defaultsort, Categories, Stub template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#Order of things on a page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS template parameters

Hi, please see Template talk:WikiProject Plants/doc. I'm reluctant to alter the order in which the aliases |needs-photo= and |needs-image= are checked, because there's a slight efficiency gain in checking the most common first, but if it's thought to be inconsistent to have |needs-image= as the preferred form but not the first checked, the order can be changed. There's a discussion here which is relevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Answered at Template talk:WikiProject Plants#Photo/image parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Suffolk24

This is just to say I've seen that this user has created a huge pile of additional railway station articles, which to my eyes all or mostly fail WP:CRYSTAL. I'd welcome your input on them. Blythwood (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: What have they created since Old Kent Road tube station? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - overreaction! I hadn't realised it had mostly been cleared up now. They haven't done much recently although I'm doubtful about the Rotherham Parkgate railway station article. Blythwood (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Blythwood: I have a suspicion that Suffolk24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might be Suffolk82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) returned. Although one stopped editing before the other started, they were created within minutes of each other, see Suffolk24 and Suffolk82. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hoaxes and MK Central

Thanks for note about hoax - it just seemed too much effort not to be good faith fantasy.

I have deleted a para from MKC that claimed Crossrail beyond Tring when the sources said nothing of the sort. The remaining para looks rather unbelievable to me too and I am close to deleting it. However it claims to be sourced from Rail magazine, August 2011, which I don't have. I thought perhaps you might do, or know someone who does? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I find it to be too much trainspotting and not enough serious reliable content. You could ask at WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've thrown away my old copies of Rail, but the 2011 RUS itself is available here. It appears doubtful about the idea of anything beyond Tring. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Matt Smith (actor)

As I notice, there might have been sockpuppetry in late March and early this month. But that might have been gone away. This page might have been also used as a test page; I looked at two reverts from within the past seven days. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Three days until expiry, two bad edits in two weeks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jenna Coleman

Somehow, despite low editing, I see mere attacks on the article subject, like "Actual Queen" (today) or changing an ex-fiancé's name (a week ago or two). Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

PC doesn't prevent edits by unconfirmed users, but it does get more eyes on those edits by listing them at Special:PendingChanges. Although the edits made by unconfirmed users are not visible to unconfirmed users until they have been reviewed, those unconfirmed users might not be fully aware of that - after all, they can see the edit in the page history, and click the "diff" link to see what they did. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Upgrade to semi then? --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

no *way* are we americans

Fer cryin’ out loud; it was a cut ’n’ paste typo. I was trying to get a little editing done before work, and I was suffering from a toothache, too. Useddenim (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Heyday edits

Thanks for the message - you gave me a good laugh!

Yeah, on closer reading, I see what you mean - my excuse is that i'm down with the flu - however... doh!

Two further points, though:

I suggest listing Sandy Denny first in order, as carrying the most weight in vocals.

Also, should be a link-through on Richard Thompson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnwonder (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Learnwonder: That section of the article was written by Cdl obelix (talk · contribs), and presumably used that particular order because it is the one given at the reference for that section, Fairport Convention ‎– Heyday - The BBC Sessions 1968-1969 - it might also be given that way on a record sleeve or CD booklet in the possession of Cdl obelix. But the place to discuss article content is on its talk page, Talk:Heyday (Fairport Convention album).

As for why Richard Thompson is not linked on that entry, it's simply because he's already linked two entries above, see WP:OVERLINK. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment

Please comment on my proposal here. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for helping develop WP:HYPERHEADING with some awesome contributions which helped me learn.

Olowe2011 ^Talk 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Range dash

Hi, that template range needs to adhere to the site's rules, which mandate an end dash for such ranges. You might consider fixing it so it doesn't break. I'll go back and reintroduce the dash in a day or two. Also, the D in Drama needs to be downcased. Tony (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tony1: That's the name of the template. If you want to ensure that what is displayed to the end-user on an article is correct, you need to verify the correctness of the |title= attribute, not the |name= attribute. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

(Or you can move the template and subsequently change the |name= parameter, and change the |title= parameter--only the latter will actually change the title of the displayed template. Not usually a time-worthy choice. --Izno (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC))

@Tony1: Yes, in a navbox, the |name= parameter has only one purpose - to set the navbar (v-t-e) links at top left. It does not display, unless your browser is one of those that displays the URL when you hover your mouse over one of these links. Hence, the value of |name= must be the actual name of the template, omitting the Template: prefix. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Manchester victoria management

