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]
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
West Midlands Trains
I noticed that you reverted an edit on West Midlands Trains by 78.145.52.208. The edit included the restoration of through service indications (I-IV, A-E) on the services table, which had been deleted earlier by the same user probably by mistake.
For a start, miscounted rowspans and colspans; other superfluous markup. Also, linking to Sprinter which is a disambiguation page instead of Sprinter, which although redirected, at least ends up in the right place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The rowspans and colspans were actually fine. That is, that format may not have been the best (not sure Wikipedia needs to be that specific about the services), but it made sense. Right now, this part makes no sense at all because you deleted the column which had the Roman numerals / alphabets.
Services running to/from Birmingham New Street are combined, which gives through services between London (as above) and Rugeley/Liverpool/Crewe (as below).
Northbound services are combined as follows:
I → A;
II → B and E (dividing at Birmingham New Street);
III → C;
IV → D.
Southbound services are combined as follows:
A → II;
B → IV (operated by West Midlands Railway);
C → I;
D and E → III (attaching at Birmingham New Street).
The revert also included the combination of the "I", "II", and "III", "A" and "B", and "C" and "D", which I must admit I quite like since it made that table much simpler, but even so, the confusion likely caused on the combination of services going through Birmingham New Street cannot be overlooked.
I suggest that you check the rowspans at Past fleet very carefully.
As to the I/II/A/B etc. services - do we really need this? There is a tendency for some people - particularly IPs - to try and make Wikipedia some kind of railway timetable journey planner. This is not our purpose. We should direct people to the website of the TOC if they want to know details of the service. If I want to travel from Tring to Canley, I should not be planning my journey on the basis that Wikipedia says that a I train will take me there but there are no direct returns. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that one, but still, that's not a legitimate reason to revert the whole thing.
As I've said earlier, I personally agree with you and I don't think the services section needs to be so detailed. However, with the part I quoted yesterday still remaining in the table, I must say the status quo (that is, the revision before 78.145.52.208's edits, which is the same as his/her last edit) was much better (not good yet better) in terms of the services table.
If you can think of a way to better explain how the services are combined (the "how" might be unnecessary; just stating that services continue through Birmingham could be enough), please implement it. If not, please restore the status quo.--YTRK (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to fix it, may I restore the previous version (the services table only, of course)?--YTRK (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather that Wikipedia were not presented as if it were some sort of rail enquiry service. The train operating companies have a duty to ensure that the information that they provide on their websites is accurate; we do not. If we show that level of detail, it carries with it an implied accuracy that may mislead, harming our reputation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said for multiple times, I agree with you that the table is unnecessarily detailed. (I wouldn't even oppose to the whole services table being deleted provided it's discussed at the talk page beforehand.) However, the current situation is nothing but puzzling to anyone who sees the table. If you're going to change it, do it so that there would be no confusion. If not, don't do anything (=restore it).--YTRK (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revise my edit at Wikipedia:Transclusion
Wikipedia:Transclusion
Not necessarily against it, but either way, would be useful to know your reasoning, would help to avoid my doing the same kind of thing again.
