User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 32

Legobot weirdness

I figured I'll get quicker and better response here than at Legobot's talk page.

In a new RfC, I replaced the DNAU with {{pin section}}.[1] A few hours later, Legobot did this. That doesn't look right (for starters, it exposed the markup rfcid=8CD1F7B}}), so are we to conclude that {{pin section}} can no longer be used in RfCs?

And, how to fix that RfC now without breaking something? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone else added some RfC categories between those two diffs,[2], but that shouldn't cause the bot to change the RfCid. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I'm no expert, just guessing. The bot had added the line with the "DoNotArchiveUntil" date and the rfcid.

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1705039280}}

{{rfc|pol|hist|bio|rfcid=8CD1F7B}}''

You overwrote part of the "DoNotArchiveUntil" line when you added the pin, and the bot interpreted that as a new RfC and added a new "DoNotArchiveUntil" line and a second rfcid to the first one.

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 12:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1705060880}}

{{rfc|pol|hist|bio|rfcid=8CD1F7B}}rfcid=8CD1F7B}}''

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you're prolly right. So I guess the solution is to add {{pin section}} without removing {{DNAU}}, and hope the archive bot respects the ten-year expiration and ignores the one-month expiration. As I said on the Trump talk page, the one-month expiration unnecessarily introduces a risk of accidental premature archival. And {{pin section}}'s message box means you don't have to edit the section to see that it's pinned, making things that much more user-friendly. You don't have to be experienced enough to know to do that.

Legobot is one craaaazy dude. Why it had to be made to be sensitive to a removal of its DNAU baffles me. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: It's nothing to do with your edit. Whilst Legobot adds ths DNAU code and the rfcid in the same edit, it doesn't care if the DNAU gets subsequently modified or even removed entirely. The only thing that I would say about pinning is that it must be above the {{rfc}} tag, and that is exactly what you did, so no problem there. But since Legobot doesn't care what happens to the DNAU, you can safely extend its expiry by any amount you like.

What happened to cause the problem was this edit by SPECIFICO (talk · contribs), which was wrong in several ways: (i) the |hist category was already present, a second one is redundant; (ii) |langmedia is an invalid RfC category; {iii) |Reli is also invalid, because rfc categories must be all lowercase; (iv) they added a pair of closing braces before the |rfcid=8CD1F7B parameter, this terminates the {{rfc}} tag before that parameter, so Legobot considered that the parameter was absent. Whilst they fixed problems (ii) and (iii) in this edit, that wasn't nearly enough.

I've done the best that I can to fix up the mess. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look closely enough at SPECIFICO's first edit. I retract my bad words about Legobot (for now;).

So, if we want the message box and the ten-year expiration, my method will work and will be the easiest way to achieve that goal, do I have that correct? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: Since you've been an interested party, I'm just making sure you saw this resolution. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I saw it, thanks. I've been pinning discussions correctly, courtesy of Sensei Copy-and-Paste, but didn't know about the 10-year period. A typo — a couple of curly brackets instead of the slash separator | (is that what it's called?). Mea culpa, I hadn't noticed that they were already in the edit history when you added the pin. When we make errors formatting cites, error messages are shown. Maybe someone could write code for errors in templates. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 22:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: The | character is properly called a vertical bar, but commonly called a pipe (in Unix, it's used to "pipe" the output of one process to the input of another process, as in ls -l | more). A slash is the / character. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thus "piped links". Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Font

Hello Redrose64, I asked for help on how to get rid of the Georgia font on Wikipedia namespace and talk namespace pages. Is there any way? I haven't got a response yet. Thanks, Nearly but not perfect (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@I'm not perfect but I'm almost: Where did you ask? Always provide a link when referring to an existing discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I asked at the Village Pump but no one has responded and that thread has since been removed. Here Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't link the final pre-archive version of the thread. If you had, you would have seen that I did answer, fifteen minutes later. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Drummond

What is the problem with the origin of the surname DRUMMOND in Scotland and in Portugal? I included the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7f3:858e:34c5:50f2:4df5:ebb3:b29d (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not articles, think of them as a list of related articles. Content and references belong on those related articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 7 § Category:Establishments in Danish India by year on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Pro tip requested

