Jump to content

User talk:Redrose64

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 146.198.123.102 (talk) at 21:10, 3 March 2021 (→142023 is at the Plym Valley Railway, https://www.facebook.com/PlymValleyRailway/posts/3629386343840534: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Season's Greetings

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [1] [2] [3], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: Why are you informing me, and not the page's creator? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that was my intent but I misread the edit history. Thanks for the ping! - RevelationDirect (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I see the benefit of adding the user name. GiantSnowman 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which was not required per WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sdrqaz has affirmed their original choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Izno: I take full responsibility for not putting my signature on the vote, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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)[reply]

Dartmouth Steam Railway

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

OK, so they're not journal articles. That doesn't mean that you should switch those two refs to {{citation}}, because the article as it was didn't use {{citation}} at all (which is WP:CS2): it used {{cite book}} six times, {{cite journal}} twice and {{cite web}} six times - and all of these are WP:CS1. You shouldn't mix CS1 and CS2 in the same article, and switching from one to the other without consensus is a WP:CITEVAR problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Setting {{citation|mode=cs1}} (vice versa for any of the CS1 templates) will make it render as CS1, so that alone should rarely be used as a reason for a revert. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NHSavage: To your last sentence: {{citation}} doesn't mean "I can't work out which one is best", if you're stuck you can post at Help talk:CS1, where the CS1/2 experts hang out (including Trappist the monk (talk · contribs) who knows more about these templates than almost anyone else). But these sources are titled "DVLR Report and Accounts" and "DVR Report and Accounts", and at WP:CS1#General use I see that {{cite report}} is part of the CS1 family, so you can do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having done some more homework on the citation templates, I now realise that they are different styles (which I didn't before) and I agree that I made a mistake there. I don't plan to do any more on this article. I simply wanted to alert you to the fact that as they are, they are incorrect - you can't use cite journal without stating which journal these use. I will leave it there.NHSavage (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could you just check the following articles are correct please and the services.

Hi RedRose64, hope you been well. I am just wondering if you or someone could spare a little time looking at the articles of Doncaster (York Road) railway station and Wath North railway station.

I added the services on there and I understand no passenger services ever ran on the line but the stations were on a railway map. I got from here:

https://spellerweb.net/rhindex/UKRH/HBR/Braithwell.html .

Could you just check it is reliable and that the line and stations are all correct. If not please let me know and I can spend time fixing them.