As a resident of Rochester I got a consultation leaflet through the door. The crux of it is that the freight line to Isle of Grain is being opened to passengers who will get a link to the HS1- at Gravesend and a new service possibly to Victoria. They invite those of us interested in registering for news letters at medway.gov.uk/futurehoo and medway.gov.uk/regeneration. Thought you may like to watch this. It is under Housing Infrastructure Fund and a bit of struggle to locate the button. ClemRutter (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't hold your breath; they've literally announced the proposed reopening of the Hundred of Hoo Railway every couple of years since the 1970s (it's even been seriously considered for upgrading to full-speed HS1 standards as part of the various estuary airport proposals). There are also long-standing proposals for a Crossrail extension (the space north of Hoo Junction, where the freight line branches off from the existing passenger line, is being held as the site for a proposed Crossrail megadepot should HS2 turf them out of the existing depot at Old Oak Common), which make a certain sense if the aim is to turn the Hoo Peninsula into a London dormitory suburb whose taxes will in turn fund Medway council. ‑ Iridescent23:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found several portal, sandbox etc pages have popped into the cat. This might have something to do with it but, as in the past, I might be wrong. MarnetteD|Talk22:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the first one, a quick glance at the history shows that the prot template was added before the page was actually protected, so all that is necessary was a WP:NULLEDIT; and optionally a note to Callanecc (talk·contribs) asking them to add the template after applying the prot to which it relates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: If you add a protection padlock tag (such as {{pp-protected}}) to a template (or in fact to any page that has the slightest possibility of being transcluded elsewhere) it is essential that the padlock tag be wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude> so that it is only displayed on the page that is actually protected. Failure to observe this will dump transcluding pages into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know all sorts of things: which is the best place to draw other interested editors' attention to Briantist's activities at turning LU RDTs into detailed track and platform schematics? Currently this affects Template:Jubilee Line RDT and Template:Victoria Line RDT. I could simply revert but have found alerting others first to be productive in the past. Bazza (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RE: your comment on the London Underground talk page - C2A06 deleted Blythwood's talk page comment, so I reinstated it. I guess wikipedia added that I added it back in? Given that deleting other people comments is clearly a no-no, I thought I was doing the right thing - please let me know if otherwise :) Turini2 (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding/recollection that the archive bot also paid attention to templates like {{done}}. My mistake, I guess. Do you not get the point of the improvement I'm trying to make?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this is about. If you are following up on some post that I have made, you should at least provide a link to that; but even better would be to place your comment in the same thread, this will keep all relevant matter together and avoid a fragmented discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. You reverted my edits to archive bot documentation twice, with an edit summary comment; I figured you'd remember, or appreciate better communication than edit summaries allow. If not, so be it; I'm not going to keep discussing discussion. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so provide a diff link to the edit concerned. I make a lot of edits (not as many as a bot perhaps) but during the past month I have made over 4,000 edits and I can't be expected to remember them all. You do need to be precise about what you write about: there are several bots that perform archiving, and none of them is named either "the archive bot" or "archive bot". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laugharne Article
I'm just a beginner as an editor and this page is a sort of apprentice piece. Appreciate all the advice received so far but I do detect a somewhat combative tone from yourself - which may reflect that I've been unable to understand the relevance of any of your contributions to date. Perhaps I'm missing something which may become clear if you did me the courtesy of replying to my questions.
Sirjohnperrot (via Mobile phone) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat difficult to reply to your questions when you alter them several times after first posting them. I start to compose a reply, but as I'm saving it I get a edit conflict. Then I find that the question that I'm attempting to reply to no longer exists in that form. So I have to start all over again; after a few of these sequences I lose track and give up. Wikipedia provides a preview feature, which allows you to check through your post before saving; please use it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My shortcomings are legion - agreed - I will try to do better. As a peace offering here is an item of possible interest to you and/or your friends in Red Roses which I came across during lockdown-enabled family history burrowings. Its source:- Eglwys Cymmin Epitaphs by Geo G.T. Treherne M.A. (1920) contains other material which may be of use in improving its article and that of Eglwyscummin (not an Electoral Ward as currently described btw). It's good to see your team has a red rose in its badge, that rules out a significant and unwelcome possibility ;-) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Congleton Railway Station
Hello, just wondering why you are using the brief edit description boxes to question others edits? On Congleton Railway Station page you changed nothing from me edit apart from remove one line and then call it 'why?'. This is unhelpful. You then preceded to make a picture I added smaller. I appreciate this is the right thing to do, however calling me out directly instead of just putting 'Made is smaller' is not. The appropriate place to give advice is place like this is here and not on the edit description.
curprev 14:19, 9 June 2020
Eat Your Makeup talk contribs m 6,305 bytes +8
Redrose64 removed a line that was in place for formatting reasons.
undo Tag: Visual edit
curprev 22:31, 8 June 2020
Redrose64 talk contribs 6,297 bytes -72
→Current Services: absolutely *no* need to be that big, misuse of alt text, and don't put credits in captions
undothank
OK, so you added an image. But where on earth did I call you out directly? Now, to specifics.