I would like a way to modify a time-date stamp such that it's still recognizable by humans but not by the archive bot. Very occasionally, there is a need to time-stamp something without extending the retention of a discussion that is approaching auto-archival. Can you suggest the best way to do this? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It would depend upon the bot - at least one uses the most recent timestamp in the thread, at least one looks at the times in the page history. So, which page are we talking about? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

That uses lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). I'm fairly sure that this bot can be defeated by using a timestamp that doesn't exactly match the format used by the standard four- or five-tilde signature. You could try rearranging the date to be in U.S. format (Month day, year), leaving the time and timezone alone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds like it should work. I'll have to save it for future reference; someone else has commented subsequently in the discussion, making my time stamp moot in this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The rfc template must not be placed inside comment tags

Talk:Joe_Flacco#Etymology_for_"Stint" I don't get how that's a problem if I'm not using it to request comments at the moment. I imagine it's just a misunderstanding. ProofCreature (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@ProofCreature: Please see Template:Rfc#Inactive usage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Ahha.

So many policies - it's dizzying. Something to do. Keeps one busy, I guess.

Thanks for the explanation. ProofCreature (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

David Lammy RFC

Hello Redrose64, I saw your comment on David Lammy talk page RFC. Should I restart a new RFC and use that question?

Are the list of references not important to answer the question, I believed it was because this is a contentious issue and the references reveal a potential preference of David Lammy in the article. Can you briefly explain why they are not?

Also one user has dropped their objection, changing from a no to neutral, what advice do you have if the 3rd user doesn't engage?

Trying to learn, thanks. Erzan (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Erzan: There shouldn't be a need to restart the RfC. Just make sure that the existing {{rfc}} tag is directly followed by a brief and neutral statement, optional signature, and mandatory timestamp. A statement containing nineteen inline external links is no way brief. You might like to read up on WP:WRFC but that's not binding. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on South London line

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South London line, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

m:Meetup/Oxford/97

At the moment it looks like just the two of us. What do you want to do?©Geni (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Geni: Check again in the morning? How much notice do you need? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Need to know by before 8:30.©Geni (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Geni I am hopeful, but I will still be in bed art 0830 whether I'm coming or not Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Geni and Thryduulf: OK, I'll go ahead and be there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Been wanting to re-vist the Ashmolean for a while.©Geni (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to make it to Oxford today. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Help to find line number

Please can you help me as to how to find a line number in an article. So far I have found no method. The difficult situation arises in differences between revisions when there is no context to search on and there is repetitive material in a table eg in [3]. How can I find the line 690 in the article? Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I never bother with the line numbers. To find the line concerned, I mark some of the text in the diff - sufficient to uniquely identify the text but not spanning into a second line. I copy this to clipboard, then I go to the relevant section (in this case Preserved locos) and open it in source editor. Then I use the browser's find feature (usually Ctrl-F) and paste in the text from the clipboard. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that is what I usually do. But what in the example would you search on? All there is is N/A or No which give several results.SovalValtos (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Awaiting restoration - geograph.org.uk - 1887942 --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Maryland cookies

Thanks for the tipoff where I could find a couple more flavours.©Geni (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

2girls1cup

You fully protected this redirect for vandalism back in 2007, and I highly doubt that it is still needed. The article it redirects to is only semi-protected. Would you mind removing or downgrading the protection? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR: I wasn't an admin in 2007, indeed I wasn't even an editor back then, so I can't have done what you claim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I misread the page history. Sorry! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Constants Template

Just sending this to be polite, but do you mind if I nick your constants template? Sneezless (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

It's very out of date, I've not updated it in years. Mainly because I don't edit other Wikipedias (except Welsh) any more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds

Hi there. I see you fixed something at Talk:Fani Willis#RFC: alleged misuse of funds. Would you be willing to close the discussion? It seems to have run out of steam, and there also seems to be a consensus. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It's an RfC, and RfCs typically last 30 days. This RfC began at 16:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) so in the normal course of things Legobot will list it until 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC). If you really need it to be closed after just half its scheduled duration, please make your request at WP:Closure requests, or see WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oxford

Looks like its just the 2 of at the moment but I need to visit to get an image for the Shrine of Taharqa article I'm planning.©Geni (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Geni: Just setting off now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CR

