User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 21

East Midlands Trains

Hi,

I'm unclear why you are reverting my edits to East Midlands Trains. I'm going through methodically copyediting the page. In particular, I'm trying to tidy up the references so they are more consistent (currently a combo of templates and bare links), check they are live and add in missing parts of the cita templates. As I'm going along, I'm being consistent with the date format using the parameters shown on the current version of Template:Cite news. By reverting my edits, you have removed all the additional parameters that I added. Also, by using the df=dmy-all parameter, I'm keeping the date format that's displayed when viewing the article unchanged. You only see a change when editing. (I'm presuming the point of this format and parameter is that (if not now, then at some time in the future) people will be able to display dates in their own chosen format.) I'm literally only trying to keep everything consistent with the template as I'm going along!

DrFrench (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFrench: Here is the page history for the last month: why are you picking me out in particular? I would like to ask you a directly-related question: where is it stated that YYYY-MM-DD is "the format expected by the template"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

• I am not 'picking you out', you were the first person to revert an edit of mine. (I have also asked the same question of Davey2010, but it seems he only reverted my changes because he thought an edit war was in progress.)
• Specifically, I'm curious as to why you reverted this edit? As the changes to the cite templates did not make any visual changes at all.

As I noted above, as I go along making copyedits (tidying up a bit of grammar, maybe changing tense as events have moved on) I tend to update any references I see. On this page, for example, there were a mixture of references using cite templates and bare references - so for consistency, I would generally try to update them. I also check references that don't have an access date.

• If you look at, say, Template:Cite news, you'll see that the parameter is now access-date= and not accessdate=. So, as part of copyediting, I simply change it so that's it's using the correct parameter from the most update date version of the template.
• All the examples in that template documentation use the YYYY-MM-DD date format; the df= parameter then lets you set the date format that will be displayed when actually viewing an article. So if you have access-date=2018-03-13 and df=dmy-all, then the date displayed when viewing the article will be 13 March 2018.

My assumption is that the YYYY-MM-DD format allows for better indexing/sorting and the df= parameter will (if not already) allow people to set their own display preferences to override this, should they prefer. But as my edit to the cite templates made no actual changes to the what was seen in 'reading' mode, I'm still unclear why you reverted the change?

I hope that helps.

DrFrench (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@DrFrench: This is not about |accessdate= vs |access-date= which are aliases and exactly equivalent to one another. It is about date formats, for which the guideline is MOS:DATEUNIFY. If you look at the article as it stood at 00:59, 11 March 2018, every single date in the article, as seen when either editing or viewing the page, was of day month year (dmy) format, the only exceptions being a few partial (month year) or year-only dates. The article even has a {{Use dmy dates|date=July 2017}} right at the top. MOS:DATEUNIFY allows yyyy-mm-dd format for access and archive dates, but not for publication dates. Publication dates are the |date= parameter, and you altered those against the guideline. MOS:DATEUNIFY also requires consistency within each group; in altering some of the access dates to yyyy-mm-dd and leaving others alone, you also introduced inconsistency where none previously existed. Same with the archive dates.

Regarding the documentation of {{cite news}}: at the entry for the date parameter, it says "Use same format as other publication dates in the citations. ... For acceptable date formats, see Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

@Redrose64: I think you are misinterpreting the guidelines. {{Use dmy dates}} (versus [{{Use mdy dates}}) is clearly about the format displayed when viewing the article (i.e. 'European style' or 'US style') and not about the wiki markup. MOS:DATEUNIFY, again, is discussing what the date format looks like when viewing the article - not the wiki markup. The fact that it's part of the Manual of Style indicates that it's about readability for the article viewer and not about the wiki markup underneath.

So, I'm still puzzled why you felt it necessary to revert my edit, when by setting |df=dmy-all I specifically made sure that all dates used in the template showed correctly in dmy format when viewing the article. That it was merely 'tidying-up' alongside the rest of my copyediting.

DrFrench (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It is about both the displayed format and the format in the markup. One of the reasons that we did away with autoformatting of article text dates about nine years ago was that people were being slack on markup, not caring which format they used, under the impression that dates would be reliably reformatted according to the preference set at Preferences → Appearance → Date format. They were reformatted, but only if the correct markup was used. Your use of |df=dmy-all is a parallel: if somebody comes to this article, sees one of your reformatted refs and adds another ref with a date in YMD format but forgets that special parameter (not appreciating its significance), we're right back to the 2009 situation again. The article already used dmy format, 100% of the time that a day was given. You used a date format that was not already in use in the article. That introduces inconsistency. No way was that 'tidying-up'. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I already stated that I was starting to work my way through the article, so all the cites wold have been consistent one I worked my way through. What I understand from your argument is that I am wrong to use the {{Cite news}} template (and similar templates) in line with the documentation because someone else may not use it correctly in the future? Really? That seems a somewhat strange view to hold. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If you object so much to the way I have tidied-up the wiki format in line with the documentation while copyediting then you probably have a few thousand edits to revert. In the meantime, Wikipedia has lost another gnome...

