User talk:Redrose64: Difference between revisions

Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

My Talk Archives

Hints: 13 July 2009- Suggestions: 13 July 2009- Responses: 20 July 2009- Thanks: 17 August 2009- Complaints: 26 August 2009- Requests: 18 October 2009- Queries: 6 November 2009- Miscellaneous: 26 March 2010- Admin: 24 August 2010- Unclassified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Moved to Talk:The Invasion of Time § Variant theme music

Sorry I'm bad at using wikipedia and messed up adding the cite, I asked Northern the other day about Bolton's Platform 2 and they replied to me https://twitter.com/northernrailorg/status/291975325221535745?uid=17412258&iid=am-34365388813588638626255904&nid=56+427

Moved to m:Talk:Meetup/Reading/4#Shall we continue?

MarnetteD | Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec11}} to your friends' talk pages.

		Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

I was sitting with a high steward, discussing Anglo-Saxon monks. The name we couldn't remember was Nennius. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Hi Redrose64! Thanks for identifying the issue with {{USCongDistState}} that was causing the incorrect WhatLinksHere entries. I think I've found two more issues when looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/1. One I documented at Template talk:Medref#Using talk parameter makes link to 1, while I think {{rint|montreal|metro|1}} causes a similar issue in articles such as List of Montreal Metro stations. Could you please use your template wizardry to fix these two templates as well? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I think I have fixed Medref, in Template:Medref/sandbox. I have not copied it to the main template. This edit, from 2012, appears to have changed the |talk= parameter's functionality. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the first, I commented on its talk page. For the second, I did this which should sort mislinking to four numbers and four colours, although there seem to be several other cases of {{if|exist|x|y}} that I've not looked at. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! GoingBatty (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you insist on hammering the revert button without looking at what the edit actually did, you can fix the error that prevents {{rail-interchange|montreal|metro}} from displaying an icon. Useddenim (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw exactly what it did: it put pages into Special:WhatLinksHere/Green, etc., that had no business being listed there. This is what GoingBatty (talk · contribs) originally posted about, and this is what {{if|exist|green}} does. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: It's easy to fix. Just eliminate the {{if}}, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Dear Redrose64,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

The answer to the question you asked in this edit is that Infobox GB station is not a mega template. Infobox NI station and Infobox Ireland station were nominated with the result that NI station was merged into Ireland station. Ireland station has now been renomintated, with Ireland disused station added. With all of these smaller templates deleted, Infobox GB station will probably be targeted next, so there's no point merging smaller templates into it. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AussieLegend: It's been tried before - twice - without success. People who nominate these template for deletion never use them themselves, so have no idea of their differences. They claim that it would ease maintenance - for whom? When have they ever maintained Template:Infobox Manchester Metrolink station? If there's a problem that needs fixing, why don't they bring it up on the template's talk page (or that of the relevant WikiProject) like anybody else would? What really pisses me off is this "all infoboxes must be deleted or merged" attitude from somebody who is under an indefinite topic ban when it comes to infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being tried before won't stop it happeneing again, even though it should. Unfortunately, that topic ban is being interpreted as being only applicable to articles and it should be clear to anyone that TfD is being used to get around that. Unfortunately, some people commenting at WP:ARCA at the moment aren't seeing that. As somebody who maintains several templates, I don't fall for the "ease of maintenance" argument. Most of these TfDs result in more wasted time than has been spent on maintenance in years. And yes, I agree that the template's talk page is the best place to discuss these things in the first instance. Either there or with the end-users at the related project. Unfortunately, "some" don't see it that way. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just following this up, {{Infobox Ireland station}} TfD was closed as merge to {{Infobox station}} and this is now in progress. Of interest in the discussion at Template talk:Infobox station#Edit request on 25 January 2015 was this, indicating that {{Infobox GB station}} is likely to be nominated again. It's certainly on "the list". --AussieLegend (✉) 11:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Redrose64, I need some help in my new user page. Would you mind giving me some guidance. Hope you don't mind that I also edited your user page! Hope yo like it! :)

Regards, Vincent60030 (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're fixing or removing content that goes against WP:UPNO, it's always a good idea to ask a user before editing their user page. I see that Xanthomelanoussprog (talk · contribs) reverted your edits, for which, Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Sorry I was a bit cack-handed doing it Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not asking your permission. So how was my edit? We're you satisfied with it, or in which part should I improve on? Vincent60030 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to my user page went against WP:OUTING. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your help to my endless requests! Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More crazy stuff I discovered: [1], [2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and... [3] Every article related to the Simpsons has this. Bgwhite (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Bgwhite's case first - {{ISBNT}} is a template, normally used where information is columnar and space is tight, such as a list of works by an author. It's not intended for use on citations, where only one ISBN should be given: that of the edition that was actually used to obtain information from. At the help pages dealing with citations, a common question is "my book has two ISBNs, how do I show the second?" Often these are merely the ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 variants of the same number; other times there are two ISBN-10 or two ISBN-13 present on the book's copyright page, because to save money, the printer used the same plates for paperback and hardback editions. We usually direct them to Template:Cite book#csdoc_isbn but that's not fully comprehensive - it's perhaps too long as it is.

As regards the cases spotted by Magioladitis (talk · contribs), something like [[ISBN]] [[Special:BookSources/978-0521875097|978-0521875097]] is what you get by typing [[ISBN]] manually, and following it with {{subst:ISBNT|978-0521875097}}. Since after saving it's no longer a template, it's not easily detectable; finding these is a job for AWB or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approx. 470 links to ISBN. Most of them can be fixed but there are so many crazy cases out there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am replacing regex \[\[ISBN\]\]\s\[\[Special\:BookSources[^\|]*\|([^]]*)\]\] with ISBN $1 and it works! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rev 10810 for the latter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For your contribution to the Cryptocurrency task force and the templates. Thank you! TheMagikCow (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in my notes at Talk:London Underground D78 Stock#Withdrawal. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redrose64, would you be able to tell me why the nonwiki thing keeps getting in to the article. What is nowiki? Mbcap (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbcap: There's a long-standing bug in Visual Editor, where it seems to insert <nowiki>...</nowiki> tag pairs at random positions. One of the earliest reports of the problem was over two years ago (when it was still on trial), but it seems that they've still not fixed it. This bug was one of the main reasons that there was so much outcry when the software was launched to the general audience in mid 2013.