Hi, I see you reverted my edit on WP:CR where I archived a load of discussions. I did this because I saw some discussions that have been marked as done but not archived for 2 weeks now, and the fact that other editors have done the same thing - although now I see you also reverted their edits. I definitely think some form of notice regarding the manual archiving, like the note at WP:ANI, would be a good idea. What do you think? JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148: ClueBot III would have archived them, given time. This bot doesn't act like lowercase sigmabot III, there are several differences. In essence, lowercase sigmabot III carries out a cut-and-paste, but ClueBot III does a lot more than that. The most important difference in this case is that it maintains an archive index (see example edits here and here), something that is not done by either manual archiving or by one-click-archiver scripts. A second is that it deactivates all of the {{done}} and similar templates. A third is that it selects threads to archive based not on timestamps but on activity as read from the page history. This is what's holding it up: each time a thread is restored, the clock for that thread is reset even if no new posts were added and none of its timestamps were altered.

The notice at WP:ANI is in small type, and it's often overlooked or ignored. There's so much clutter at the top of WP:CR that anything extra there would probably be ignored too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@JML1148: Done, done and done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Redrose64 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Define "correct"

Would you mind expanding slightly on your rather bald summary for this edit, please? Why does having two linked pieces of information (a citation and the origin of the citation) split over two entirely separate sections constitute "correct"? Pyrope 21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Pyrope: "Notes" is correct per WP:CITESHORT which also shows the use of two level 2 headings; since I added that heading thirteen years ago, WP:CITEVAR applies too. "Bibliography" is discouraged by MOS:REFERENCES; personally I would have used "References" (per CITESHORT), but "Sources" was already in use - it goes right back to the creation of the article in 2008. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, but I've been mulling my response a while. In short, I think we have a mismatch between various parts of: wanting to have a logical, clear, and succinct way for readers to look up information; poorly thought out and explained MoS guides; and misapplication of parts of MoS. CITESHORT's use of 'Notes' for the citations is weird and not very helpful to a reader. As that section itself states, 'notes' is a broad term that can cover all sorts of inline addenda, including citations, explanatory notes, additional information, and so on. I feel that if a section contains citations, it should probably be called 'Citations'. Keep it simple, and all that. Why they split the full citation from the short citation using two level two headings is not explained, and absent that, I think a reasonable justification (i.e. keeping all references together and making links from short to full citations clear) should easily trump 'per MOS' as a reason. This is what WP:IAR is all about, after all. The use of the term 'bibliography' is only discouraged for biographic articles, where it might be confused with a list of works of the person in question. This clearly doesn't apply to an article about a loco, and I would argue that in the context of a 'References' section most intelligent readers would understand which use of the word is being invoked. Finally, improving an article's use to a reader shouldn't be subservient to maintaining an article's existing structure, no matter how long that has been in place. I hope you see what I am getting at here. I have been using the structure I employed at lots of articles over the past decade or more; so far I don't think anyone has had an objection, so yours intrigues me. Pyrope 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting

NO MORE REVIRTING EDITS PLEASE REDROSE64 Robbie Kirillov (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

YOU ARE SOON GONNA BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA! Robbie Kirillov (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But you told me that it doesn't fit for RfC

Oh sorry, I shouldn't have removed it Alon Alush (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Code formatting

Oddly, I'm thanking you for the revert—I was struggling to find the correct logic for the line breaks and settled on (i) pipes being separators and (ii) the hyphenation principle that the end of a line should suggest the start of the next.

What I'm more concerned about is the wholesale mangling of the formatting that resulted when vast numbers of quotation marks were added and things taken outside <code> tags that belonged inside. I wonder if it just needs rolling back to before those edits. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Have we removed all those quote marks now? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

There are still some near the end. I've not properly checked an earlier version yet, but I've a feeling the parameter names have been taken out of code style throughout as well. They certainly look a bit odd, because of the non-matching typeface. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Heading to London in May