DrFrench (talk) 08:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no part of the {{Cite news}} documentation that says that you must use YYYY-MM-DD format; I am sure that Trappist the monk (talk · contribs), an expert on the CS1 templates, will correct me if I am wrong. But MOS:DATERET says that if an article has an established date format, you should not go against that "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page". Strong national ties means that we stick with dmy; and I see no discussion at Talk:East Midlands Trains on this matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

{{cite news}} does not require any specific format for values assigned to the date-holding parameters except that the format must be one of the single-date formats: dmy, mdy, my, y, ymd; or one of the range formats made from the dmy, mdy, my, or y formats. This same applies to all of the cs1|2 templates.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

One of the reasons that we did away with autoformatting of article text dates about nine years ago was that people were being slack on markup, not caring which format they used, under the impression that dates would be reliably reformatted according to the preference set at Preferences → Appearance → Date format. They were reformatted, but only if the correct markup was used. The more overriding concern then was about users who didn't have preferences (i.e., every one of our non-editing readers) would see a mix of date styles, not solely that people were being slack. This case is not-at-all the same. In this case, I very much side with DF's opinion that it's not about the formatting at all. As long as the displayed text is the same (whether achieved by source text styling equivalence or by use of the template parameters in question), we don't have an issue. --Izno (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Oxford meetup today

Hi Redrose64 - are you still going to the pub today? I could still pop down at 1.30 if you're going to be there. Fugitivedave (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have missed today @Redrose64: and I hope @Thryduulf: is feeling better. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Norwich and Brandon Railway

I wondered if you had any thoughts on the Norwich and Brandon Railway article. The railway in question was taken over by the Norfolk Railway before it completed construction, and there is now more proper information about the N&B in the Norfolk Railway article than in the N&BR's own article.

My personal inclination is to convert the N&BR article to a redirect. What do you think?

This is intended as a good-faith enquiry as to your view. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Merseyrail

Why was my edit reverted? The current Merseyrail franchise is due to run for 25 years (hence ending in 2028 as I stated) - Coradia175 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Coradia175: Because there was no mention of 2028 anywhere in the prose, let alone one that was supported by a reliable source per the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: - Oh that's fair enough. Using the above reference I have reinstated the information into the article - apologies for any misunderstanding – Coradia175 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

sup brah

	sup brah
	sup my name is TAIGAUCHIHA101 TAIGAUCHIHA101 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic Mr. Fox (film)

Sorry to bother you but could you check the link to the revision I was referring to? I think I fixed it. If it is not too much trouble that is (to check it).

ArchAngelAvenger (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page (4th nomination)

Hi, Could I ask what was the actual point to protecting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page (4th nomination) ? ..... It doesn't take a genius to work out one can change the number and thus essentially bypass your protection ..... so your protection is rather pointless isn't it ?, –Davey2010^Talk 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't take a genius to realise that nominating the main page for deletion is WP:POINTy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominating it isn't POINTy ..... Protecting it because you don't like April Fools is tho....., If you don't like April Fools then find a new hobby for the day .... No need to come in with your size 13s and start being POINTy everywhere all because I don't like it. –Davey2010^Talk 12:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And you seem to want to delete the main page - why, pray? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Exeter St David's

FYI there were at least 10 articles which this was changed on. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

They're new, they started earlier today, and have made 232 edits in under six hours - they made 13 edits in their first ten minutes. Virtually all of the edits that I've checked were bypassing redirects; so far, the only one that I've found that was actually a useful edit was this one which fixes a link to a dab page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: It's D47817, isn't it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifying Nightfury as well. This is in regards to At75101 (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Deffo D47817. Bbb23, thoughts? Are you able to block without a new SPI being raised? Nightfury 07:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, I will open an SPI case page. There is another user I wish to report. Nightfury 09:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Still Having Issues

Wikipedia:SVG_help#Moving_Files_Over_to_Wikia/FANDOM

It has been a few weeks and I haven't heard back from you.

The solution you gave me doesn't work. This is because another file (File:Ottawa Senators.svg) possesses all of the syntax you mentioned, yet still appears distorted when uploaded on Wikia.

I was hoping you'd be willing to continue this conversation, as this has been an issue for months. If you truly don't wish to help me (because of Wikia), than I will leave you alone.

