User talk:Redrose64

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) 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

Removal at RfC Closure

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

RfC matter

Hi

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

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

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

1. NOTFORUM is not a part of the items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derivative work on sport current events

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

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

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

October harvest

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

rendering bug for flag of trondheim

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

liverpool Central High level

Hi RedRose

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121

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

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

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

Roll back bot class 322

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

Template parameter use question

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

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

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

Thank you

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

Comment

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

The Daleks

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

Um... live long and prosper?

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

Sorry, my bad. For clarity:

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

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

Mainline45

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

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

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

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

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

Apologies

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Chad Wolf RfC

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

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

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

Nomination for merging of Template:Hover title

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

Class 170 lead text

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

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

Sorry for not checking

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

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

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

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

Heathrow express page

Hi

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

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

Many thanks

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

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

Heathrow_Express

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

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

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

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

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

All the best

Hi Redrose64,

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

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

Spelling Corrections

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

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

TfW heading in wrong place in British railway rolling stock

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

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

Class 387

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes for the holidays

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

Merry Merry!

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

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

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

Season's Greetings

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

Strickland / Class 47

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

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

Various batches differed as shown

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

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

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

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

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

RfC brief

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

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

Just a word

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

Happy New Year!

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

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

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

Category:Meridiano de Oro Awards has been nominated for listification

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

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

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

Sigs and RFCs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

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