Hey, I'll be in London in a couple of months as part of a European trip with my mother ... hopefully we'll see you at the Wikipedia meetup then! Today we've started the mammoth task of printing out tickets and so forth for the trip (mobile phones aren't the best for either of us, for different reasons), so that reminded me to let you know. Graham87 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Graham87, the provisional dates for meetups are: London, 12 May; and Oxford, 19 May. Please note that these pages have not yet been created. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I've swung the trip for the London one (I'd already put the page for it on my Meta watchlist). I didn't actually know that Oxford meetups had become more regular; I'd been looking deeply at this in 2022 (as you might remember) and it seems their times became re-standardised around early 2023. Oh well, this way we can take mainland Europe at a more leisurely pace. Graham87 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87: It seemed to be irregular because we always skip December - Oxford meetups are eleven times a year, third Sunday of the month, i.e. one week after London; but the third Sunday in December (15 through 21 December inclusive) would be too close to Christmas. Around that time, the pubs are typically full up, often with of people on their workplace's Christmas drinks or dinners, and we can't get a table let alone a quiet one. Some people (myself included) get extra work in December, being the busiest time of the year in shops, and that can include Sunday work. In fact regular Oxford meetups resumed in October 2022, some months after COVID-19 restrictions had been totally lifted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, all makes sense. Oxford 86 being on 26 February through me for a loop (seems you changed it due to being unavailable on the regular date). I was looking deeply into UK meetups back in July 2022 so there's that. :-) Australia in general and Western Australia in particular managed to dodge a ridiculous number of bullets re COVID due to being locked shut for a while, so I sometimes don't take into account how horrifically it affected the rest of the world. Graham87 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87: Quick update: the first UK meetup page for May has been created, it is at Leeds on Saturday 4 May, that is, eight days before the London meetup. Leeds is about 185 miles from London, but there is a direct rail service that is frequent - twioe an hour; regular - trains are every thirty minutes; also quite fast - it takes about two hours and ten minutes. I really don't think that I can get to that one though, I would need to take three trains with a much longer journey time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah I'll be leaving Australia on 6 May so I don't think I'll be making it to that one either! :-) Just to clarify, I'll be in London from 8 to 16 May and in mainland Europe after that. Graham87 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've signed up ... looking forward to it! Graham87 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Great! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

University (Birmingham)

You were quite right that University railway station (England) was unlikely to have a photograph that was out of date; the photo of the new station was up more than a month before the station buildings were opened (in January 2024). Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Half an hour ago, on BBC South Today, there's an item on the paintings stolen from Christchurch. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes; let's hope that they find the other paintings. Incidentally, there's nothing on it at Christ Church, Oxford, but that's probably not unreasonable (not news ...). Klbrain (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

	CodeMaster
	Thanks for helping me shorten my signature! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Bradshaw Railway Timetables.

I corrected some spelling errors for Liverpool places, "Childwell" etc. in the Wikisource Bradshaw. I was surprised to see that the main Wiki page for Bradshaw, didn't seem to have a link to there. I've put in a link to s:Page:Bradshaw's_Railway_Timetables_(No3.)_1839.djvu/1 If this is not correct, maybe you can tidy it up. Thank you. 78.145.202.10 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you're asking me. I have done almost nothing at Wikisource, save for this edit and creating my user page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You did an edit to Bradshaw's Guide about a month ago, and others previous ; So I assumed you had a special interest in that page. Surely the Wiki Bradshaw page, and the Wikisource Bradshaw should be linked. Best Wishes from Prestatyn.

78.145.202.10 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

They were maintenance edits. If you have suggestions for the improvement of an article, the place to do so is its own dedicated talk page: in the specific case of Bradshaw's Guide, this is Talk:Bradshaw's Guide. Please don't pick random editors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 16 § Ancient law (before 6th century BC)

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 16 § Ancient law (before 6th century BC) on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I created Category:13th century BC in law, like, way back in December 2010. Don't recall why. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/doc

Template:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tesla RFC

Was there any other problem, or was the case the only problem? I will assume that the case was the only issue unless I am otherwise notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Initiated only recognises |done=yes, it ignores |Done=yes - you can tell because the text didn't change to black. The other thing was that you put the {{Done}} in between the {{initiated}} and your original request, so anybody coming across that section might assume that you had filed a pointless non-request. By putting them on separate lines it shows that there were two separate actions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject A Cappella/doc

Template:WikiProject A Cappella/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Two days to go...

Parliament will be dissolved on 30 May ahead of the UK general election on 4 July. What is the dissolution of Parliament? Cavrdg (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cavrdg: Whilst Hansard does say we do, in His Majesty’s name, and in obedience to His Majesty’s Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Friday the thirty-first of May, it also says End of the Fifth Session (opened on 7 November 2023) of the Fifty-Eighth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Second Year of the Reign of His Majesty King Charles the Third. So the MPs have nothing to do in Westminster, and as shown on several recent news bulletins, they're all out on the campaign trail.