The normal use of <nowiki>...</nowiki> (see WP:NOWIKI) is to force special characters to be displayed as-is, without being processed as markup. For example, if I put the word "example" inside two pairs of square brackets, I get a wikilink, like this: example - but if I want it to show as the actual characters, I put the whole construction inside <nowiki>...</nowiki>, like this: [[example]].

In general, nowiki is only used on talk pages and help pages, where it's often necessary to explain wiki markup. This is rarely required in mainspace articles, and so when it does happen, the edit is marked "(Tags: nowiki added, VisualEditor)" as in this edit. You're not the only person who does it: see this list, notice that Ibn Taymiyyah‎ is listed twice, at 00:34 and 03:54. If you click the "diff" link at the start of a row, you should spot the <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags somewhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The <nowiki> tag tells the software to treat what would be wiki-markup as a literal text string, e.g. '''bold'''. Adding these tags unnecessarily is a hallmark of several bugs with VisualEditor. From testing in my sandbox it seems that when splitting a paragraph, VisualEditor is inserting a leading space at the start of the new paragraph. A leading space normally produces pre-formatted text, e.g.

This line starts with a leading space.

But obviously you don't want that, so it adds the <nowiki> tags around the space so it is shown as a literal space character. I'll report this at WP:VE/F if it hasn't been already. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for explaining it so well. I will keep an eye on this when I am editing and try to delete it, when it creeps in again. I hope they fix it because without visual editor, a newbie like me would not know which way is up or down if I was to use wiki markup all the time. Mbcap (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the bug at WP:VE/F#Splitting a paragraph produces a nowikied leading space, if you could comment there with your browser and operating system that would help the developers identify where the issue is likely to be. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I have commented there by stating the OS and browser. If more elaboration is needed over at the VE, let me know. Mbcap (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		Thank you for all the help with the insects banner! Much appreciated! jonkerz ♠talk 15:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, two in 48 hours! --Redrose64 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about removing sortkey, I think you added it while I was editing and I must have skipped it on "conflicting edits." Deunanknute (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deunanknute: If you look at the page history, you will see that on my edits, the edit summary begins with an arrow like this → which is followed by some text in grey; this is added automatically, and indicates an edit to a single section: the grey text is the name of the section, and the arrow is a link to that section. However, on your edits, there is no arrow or grey text, which means that you were editing the whole page. If you only need to make changes to one section, it's best to use the section's own edit link, this helps to avoid edit conflicts. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

railroads and advice
Thank you for quality articles on UK railways and stations, such as Hawkhurst Branch Line, for counseling and advice, for pointing out an overlooked problem, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! You deserve a red rose, but now you get a blue sapphire.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 383rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redrose64 – here is something new that I need help to figure what is happening: at some point late on 3 February or early on the 4th, 24 superfluous project pages began to appear in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. The first three entries in that cat are always there, but the 24 entries under "W" are all new. Questions are – 1) why are they all closed deletion discussions, 2) why have all of them been relisted at least once, and 3) how can they appear in that category and not have that category appear at the bottoms of their pages? And one more, why just these 24 project pages and no others? I'm at a loss to understand; I monitor that category almost daily to rid it of entries that someone has mistagged, but I don't see how those 24 project pages are making into that maintenance category. Please tell me what I'm missing, and thank you in advance for any light you can shed. – Paine  02:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: This sounds very much like the problem reported at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2015 January 31#User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica. Checking, I see that these AfD pages are all listed as being in mainspace so this is definitely the same problem. There is a phabricator ticket for this, where you will see that in the comment by Anomie of Mon, Feb 2, 4:30 PM, that the problem is somewhat wider than these AFDs, all of which are listed (the order seems random: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wo_sukuu_kai is near the top, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yosi_Sergant near the bottom). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks pretty gnarly – pages that look to us as if they're in one namespace, but to a computer look as if they're in a different namespace – real "Twilight Zone". So, odd effect from a recent software change? sabotage? what? – Paine  15:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to read that phab ticket to get the whole story. It looks like a software bug though. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is a user's common.js page that has managed to wind up in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. There is no indication on that page that it is in the category. I left an inquiry on the user's talk page. Do you think this might be related to the above? – Paine  09:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: It's a feature of the MediaWiki parser that code on a JavaScript page that looks like a MediaWiki template is processed as if it were an actual template, and so the page appears in the WhatLinksHere list for that template, and the template is also expanded to process any categories that it sets. Did this edit by Plantdrew (talk · contribs) help? Another way would be to split the double brace so that it becomes two separate single braces, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the comment added by Plantdrew removed that editor's common.js file from CAT:WRONG. Industrial-strength weird. Thank you once again for your help! – Paine  08:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help out here as well: Rucha Gujarathi was created today, and the editor has tried to redirect Rucha Gujarati. Thanks. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a simple revert job, because AKS.9955 (talk · contribs) has continued editing on the new name. It needs a history merge, so I've added a {{db-histmerge|Rucha Gujarati}}, hopefully somebody like Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) will fix it up within the day; in the meantime, I've served a {{subst:uw-cutpaste|Rucha Gujarati|to=Rucha Gujarathi}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks if I created some confusion. Earlier page name was incorrect and I was not aware about the "move page" so I performed that action. New page has the same contents but the table and contents have been improved. My apologies for the confusion. How can the page history be merged? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and there is far too much difference, so a history merge would be inappropriate, so I've withdrawn the {{db-histmerge}}. I've undone this edit - @AKS.9955: what I suggest you do now is make appropriate changes on the original page, Rucha Gujarati. When you have added the new content that you had been putting on Rucha Gujarathi, edit that page to add {{db-author}} at the top. Once it's deleted, a proper page move may be performed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied Sirs, just bear with me for some more time. I am putting {{db-author}} on the new page and making changes to the original page. Once when you Gents delete the new page, I will request a merge. Trust this should be in line. I will drop a message here once done. Sorry again. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I put {{db-author}} on top of Rucha Gujarathi. Can you please check if that is in order? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Friends, thanks for your time. User:Anthony Appleyard moved the page and fixed everything. Sorry again if I caused any confusion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking t time to revert my edits. However as far as the Scooby Doo films go, I wasn't being unconstructive then. Stage Fright's plot was not an issue for over a year, that is why I made my edits. Same as FrankenCreepy. Feel free to discuss on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.128.80 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts or not, if you have a need for recording London area railway related OR in the wikiverse, (or wish to check through the articles in the absence of TV) feel free to use the wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to the answer I gave some months ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the comments in {{orphan}}. They were just "notes to myself" when I was working on hiding the orphan templates – perhaps the most complex template coding I've done to date. I think they're harmless, and may help others understand the coding, but won't object if you remove them. For a while I was racking my brains trying to figure out why the bullets didn't line up. I finally gave up, as none of Wikipedia's technical elite had an answer for that. The solution is perhaps in browser coding; if so we wait for fixes to Chrome and Internet Explorer. See template talk:orphan § Testing, where the issue was discussed over a year ago. Template:Orphan/testcases shows that despite your removing three newlines, the problem is still there. I tried removing more in the sandbox, but no luck. - Wbm1058 (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PDreczko (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PDreczko: Why have you placed this box here? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, have only just tried to understand Wikipedia. Left this as a message but now realise I should have left it in my Talk Page. I am trying to add this info to the page regarding Meon Valley (UK Parliament constituency)but it is not a case of just adding text as the template is semi protected.Sorry again that I am asking this in the wrong place. Could you help by telling me who can add the info to the template please? PDreczko (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PDreczko: The {{Election box candidate with party link}} template is semi-protected, yes; but that is not where you should be adding information about a candidate. The article Meon Valley (UK Parliament constituency) is not protected, and I expect that you need to edit the section headed "Elections in the 2010s". --Redrose64 (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I'd come across the ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10 template, and because of a lack of documentation on it, I'd assumed that it couldn't take a |page= value - I should have looked at the source (but not all editors would do that...).