At the bottom of a section, you added a <br /> tag with no discernable purpose. If "that was in place for formatting reasons" then exactly what were those reasons? See MOS:BODY where it says Between sections, there should be a single blank line; multiple blank lines in the edit window create too much white space in the article.
You gave the image a fixed size of |309x309px which was far too large, going against MOS:IMGSIZE (Except with very good reason, a fixed width in pixels (e.g. 17px) should not be specified.).
You misused the caption by including copyright information - see MOS:CREDITS (Unless relevant to the subject, do not credit the image author or copyright holder in the article.).
You also misused the |alt= parameter by repeating what you had put in the caption to which you added a partial URL of the source and some licensing information - see MOS:ALTTEXT (Alternative text allows the content and function of an image to be understood by text-only readers.).
Aside from that, you had failed to include that licensing information on the file description page, instead using the {{cc-zero}} license, which was therefore in violation of the license concerned. License laundering is forbidden, it is treated as copyright violation and can result in a block. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New ones
Hello again R. If you could fix the items in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates it would be appreciated. The two anime portals showed up today - I added noinclude to a couple articles but it didn't remove them from the cat. I couldn't find what needed fixing in Covid template in part because many of the pages connected to it are fully protected. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk15:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your info brings up a couple questions. On the manga pages did you have to expand the items inside the noinclude because we are dealing with a portal? The tool you use for finding recent edits looks good but, as you know, I am not very good with the programming stuff. Other than adding it to the javascript file the page is a little light an instructions on how to use it - at least to a total layman like me :-) I can try it but if I botch things do you mind my continuing to ask you for help? I do try to keep my requests to a minimum and I only turn to you when I exhaust the fixes that I know how to use. Best regards R. MarnetteD|Talk18:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To find the two Dragon Ball pages, I went to Portal:Anime and manga/Selected series/35, which was one of the pages in the category; and I used the edit tab. At the bottom, below the buttons for "Publish changes" etc, there is a list of "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page" (which you may need to click in order to expand it) - by default, this is in alphabetic order; but by use of Anomie's tool, it is listed in order of most recent edit; to install this tool, go to Special:MyPage/common.js, and at the bottom, paste in this line:
Thanks for walking me through adding the script. I've installed it - hopefully in the correct manner. Chrono order over alpha is much more helpful and almost seems like it should be the default :-) My other question involved this edit where you put more templates inside the noinclude. I don't remember seeing that fix before which is why I was wondering if it had anything to do with those portal pages being the ones that were transcluded. As always I do appreciate the time you put in to help me with things like this. MarnetteD|Talk19:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the templates are now being listed in reverse chronological order then you installed it correctly.
I checked and they are showing in reverse chrono so things are set. Thanks for the further clarification on the other item. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Making infobox image appear in hoverbox panel on link in another article without creating additional image .
Can you help with this problem at all? Dylan Thomas cf John Perrott as per this extract from former's talk page "Apologies for my multiple minor edits, as a novice the only way I found to check whether the hover image was displaying on other pages was to save the changes with each attempt. There must be a way of using the infobox image as with John Perrot but I couldn't find it and the properties of the original pic seem to have prevented it working in the hover box elsewhere or even as a separate image. No idea why otherwise no need for a new image and caption change.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)"Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: I saw it - VPT has been on my watchlist for ten-some years. The thing is, what we as sighted people perceive as similar shapes may not be at all similar to the unsighted, since they may be associated with different sounds or one may have an associated sound but the other might not. Consider the Latin letter P and the Cyrillic letter Р - they look the same but their sounds are completely different; now consider the Latin letter P and the Cyrillic letter П - they look completely different but their sounds are exactly the same.