Manchester victoria is now managed by Network Rail and not Northern this started in April Djrick1 (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Djrick1: What is your source for that? Per WP:V, we need a source for your claim; ideally, one that is demonstrably more reliable than the one that we're using at present, which is National Rail Enquiries - near the top of that page, directly below the heading "Manchester Victoria (MCV)", it says "Managed by Northern". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The claim was in documents on the northern hub page. This could of changed since the new franchise came in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djrick1 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What are these "documents on the northern hub page" of which you speak? Remember that WP:V is a core content policy, you need to be able to point to a specific document (whether that be website or printed matter) that supports your claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

RE: removal of content

You are completely correct, that was my mistake in not thoroughly reading the changes made. I will modify the page to reflect my mistaken revert. Thank you for pointing it out. MacMed^talk_stalk 20:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

info

Hello! where i can send u de source about richard madden and jenna coleman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seralcun (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Seralcun: You don't send it to me (or to anybody else), you put it in a reference, per the policies on biographies of living persons and verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

North Downs Line mileages

[8] - You state the line is measured from the SER terminus, but never state where that terminus actually was. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I had put it in the |quote= param. Now I've put it in plain text too. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Flying Scotsman

The actor confirmed he was voicing Flying Scotsman and gave a link to an article about the engine appearing in the movie. How can that not be reliable? --ACase0000 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@ACase0000: As I mentioned before, Twitter is not a reliable source; and see WP:SPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

There are many articles that have Twitter as a source. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning behaviour and username Cartoon Network (CN) Master

Re: this undo of yours, please see this thread at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Woolwich railway station

Please stop removing the {{cn}} tags relating to what zone the station is in, unless you add a citation that verifies it's in zone 4. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Stifle: Please check the effects of your edits before saving. In this edit you left exposed Wikicode (a broken category) at the top of the page; in this edit you left a ^{[citation needed]} floating at the top left, not attached to any text, doubtful or otherwise. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You undid a correction to a page that pointed to actual errors. Darcy friction factor formulae

Hello Redrose64,

I noted in the summary to my edit to the "Darcy friction factor formulae" page "The 1st derivative in the referenced C# code to solve the Colebrook-White equation iteratively using the Newton–Raphson method is incorrect. Since there was no way to contact the author of the C# code, I added the correct information here."

My correction combines established mathematical methods, for example, the chain rule and the Newton-Raphson method.

My goal was to save people from doing the hard work I had to do in following a source that did incorrect math.

Could you be more specific regarding what you were objecting to?

Right now it contains a link to an incorrect application of the Newton-Raphson method because the 1st derivative was calculated incorrectly.

Thanks, ScottAllenRauch (talk) 10:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@ScottAllenRauch: Your edits went against two of our core content policies, those of verifiability and no original research. If there is a problem with sourced content on the page, you should bring it up on the article's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change of user name.

Thanks for your help. As you may (or not as may be the case)be aware, I am still not very well at this moment in time, last week being admitted as an emergency for an MRI scan and being kept in the hospital for a period of observation, and may have incorrectly read in some part of Wikipedia that any application to change a user name had to be submitted to a personage of note, so they could bring the request to the attention of the panel that considers such matters. One of your fellow editors has suggested that my postings will be subjected to a form of scrutiny (at least that is what I thought he meant) and that I move to more anonymous areas at this present moment in time, hence my request to change my user name to that which I suggested on the talk page of the Wikipedia person who first greeted me when I joined Wikipedia a few years ago. Is the new proposed user name of Xenophon Philosopher too long to be acceptable?

At this moment in time, because I no longer feel confident in myself at the age of 71, having been in receipt of such admonishments, in making submissions on this proposed username, can I therefore ask if you will be so kind as to make this submission to the panel on my behalf? I did make an offer of a long sabbatical away from Wikipedia in my reply to that other editor and wonder if you also concur with his feelings on the matter?