I also thought that it was a little bit restricted in that it couldn't be used when listing the report in the list of sources when using shortened footnotes because it includes <ref>...</ref>. This is different for the usual style of rail book citation templates (and also it is less obvious what the template is doing for a less experienced editor coming across it).

As a result, I made a start on creating a new draft template (at User:Robevans123/sandbox/Template:ATOC Connecting Communities Report). I'd appreciate your comments.

If it's OK, I'll move the changes into the ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10 template. BTW I think my choice of name is a bit easier to read, but maybe that could be done later. Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW there are at least two articles (Ashington railway station and Blyth railway station) that are at least halfway to using shortened footnotes, and would thus benefit from using {{ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10}}, but without the surrounding ref functionality. Robevans123 (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been thinking about that. Something along the lines of making the enclosing <ref>...</ref> tags (which are generated by the {{#tag:ref|...}} parser function) conditional. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting - well beyond my current template editing expertise! However, I do think that just removing the <ref>...</ref> part would then make the template work in exactly the same way as all templates in Category:Rail transport book citation templates and Category:Rail transport external link citation templates which all (I think - I've not checked them all...) just use {{cite book}} or {{cite web}} without the surrounding ref functionality. Robevans123 (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I simply remove the {{#tag:ref|...}} coding, that will leave a bare {{cite web}}, so we would then need to go through all of these pages adding the <ref>...</ref> otherwise the citation will appear in the text, not in the refs. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my |p= mistakes to |page= - that was stupid of me.

Yes - I foresaw that problem and had been thinking about it. One solution would be to upload my draft User:Robevans123/sandbox/Template:ATOC Connecting Communities Report into template space and then go through the articles on the list changing from the old template to the new (and adding <ref>...</ref>). I'm planning to sweep through the list once more anyway (to add page numbers if I can find the appropriate page in the report, and also to wikilink to the article where it's actually mentioned - been done on some pages but I was going check all the pages on the list). Doing the change like this would have the advantage that no articles would be left in a comprising position, even for a short time.

It would also have the advantage of improving the template name (the S10 part of the name seems a bit superfluous being related to the file name and not the report title), and all the templates in Category:Rail transport external link citation templates use spaces, although the ones in Category:Rail transport book citation templates do use a mix of styles of dashes, spaces, and CamelCase... I think the template probably does belong in Category:Rail transport external link citation templates as they all use {{cite web}}, rather than Category:Rail transport book citation templates which (I think ) all use {{cite book}}. Certainly the current template {{ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10}} sitting alone in Category:Templates for references seems a bit odd. BTW I'm not opposed to CamelCase (having worked in the computer industry for many years I'm familiar with it, and sometimes use it myself when scripting), but it does seem to be something that trips up people who are not familiar with it.

Sorry to nag on about naming styles, but still being a relatively new editor, I still remember the mass of templates etc. that you have to get to grips with as you're finding your way round Wikipedia...

I do believe that the purpose of current template (by including <ref>...</ref> and so hiding it from the editor) would not be obvious to someone coming fresh to the article, but if the <ref>...</ref> syntax was visible an experienced railway editor would "get it" straight away, and a newbie editor would at least recognise that it had something to do with referencing. It does seem unusual to have a citation template that includes <ref>...</ref> - I'm sure there are some but I don't think I've come across any yet...