Oxfordshire gains an extra contituency (increasing to seven), all six of the existing constituencies have boundary changes, the smallest change being to Oxford East, which loses the city centre to Oxford West and Abingdon. Two of the "old" constituencies also change their names. There are several hundred articles to update, and that's just Oxfordshire, so I've started slightly early. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

When to remove a talk page topic?

Hello Redrose64,

The actual reason I removed the talk page because the case is finally resolved or the case is finally closed, the end result is to leave it as "East Asia" which i actually agree with. If the other editors also prefers this way then i am actually fine with it. But when it's the right time to really remove the talk page? Or I just have leave it there forever? Sorry for asking. Rainbluetiful (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Rainbluetiful: If you start a thread, and nobody else replies to it, you may safely remove it. But once somebody else has replied, WP:TPO applies and you no longer have the right to remove the thread. Experienced uninvolved editors may formally close it at some point, or may set up the page for automatic archiving, see WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh I had no idea about this thx for telling me, but i also have few questions about this: where to ask an uninvolved editor to archive or close the thread after the case is finally resolved? And if the page is archive will it be visible to other people and are archived talk page topics removed from the article's talk page? Rainbluetiful (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

And is there a specific time where the talk page can be archived or closed? because when i read the rules about closing a talk page, it says that i have to wait for at least 7 days for the talk page to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Wikipedia:Closing_discussions

What about for archiving too? how long do i have to wait? I dont know where to find an uninvolved editor to close my page (i am preparing right now in advanced) Rainbluetiful (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

apologies

I forgot viz was even a word, my dumb brain thought it was a typo. abrannigan (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Looking for guidance at British Rail Class 197

Hi Redrose, I was wondering if you could give me some guidance on the actions I’ve taken at Class 197? Anamyd removed the Welsh language version of nameplates, which I believed to be incorrect. So I reverted and started a discussion at the talk page… am I wrong to be a little salty (albeit obviously I’m not doing anything about it) that Anamyd then just reverted it back and ignored the talk page message, despite being tagged?

Just to be clear, I’m not wanting to complain or anything of the sort - I’m just wanting to make sure I didn’t do anything wrong in that situation. Danners430 (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My first question would be - does the Welsh text appear on the plate itself? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does Danners430 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity

Interesting. Thank for you for advising me. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. What I am inferring is that Legobot doesn't grok nowiki, and so treats the template inside the nowiki as a real template, and either activates it or deactivates it. I think that reactivating it now that the subpage is transcluded is the least disruptive way to clean up. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Boundaries 23 or 24

I was thinking of when the Boundary Commission announced the changes. But that is not even right because Parliament had to approve them and I don't know when that happened. It isn't worth obsessing about the detail, I'm content with your revision. FYI only, nothing to do. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@JMF: See The Parliamentary Constituencies Order 2023 - it was approved by the Privy Council (not by Parliament) on 15 November 2023, but the Explanatory note also says:

By virtue of section 4(6) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (c. 50), the coming into force of this Order does not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by His Majesty summoning a new Parliament or affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.

That reads as the old boundaries ceasing to exist and the new ones coming into force with the dissolution of Parliament, 31 May 2024. That's logical, as it couldn't be earlier otherwise the people of Stony Stratford would suddenly find that their MP was Ben Everitt instead of Iain Stewart, and it couldn't be later otherwise the various Returning Officers would not legally be able to invite nominations for candidates for e.g. Milton Keynes Central or Buckingham and Bletchley. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Pentrefelin Halt railway station

Would it be possible for you to show the line connections served by this halt on both the Swansea District Line and the GWR Morriston branch line in a box at the end of the article, please. I note that you were the originator of the article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: I added the routebox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Defaultsort

I'm sorry, I've noticed multiple constituencies use the magic word and assumed it's just a norm. Can you advise where it should be used? Do I understand correctly that it should be used in cases like e.g. "North Derbyshire" and "East Derbyshire" to make them sorted as "Derbyshire, North" and "Derbyshire, East"? Thanks :)