VPT is also on the watchlist of Graham87 (talk·contribs) who is a Grade A1*** accessibility expert, who would be totally unable to contribute were it not for screen reader software (check out his user page). In the unlikely event of the VPT thread not working out satisfactorily, you may direct accessibility questions to the experts at WT:WPACCESS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*blush* I've replied there ... I didn't think of it as an accessibility issue until I was alerted to this thread (I generally dislike language-switching features of screen readers and turn them off where I can, so that's probably why). For what it's worth, I don't have VPT on my watchlist, but it's on my daily Wikipedia reading list, which has almost the same effect. Graham8705:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to deal with a literal vs. idiomatic (or possibly idiotic) translation issue. Is 'junction box' a synonym for 'signal box', or—as with North American usage—does it only refer to electrical work? Cheers. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working (offline) on some Colonial railways, translating from foreign WPs, and was wondering if I could use that as a synonym to avoid some tedious repetition. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the term "junction box" used in that way. I am aware of: block post; ground frame; shunt frame; signal box; signal cabin; signal tower; signalling centre. The last one is quite modern, but Thames Valley Signalling Centre (which covers over 200 miles of route, or over 500 miles of track) is ten minutes walk from my house. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I have seen that you have reverted my recent page moves with the edit summary rv undiscussed move, but that is not really an appropriate reason to undo my page move in conditions like this because I certainly did not move it without discussion, I was being bold with my page moves, and I certainly did discuss at both User talk:Shhhnotsoloud ([1]) before choosing to be bold and make my page move, and I certainly do not see a rule that states all page moves require discussion. I gave a valid reason in the edit summary for making my page moves, and User:Shhhnotsoloud even thanked me for it ([2]), so I do not see any reason to revert my page moves just because I didn't initially discuss them. Thanks, C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 09:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was not me who was advised by Thryduulf, it was Shhhnotsoloud. And I did notify Shhhnotsoloud after making my page move. I still don't see a rule that states page moves must always be discussed before being made. C2A06 (About • Talk • Edits) 10:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@C2A06: I said RM because I felt there should be discussion about what the best title to move to should be (dates, District Railway, something else), who I said that to is completely irrelevant. Whatever the reasons though, you boldly moved a page and were reverted. The next step is discussion, not arguing about whether the move should have been reverted or whether it was correct in the first place. Start an RM discussion on one of the article talk pages proposing to move both pages (it doesn't matter which as long as the other is properly notified as well). Notifications to those involved in the RfD and in the history of the page are strongly recommended. Relevant wikiprojects should be notified through article alerts, but an explicit notification on the talk page as well would not be inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I still don't understand WHAT is wrong with my edit.
You just link to policies, but as I see it I fullfill them all.
Can you please tell me WHICH one I am breaking, so I can learn and do better.
I HAVE read the policies, but I can't figure out what is wrong with my edit.
By just reverting, nobody gets the wiser.
If it is because of the type of the source, it can be removed. Anybody can go to the station and count the steps for themselves. The video just helps so you don't have to do that (therefore it IS a reliable source). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvidstue (talk • contribs) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Redrose64 pointed you to three policies: WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:NOR. The video you site is a self-published source and so not reliable per the meaning of our verifiability policy. Going to the station and counting the stairs yourself would be original research. Additionally, if you disagree with the reversion of a change you made the correct course of action is to discuss it on the talk page not to reinstate the edit - see Wikipedia:Bold, Revert, Discuss and Wikipedia:Edit warring. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck
Been trying to get Doomer1557 to fix his 'time' signature on his post. Asked for administrative help at WP:AN, but got a rude reply. Anyways, good luck. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame GoodDay didn't bother to explain the issue clearly. There's a clear competence issue with GoodDay at the moment, they're appearing at a wide variety of administrative venues leaving, as is the case here, completely useless and unproductive reports and comments. Nick (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I'm not being insulting. I made a fair assessment of your editing in recent weeks - you're involving yourself in administrative areas leaving comments which are unhelpful or counter-productive; there's dozens to choose from at AN/ANI, where your edits are little more than clerking or providing overly simplistic and frequently patronising advice (I don't know if that's intentional or not). I've even had to ask you to stop providing your advice to blocked users when there are several administrators working on a block appeal, because your involvement was disruptive. The report you filed at AN was lacking in detail and you hadn't discussed the issue fully (or at all, really) with the user. I look, the user is signing posts and your report looks to be completely unnecessary, even if you had explained the issue fully, I'd argue it's still unnecessary given you've not attempted to explain and resolve the issue with Doomer1557. It's what I'd suggest is an ongoing over eagerness to involve yourself with issues. Nick (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be a member of WP:RETENTION, so forgive me for my attempts to helps editors. Recognising that you are an administrator, I shall not get into an argument with you. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: On that point, how does reporting a two month old user (and one who you've suggested doesn't have English as their first language) to AN without any attempt to resolve the issue with them first, aide in editor retention ? Nick (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to get an administrator to help him with his signage. Perhaps, now that you're more aware of it, you'll proceed to do just that. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you'll see, Redrose64 has left them a useful message about their signature already. That's not an administrative action, it's an simple editor to editor interaction and is something you could have done. It's only in need of administrative assistance if the user refused, when fully briefed about the problems with their signature, to rectify the issue. We do block people for having disruptive signatures, but it's done extremely infrequently, and it's only ever done after a lot of discussion with the user, something that was missing in this case. Nick (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Recently, a editor sent a notice in my talk page in other ptwiki that my signature was at odds with the rules, however I desagree. I used this tool and there it indicated that the signature was all clear. I also saw you put an emoji in their signature. The Wikipedia:Signatures cite images, it says nothing about using an emoji, which is not classified as an image, but as a unicode character. Could you tell me if you think my signature is WP: SIGIMAGE or if it complies with Wikipedia: Signatures? I will be grateful if I can answer my question. Sorry if I messed up, English is not my native language. Best regards. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the sloppy work! I unfortunately can no longer describe myself as a fast learner, but you'd think I'd be able to remember to check for big red banners on tops of pages! :D —valereee (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checklinks Thingy Ma Jiffy Flying Off?
Hello there, it's been a while but I have forgotten the link that I was given to the replacement checklinks tool. Or is it permanently gone now? Thanks :D and yes this is one of my periodic returns hello VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you very much @Izno:. :D Apparently it has become Dablinks now, it has been very lowkey of tools updates. Perhaps a tools update channel/noticeboard needs to be put up? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Railways Act 1921
Hi,
I had altered a few railway station pregroup values that I notice you reverted. I had changed them before seeing your note about the Railways Act 1921. I am a little confused with the definition of "pregroup", does it mean which company owned the railway in question up to the publishing of the Railway Act, 19 August 1921? Or, who owned the railway on the date of implementation of the Act, 1 January 1923? The alterations I made about the Princetown Railway and Cambrian Railways were both railways that the GWR took over between the two dates, at least according to Grant (2017) and Awdry (1990).
I would be grateful for any guidance you can provide with this or similar issues, I'm learning fast but some things are not as clear or straightforward to understand.
Nempnet (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I think pre-grouping is just before amalgamation of several rail companies. One example is the Eastern Counties Railway amalgamating with other railway companies to form the London & Northeastern Railway (LNER). Cheers mate VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nempnet: the GWR did not take over the Cambrian - these two, along with the Barry, Taff Vale and a few others (seven in all, including the GWR), amalgamated on 1 January 1922 under the provisions of the Railways Act 1921. This Act did not lay down what was to happen on 1 January 1923 - rather, it set 1 January 1923 as a deadline by which each group of railways had to agree their own terms of amalgamation; if they failed to agree by this date, the amalgamation tribunal would set the terms and force amalgamation. See my post of 22:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC) at Talk:Taff Vale Railway#1922 or 1923?.[reply]
@Vincent60030: "Pre-Grouping" is a term used by British railway historians to refer to that period which, broadly speaking, ended with the Grouping. Grouping has a specific meaning: it refers to the events brought about by the passing of the Railways Act 1921, but not all of those events happened upon the same day. Indeed, it was not until August 1923 that the Freshwater, Yarmouth and Newport Railway was finally absorbed by the Southern Railway, and there are other examples of late absorption. Regarding the Eastern Counties Railway (ECR): this voluntarily amalgamated with several other companies on 1 July 1862 to create the Great Eastern Railway (GER), and so the ECR is not considered to be a "pre-grouping" railway. The GER amalgamated with several other companies on 1 January 1923 to create the London and North Eastern Railway, and so the GER is a pre-grouping railway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much clearer and I understand now where I have been going astray. I'll check a little more carefully before making any future edits. Nempnet (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nock, O.S. (September 1967). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. III: 1923-1947. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 4–5. 1584/387/DXX/967.