Again, switching templates would also have the advantage of easily using the new template in lists of sources without any need for additional conditional syntax.

After all articles have had their templates switched the old template could be deleted (which would keep PotW happy).

I'm happy to do the work if you think this is a good way to go. Feel free to edit my draft template if you want to change the name, documentation, or include the recent tweaks to functionality you made to {{ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10}}.

Sorry this is a bit long-winded for a template that probably won't be used much again (although I am going to also check through whether there are any articles covering the "Other potential [not proposed] links" identified in Appendix C of the report would benefit from a reference), but I do believe that anything that makes the source text for articles more comprehensible is a "Good Thing". Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robevans123: Ooh, a lot to read - I'll do that later. But try adding |reftags=no

• "Connecting Communities – Expanding Access to the Rail Network" (PDF). London: Association of Train Operating Companies. June 2009. Retrieved 7 September 2018.

No <ref>...</ref> - instead, there's a harmless <span>...</span> --Redrose64 (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neat trick - just saw it. Sorry for the long winded diatribe - I'll leave you to read it at your leisure... Robevans123 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I amended it to |reftags=no, because |ref= might be taken in relation to |ref=harv and similar. But you can use {{harv|ATOC|2009|p=9}} → (ATOC 2009, p. 9) etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - I was thinking how it would work with shortened footnotes and you fixed it!Robevans123 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used it at Ashington railway station - works a treat. Also experimented with changing the sfn ref name which worked well. Even experimented with using <ref>{{ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10|page=19|reftags=no}}</ref> to create a reference - which is a bit perverse, but does show that it is a ref in the source... Robevans123 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no facility for changing the sfn ref name - if it "worked well", it was by coincidence. The template has |ref={{sfnref|ATOC|2009}} hardcoded. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How silly of me. I made the vanilla change to Ashington railway station and previewed it (all fine), tried changing the sfn ref name and previewed it (thought it worked but obviously it didn't), then only half returned to my original edits (and didn't preview before saving - oops & sorry). Robevans123 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robevans123: Notice that Barnstaple railway station, which has two instances of {{ATOCConnectingCommunitiesReportS10}} previously combined them into one ref numbered 2 (a and b) in this revision but your addition of two different |page= params means that the refs are now separate, nos. 2 & 3. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - this [4] is cleaner. Robevans123 (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entering "Sociopathy" into Wikipedia redirects to the Sociopathy section of the Psychopathy page. However, entering "Sociopath" redirects and halts on the "Sociopathy" redirect. This appears to be the Feb. 12, 2015 changes by Redrose64 (you) and R'n'B. Perhaps, set up "Sociopath" to redirect directly like "Sociopathy" and "Psychopath," both of which function correctly. Unfortunately, these redirects are semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.24.220 (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the venue to discuss where the redirect should point. Please take this to the talk page where discussion has previously been conducted, i.e. Talk:Sociopath. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the double redirect — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: That redirect has been the subject of controversial changes. If it cannot be resolved at its own talk page, it's a WP:RFD matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I'm not entering into it! I just fixed the double redirect, which in my opinion, the software should take care of automatically. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a new (and undocumented) parameter?

As a matter of interest, what does it matter? I mean, is the list worthwhile, or just a list for its own sake?

BTW, can you confirm that the return from {{#property}} for coordinates has minutes (seconds) in pairs, i.e. they're either both there or neither. And that seconds implies minutes, so returned format is Z9°[Z9′[Z9″]]A, ZZ9°[Z9′[Z9″]]B
A is N or S, B is E or W -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Thu 08:59, wikitime= 00:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbuttered Parsnip: I think that you misread this edit. The parameter is not |at_sec= but |lat_sec= - seconds of latitude, and it is not a new parameter: it has been part of {{location map~}} since the template was created in June 2007.

When coordinates are specified, the latitude and longitude should be given to the same precision; thus, where seconds of longitude are specified, in this case the |lon_sec= parameter, there also needs to be seconds of latitude, the |lat_sec= parameter, and vice versa - if either is present without the other, the page is placed in hidden Category:Location maps with different longitude and latitude precisions. I removed the page from that category by adding the missing parameter, I used a zero value because I don't know of the exact value, and for an island it's probably not particularly critical, since one second of arc is about 31 metres, see WP:OPCOORD. I could have removed the article from the category by removing the three instances of |lon_sec= - but I decided to go with the majority, since of the sixteen islands, twelve had the coordinates given to degrees, minutes and seconds; just one had the coordinates given to degrees and minutes only; and three were in error.