Kind regards

RailwayJG (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this seems unlikely: not only were these stations several miles apart, they were on different lines with no direct connection between them. Following the spellerweb link you give above, it has no mention of Wath North whatsoever, but does mention Doncaster York Road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RailwayJG: Looking into this more deeply, there seems to be some confusion, partly on your part. In your post above, you refer to Wath North railway station but I cannot see how this is relevant, perhaps you intended this to be Warmsworth railway station.
Our article Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway seems to mix up two different lines with slightly different names.
First, the portion shown in yellow on this junction diagram was the central of three sections of the Rotherham, Maltby & Laughton Railway. This was authorised on 4 August 1905, the central section was placed in the newly-created Great Central and Hull & Barnsley Joint Committee on 20 July 1906, which became the Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Committee on 9 August 1907; the line was completed in 1910 but not brought into use until April 1914. The outer two sections (dashed pink and green) were always Great Central and Midland Joint Committee.
On the same diagram, the line shown going off "to Carlton" from Northern Junction is the Gowdall & Braithwell Railway; this was originally to be a part of the Hull & Barnsley Railway, but in 1910 the unbuilt line was transferred to a newly-created Hull & Barnsley and Great Central Joint Committee (note the different order of names compared to the previous entity). Construction began in 1911 and was completed in 1916 - being under construction at the time the diagram was prepared, it is shown dashed pink/purple/white/white. This line had five stations (including Doncaster (York Road) and Warmsworth), all built for passengers and goods - but no timetabled passenger service was ever operated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RedRose64 that's cleared it up a bit more. Funny there was two Hull and Barnsley Railway companies at the time. Wath North was only mentioned as I think it was the terminus of a branch line from the Hull and Barnsley Line hence why I mentioned it. Guess it was two different lines as you mentioned. Thanks anyway for looking into it.
Regards
- User:RailwayJG:RailwayJG, 15 January 2021, 7:57am (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was only one Hull & Barnsley Railway, but it had shares in several joint lines. The H&B station at Wath was not Wath North, but was named simply Wath for the whole of its life (1902-29), it was the terminus of the H&B line from Wrangbrook Junction (see RJD 44). Wath had three stations, on three different lines: of the other two, Wath North is the BR name for the Midland Railway's station (named successively Wath; Wath and Bolton; Wath-on-Dearne; Wath North); Wath Central is the BR name for the former Great Central station (named successively Wath; Wath-on-Dearne; Wath Central). None of these three were on a joint line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Great Central Joint Line. Wasn't that part of the railway network of the Barnsley and Hull Railway. It was Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Joint Railway? Wasn't that also part of it. Might be mixed up on it. Makes the Great Central Main Line and its branches look easy to write up on. I guess given Yorkshire is a large county. It's not surprising the complex map and the map of railways in Lancashire. RailwayJG (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "Barnsley and Hull Railway", nor was there a "Great Central Joint Line" as such; joint lines always had at least two owners. The Great Central Railway co-owned several joint lines in various parts of England, from as far south as Northolt (on the Great Western and Great Central Joint Railway, in which the GCR had a half share) to as far north as Southport (on the Cheshire Lines Committee, in which the GCR had a one-third share). In the Doncaster area alone, the GCR was co-owner of at least six joint railways:
  • Great Central, Hull & Barnsley and Midland Joint Committee (one third)
  • Great Central and Midland Joint Committee (one half)
  • Hull & Barnsley and Great Central Joint Committee (one half)
  • South Yorkshire Joint Railway (one fifth)
  • Wath Curve Joint Committee (39/67 share, roughly four sevenths)
  • West Riding and Grimsby Railway (one half)
A joint railway is part of the network of all of its owners, and trains would be run through from the parent system to the joint line. Some joint lines had, in addition, services that were confined to the joint line; in most cases, these local trains were run by the owning companies, but in a few cases (such as the Cheshire Lines Committee) the joint railway ran its own trains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doncaster York Road (but none of the others on the line) was open for a short time in September 1919, presumably to handle race traffic for St Leger week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMaxima's Flashpoint

So, in response to your revert on Flashpoint. BlueMaxima's Flashpoint is a sufficiently notable topic, being mentioned by Gamasutra, Kotaku twice, Rock Paper Shotgun, GameRant, Vice, Wired, Bleeping Computer, and even more. It's also mentioned at the target Adobe Flash article, in the End of life (EOL) section. It's a common misconception that Flashpoint is solely for Adobe Flash archival, but the main page succinctly describes it as a "webgame preservation project": notably, NOT a "Flash game preservation project." Multiple other platforms are supported, such as Shockwave, Unity, VRML, and 3D Groove. I am obligated to confirm that I am personally involved with Flashpoint, being a curator and tester for the project, and I don't want Wikipedia to spread false info. Scrooge200 (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you have a conflict of interest. That means, in general, that you should not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships. Aside from that, disambiguation pages provide links to existing articles, not to articles which you feel should be created (for whatever reason). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a COI, and I admitted it. I'm not being paid and nobody asked me to change this, as Flashpoint is volunteer work for me. You directed me to MOS:DABRL, which states that an item can be included in a disambiguation whether or not it has an article. Thus, it would be appropriate to add this as "BlueMaxima's Flashpoint, a web game preservation project" or "BlueMaxima's Flashpoint, a preservation project primarily focused on Adobe Flash". There's no reason we should keep this archaic and inaccurate description when there are correct ones that still follow the rules. Scrooge200 (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also states that there should be a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term. This appears to be absent. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I said that we can link to Adobe Flash as a related subject, with BlueMaxima's Flashpoint having its own article. Even if not, it still qualifies to be here. Scrooge200 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't link to Adobe Flash as a related subject - you first removed that link. then you linked to a non-existent page. Both times you eliminated the blue link which you now agree should be present. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My issue was not with the link to Flash, it was with treating BlueMaxima's Flashpoint as an EXCLUSIVELY Flash-related program. I've enacted an edit, and I think this is the best possible solution, keeping the Flash link intact while not spreading false info. Scrooge200 (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage causing cat pollution