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Sidorczuk: Xenophon Philosopher is certainly not too long - we have several that are longer, Special:Listusers will provide examples; the limit is 85 bytes, as shown here. But I cannot submit a request on your behalf - the request must be submitted by the applicant. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

With a little help from my good lady wife, I have found the user rename application information and have submitted my application.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hull to Scarborough line

Hi Redrose64; I have seen the latest reverts on the Hull to Scarborough line and I understand most (IE the mileage over kilometres) but why the revert from Northern to Northern Rail and the date change to 2014? There is no citation warning tag, so I assume that it is not that - I've said it before, this is not a moan (for a start it wasn't my edits you undid) - just trying to understand; you never do things without reason, it's just I cannot see what the reason is. Best wishes.The joy of all things (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: Because Northern is not a TOC, never has been, and never will be. I see far too many bad links like that. As for changes to "as of" dates, the point about them is that they are the date when a source was last checked and found to contain that information. These dates are not intended to be altered every time somebody edits the page for some other reason, that way they quickly become misleading. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for coming across as thick - but how is Northern (not now or ever) a TOC. The disambiguation page that you have put into your reply has a link that says Northern (train operating company) on it (amongst others). I just don't understand - sorry! Best wishes. The joy of all things (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

That's the point: it's a disambiguation page. The reader must not be expected to hunt through that lot in order to find the correct one. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Right - I see; the Northern link pointed to a disambiguation page (I thought that the link Northern pointed to the actual page about the TOC whereas it pointed to a disambiguation page [hence my confusion as to how Northern is not a TOC, never has been, and never will be]). So rather than revert, why didn't you just amend the link onto Northern (train operating company)? Just asking. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for correcting my error of having an RfC in my userspace - it was a draft to see what it looked like, but I understand why leaving the template in would be bad. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: The presence of the template had caused it to show up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming and two others, where I noticed that the wording was pretty much identical to the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Riddlesdown station "served by" bus route 412

I edited the entry for Riddlesdown railway station to point out that the nearest bus stop is 500m from the station; you then removed the mention of the bus route altogether. May I just point out that the station is "served by" the bus route to the extent that there are pedestrian signs at the station directing you to the bus stops, and the bus stops are named "Riddlesdown School / Riddlesdown station". So there is an attempt, at least on the part of the transport authorities, to establish a link between the two. The fact remains however that it is a long way to walk! Lonegroover (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This railway station is served by Thames Travel bus route X32

Articles on railway stations are about the railway station itself, not about the general area, nor about bus routes. When a railway station article speaks of it being served by a bus route, we mean that the bus stop is right outside, or perhaps a short walk along the street. 500 metres (0.31 mi) is not a short walk. As an example, Gloucester Green is 500 m from Oxford railway station, but we don't attempt to claim that Oxford railway station is served by e.g. Stagecoach bus route X5. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

about rail electrification

Please read the wikipedia article on rail electrification and the fourth rail section clearly says that LU trains are electrified by both rails Ron Cho (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ron Cho: I never said that it wasn't. When a rail line is described as electrified on the fourth rail system, this does not mean that there is no third rail - it means that the presence of a third rail is implied by the very fact that fourth is the next ordinal number after third. Edits like this are not just pointless but misleading, since they convey the impression that part of the LU is only electrified on the third rail system, without a fourth rail. This is simply not the case - every LU line is electrified on the fourth rail system; third-rail trains are permitted to run over parts of the LU system - such as between Richmond and Gunnersbury - but that does not mean that the LU is a third-rail system. It doesn't even mean that the stretch west of Gunnersbury is third rail - it's fourth rail, with the centre rail electrically bonded to the running rails. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding removal of non-free image

Hi! Just a quick query - I note you reverted [9] the inclusing of the 707 prototype image at South West Trains, but the criterion you reverted under is stating there must be a non-free fair use rationale on the image description page. This is already in place, so just wondering why it was removed? Many thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: There is; but the criterion states "The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline." At the version of File:Class 707 artist's impression.jpg that existed at that time, there was only one FUR, and the article named by that is British Rail Class 707, not South West Trains.

There is now a FUR for South West Trains; but please note that merely copying an existing FUR and changing only the article name does not of itself permit use in that other article - not only does criterion 10c require "a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item" - that is, its use in South West Trains needs to be justifiable independently of its use in British Rail Class 707 - but WP:NFCCP#8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This is amplified by WP:FAIRUSE#Meeting the contextual significance criterion. Using the image in a table, that table being a list of types of rolling stock, does not satisfy the requirement for being the subject of sourced commentary or a subject of discussion in the article.