I don't know how Wikidata handles coordinates in general; I do know that d:Q806973 has just one pair of coordinates, which is to degrees and minutes. I don't know if this is for the island group in general, or one specific island. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's very small writing on my phone! --Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 20:40, wikitime= 12:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Ongoing Help Award
	Thank you for your ongoing help with directing people to useful resources and relevant help pages at WP:VPT and other pages. You help people find the information that they need, and Wikipedia is a better place because of people like you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you As it happens, yesterday I checked this page for the first time in months, and I found that VPT is by far my most-edited page - 3101 edits, with second place being this page, 1469 edits; third and fourth are Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways with 593 and User:Redrose64 with 589. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that it's the main page for you, but your helpfulness is evident on many pages. Thank you. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm the same person as 86.41.154.1 and 86.40.176.99, did you notice! now go continue your love life with oranjblud 86.40.179.32 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of waiting for action, and unable to make sense of info snippets offered, I have developed {{ParseWDCoords}} which will do that job. I'd like to hear any thoughts from you before I go fully public (or not). Examples are in Madridejos, Cebu and Bantayan Airport. -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sat 08:12, wikitime= 00:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbuttered Parsnip: This is the sort of thing that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates or perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64, Rather than simply blanking info and leaving a cryptic message, why not just move the info? Acad Ronin (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acad Ronin: Using the |thumb option for images in the infobox (such as at HMS Acheron (1803) and HMS Arrow (1796)) is undesirable, see Help:Infobox picture#My image is displayed, but is inside an extra frame. As for the somewhat lengthy caption, see WP:CAPTION; in particular, it shouldn't be necessary to credit either the artist or the collection. This information should be held on the file description page, where it is easily obtainable by clicking the image. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64, I take your point about using captions rather than the thumb function. I disagree, regardless of WP:CAPTION, with not including both the artist and the NMM. One of the marvels of Wikipedia is that someone can click on links that catch their fancy. I want to make it as easy as possible for someone to look up the artist. As for the NMM, they specifically request that users of their images credit them. However, my greatest issue with your action was that you simply blanked the caption, instead of cutting it out and pasting it into the line below. You saved no work for yourself, and made extra work for me. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a final warning. Banhammer case now unlocked. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the last participant in the Category:Level crossing accidents in the United States CFD, I suggested that it be renamed to Category:Railroad crossing accidents in the United States instead of the proposed Category:Grade crossing accidents in the United States. An admin closed the proposal as "move to Grade crossing...", but he also noted that another CFD regarding my proposal would be a valid option, so I've nominated Grade crossing accidents in the USA for renaming to Railroad crossing accidents in the USA. Please visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 5 and offer your opinion, if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have an email Redrose64. TheGGoose (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheGGoose: My email provider decided that it was spam. Please note that I do not discuss Wikipedia matters off-wiki, except at organised meetups. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, this has been handled. TheGGoose (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Biota Tag at Biota of South America) - not sure what I was thinking there - there was a vague memory of a separate project that handled biota related subjects.. thanks for the revert - will have to go back to what I was thinking there.satusuro 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SatuSuro: It was showing at Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates. Some of the banners listed there were clearly typos - such as WikiProject_Theatreclass=B for WikiProject_Theatre|class=B; some were vandalism (like WikiProject_afghanistan, see this edit); and some I couldn't explain, so rather than simply removing, I reverted the edit that added them, knowing that the person who added it would be informed. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was from about 6 or 7 years ago some eds I had a lot to do with then were extensively expanding the biota part of the australian project. As it is I have found a miserably under-maintained project the subject that this is related to... sigh... satusuro 11:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tools.wmflabs.org can use templates from en.wikipedia.org? I find that rather concerning, since there appears to be no way to tell that a template is used on labs. --  Gadget850 ^talk 21:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to tell either, except that some years ago I was informed - I think by RHaworth (talk · contribs) - how to amend the mapping services used by coordinates. When you click coordinates, there are some links in the left margin, and the four below "Views" all relate to Template:GeoTemplate. -- Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only purpose of template:GeoTemplate is to be used by geohack.php. I have edited the talk page to make this clearer. Why should this be a concern? I do not know of any similar templates — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth: The matter arose during this TfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now I learned something new. Thanks. --  Gadget850 ^talk 12:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 135#Suppressing Infobox Person

 :P --RexxS (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were recently reverting an editor who was making bulk changes to UK placenames, or rather changing them to something other than what they were originally. There was a discussion and resulting consensus on this here which can be used to inform people that such changes are against consensus. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the consensus was that placenames should be left basically as they are, i.e. not changed at all. The articles you're reverting are not being reverted to their previous state, i.e. instead of saying "Cornwall, UK", they now all say "Cornwall, England", which is the kind of thing the consensus was aimed at avoiding, as it encourages edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it is redundant to name both England and United Kingdom (or UK), especially if Cornwall is linked - anybody who does not know where Cornwall is (and there must be billions) can click the link and find out. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of people think it isn't redundant and no agreement was reached on it. That discussion came about exactly because of this kind of problem. Someone adds "UK" everywhere, another person takes "UK" off, someone else takes "England" off and so on ad infinitum. The consensus (and up to now it had worked very well) was that bulk changes to placenames should cease. None of them are wrong and there is no "right way" to show UK placenames, so trying to enforce uniformity is unconstructive. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind whether "England" or "United Kingdom" is used; but it's pointless to add either of them if the other is already present. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which is what Serpren was doing, and I left a note on his talk page since he seems to do it quite a lot. I find that quite a few people like to change placenames to suit their own preference and the "leave things as you find them" concept plus a link to the consensus works very well. Some editors are extremely touchy about it and I'm sure you can imagine the sort of carnage these arguments can cause. It's probably a fool's errand to get people to leave UK placenames alone, but I think it's worth it to try. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you buy Heritage Railway magazine? In the current issue (No.199, p84), there is a letter about a L&G locomotive being installed in a vessel that was used on an arctic survey in 1848. However, the name of the ship claimed to be the recipient does not tally with the article on said ship (HMS Hecla (1815)). The book London's First Railway: The London and Greenwich by R H G Thomas is quoted as a source. Mjroots (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the above, I'm confusing myself. It was HMS Erebus (1826)! Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Mjroots: I don't take that magazine - Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) might though. What I do have is

• Bradley, D.L. (September 1985) [1963]. The Locomotive History of the South Eastern Railway (2nd ed.). London: RCTS. pp. 57–58. ISBN 0-901115-48-7. OCLC 642415860.

which says that the London & Greenwich bought four 2-2-0 Planet-type locos from William Marshall & Sons, named Royal William, Royal Adelaide, Dottin (after the L&G Chairman) and Twells (after the L&G Deputy Chairman), later numbered 1-4 in September 1837 and of these, no. 4 "was also rebuilt [as a 2-2-2], probably in 1842, and in March 1845 was purchased by the Admiralty and installed aboard HMS Erebus as an auxiliary engine to drive a screw propellor. In May 1845, this vessel, in company with HMS Terror similarly equipped with an ex-London & Birmingham Railway engine (probably their No. 27) sailed under the command of Sir John Franklin to search for the North West Passage". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you make the necessary correction to the HMS Terror article please? Mjroots (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some doubt about that, see