Hello! The maintenance category CAT:MISCR is being polluted by User talk:Redrose64/Sandbox12 because the page contains an empty {{rcat shell}} template. I would remedy the situation, but the page is fully protected. Would you mind removing the template or adding an appropriate rcat to it? Warmest regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a test that I made on behalf of Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) and others. The purpose is that redirects using {{rcat shell}} should be able to autodetect the prot level, and categorise appropriately without the necessity to also use {{R fully protected}} and similar, because if the prot level changes (perhaps by simple expiry) we should't need another edit to update the protection template, it should self-adjust. So the full prot is deliberate, and the {{rcat shell}} needs to be present. Paine is not an admin, so couldn't set up the test themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now there was one hekuva learning experience for me! and goodness! look at the date on those edits; Rcat shell's 61/3 years old. It's true... time does fly when we're havin' FUN! Happiest of New Years to both of you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Godsy, speaking of polluted categories we're still trying to find out why the Rcat shell pollutes the fully-protected category with non-fully-protected redirects, example. I tried to fix it, but my solution just caused more problems. Others have tried to fix it, as well. Figure that one out and you can be Template Editor of the Year! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 19:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation query

Redrose, thank you for your message on my talk page, attached to someone else's contribution. I appreciate your interest of course and am happy to explain/agree/disagree but would ask you please to temper your approach as I found your intervention unpleasantly direct in tone. We are all trying to do our best and be assured I am an occasional but interested contributor who welcomes advice and suggestions that are politely made. I will not be watching your talk page as I have not sufficient interest or time. Like you, I am usually busy in real life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstoke1 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Winterstoke1: You refer, I presume, to this edit. I posted in that thread because it was directly relevant. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Article Number § External links

Hello. You recently removed a dead link from International Article Number#External links. I don't know how useful it would be—perhaps it's not worth including—but I did find an archive of the dead link. — Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DeNoel: It's just a third-party extension for MediaWiki that is no longer available; AFAIK it was never installed on English Wikipedia. At one time its documentation was mirrored to mw:Extension:EAN, which is now mostly blanked: the last version with content is at mw:Special:Permalink/3746389. Since the feature is not longer available (if it ever was), its documentation is not useful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! (→‎Notifications for WP Projects: Lent, why did you remove this thread contrary to WP:TPO?)

Hi, regarding this Summary

I did not mean to and I am sorry. Not my intent to remove anything other than my previous mistake. But I only looked at the "obvious" duplication of sections, and tried to manually revert what I thought was my unintended addition. Sadly, the change had ACTUALLY been an unintended deletion and an unintended addition. Sigh.

Thank you for undoing my mess, and returning the Notifications for WP Projects section.

Here is the analysis of what happened.

I thought the only edit I did was this, which removed a duplicate section.

Why? I had restarted my computer and the recovered VisualEditor session I had been working on seemed to have the right context. Unfortunately, I must not have done my usual "Review your changes" step, or I should have seen the weird edit.