P.s. if it is not a pressing matter I'll come back and fix excessive defaultsorts later. Sfaxx (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Sfaxx: At one time, the use of {{DEFAULTSORT:}} was universal, because category sorting was case-sensitive, that is, capital letters all sorted before small letters, so "Z" sorted before "a", which caused confusion, and so it was necessary to use DEFAULTSORT on almost every page to normalise the capitalisation for consistent sorting. This has not been the case since a software change way back in 2011; you will still see pages where the sortkey specified by DEFAULTSORT differs from the page title only in capitalisation, but this is merely because nobody has removed them yet. There is certainly no need to add them, as you did here, as {{DEFAULTSORT:North West Essex (Uk Parliament Constituency)}} sets a sortkey which is simply a variant case of the page title, North West Essex (UK Parliament constituency) - two letters differ in casing. In general, a DEFAULTSORT is only needed when one of the circumstances described at WP:SORTKEY applies, as with this edit, where the contraction "St" should be sorted as the full "Saint".

On occasion, it is desirable to vary the sort order for one particular category, but this is not done using DEFAULTSORT, but by adding a piped value to the category, as described at WP:SORTCAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on rfc

Hi, sorry to bother you but I see that you specialise in RfCs and I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on Talk:United States#RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?, I know I've handled it dreadfully and bludgeoned discussion, but I'm not sure how I could've made the rfc lead more neutral to address the criticisms given. I know the main issue with the rfc was a lack respect but I perceive the opposite opinions as a common injustice which induces the combative behaviour and makes it very difficult for me to facilitate the rfc (not trying to excuse the disrespect but reason for it, I accept it was improper). Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Reversion of 'See also' link

Hello @Redrose64:, I recently added a relevant item to the "See also" section of Resistor–transistor logic, per:

• Transistor–transistor logic (TTL)
• Redrose64 Undid revision 1227335412 by Enquire

...on the pretext that there were already links in the body of the article (true). However, in the interests of inclusion, I would expect the "See also" section to be a summary of relevant related articles – whether (or not) they are mentioned in the body of the article. Indeed, it would seem to me to be strange if related articles that appear in "See also" were not mentioned in the body of the article. In your reversion note, you cited Wikipedia:SEEALSO – which I reviewed – but there is nothing in that section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style that precludes including a link in "See also" if it has been mentioned in the body of the text once, let alone n times. As of now, there is only one item in the "See also" section – I can think of several good related articles that could also be added.
Enquire (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Enquire: To quote from WP:SEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

June music

story · music · places

Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. You were right about the pic on his user page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Blackrod station

In either the Historical Railways or the Disused Railways boxes at the foot of the article, would it be proper to show a link connection to the LYR Hindley to Blackrod Branch where the first station is that of Hilton House. If you thibk it is worthwhile to do so, can you please add this information on.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oxford

Great to see you again in Oxford yesterday, thanks for organising! I hope the rest of your journey home was smoother than mine: we all got kicked off at Reading due to "staff shortages" and then of course the next train along was too full to get on. Fortunately didn't have to wait very long for another. the wub "?!" 13:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming! The staff shortages began in the morning, a lot of trains running through Swindon either terminated short or were cancelled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@The wub: I forgot to give you a link like this, showing how passengers had a view through the driving cab of a Class 108, as used on the Blackburn-Bolton-Manchester route. The second-class car at the other end of the unit had a better forward view, because the lack of armrests meant that you could position yourself behind the middle of the right-hand window without having to lean sideways to avoid the window frame. Other classes used on that route were Class 104 and Class 105, but they all gave a view through the cab. Class 105 gave a wider field of view, as they had two large cab windscreens instead of three smaller ones. At this time (early 1980s) there was still one Class 100 car in service (M53355), coupled to one of the last Class 105 cars, but I don't remember ever riding on that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow, that's quite a view! I was expecting maybe a window on one side of the cab, not being able to see out the whole front. Sadly never travelled on any of these, but one consolation is there's plenty of cab ride videos available on youtube now. the wub "?!" 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@The wub: The last time I rode on a DMU with a view through the cab was a Class 121 during its final weeks of service on the Princes Risborough-Aylesbury branch in May 2017. If you want to experience something similar, there are several preserved lines with pre-1980s DMUs - classes 100 through 127 inclusive are the ones to look out for. Your closest preserved line will be the Epping Ongar Railway who certainly had two or three DMU cars a few years ago, but I'm not sure if they have one any more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Shall we do that properly? There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unilateral removal of RfC tag. Thank you. That done, where's my boomerang? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Reversing lever and reversing rod

About https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=1232074251.