• Jack, Harry (2001). Greenwood, William (ed.). Locomotives of the LNWR Southern Division. Sawtry: RCTS. p. 101. ISBN 0-901115-89-4.

where several reasons are given that the engine installed in Terror was not L&BR no. 27, not least of which is its listing as an engine for sale on 5 May 1848 - two weeks after Terror was abandoned. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64, quick message. On Template talk:WikiProject Biography, I removed the category not because I had been lazy and just not fixed the issue, I just hadn't realised that it might have been there because someone had posted a link to it in the talk. I had assumed it was just a one-time problem with the actual template itself at the top of the talk page, and so I could fix that by removing the category. I used hot cat, so didn't actually see what I had deleted. I should have checked changes before pressing to save my edit. I apologise, I just wanted to clear any misunderstanding. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk)

I don't suppose I could get some advice. I've been improving Marshlink Line a little bit, and in my opinion the template showing the railway line is just far too wide - taking up what looks like half the real estate on screen. Is there any way of shrinking it down and giving it a sense of proportion? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things that affect the width of an RDT: one is the longest item of text on the right, the other is the number of cells defined for the actual diagram. This is not the number of occupied cells, but the potential number; so if the diagram uses predominantly {{BS}} but with a few bigger ones, it's the bigger ones that define the width for the whole diagram. In this case there were six instances of {{BS9}} so the diagram was 9 cells wide, even though the widest part (Lydd Camp down to New Romney and Littlestone-on-Sea) occupied five cells. In order to keep the main line straight, and accommodate the two projections to the left, six cells in total are needed; so I recounted each row, to use {{BS6}} where necessary but {{BS4}} where possible. I then shortened some text and reduced the size of another text item. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That looks a lot better. One of the other question - what causes inline thumb images to only start below the infobox? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that they start below the infobox, but that they start below the upper edge of {{Marshlink Line RDT}}, and that is forced down by the infobox. If you move that diagram down to a position after the images, the images will float higher up. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more question - the diagram shows two bridge crossings of the A2070, but none of the level crossings with the A259, which at least one book source claims was a key reason the line never shut. Is this just an editorial oversight, or do we not normally document road and footpath crossings (presumably due to the abundance of them?) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road crossings are contentious. Some hold that none should be included, since railway RDTs should show rail features; others try to include as much as possible, which can make them unwieldy (compare that with the current version). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that situation (like most things I do around here) I would avoid hard and fast rules and go back to the basics of only including non-rail crossings if reliable sources document them as being important. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This particular station has the name shown above rather than of just Morebath Junction (which is the name of the main railway station Wikipedia article heading), even though the article itself refers to the name of the station as Morebath Station Halt.

I note that you reverted my amendment as redinks are said to have been created by my amendement but may I ask why the name of the article itself cannot be changed to the correct name of Morebath Junction Halt, which would obviate any such error.

Medically, I am most unwell at present and it appears that another mini-stroke has just bee averted by my daily drugs medication.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it was before. The link is blue: it goes to a page that exists. After your edit, the link became red. You could have moved the page yourself, if it was named incorrectly. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your very prompt reply. What I would like you to do, if you are able, is to change the actual name (Morebath Junction) of the main Wikipedia article to read the correct name of Morebath Junction Halt, which would have left my original amendment as correct. Sorry to have taken so long to respond but I have been having a further series of blood and associated tests at Macclesfield Hospital and have only just returned home.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the page move feature to give the article a new name. I've had blood tests too, going back more than five years: my C-reactive protein count was 77 mg/L and it took the Churchill Hospital some months to decide that I had sarcoidosis, but they still want more. Six or eight little tubes each visit, with variously-coloured caps - pale green, lilac, dark red ... --Redrose64 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say thanks for helping me fix up the Delphine Software International article. 24.180.56.157 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing my error in HTML. It's a big deal for me even though you might think it's not. That IP editor might have discouraged from editing Wikipedia after noticing that I reverted his useful edit. I should slap myself if I hastily revert IP edits again. Chamith (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the edit/diff on the scottish railway station was v helpful - thanks for that... satusuro 14:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on Purple Awareness Ribbon edit = Trisomy 18. I was reading about protected edits and trying to introduce this around our edit. Am I mistaken about that option? Is this something I can accomplish myself in Edit mode? Confused Redrose 64. Any guidance appreciated. Trisomy18Foundation (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Trisomy18Foundation: Sometimes, when you wish to edit a particular page, you find that you cannot do so because the page is protected. In such cases, the {{edit protected}} template is used to request that somebody with an appropriate user right make the edit on your behalf.

If the page is not protected (as in the case of List of awareness ribbons, whose last protection expired 16:33, 6 November 2014), there is no need to use {{edit protected}}, and doing so will place an unnecessary entry in the list of outstanding protected edit requests. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re my attempt to open an RfC. Hi. Was it my commentabout how long the info has been on a page. Sorry - it is the first time I have raised an RfC.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: You edited the template {{Rfc}}, as a result of which your comment was appearing on over 100 pages which were of no relevance. To comment on an existing RfC, follow these instructions. To start a new RfC, follow these instructions. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DrChrissy: You did it again. Please don't. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...Yikes! Really sorry! Will look at the instructions again! Do I need to do anything to delete/redact these messages?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that, by reverting you (twice). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that ...I promise I won't send you any 3R messages ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again at the last meet-up. To celebrate our beer tasting on the day, there is now an article, By The Horns, complete with images. Edwardx (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose. I've replied on my talk page. Thanks for (very diplomatically) pointing this out. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IP, which you blocked, has been using talk page inappropriately. Wondering if you wanted to revoke TPA, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I've had that talk page deleted under WP:CSD#G10 twice already; this third creation is by far the mildest, which is why I left it. This is not the only IP that the perp has used: consider the contribs of 86.41.154.1 (talk) (from 2 November 2014); 86.40.176.99 (talk) (from 31 December 2014); 86.40.179.32 (talk) (from 27 February 2015); and 86.41.246.249 (talk) (from 13 March 2015), and you'll see that they are indiscriminately reverting Oranjblud's edits. The edit summaries imply a personal dispute or vendetta against Oranjblud (talk · contribs), but I can't work out the motivation. Whether Oranjblud made good or bad edits in the first place is, to me, immaterial: the problem is the disruption caused by these reversions. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do need your help and assistance upon a certain matter. The template quite correctly shows the terminal station of Wigan Central at the top of the template, as that indeed was the most northern station on this railway, being opened in 1892. The next closed station shown being that of Lower Ince.