Here's the weird edit diff which removed Notifications for WP Projects section and appended a duplicate (and revised) How to deal with link rot on "Official Website" section: 

03:33, 22 January 2021 (→‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Thanks! DONE)

The previous edit to that was this on 

17 January 2021  (→‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": new section)

So the recovered session was probably from the 17th of January, but the session recovery on 22 January may have interacted with then current Village pump (technical) page, which would naturally have changed since the start of my original editing session. The recovered session had my changes to the old 17th page which confused either me, or VisualEditor, or both :-)

So for posterity: :-) Here's your notice and correction: 

00:10, 23 January 2021‎ Redrose64 talk contribs‎  87,692 bytes +1,319‎  →‎Notifications for WP Projects: Lent, why did you remove this thread contrary to WP:TPO? undothank

My edits which created the problems: 

03:52, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎ m  81,381 bytes +262‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Add LinkToTextFragment highlighting undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
03:39, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎  81,119 bytes −2,574‎  Whoops! Eliminate duplicated section undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor
03:33, 22 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎ m  83,693 bytes +1,557‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": Done! undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor

and my original section question, quickly answered by PrimeHunter (talk) : 

12:39, 17 January 2021‎ Lent talk contribs‎  74,780 bytes +2,469‎  →‎How to deal with link rot on "Official Website": new section undo Tag: 2017 wikitext editor


Thanks to Redrose64 talk for catching this! Lent (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help on Moorgate tube crash

Hi there,

An editor keeps removing sourced content on the Moorgate tube crash article, and I don't think they are right to as the information is sourced to the Me, My Dad & Moorgate documentary. I've seen you've edited on the page recently, could you perhaps give me an indication of whether the info is okay to be there or not? 217.137.43.61 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually don't worry now - it's been sorted on the talk page! 217.137.43.61 (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways § Explain this
 – --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Your edit to The Railway Magazine number on "Little" North Western Railway

Well, as I have a copy of what you would call number 12, I would have to say "yes" and "no".

The issue here is that there isn't really a satisfactory way of indicating that the magazine is the 12th in volume 99 and the 632nd issue overall. My preference, following academic practice, is to give both numbers, bit Wikipedia citation templates don't really allow for this (unless you find "12 #632" acceptable, which personally I think is just a bit too American). This is not entirely pedantic, because if one is, for example, talking about Vol 2, no 8, this could suggest it is the 8th issue of 12, or 2nd issue of 6 in the volume (depending on what constitutes a volume). Moreover, as I discovered recently, with magazines of a certain vintage, volumes can begin at a fairly arbitrary point in the year, so putting the month before the year when giving the date doesn't necessarily give you all the information required in order to avoid a lengthy online trawl through a document in order to find the desired page, and indeed can be highly misleading!!

I've been pondering how best to get round this problem for a while. Seeing as I have provided the month in this case, it would have been more consistent for me to give the overall issue number, but as far as my thoughts on the matter are concerned, you very much caught me somewhere in the middle of a place called "no good options". Whilst it is obvious here that issue 632 doesn't refer the number in a volume, it would be nice to find a solution that doesn't introduce some degree of ambiguity for all possible values this figure might take, especially if one is referring to a daily newspaper.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Edwin of Northumbria: Where, in the magazine concerned, does it explicitly give the number 12 as the issue number? It's certainly not on the cover, nor the contents page or at the top of the editorial; the only place that gives the issue number is at the top of the editorial on p. 793, which shows "No. 632 DECEMBER 1953 Vol. 99". We do not invent facts: we report the information that is actually provided. Different publications use different systems, and we should not attempt to force the numbering convention of one publication onto another, there is no "one size fits all" solution. If The Railway Magazine explicity states "No. 632 DECEMBER 1953 Vol. 99" then we use |number=632|date=December 1953|volume=99, no more nor less.
As regards "what constitutes a volume", The Railway Magazine has changed its method a few times.
  • Volumes 1 to 85 (1897-1939) were of six issues each, published monthly
  • Volumes 86 and 87 (1940-41) were of 12 issues each, also monthly
  • Volume 88 (1942) was of eight issues: four being monthly, four being for two months each (i.e. May-June 1942, etc.)
  • Volumes 89 to 95 (1943-49) were of six issues each, published every two months
  • Volumes 96 to 108 (1950-62) were of 12 issues each, published monthly
  • Volume 109 (Jan-Oct 1963) was of ten monthly issues
  • Volume 110 (Nov 1963-Dec 1964) was of fourteen monthly issues
  • Volumes 111 to 158 (1965-2012) were of 12 issues each, published monthly
  • Volume 159 (2013) consisted of thirteen issues, with cover dates January 2013 to December 2013, plus Christmas 2013. This was to get the cover date back in synch with the calendar, because the publication date had been creeping earlier and earlier - without this extra issue, the January 2014 issue would have appeared in late November 2013
  • Volumes 160 onward (2014 to date) are of 12 issues each, published monthly
The page numbering has also changed. At first, numbering was continuous throughout a volume; from vol. 138 (1992), each issue has pages numbered from 1 upwards. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor/First Doctor