Using the image at British Rail Class 707 is quite easy to justify, because that's the article about that class of train; but using the image at South West Trains is not, since the reader can understand the topic (a train operating company) without knowing what one of its yet-to-be-delivered trains might look like. In short: saying "To illustrate new unit in article until such time as actual trains exist" does not meet WP:NFCCP#8 in the case of South West Trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Makes perfect sense - many thanks for the explanation, and apologies for my slight confusion! Mike1901 (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

An argument you could make if you really want to keep the image, is that the 707 is such a radically different shape to anything SWT currently operates, that it's justifiable to illustrate what it will look like when compared to their usual wheeled shoeboxes. I doubt that would stand up to a deletion discussion, though, as the differences between the current and forthcoming Desiros isn't discussed in the article. ‑ Iridescent 10:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iridescent: Many thanks for the input, and yes I agree it wouldn't stand up to a deletion discussion in the strongest of lights! I was more just querying out of interest as to why that particular justification was used for deletion. Mike1901 (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course, if SWT suddenly decided to replace their entire fleet at once, and ordered nothing but Class 707 as replacements, it would be all over the railway press: so we would have our sourced commentary. We would then have grounds for a section about that decision to be placed within the South West Trains article, and this would probably allow File:Class 707 artist's impression.jpg to be used under fair use - until the moment that a completed unit left the factory, at which point WP:NFCCP#1 would kick in. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Scottish Central Railway

I wonder if you can shed some light on a matter for me. I have just read the most fully detailed Wikipedia article on this railway and very near to the end of the article, there is a section headed "Topography" where the railway stations are shown.

I cannot trace Greenhill station (sometimes known as Greenhill Lower)on the accompanying RDT that appears within the body of the article. It should be very near to the foot of the RDT, as it was on the line that led to the Caledonian Railway Main Line. If you also look on the RDT of the Caledonian Railway Main Line (Carstairs to Greenhill Junction), at the top of the RDT on the link line is shown Greenhill (SCR}. How is it that the station is shown on one RDT but not on the other?

Can the station be added to the RDT of the Scottish Central Railway on the line that is shown to leading to the Caledonian Railway Main Line, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done (or is the station on the opposite side of the Forth and Clyde Canal?) Useddenim (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

RBS move

What do you think about this move? G-13114 (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@G-13114: I think that it should be moved back, and if Nathan A RF (talk · contribs) really wants it moved, they should initiate a proper WP:RM. To see why, just have a look at its talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Wolverton

RedRose;

A few of us use Wolverton Station daily.

Not sure where you live, but we live in the Milton Keynes (Bucks), Northants Borders.

As soon as you cross Ouse river bridge or ford in Stony Stratford, you're in both Old Stratford and South Northamptonshire (not bucks).

The villages behind Wolverton are also in Northamptonshire (e.g. Yardley, Cosgrove), it's only until you get to Haversham (right behind the station that you're back in Bucks!).

No worries.

Lifes too short to edit it again, but that is why many South Northampton mob use Wolverton.

Northampton is miles away, so is Banbury, Kings Sutton a bit nearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.177.84 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter where I live. What matters are verifiable facts without introducing original research. Now South Northamptonshire doesn't have many railway stations - the only one that I know of, that is still open, is Kings Sutton; but Wolverton isn't the only station that is outside the South Northants boundary. It might be convenient for places like Deanshanger or Cosgrove, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all residents of South Northants will use Wolverton for preference. Somebody living as close to Wolverton as Towcester might find Northampton to be more convenient; the resident of Brackley will prefer Banbury, with its three trains an hour to London and four trains an hour to Birmingham, not to mention the significantly shorter road trip (10 minutes to Banbury vs 50 to Wolverton, last time I tried it [three weeks ago]). In fact, Bletchley is probably more convenient than Wolverton if you're coming from Brackley. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Lightmoor Junction

Hi - fair play on the book number, I had put the Figure in not the page(!) What do you mean Wikicite is kinda obsolete? Either it is or it isn't.....? Kind regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Per Template:Wikicite, it is more standard to use {{sfn}} or {{harv}} with a template such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

At MOS, removal of 'portal bar' from Layout - See also.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Placement of .7B.7BPortal bar.7D.7D

 – Redrose64 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Question for you about asperger image

About File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg. We are having an RFC as to what image to use at Aspergers syndrome. This may be the "winner" and we are trying to figure out if we have an image we can actually use. 2 questions. Will posting the image on the Talk page for the RfC satisfy the fair use need for now? If this is the image that gets consensus, will you be satisfied with the fair use rationale so we can actually use it? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Answered on original thread. Please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Input welcome on Stub category CfD

Hi Redrose - any chance on some stub sorters (such as yourself) commenting on this discussion? Grutness...wha? 15:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment

My intention is to stay very far away from you in WP, and I hope you will do likewise. You wildly misinterpreted a comment I had made in your remark here (which I have the decency to acknowledge you amended here). Now you have posted this comment which distorts our interaction and what I have been trying to do, and which provides a dif to an earlier version of comment that I had subsequently amended here, before you posted. I find it despicable when people cite old versions of comments that have been amended or redacted. I never do that.