two railways, the Exeter Railway and the Forest of Dean Central Railway, were unable to come to terms with the GWR by 1 January 1923; and so the Amalgamation Tribunal had to step in, and Nock gives details of their decisions.
Nock also describes (on pp. 1–2) and lists (on pp. 240–2) the various "Constituent Companies" (of which one is the Cambrian Railways) that amalgamated to create the new GWR; the various "Subsidiary Companies" that were absorbed (of which one is the Princetown Railway); and those joint railways that fell partially or wholly within the new GWR. A second list gives the makeup of the post-1922 GWR Board, showing which railways each director had previously been with. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, very helpful, I've found a similar list in Ottley's Bibliography, I'll make a point of checking it.
Ottley, George (1983). A Bibliography of British Railway History (2nd ed.). London: Her Majestey's Stationery Office. pp. 469–476. ISBN0112903347.
The table on pp. 469-471 looks like a very close copy of the schedule that I referred to in my edit summary here. You will find the Princetown Railway mentioned on p. 470, column 3, lines 4-5 (counted from the top of the continued entry for the Western Group). In the original Act (downloadable here) it's on page 70 of the PDF (numbered 486 in the scan), lines 10-11. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion RfC mess
Thank you for sorting out the mess I made here and here. This started as a lengthy discussion and evolved into a set of RfCs. I have never tried anything like this before. I suspected that the way I was doing it might cause bot problems, and I was right. Thank you again. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In an article like Track gauge, it may be justifiably included; in an article that deals specifically with a single gauge, it's out of context. But wherever it is included, WP:NOR and WP:V must both be observed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm certain of it. But with this post and now this one, you have showed your hand too early, now they know we're on to them. I was hoping that they would exhibit a few more instances of similar behaviour, as with Jubilee line. I also don't think you should have asked for their user pages to be speedied. Really, you should have gathered your evidence and used it to file a WP:SPI (using Keepitreal42 as sockmaster, since they both registered and edited first), listing not just those two but also the various IP addresses that have had similar behaviour. In that SPI you can present all of the evidence together. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any diffs, other than of posts to their user talk page which won't stand up in court. You need diffs of similar and problematic behaviour elsewhere, preferably in mainspace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help please
Hello R. All sorts of admin dashboards are in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I thought I had taken care of it when I found the template on an admin noticeboard that didn't need it but that was yesterday and they are all still there. This is the first time I've been unable to locate the problem since you gave me the code to have the transclusions display in chrono order so I am hoping that it is something that will be easy for you to find. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI in case you hadn't noticed their edits after the first block. I'm not a subject matter expert on London transport, but had noticed that at least some of their edits were flat out incorrect. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my mistake. I didn't see the template there or any close so I assumed it hadn't been listed. Thanks for looking at it. Is reverting my edit adequate to delist the RFC now? —DIYeditor (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the article the photographs are out of date. From researching photographs over wiki the only photographs of Galatea in it's present form which is BR green and dressed up as Alberta are those from a user has been put down as blocked. The article needs a massive refresh with new photographs and more recent information including into the article as the present photographs are over 5 years out of date showing an engine which doesnt look like what it now is and could end up confusing people. These photographs of the blocked user are at present are the only ones which could be ideal for the article until other new images from other users can be uploaded to the article which are of the engine in BR green.(talk) 23:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC98:DB00:6DA8:719F:B2B9:CD51 (talk) [reply]
You don't say which article - as it says in the box at the top, if you wish to draw my attention to an article, it's always best to link it. Besides which, you should express your concerns at the article's talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMS_Jubilee_Class_5699_Galatea. The photographs in question for this article are over 5 years out of date and the information hasnt been updated either aside from saying what its dressed as now but there is no photographic proof in the article apart from some photos by a blocked user. These shots of which are the only photographic proof there is of the engine dressed as 45562 Alberta at present. For the talk article then if it needs bringing up there could you provide a link.(talk) 00:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:FC98:DB00:6DA8:719F:B2B9:CD51 (talk) [reply]
Thank you for your kind help on how to get a template saying "This article of interest to..." on the talk page of Wikipedia: WikiProject Mysticism. I have been editing Wikipedia for many years, but I am still learning about it! I shall trying to get consensus from the members of the WikiProject to see whether they are happy for the template to go on the talk pages of selected articles. Vorbee (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bioethicist Dr. Nir Eyal works and lives in New Jersey at this time (although he was in Massachusetts before, as the article states). You had removed mention of NJ. MaynardClark (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi so I have noticed that a while back on the page for Congleton station in the current services section you changed “Stoke-on-Trent” back to “stoke on trent”.