Hi!

I see you reverted my edits in the lede back to "First Doctor|The Doctor". If you look at the next few serials on Wiki, they say "The First Doctor (William Hartnell) I only had looked a few ahead - The Keys of Marinus, the Aztecs and the Sensorites. I was only altered it to keep it in uniform. The Madras (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ensuring I'm not digging myself into a hole

Good morning Redrose64 - if you or a talk page stalker could use your wealth of experience to ensure I'm not barking up the wrong tree on my talk page, I'd be appreciative. I don't want to dig myself into a hole I can't get out of. Thanks. Turini2 (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which thread? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, following my initial message here at the very bottom of the page. Thanks again. Turini2 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this thread? That's not on your talk page, and moreover, has been removed. I can't comment on a thread that no longer exists. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a subsequent 'reply' on my talk page as linked above. Thanks anyway! Turini2 (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC tag removal

Hi Redrose64, as an uninvolved admin, you're entitled to close the RfC at Talk:President of the Republic of China#RFC, but by just commenting and removing the RfC tag, I think you've muddied the waters. We're at the worst of both worlds now, where the discussion is open and consensus could form, but someone could cry foul at the procedural irregularity. Please consider either formally closing the discussion or restoring the tag. --BDD (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:RFC for a page move discussion is a procedural irregularity. I'm not stopping discussion from continuing - indeed, discussion is good, that's how we arrive at consensus. If you want more participation, send a neutrally-worded note to the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, being careful to respect WP:CANVAS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

210.14.97.226

Can 210.14.97.226 (talk · contribs) please be blocked ASAP for vandalism? CLCStudent (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CLCStudent: I blocked them, for 31 hours. It's not a good idea to message admins individually for such matters, because I might not be on line. In future please use WP:AIV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did use AIV, but this user was going rampant. CLCStudent (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Trains

Perhaps you can point me to where in Wikipedia's guidelines it says that if a user adds relevant and important information to an article but makes a formatting error then it gives someone like you the right to undo all their work, instead of spending 2 minutes changing the formatting. If you don't like the way I've done it feel free to change how the section is presented but don't remove useful information because you don't like the formatting. The depot section on the same page is a mess but you didn't opt to remove that! Also no-one seems to have an issue with the Future Services' section on the West Midlands Trains article, which is more badly formatted!

Hstudent (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hstudent: As noted in my edit summary, I reverted your edit because you committed a copyright violation by copypasting content verbatim from this document. The bad formatting was a secondary matter. You have repeated your offence: don't do it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You added "badly formatted" to the reason for reverting to the previously edited version so I didn't notice the WP:COPYVIO bit. As it is a public consultation and the government have allowed media sources to republish parts of the document. I wasn't aware copying a few bullet points from a 35 page document, which would fall within a fair usage limit, was against Wikipedia guidelines. Also, the entire section was not copied and pasted, only some (but not all) of the bullet points were. So it appears you decided to delete 3 paragraphs of text which I wrote for no reason! Hstudent (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hstudent, (talk page stalker) Nothing is ever lost in Wikipedia. Your work remains in the history unless the copyvio has been revision deleted. Thus, if it is valid and useful, adds value to the ritual end dwell referenced, then you may re-add it with ease. Fiddle Faddle 15:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinxton and Selston railway station speedy deletion help