I found it strange that the link pointed to itself, then even inferring that these were the same. Would there be a way to resolve this? Øyvind Teig (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aclassifier: You can unlink it if you like. What I was concerned with was the use of an incorrect term: the reversing rod and reversing lever are not synonymous, but they have a common pin joint. In this diagram the reversing lever (right) is labelled, as is the weigh shaft (upper centre). The reversing rod is the one connecting these two, shown partially cut away. The curious thing about that diagram (which is the only one that I could find that showed the reversing lever) is that the reversing lever is drawn at the cylinder (front) end of the loco, instead of at the other (rear) end. There are labelled diagrams in

• Semmens, P.W.B.; Goldfinch, A.J. (2003) [2000]. How Steam Locomotives Really Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 112–132. ISBN 0-19-860782-2.

showing the reversing rod as the horizontal (or nearly so) rod reaching from the driver's control (which could be either the reversing lever or the reversing screw) to the weigh shaft. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that exhaustive explanation! I unlinked "reversing rod" Øyvind Teig (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's a good idea to add the figure Redrose64 mentions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephenson_link_valvegear_(Army_Service_Corps_Training,_Mechanical_Transport,_1911).jpg into the article, with a proper explanation? Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Misusing table markups

Hi there. I recently was tagged in an edit you made regarding adding notional results for the 2019 UK general election. In the edit(s) in question, you said "don't misuse table markup - accessibility". I have absolutely no idea what that means, and it seems the edits you made to my edit didn't actually change anything with the table I was using, visually. Could you care to explain what I should/shouldn't be doing and how, exactly, I was misusing the tables?

Thanks
Into oblivion (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Into oblivion: Accessibility refers to the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities, and web accessibility is a more specific form of this. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility describes the various ways of ensuring that accessibility is achieved, and in that, MOS:DTAB concerns tables.

A table has a caption and one or more rows; table rows have one or more cells of two types - header and data. Screen reader software announces the various table components in different ways, and also varies its actions according to the element type that is being read out. If you style a data cell to appear the same as a header cell for a sighted reader, it will still be treated as a data cell by the screen reader. Cells that are used as titles for a row or column must be marked up as header cells; and those that are titles for rows must also have the scope=row attribute. Similarly, the name of a table belongs in the table caption, and not in a full-width header cell.

If you have questions about accessibility, you may ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention

Hi Redrose64, I'm a newish Wikipedia editor and style learning the (many, complicated) rules.

I have noticed an issue with a reverter / possible vandal on the Project 2025 article. User:Skyerise keeps adding a See Also section to Project 2025 with irrelevant links, including Liber OZ and Universal Declaration of Human Rights; undoes revisions to remove the irrelevant links or section.

It's unclear to me how to proceed though; I've looked into reporting vandalism, but it seems like that should only be done after 4 edits and several warnings. Can you tell me what the appropriate level of escalation for the situation is at this point and how to do it? Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mosi Nuru: First off, have you brought up the matter at the article's talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I have not yet, no. I take it that's the first step?

I have added a topic on the talk page, does it look like it contains the essential things I need to say to you?

Talk:Project_2025#See_Also_section_contains_only_irrelevant_links_such_as_"Liber_OZ" Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

First stage is indeed to discuss on the article's talk page. If Skyerise doesn't comment there within, say, a week, drop a note on their user talk page inviting them to the discussion. Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like he has replied and a couple other editors have jumped in, so this was the right approach (I was a little doubtful if anyone read the Talk pages, but I see I was wrong!).

Thanks for your help! Hopefully this will be the end of it. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

You've already helped a bunch, but would you be willing to do me one more favor when you get a chance?

Could you take a note at the Talk Page (Talk:Project_2025#See_Also_section_contains_only_irrelevant_links_such_as_"Liber_OZ") and at how Skyerise is interacting with me, and advise if there is anything I should do?

