User talk:Redrose64
|
![]() | Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
June music
[edit]![]() | |
story · music · places |
---|
Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. You were right about the pic on his user page. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Today's story is about an extraordinary biography, Peter Demetz. - I uploaded a few more pics but leave the link, because there's a new one of Graham and his mother who liked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Boundaries 23 or 24
[edit]I was thinking of when the Boundary Commission announced the changes. But that is not even right because Parliament had to approve them and I don't know when that happened. It isn't worth obsessing about the detail, I'm content with your revision. FYI only, nothing to do. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- @JMF: See The Parliamentary Constituencies Order 2023 - it was approved by the Privy Council (not by Parliament) on 15 November 2023, but the Explanatory note also says:
That reads as the old boundaries ceasing to exist and the new ones coming into force with the dissolution of Parliament, 31 May 2024. That's logical, as it couldn't be earlier otherwise the people of Stony Stratford would suddenly find that their MP was Ben Everitt instead of Iain Stewart, and it couldn't be later otherwise the various Returning Officers would not legally be able to invite nominations for candidates for e.g. Milton Keynes Central or Buckingham and Bletchley. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)By virtue of section 4(6) of the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (c. 50), the coming into force of this Order does not affect any parliamentary election until a proclamation is issued by His Majesty summoning a new Parliament or affect the constitution of the House of Commons until the dissolution of the Parliament then in being.
Pentrefelin Halt railway station
[edit]Would it be possible for you to show the line connections served by this halt on both the Swansea District Line and the GWR Morriston branch line in a box at the end of the article, please. I note that you were the originator of the article.
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Xenophon Philosopher: I added the routebox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Defaultsort
[edit]I'm sorry, I've noticed multiple constituencies use the magic word and assumed it's just a norm. Can you advise where it should be used? Do I understand correctly that it should be used in cases like e.g. "North Derbyshire" and "East Derbyshire" to make them sorted as "Derbyshire, North" and "Derbyshire, East"? Thanks :)
P.s. if it is not a pressing matter I'll come back and fix excessive defaultsorts later. Sfaxx (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sfaxx: At one time, the use of
{{DEFAULTSORT:}}
was universal, because category sorting was case-sensitive, that is, capital letters all sorted before small letters, so "Z" sorted before "a", which caused confusion, and so it was necessary to use DEFAULTSORT on almost every page to normalise the capitalisation for consistent sorting. This has not been the case since a software change way back in 2011; you will still see pages where the sortkey specified by DEFAULTSORT differs from the page title only in capitalisation, but this is merely because nobody has removed them yet. There is certainly no need to add them, as you did here, as{{DEFAULTSORT:North West Essex (Uk Parliament Constituency)}}
sets a sortkey which is simply a variant case of the page title, North West Essex (UK Parliament constituency) - two letters differ in casing. In general, a DEFAULTSORT is only needed when one of the circumstances described at WP:SORTKEY applies, as with this edit, where the contraction "St" should be sorted as the full "Saint". - On occasion, it is desirable to vary the sort order for one particular category, but this is not done using DEFAULTSORT, but by adding a piped value to the category, as described at WP:SORTCAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Feedback on rfc
[edit]Hi, sorry to bother you but I see that you specialise in RfCs and I was wondering whether you could give me some feedback on Talk:United States#RfC: How should the US' relations with developing countries be summarised in the body?, I know I've handled it dreadfully and bludgeoned discussion, but I'm not sure how I could've made the rfc lead more neutral to address the criticisms given. I know the main issue with the rfc was a lack respect but I perceive the opposite opinions as a common injustice which induces the combative behaviour and makes it very difficult for me to facilitate the rfc (not trying to excuse the disrespect but reason for it, I accept it was improper). Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thank you Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Oxford
[edit]Great to see you again in Oxford yesterday, thanks for organising! I hope the rest of your journey home was smoother than mine: we all got kicked off at Reading due to "staff shortages" and then of course the next train along was too full to get on. Fortunately didn't have to wait very long for another. the wub "?!" 13:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for coming! The staff shortages began in the morning, a lot of trains running through Swindon either terminated short or were cancelled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @The wub: I forgot to give you a link like this, showing how passengers had a view through the driving cab of a Class 108, as used on the Blackburn-Bolton-Manchester route. The second-class car at the other end of the unit had a better forward view, because the lack of armrests meant that you could position yourself behind the middle of the right-hand window without having to lean sideways to avoid the window frame. Other classes used on that route were Class 104 and Class 105, but they all gave a view through the cab. Class 105 gave a wider field of view, as they had two large cab windscreens instead of three smaller ones. At this time (early 1980s) there was still one Class 100 car in service (M53355), coupled to one of the last Class 105 cars, but I don't remember ever riding on that one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, that's quite a view! I was expecting maybe a window on one side of the cab, not being able to see out the whole front. Sadly never travelled on any of these, but one consolation is there's plenty of cab ride videos available on youtube now. the wub "?!" 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- @The wub: The last time I rode on a DMU with a view through the cab was a Class 121 during its final weeks of service on the Princes Risborough-Aylesbury branch in May 2017. If you want to experience something similar, there are several preserved lines with pre-1980s DMUs - classes 100 through 127 inclusive are the ones to look out for. Your closest preserved line will be the Epping Ongar Railway who certainly had two or three DMU cars a few years ago, but I'm not sure if they have one any more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wow, that's quite a view! I was expecting maybe a window on one side of the cab, not being able to see out the whole front. Sadly never travelled on any of these, but one consolation is there's plenty of cab ride videos available on youtube now. the wub "?!" 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Reversion of 'See also' link
[edit]Hello @Redrose64:, I recently added a relevant item to the "See also" section of Resistor–transistor logic, per:
...on the pretext that there were already links in the body of the article (true). However, in the interests of inclusion, I would expect the "See also" section to be a summary of relevant related articles – whether (or not) they are mentioned in the body of the article. Indeed, it would seem to me to be strange if related articles that appear in "See also" were not mentioned in the body of the article. In your reversion note, you cited Wikipedia:SEEALSO – which I reviewed – but there is nothing in that section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style that precludes including a link in "See also" if it has been mentioned in the body of the text once, let alone n times. As of now, there is only one item in the "See also" section – I can think of several good related articles that could also be added.
Enquire (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Enquire: To quote from WP:SEEALSO:
As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.
--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Blackrod station
[edit]In either the Historical Railways or the Disused Railways boxes at the foot of the article, would it be proper to show a link connection to the LYR Hindley to Blackrod Branch where the first station is that of Hilton House. If you thibk it is worthwhile to do so, can you please add this information on.
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
ANI discussion
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Shall we do that properly?
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unilateral removal of RfC tag. Thank you. That done, where's my boomerang? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Reversing lever and reversing rod
[edit]About https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1232074251.
I found it strange that the link pointed to itself, then even inferring that these were the same. Would there be a way to resolve this? Øyvind Teig (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Aclassifier: You can unlink it if you like. What I was concerned with was the use of an incorrect term: the reversing rod and reversing lever are not synonymous, but they have a common pin joint. In this diagram the reversing lever (right) is labelled, as is the weigh shaft (upper centre). The reversing rod is the one connecting these two, shown partially cut away. The curious thing about that diagram (which is the only one that I could find that showed the reversing lever) is that the reversing lever is drawn at the cylinder (front) end of the loco, instead of at the other (rear) end. There are labelled diagrams in
- Semmens, P.W.B.; Goldfinch, A.J. (2003) [2000]. How Steam Locomotives Really Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 112–132. ISBN 0-19-860782-2.
- showing the reversing rod as the horizontal (or nearly so) rod reaching from the driver's control (which could be either the reversing lever or the reversing screw) to the weigh shaft. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that exhaustive explanation! I unlinked "reversing rod" Øyvind Teig (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a good idea to add the figure Redrose64 mentions at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stephenson_link_valvegear_(Army_Service_Corps_Training,_Mechanical_Transport,_1911).jpg into the article, with a proper explanation? Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that exhaustive explanation! I unlinked "reversing rod" Øyvind Teig (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Misusing table markups
[edit]Hi there. I recently was tagged in an edit you made regarding adding notional results for the 2019 UK general election. In the edit(s) in question, you said "don't misuse table markup - accessibility". I have absolutely no idea what that means, and it seems the edits you made to my edit didn't actually change anything with the table I was using, visually. Could you care to explain what I should/shouldn't be doing and how, exactly, I was misusing the tables?