Hi Redrose64, could I ask you to if you have a moment to look into the speedy deletion of the article linked in heading as I made a slight error of mixing up creating a railway article and non railway article. They have not nominated the non rail article of Pinxton and Selston but this one here. I am sure Wikipedia requires the railway station heading in all railway station articles as to say just Pinxton and Selston but not railway station could confuse people with a civil parish, neighbourhood or an area then the actual station. If you could input on it and get the speedy deletion for the latter article then the one with railway station which is linked above. I'd be greatful. Cheers Talk:UserRailwayJG, 13 February 2021, 18:10 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Having initially created the page at the wrong title - i.e. Pinxton and Selston - you should have fixed this by moving the page to the correct name, instead of then creating a second article at the correct title, i.e. Pinxton and Selston railway station. Also, if you disagree with a speedy deletion tag on an article that you created, you are not permitted to remove the tag yourself (see WP:SPEEDY, fifth paragraph), but should either use the Contest this speedy deletion button to start a discussion on the article's talk page, or contact the editor who placed the tag on their own talk page, i.e. User talk:Joseywales1961. I am not that editor; moreover, I was at work when you posted the above so was in no position to act on it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Oxford Old Station"

Hi Redrose 64,

I hope you're surviving ok through these Covid times.

I've just come across this article about "Oxford Old Station", and the line from it to Didcot. I was surprised, because I'd never heard of such a station. But a look at Google Earth shows that there is indeed a plausible route from the bank of the Thames, down what is now Marlborough Road, joining what is now the Oxford-Didcot line just north of what is now Old Abingdon Road. Here is another link. Maproom (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: It's covered in MacDermot's History of the Great Western Railway and other works. Briefly, the original GWR line ran via Reading, Steventon and Swindon (there were initially no stations between Moulsford and Steventon). A branch to Oxford was opened in 1844; this left the main line at a point now known as Chester Line Junction (and Didcot station was built just east of the junction), it ran to a terminus station in the Grandpont area, with the passenger accomodation at the end of what is now Western Road, and the goods facility to the north of that, on the right (southern) bank of the Thames. In 1850, a single-track line to Banbury was opened; this left the first Oxford line at Millstream Junction and ran via stations at Woodstock Road (later known as Bletchington), Heyford and Aynho. Initially, trains from Oxford to the north ran south from the Grandpont station and reversed at Millsteam Junction, and then ran north to Woodstock Road and beyond. The Banbury line was doubled and extended to Birmingham in 1852, and the present Oxford station opened at the same time, Grandpont then being given over to goods traffic only.
If you look at street maps of the area, in between Marlborough Road and the present railway is a lake - this is artificial, and its southern end is just to the north of Millstream Junction, in the angle between the present and former railway lines. I believe it was originally dug as a gravel pit.
The people preserving the Brunellian building at Culham station have many maps and documents relating to the old line and station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