The problem is that when the original line stations were opened in 1884, the northern terminus was that of Wigan Darlington Street. That station is not shown upon the template. Because of the not ideal situation occupied by Wigan Darlington Street, a half-mile northern extention was made in 1892 to the new terminal station of Wigan Central. The matter is clearly stated in the text matter of the "Disused Stations" entry for Wigan Central station which I quote as my source as requested.

From past discussions that you have had had with me in past days where my post-stroke condition has been mentioned, having looked at the rather frightening computer coding at the top of the "Edit" section, may I be so kind as to ask your good self to cause Wigan Darlington Street station to be entered upon the said template between Wigan Central and Lower Ince.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Sidorczuk: Am I right in thinking that Darlington Street is the station marked "G.C. Goods" on this map? The junction for that is shown as 39 chains south of "Central Pass G.C." - and 39 chains is only 22 yards less than half a mile. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the Railway Clearing House diagram link that you mention and indeed this this case where G.C.Goods is shown. It was similar in effect to where Manchester Oldham Road station is shown by Wikipedia on the Manchester and Leeds Railway template, where an original terminal station that once handled passenger traffic is shown and my comments used that as a precedent. I do so hope that Wigan Darlington Street can now be accorded the same historical honour by being shown as an entry upon the Wikipedia Wigan Junction Railways template. I trust that the source information that I originally submitted was of interest to you.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Sidorczuk:  Done, see Wigan Junction Railways and Template:Wigan Junction Railway. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Redrose64,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you posted to a feedback page for VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64,

I was wondering whether you could make / advise about making changes to Template:Infobox person as follows:

At the moment the:
Blank template with all parameters
reads:

...
| residence    = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  = 
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
|  citizenship  = 
...

Can this be reordered as follows?:

...
| residence    = 
|  citizenship  = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  =      (a section that I suspect is rarely used)
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
...

This has been up for discussion at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 24#Citizenship. I think that the reasoning makes sense but no responses were given. What do you think? GregKaye 16:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregKaye: The documentation is not protected, but please note that the order that named parameters (such as these five) are given is immaterial, they will display in the order defined by the template code. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I pressed view source in template tabs and got the text:

• "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
  

This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions."

Any other options? I may propose the change in proposals at the pump. GregKaye 18:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you get that message, you're trying to edit the template, not its documentation. At Template:Infobox person use the edit links that are within the green box headed "Template documentation". If you like, you can use the "[view]" link to the right of that heading first, that will take you to the doc page with all the usual edit tabs and links. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the fact that the Piccadilly Line is operating on outdated signalling equipment is a fact rather than something that is biased. The information is not verifiable via citation, but whilst Wikipedia would like citations for every fact, it just doesn't happen. It is, however, information that has been verified through speaking with the controller on 11 March which makes it considerably more verified than hearsay as information has been provided by a technical person on the staff. I don't think its appropriate to keep deleting my entry. I did remove the reference to Windows 3.0 not because that was not true, but because it seems to be a level of information that was not otherwise, elsewhere represented in the entry. How would you recommend I word it? Xintiandi (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a core policy. Neutral point of view is another. No original research is a third. Unless your proposed text satisfies all three of these, it doesn't belong. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Thankyou; but I live in Didcot, so those are too far for me. However, I am aware of all of them - have a look at m:User:Redrose64#Meetups and the pages linked from that, particularly this edit history, which is the queue for the Geonotices. But if you want to meet me, try any Oxford meetup - the next is 19 April 2015. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification points 1 and 4.2, I am seeking advice on this substantial [5] edit on Waverley Line. Discussion at Talk:Waverley Line please.--KlausFoehl (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KlausFoehl: I am aware of it - the evidence for that is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been accused of selective canvassing, hence the above notice going to all March talk page contributors. Apologies for the noise.--KlausFoehl (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanations. Several edit wars but staying within 3rr, and selectively erasing their traces on the talk page, that is part of an annoying pattern. Close, but just not enough to get the admins involved.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've started the first discussion about the TFD merge of Infobox closed London station and Infobox London Station. I just wanted to pick your brains, I've started the discussion at WikiProject UK Railways and I've notified WikiProject London Transport as well, are there any other rail projects that you think I should notify as interested parties? - X201 (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: Make sure that there are notifications at Template talk:Infobox London station and of course Template talk:Infobox closed London station. It wouldn't hurt to drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations. Not sure if Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains would be overkill. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can't believe I forgot about notifying the Template pages. - X201 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose64,