Thanks
Into oblivion (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Into oblivion: Accessibility refers to the design of products, devices, services, vehicles, or environments so as to be usable by people with disabilities, and web accessibility is a more specific form of this. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility describes the various ways of ensuring that accessibility is achieved, and in that, MOS:DTAB concerns tables.
- A table has a caption and one or more rows; table rows have one or more cells of two types - header and data. Screen reader software announces the various table components in different ways, and also varies its actions according to the element type that is being read out. If you style a data cell to appear the same as a header cell for a sighted reader, it will still be treated as a data cell by the screen reader. Cells that are used as titles for a row or column must be marked up as header cells; and those that are titles for rows must also have the
scope=row
attribute. Similarly, the name of a table belongs in the table caption, and not in a full-width header cell. - If you have questions about accessibility, you may ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for comment
[edit]Hi Redrose, A number of years back I remember being informed by yourself about keeping citations on a single line, instead of inserting a new line for each parameter - I don't have much background knowledge on this subject, other than it helping with reading and interpreting diffs - would you be able to provide clarity as a third party at User talk:Danners430? Apologies for trying to drag someone into this, I just don't want to enter into an argument, and I remember it being yourself instilling this knowledge into me all those years ago! Danners430 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- What you've actually done is to create a whole glaring, yet content-free, change into the edit log.
- If your diff process can't handle separate lines, then fix your diff process. It's actually easier (much) for a diff filter to work on inputs that have clear linebreaks. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Redrose64:, any chance you could take a look at this? I'm about to go to ANI regarding this user, but I really want to avoid it - if there's somewhere I've gone wrong, I'd be more than open to correction by WP admin. Danners430 (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I left for work at 07:35 (UTC) and didn't get back until 16:40 (UTC), so quite a lot has happened in the meantime. For my TPWs (and TPSs), this is now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Andy Dingley. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Request for administrator attention
[edit]Hi Redrose64, I'm a newish Wikipedia editor and style learning the (many, complicated) rules.
I have noticed an issue with a reverter / possible vandal on the Project 2025 article. User:Skyerise keeps adding a See Also section to Project 2025 with irrelevant links, including Liber OZ and Universal Declaration of Human Rights; undoes revisions to remove the irrelevant links or section.
It's unclear to me how to proceed though; I've looked into reporting vandalism, but it seems like that should only be done after 4 edits and several warnings. Can you tell me what the appropriate level of escalation for the situation is at this point and how to do it? Mosi Nuru (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mosi Nuru: First off, have you brought up the matter at the article's talk page? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I have not yet, no. I take it that's the first step?
- I have added a topic on the talk page, does it look like it contains the essential things I need to say to you?
- Talk:Project_2025#See_Also_section_contains_only_irrelevant_links_such_as_"Liber_OZ" Mosi Nuru (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- First stage is indeed to discuss on the article's talk page. If Skyerise doesn't comment there within, say, a week, drop a note on their user talk page inviting them to the discussion. Templates such as
{{fyi}}
and{{subst:please see}}
are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)- Looks like he has replied and a couple other editors have jumped in, so this was the right approach (I was a little doubtful if anyone read the Talk pages, but I see I was wrong!).
- Thanks for your help! Hopefully this will be the end of it. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've already helped a bunch, but would you be willing to do me one more favor when you get a chance?
- Could you take a note at the Talk Page (Talk:Project_2025#See_Also_section_contains_only_irrelevant_links_such_as_"Liber_OZ") and at how Skyerise is interacting with me, and advise if there is anything I should do?