I wish to ask you wether it could be possible if a standard way of spelling for the railway station of stoke on trent could be agreed upon for the page for Congleton station, as on most of the page the spelling “stoke-on- trent” is used but that one sentence in current services is different.
I just wish to notify you of this issue and ask if we can reach an agreement on solving this matter.
There's only one person known as Henry Ivatt: Henry Ivatt. His son Henry George Ivatt is known as George Ivatt. Sometimes referenced as H. A Ivatt and H. G Ivatt respectively. At least, that's according to the books I have, though the Ivatts, père et fils, figure less in my collection than Sir Nigel. Guy (help!) 13:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new to submitting on Wikipedia. I don't understand what your comments on my submission means: "no such template - these are the best fits - please WP:PREVIEW your edits".
Good catch. I added those two where I think they fit best, and went through the old version and restored all the anchors and also added relevant section titles as anchors. Are there ways to check for incoming section links I should be using? Hopefully "a lot" of changes doesn't mean it's worse! I see you're busy, so no rush to look it over, I just thought I'd drop you a note about it since we edit conflicted. — Wug·a·po·des00:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not: the "what links here" feature lacks that ability. For redirects, it will show which ones involve a URL fragment: it shows '(redirect to section "FooBar")' instead of '(redirect page)'. It does this whether "FooBar" is an actual section name, a valid anchor or not valid at all. But for unredirected links from other pages, it has no indication whether the link has a fragment or not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misapplying WP:BOTTOMUP. As it says, "The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page." That's what I was trying to do, put the *most recent* discussion on the bottom. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Michaelbluejay: As you note, WP:BOTTOMPOST (there is no WP:BOTTOMUP) says The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. That is the latest topic, not the topic having the latest post. It also says This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts. It says nothing about moving active discussion to the bottom of the page.
When deciding which topic is latest, we use the date/time when each topic was first raised, not the date/time when a topic was last commented upon. Otherwise we'd be forever rearranging talk pages. In the case of Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, there were eleven topics in total at the time that you moved them around; you moved "Bringing this article in line with Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works" (initiated 15:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)) to be after "What is the purpose of ABOUTSELF?" (initiated 16:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)) instead of between "AfterEllen as a reliable source" (initiated 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)) and "PinkNews as a reliable source" (initiated 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are inventing policy. Your interpretation isn't prescribed. "The latest topic" is easily interpreted as the one with the latest activity, which is the logical and more useful interpretation. It's not easy to see the chronological order of posts when an active discussion is buried in the middle of the page, with several dead discussions after it. Your argument isn't compelling, and I intend to keep moving the active discussion to the bottom of the page so it can be discussed and resolved. If you can't stand that, then I encourage you to do what you can to help SPS get defined so that topic can be closed. I'm having a hard enough time spearheading that effort without pedantic interference. -MichaelBluejay (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Sjones23#Re: WikiProject Anime category scheme. — Goszei (talk) 07:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
Fixed, I'm pretty sure, with this edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