I don't want to get into a flame war with someone on the internet, but I feel pretty strongly that he is arguing in bad faith (implying insult where none was meant, not engaging with the argument, etc.), and I'd like to know how to proceed that doesn't just involve arguing online. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you should directly ask the question "Is calling an editor 'obsessive' a personal attack?" Redrose & I don't always see eye to eye, but I suspect we agree on the answer to that. Also, whenever you discuss another editor on a third-party talk page, it is polite to ping them, like this @Mosi Nuru:. I shouldn't be finding conversations about me where I wasn't pinged. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

DX 9048

Yes. File:Super sentinel waggon DX 9048.JPG among others (although that may be the only one on commons). Problem is that its been modified a fair bit (it wasn't originally a bus).©Geni (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi Redrose, A number of years back I remember being informed by yourself about keeping citations on a single line, instead of inserting a new line for each parameter - I don't have much background knowledge on this subject, other than it helping with reading and interpreting diffs - would you be able to provide clarity as a third party at User talk:Danners430? Apologies for trying to drag someone into this, I just don't want to enter into an argument, and I remember it being yourself instilling this knowledge into me all those years ago! Danners430 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What you've actually done is to create a whole glaring, yet content-free, change into the edit log.

If your diff process can't handle separate lines, then fix your diff process. It's actually easier (much) for a diff filter to work on inputs that have clear linebreaks. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Redrose64:, any chance you could take a look at this? I'm about to go to ANI regarding this user, but I really want to avoid it - if there's somewhere I've gone wrong, I'd be more than open to correction by WP admin. Danners430 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I left for work at 07:35 (UTC) and didn't get back until 16:40 (UTC), so quite a lot has happened in the meantime. For my TPWs (and TPSs), this is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Andy Dingley. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

RfCs at Talk:Jinn

This was first time helping some one initiating RfC that too after long time, sorry for inadvertent technical goof-up and thanks for helping in sorting out.

As such a help was requested at WT:RFC.

1) Any ways after your help, I suppose listings are working properly, so there is no immediate need to dismantle collapse templates - since those help in better content organization and presentation.

2) This is first RfC in this series, more from the planned series would come after some period, as discussed at WT:RfC. The RfC question series is presently listed at the user sandbox talk, may be you have a look, your advice will help not repeat the mistakes. Bookku (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: Most of it is covered at WP:RFCBRIEF. The main thing to remember is that the RfC statement runs from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next valid timestamp (inclusive). What happens after that timestamp won't be noticed by Legobot, so can be as lengthy and complex as you like. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Now I explained other editor too on their user talk page. I hope accident won't be repeated from our side. Bookku (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Jinn has been rescinded (temporarily withdrawn - shall be restarted later in simpler format to facilitate better user participation) after a discussion at WT:RfC by removing {{rfc|reli|soc|hist|rfcid=CE36F56}}. Bot related template is still there, I hope I have done that in right way. Bookku (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bookku: per its documentation, please do not use nowiki tags around {{rfc}}, because Legobot ignores them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay noted. Thanks Bookku (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

List tag query

I now understand the use of HTML list tags isn't standard for Wikipedia and have ceased using them. However, I don't know how to implement a numbered list with wiki-markup. How do you do this? Svampesky (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Svampesky: See this edit, also Help:List. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Svampesky (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Atop

I forgot to use Template:Ping there, so: Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:Archive top's talk page. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Spike Milligan

My edit was not an unsourced opinion. Just look at the photo of the gravestone. The Irish word for "was" is clearly missing from the inscription. Kindly restore my edit.

GeiknarF (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Redrose64's edit summary included if you want to comment about the accuracy of the article, please do so on the talk page. You made a comment in the article, so {{Uw-talkinarticle1}} applies. Please confine commentary about improving the article to the article's talk page. Peaceray (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Redrose (do you mind if I call you Rose?) I wanted to thank you for answering one of my Mentees' questions (even if the question was as moot as that one) -- Grapefanatic (Talk) 18:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Grapefanatic: I guess you mean User talk:Grapefanatic#Question from Ujwala9 (05:50, 4 July 2024) - I really don't recall how I found it in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:IP editors are human too

I've reverted your edit on this page... as the IP correctly identified, the title was in error. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: No, the IP is wrong: it's a list of misconceptions (in boldface), seven in all, each of which is followed by a longer comment (in normal type) to either refute that misconception or show why it applies much less often than some people would like to believe. The IP's edit changes it from a misconception to a truth, which goes against the purpose of the section, hence my revert.

The entry in question was added on 17 May 2018 with these two edits by Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs), who I have informed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

What Redrose64 said, this is a list of wrong ideas, followed by refutations of those ideas, therefore the previous wording was correct. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)