In my post there I avoided any discussion of your behavior, and simply described the issue, per CIVIL, so that people there can focus on the issue and not be distracted with our interpersonal dispute; your comments about me there demonstrate bad judgement. This post is to respond to what you said about me there.

Because of these bad faith actions toward me (the misinterpretation, the distortions, the post with personal attacks claiming that I don't care about policies and guidelines at the copyright help page) you are now WP:INVOLVED with regard to me. Also please do stay away from me. I do not want more unpleasant and unproductive interactions with you, I want no drama at all. Just nothing.

I have enormous respect for the policies and guidelines that make WP work. To be very clear, as I have said a couple of time, I find the policies/guidelines and especially the interpretive norms with respect to nonfree images in WP and at the Commons to be byzantine. I generally care about text, but times when I think about using images that have any strings on them, I generally just stop myself as I know there will be byzantine drama to deal with.

While you given some time to the issue at the Asperger Syndrome article, your showing up to cite rules and giving no help applying them has been infuriating. It is hard enough work there with people with aspergers showing up to advocate for this or that. Now we have the worst kind of WP:BURO behavior that WP has to offer, on top of that. And from an admin. That is not a personal attack; it is a description of your behavior completely supportable with diffs.

Maybe you have been doing this too long, but it is a shame that instead of using your knowledge to help people, you have just become a spewer of jargon.

I will not be commenting on your talk page again. Ever, I hope. I am not looking for a reply and will not respond to one. You have burnt this bridge to the ground. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you don't want people to read your posts, you shouldn't make them - even if you later amend, the original is still in the page history. Think carefully before you click that "Save page" button. Any post, once made, is fair game for a response from anybody, whether it was addressed to them or not; and a post on a user's talk page addressed to that user is a direct invitation for that user to respond. Similarly, an RfC is an open invitation for absolutely anybody to drop by and comment - I showed up at Talk:Asperger syndrome because it appeared in the RfC listings. Help was asked for: I offered it, I also offered advice on what pitfalls were being approached, in an attempt to help you avoid them. Sometimes, advice was insufficient and immediate action was required - such as this edit. I was not the only person to have taken such action on that page, see this edit by Stefan2 (talk · contribs). I was trying to help, not hinder: if you found my comments to be "jargon" you should have asked for further clarification.

As shown at WP:NFCCE, it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof. It's hardly my fault if other people do not respect Wikipedia's copyright policies. You might find them "byzantine" but they are rooted in law and are enforcible - repeated violations can lead not just to the files being deleted, but also to the users who uploaded them being blocked (WP:WHYBLOCK#Protection, sixth bullet). Whether a user understands copyright or not, they cannot dodge around it. If I find that a copyrighted image is being used improperly, I will take action, no matter who has previously been involved with that image. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am revising what I last wrote. I am trying to figure out why your behavior has made me so angry. Look, I been around and I understand most parts of WP's policies and guidelines very well. Their spirit and their letter. I made clear several times that I find the policies/guidelines/interpretative norms around nonfree images to be very confusing. I asked you for help. Twice. Your twice-now accusation that I don't respect the PAG around this or am trying to dodge it is unjustified, and has completely discredited you in my eyes - why the hell would I ask you for help, if I didn't think it mattered? And that you are an admin making that accusation when I asked you for help, for pete's sake - just zoiks. If the image has to go, it has to go. That is not the issue - no one is fighting to keep the image. We just need to understand if we can use it and how. Especially before we put the community through an RfC. You have been completely deaf to that.

I think I was primed to be upset with you because what I (and others) find is that people who work on images tend to act like you. Just quoting policy that other people don't understand. At some point you all should hear that you are shitty communicators, and your bad communication actually makes your chosen jobs here harder, since people have a hard time figuring out what to do, and so they do the wrong things, and so you have more messes to clean up. And people walk away from interactions unhappy.

But I should not have been angry that what you offered as help was not at all helpful, and that you are unaware of that. So that's on me. I will eventually figure that image stuff out. Hopefully I will not cross paths with you in the future. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:GAC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:GAC. Since you had some involvement with the WP:GAC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Inability to print out Wikipedia RDT today

This is only the second time that this has occurred to me in all the time that I have been on Wikipedia. The last time it happened, someone had inadvertently deleted a link (at least that is what I can remember) and on notification, the matter was put back to normal after a day or so.