- I don't want to get into a flame war with someone on the internet, but I feel pretty strongly that he is arguing in bad faith (implying insult where none was meant, not engaging with the argument, etc.), and I'd like to know how to proceed that doesn't just involve arguing online. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should directly ask the question "Is calling an editor 'obsessive' a personal attack?" Redrose & I don't always see eye to eye, but I suspect we agree on the answer to that. Also, whenever you discuss another editor on a third-party talk page, it is polite to ping them, like this @Mosi Nuru:. I shouldn't be finding conversations about me where I wasn't pinged. Skyerise (talk) 00:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- First stage is indeed to discuss on the article's talk page. If Skyerise doesn't comment there within, say, a week, drop a note on their user talk page inviting them to the discussion. Templates such as
WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
[edit]The Space-Time Telegraph
Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New Hello!
Big Spike in Productivity
Proposals to the WikiProject
If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
DX 9048
[edit]Yes. File:Super sentinel waggon DX 9048.JPG among others (although that may be the only one on commons). Problem is that its been modified a fair bit (it wasn't originally a bus).©Geni (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
RfCs at Talk:Jinn
[edit]This was first time helping some one initiating RfC that too after long time, sorry for inadvertent technical goof-up and thanks for helping in sorting out.
As such a help was requested at WT:RFC.
1) Any ways after your help, I suppose listings are working properly, so there is no immediate need to dismantle collapse templates - since those help in better content organization and presentation.
2) This is first RfC in this series, more from the planned series would come after some period, as discussed at WT:RfC. The RfC question series is presently listed at the user sandbox talk, may be you have a look, your advice will help not repeat the mistakes. Bookku (talk) 14:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Bookku: Most of it is covered at WP:RFCBRIEF. The main thing to remember is that the RfC statement runs from the
{{rfc}}
template (exclusive) to the next valid timestamp (inclusive). What happens after that timestamp won't be noticed by Legobot, so can be as lengthy and complex as you like. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)- Now I explained other editor too on their user talk page. I hope accident won't be repeated from our side. Bookku (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- RfC at Talk:Jinn has been rescinded (temporarily withdrawn - shall be restarted later in simpler format to facilitate better user participation) after a discussion at WT:RfC by removing
{{rfc|reli|soc|hist|rfcid=CE36F56}}
. Bot related template is still there, I hope I have done that in right way. Bookku (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- @Bookku: per its documentation, please do not use nowiki tags around
{{rfc}}
, because Legobot ignores them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Oh okay noted. Thanks Bookku (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Bookku: per its documentation, please do not use nowiki tags around
List tag query
[edit]I now understand the use of HTML list tags isn't standard for Wikipedia and have ceased using them. However, I don't know how to implement a numbered list with wiki-markup. How do you do this? Svampesky (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Svampesky: See this edit, also Help:List. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Svampesky (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Atop
[edit]I forgot to use Template:Ping there, so: Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:Archive top's talk page. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Spike Milligan
[edit]My edit was not an unsourced opinion. Just look at the photo of the gravestone. The Irish word for "was" is clearly missing from the inscription. Kindly restore my edit.
GeiknarF (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Redrose64's edit summary included
if you want to comment about the accuracy of the article, please do so on the talk page
. You made a comment in the article, so {{Uw-talkinarticle1}} applies. Please confine commentary about improving the article to the article's talk page. Peaceray (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you
[edit]Hello Redrose (do you mind if I call you Rose?) I wanted to thank you for answering one of my Mentees' questions (even if the question was as moot as that one) -- Grapefanatic (Talk) 18:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Grapefanatic: I guess you mean User talk:Grapefanatic#Question from Ujwala9 (05:50, 4 July 2024) - I really don't recall how I found it in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit on this page... as the IP correctly identified, the title was in error. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: No, the IP is wrong: it's a list of misconceptions (in boldface), seven in all, each of which is followed by a longer comment (in normal type) to either refute that misconception or show why it applies much less often than some people would like to believe. The IP's edit changes it from a misconception to a truth, which goes against the purpose of the section, hence my revert.
- The entry in question was added on 17 May 2018 with these two edits by Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs), who I have informed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- What Redrose64 said, this is a list of wrong ideas, followed by refutations of those ideas, therefore the previous wording was correct. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)