I understand you and I are going through this problem on the List of programs broadcast by Qubo. You and I worked hard correcting all the mistakes. Just letting you know 173.50.64.195 was responsible for all the vandalism on the Qubo page. The Qubo schedule change recently happened this Monday, but someone put the information in the future in which it did not happen yet. I do not know where this person get the information. In the past, List of programs broadcast by Qubo page was blocked and vandalized so therefore only people with wikipedia accounts were allowed to edit the page. Thank you for contributing the Qubo page and your hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbears22 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbears22: My edit was to remove the {{pp-vandalism}}, which was no longer applicable because the protection had expired at 14:38, 6 March 2015; restoring this template will not re-protect the page: instead, you need to request a fresh protection at WP:RFPP. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Redrose64 for the instructions that you gave me to report this issue. This is the first time I tried this and I hope they accept my comments referring to List of programs broadcast by Qubo page. I have explained to them about the history of the Qubo page being vandalized and people putting in false information on the page. Cbears22 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:APRIL and WP:FOOLS. Please note that I took special care not to have the nomination show on transcluded pages and the entire nomination decked in {{humor}} and {{april fools}} templates. And besides, it's not a namespace page. --w^{L<speak·check>} 19:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLeon: I don't care what namespace it's in, nor what silly templates you put on the nomination. Friviolity has no place in what is supposed to be a serious project to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. We get enough bad press as it is: don't make it worse. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I know you've left a few messages around the place about this sort of thing before, so you seem the best person to turn too. I've noticed that List of the verified oldest people does not display properly on mobile due to depreciated elements (namely bgcolor), however when I attempted to change it to background-color: #XXXXXX;, as per WP:HTML5, it didn't want to play ball. Am I missing something obvious? Thanks in advance, Mdann52 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: I don't see any recent edits (going back to 1 April) to that page where background-color: ... was used, so I can't check how you did it. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't save the edits, as it just stripped all the colour away from the table. I'm on limited internet at the moment, I'll try and recreate it in a sandbox when I can. Mdann52 (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - could I bring Talk:Northern Rail#Fleetlistto your attention? User:Epm-84 keeps insisting that "seats per unit" column is kept in the fleetlist - despite the fact none of the other current TOC articles list this information (which he says isn't a valid reason for its removal). My position on that is: the information is available from other articles/sources and it makes the first column look cramped. I've given him an example of where subclass capacity variances occur on other articles - but this point was ignored

He also accused me of vandalising the article when all I did was remove the capacity column. Needless to say - I wasn't too pleased about that. I'm not sure how it works - but could WP:OWN be applicable here? I just get the impression unless the fleetlist isn't how he wants it he changes it - he's even bizarrely suggested removing the "routes" column (which has been included for at least five years) to accommodate his information in order to stop the first column being too narrow. He seems to be the only contributor of the article that wants to have such information included because whenever I've removed it - he's the only one that puts it back in again

Just wondering what help you can offer - because if I keep taking that column out he'll just keep putting it back in. Cheers - Coradia175 (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Coradia175: I'm aware - I was mentioned at User talk:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered#Northern Rail talk article. Best place to discuss is Talk:Northern Rail, where I see that JamesSteamPacket (talk · contribs) started a thread at 01:30, 27 March 2015 - but you should ensure that WT:UKRAIL are aware, possibly also WT:RAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I didn't notice - I apologise. It was me who started the thread - I changed my username shortly after starting that topic. Thanks for your advice - I will let WT:UKRAIL know and see what the best course of action is. Coradia175 (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I removed it because I though Rose doesn't support the sentence like the one you said at Upminster Bridge. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent60030: Have you got Rose? It gives plenty of information about the introduction and withdrawal of services, with a full set of dates for every station and stretch of line, but it says nothing at all about whether services were steam or electric. Against this green (District) stretch of line, it says "services resumed BARKING to UPMINSTER 12.9.1932", which directly supports the statement in the Upminster station article "services of the District resumed to Upminster in 1932". The ref is therefore valid. Please don't remove refs unless you have checked them yourself, and found that they do not support any of the preceding material. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:Nope, I haven't got the book. I tried to read it online but there is no online version sadly. :( Vincent60030 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not online; and it's also not a book. It's a big fold-out map, 1,000 by 707.1 millimetres (39.4 in × 27.8 in) (B1 size) very much inspired by the London Underground Diagram. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, thanks for letting me know. Btw, can you take a look at the Did you Know suggestions for the Wikiproject? It has some backlog. :p Vincent60030 (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Slambo (talk · contribs) normally handles those. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean the DYK for Portal:UK Railways and it's suggestion page? No, I spend my portal editing time keeping Portal:Trains as current as I can. I haven't had too many suggestions for that page's DYK entries in a while, and usually end up scanning through the unassessed articles for candidates. I do, however, include entries within WP:UKRAIL's scope on Portal:Trains frequently, such as the current selected article, Angel tube station. Slambo (Speak) 16:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!
I had that idea and I added it at WT:TH. But it went unnoticed. So I went to WP:VP. There I was asked to go to WP:BOTREQ. So what was I supposed to do if other editors asked me to discuss it at other places? Not arguing just asking
Should I delete it at other locations or?
And where will get a help for this idea?
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 10:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: You posted at VPT at 05:01, 7 April 2015 - just over thirteen hours after you posted at Teahouse (15:59, 6 April 2015). In Wikipedia terms, that is quite a short time, since different people are in different time zones; and some are only available for short periods. People might have been visiting friends or relatives - 6 April 2015 was a public holiday in the UK, for instance.

Don't start any more threads, wait for replies. Only give up if it's more than a week. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. And I was unaware of the holiday in UK! But as I mentioned, if another editor asks me to post it over some where, I must follow him or not?
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 14:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is not to conduct the same discussion in more than one place. Starting a discussion is good, but to post the same question in a second place can be confusing, especially for people that are aware of only one of them. You get two or more sets of replies, which may contradict each other; those leaving the replies may be unaware of that. Rather than start a second discussion, leave a note linking back to the original. This is covered at WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but now I must wait at least for a week. Isn't it
aGastya  ✉ let's have a constructive talk about it (: 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm a bit new to the whole wiki editing thing but I can't understand why an edit I made to a page providing an example, via a youtube video, was reverted. The video clearly demonstrates the rather strange noise made by the class 444, and 450, units. So where does the problem lay please?

Cheers,

Trainspots Editor