Can you be so kind as to inquire in the right quarters and ask that this facility is restored. Everything was fine up to yesterday.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: I don't see how I can help, unless you somehow think that it was one of my actions which is causing your trouble. A better place to ask would be WP:VPT; but when posting there, it will help them greatly if you tell them the name of the page that you are having difficulty with, also the method that you are using to print. Also useful would be the name of the page where "the last time it happened, someone had inadvertently deleted a link". --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased to report that matters are now back to normal. The RDT in question was that of the Liverpool Overhead Railway.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect deletion request

Could you delete the Untitled Blade Runner sequel and Untitled Blade Runner Sequel redirects? I am wishing to move the Blade Runner 2 history to that location as there is no title yet for the project. Rusted AutoParts 21:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: You can only move Blade Runner 2 to one of those, the other would (I presume) then become a redirect to that. You should put the {{db-move|Blade Runner 2|Reason for move}} tag on the one where you want Blade Runner 2 to go, and when the move is done, simply edit the other one to point to it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I've placed the request on Untitled Blade Runner sequel. Rusted AutoParts 21:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: OK, Untitled Blade Runner sequel deleted and Blade Runner 2 moved there. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Rusted AutoParts 22:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

restore and watchlists

Whenever I select several edits and click on restore, the article gets added to my watchlist. I just noticed when my watchlist count has gone up by ~150 articles. Do you know if this is a recent change and how to disable it? I don't see an option under Preferences. Bgwhite (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No - have you tried WP:VPT? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked, but didn't see anything. You are regular and was hoping if it was mentioned, you would know. Off to the pump.... Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Geonotice request

Can you please check this? --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Replied there. Also, did you notice this image removal, after File:Gateway of India.jpg was deleted on Commons.--Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject: Reference Works

Thanks for the edit about the cat. I haven't exactly figured out how to do templates yet. I still haven't figured out how to create the proper functions for rendering article status, ergo, stub, start class, list class. Could you help with that?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Bellerophon5685: First, the WikiProject should decide which page classes are needed, see Template:WPBannerMeta#Assessment - most use the "standard" scale, but a fair proportion use the "extended" scale. I wouldn't worry about custom scales at this stage. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

AS and ASD categories

Thank you for your help in improving the WP categories "People on the autism spectrum" and "People with Asperger syndrome." They had long been transcluded and conflated. While I had clumsily hoped to include references between the two categories for comparison and optional purposes, my knowledge of category coding is minimal. It turns out that transcluding links between the two categories defeated the purpose of each category. Maybe the unlinked reference of the "People with Asperger syndrome" category within the "People on the autism spectrum" category is enough to steer users to their desired category. Thanks again!2001:558:6008:3B:41F2:EAAD:FE16:3278 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my unlinked reference of the "People with Asperger syndrome" category! I will need to remember that.2001:558:6008:3B:8DB9:BC4D:55B1:DE4 (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Geolocation

Thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Geonotice#Wikipedia:WikiProject England/The West Country Challenge. I live just south of Bristol - how can I test where my ISP (Plusnet) thinks I am?— Rod ^talk 20:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

First link after the TOC of WP:HUMAN, just after the sentence "You are an IP too." For me it yields Geo = {"city":"Orpington","country":"GB","region":"B8","lat":"51.349998","lon":"0.100000","IP":} and an IP address. Take those coords and put them into a {{coord}}, not forgetting to add |region:GB - so for me it's presently {{coord|51.349998|0.100000|region:GB}} → 51.349998°N 0.100000°E / 51.349998; 0.100000. Which is complete cr*p - this is in the south-eastern part of Greater London, almost in Kent; whereas I live in Didcot, so the geolocation is something like 60.35 miles (97.13 km) out. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Testing mine says I am in the centre of Bristol (Near Temple Meads) about 7 miles north of where I am sitting.— Rod ^talk 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so dismissive of your ISP. If you look at the placenames around that neck of the woods, they have placed you on Worlds End Lane- which is as close to recognising your divinity as they could do! --ClemRutter (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC) (and I have also driven through 51.3397,0.1128 ).

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats

LGBT+ Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could you just check for deleted revisions on the old page? It looks like there's some content that was deleted on AfD that should, for attribution's sake, be hist-merged. Sceptre (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)