I think the bot discussion is distracting from the RfC, so I’m bringing here. Re: this question, yes, that’s not a problem. There’s a clearly named RfC page that anyone who is interested in commenting would be able to understand, and the format of the brief and neutral statement on the page was very intentionally thought out. I’m not changing my writing and intentional formatting for a bot. If there’s a problem, it’s with the bot, not with having a well crafted RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: It seems to me that such an important and far-reaching issue as changing the desysop policy must not be given any less publicity than, say, the question of whether Richard "Bigo" Barnett should be on the list of notable people from Gravette (presently the first entry listed at WP:RFC/BIO).
@WhatamIdoing and Legoktm: what can we do about this? Almost every day, a new RfC is raised where the statement is too long for Legobot to process, and it ends up at the bottom of the relevant RfC listing showing only a link, without statement or timestamp. Unless something is done, it can sit there indefinitely. Some of these I fix myself by the judicious insertion of a second signature part-way through the overlong statement; for the others, I ask the filer to add a brief and neutral statement, and they usually comply. The cases where we still have a problematic listing entry after a day or so are very rare - it so happens that there are two right now, and both are at WP:RFC/POLICY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just confused about what the issue is here: it’s listed on the page and the description is fairly self-explanatory. They just have to click it. Am I missing something (serious question?) I’ve been doing large policy RfCs for a few years, and the formatting of the initial statement is one of the more important things. I always use the background-> proposal format and they tend to be fairly long. I don’t want to redesign my statement, because it was done that way for a reason. There’s also really not a good place to add a time stamp for a small bit halfway through.
I guess my thought process is that most people don’t find RfCs through that list, and those who do can click on it to see the question, so I’m not seeing it as not being advertised well. If I’m missing something here, I’m open, but it seems minor compared to having an opening statement to the RfC being done well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legobot can't process it because it can't identify the end of the statement. That in turn is because it can't find the timestamp. A consequence of that is that it does not know when the RfC began, and therefore cannot calculate when it will end. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhhh, that is an issue. I was just confused because I didn’t see anything wrong with the page you were referencing. Here, does this fix it? I think that’s preferable for the actual RfC format but also might solve the bot problem? TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a valid, parseable timestamp that is close enough to the {{rfc}} tag that it will certainly be detected. But there is no statement: have a look at the last edit to the RfC listing to see what I mean. How about using one of the summary sentences that have been suggested at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Protected edit request on 21 February 2021? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks terrible, but done. The RfC is far enough along now that bad formatting isn’t goi g to make or break it. My suggestion here would be for Legobot not to put the statements in and just list and link to the section if possible. Page stats says most people don’t look at the page anyway, so knowing when the RfC has expired seems to be the main issue. That way people can just put a time stamp after the template rather than having to change what they’ve worked hard to write to conform with the limits of a bot. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible or not, this is a great improvement on this. Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have anything to add unfortunately. Redrose64 actually understands how Legobot's RfC task works better than I do. It's on my list of things to fix in my copious free time (GA bot is up currently), but I don't want to make any promises. Legoktm (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus reached yet on GWML?

Hi, I see a discussion was started but MML, ECML, WCML are all capitals - GWML for great Western Main Line isnt yet? I dont have hard feelings one way or another but do feel there should be some sort of consistency imho GRALISTAIR (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GRALISTAIR: We shouldn't move pages without discussion if the present name was arrived at as the result of a previous discussion. Looking at the talk page, I find only two discussions relating to the article name: Requested move 9 March 2017 and Capitalisation of title. The page name history is as follows:
You may start a fresh discussion on that talk page if you like, but I'm not going to move the page until there is consensus to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I totally agree. So how do we get consensus? There really should be consistency IMHO. I will do as you suggest and start a discussion on said talk page. GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at ANC

In reference to this edit, I think I did create the section with a level four heading as desired in this permalink and so don't think I was the one who caused this issue. No problem if it's a crossed wire but let me know if it was my fault as I can't actually identify what went wrong where. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was altered from level 4 to level 5 by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs). But the problem is that ClueBot III doesn't handle subsections very well, and has a habit of divorcing them from the parent section. This is one reason why we explicitly ask for headings to be level 4. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then the bot needs work. It should not be impossible to nest part 2 of an RfC under part 1 in that list, rather than being forced to confusingly list them as if they're independent RfCs that should be closed separately. This is a case where the scripting tail is wagging the human-editors dog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my bot to fix. Indeed, I have asked for it to be fixed before, but was refused - I was told that it was working as designed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkby branch line

Sorry Redrose64, while undoing the edit prior to yours on the Kirkby branch line page I also undid one of your edits. I have re-added the fix you made back to the infobox to the article. Thank you --Voello talk 01:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

142023 is at the Plym Valley Railway, [1]

Why was this removed from the Class 142 page? It's the official PVR page confirming test runs. I see no reason to remove it, it is well known across the railway that 142023 is now at the Plym Valley Railway, it seems yet again another wiki bot busy body is messing around with things they have no idea with.

  1. ^ https://www.facebook.com/PlymValleyRailway/posts/3629386343840534
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Redrose64&oldid=1010110736"