Look forward to your reply (if you wish). Thank you. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Help:Kochi Metro station

Hi, You have helped for improvement of Template:Kochi Metro route and you are interested in wikipedia railway stations articles. Thats why i reached you for help. I have created some article on railway/metro stations in Malayalam Wikipedia and improved articles in English Wikipedia. As part of improvement of Kochi Metro Stations i have created Template:Kochi Metro and copypasted (from Template:Kochi Metro stations ) to it. After that as per Template:S-line i have removed old Template details created by user:Ymblanter and replaced with new and the reason has been described in edit summary of Template:Kochi Metro stations. The intend of this was to improve services in Infobox. The user as claimed of copyright violation of Template and the Template:Kochi Metro has been speedy deleted and all edits as been reverted. Since I have no idea about given attribution for template i have not given it. I have spend one whole day for this improvement of 16 stations and gets reverted just in minute. Can you help to recreate the improvement. jinoytommanjaly (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the steps are pretty much clear:

(a) if you do not need the name Kochi Metro stations (i.e. if it is not required by the metro line template you are using), then recreate Template:Kochi Metro, add there your text (it is available in the history of Template:Kochi Metro stations), make sure the template works (when I was removing it it was not and was showing trash), and then add it to the articles.

(b) if you do need the name, first move (by the move function, which is available at the top of the page) Template:Kochi Metro stations to Template:Kochi Metro and adjust the articles. A redirect will be created at Template:Kochi Metro stations. Then start editing the redirect and add there your text (which at the time will be available in the history of Template:Kochi Metro), make sure the template works, and then add it to the articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information shared. I will go with the case (b) , beacuse the [[Template:{{{SYSTEM}}} stations]] is used inside Metro line template. jinoytommanjaly (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

How to fix v-t-e links in Template:Kochi Metro. Can any one help. I didn't see any options to do so. -jinoytommanjaly (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim: Thank you jinoytommanjaly (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The echo icons have changed

A while ago you gave me CSS that can switch the icons around, but now that they're different the old icons are rendering weirdly now. I've tried to modify the CSS myself to fix this, but I have 0 experience with SVG and was wondering if you could modify my CSS to use the new icons while maintaining the flipped placement.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. meta:User:Cyberpower678/global.css is where my CSS is stored.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Please link to the thread where we discussed this before. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It was a thread at WP:VPT. Give me a moment.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The thread is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_149#Echo_icons_still_backwards.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Try this:

#pt-notifications-notice .mw-echo-notifications-badge::before {
  background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns=%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22 width=%2220%22 height=%2220%22 viewBox=%220 0 20 20%22%3E %3Ctitle%3E bell %3C/title%3E %3Cpath d=%22M16 7a5.38 5.38 0 0 0-4.46-4.85C11.6 1.46 11.53 0 10 0S8.4 1.46 8.46 2.15A5.38 5.38 0 0 0 4 7v6l-2 2v1h16v-1l-2-2zm-6 13a3 3 0 0 0 3-3H7a3 3 0 0 0 3 3z%22/%3E %3C/svg%3E");
}
#pt-notifications-alert .mw-echo-notifications-badge::before {
  background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml,%3Csvg xmlns=%22http://www.w3.org/2000/svg%22 width=%2220%22 height=%2220%22 viewBox=%220 0 20 20%22%3E %3Ctitle%3E tray %3C/title%3E %3Cpath d=%22M17 1H3a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v14a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h14a2 2 0 0 0 2-2V3a2 2 0 0 0-2-2zm0 12h-4l-1 2H8l-1-2H3V3h14z%22/%3E %3C/svg%3E");
}

don't forget to remove the old rules first. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You saved me once again. Thanks. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Timestamp of RfC

Hello, i did the RfC Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_on_altname_Bcash and you noted that it was poorly framed. I have closed it, thank you. You also noted there was a problem with the timestamp. Do you have any idea why the timestamp issue might have occured? I just added the {{rfc|econ|sci|} tag to generate the RfC, should that tag have created the timestamp automatically? Or is there a second step after I create the RfC that I need to go somewhere and add it to a list and create a timestamp? (I didn't do that). I have always been confused on this. I am quite new to doing RfC and it is still cumbersome for me. It would be great if you could ping me in your response so I come to look here quickly. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The timestamp issue occurred because you didn't sign the statement as advised at WP:RFCST. The RfC listing pages, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, are built by Legobot (talk · contribs) using the opening statements of each RfC. Legobot identifies the start of the RfC using the {{rfc}} template, and identifies the end of the RfC's opening statement as being the first timestamp that follows the {{rfc}} template. Everything between these points (timestamp included) is copied to the RfC listing. As explained at WP:RFCST, the timestamp should be one that is created with either ~~~~ (name and date) or ~~~~~ (just the date). This timestamp doesn't just define the end of the opening statement: it's also used to determine when thirty days has expired, after which the RfC should be delisted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, I see. In this [1] edit I failed to sign ~~~~ in the opening statement. I instead signed at the end of the discussion section. I guess this broke the bot that runs the RfC. I suppose it is good that it was broken, as it seems I messed up the RfC in many ways overall, as you pointed out. Thank you very much! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Steaua Bucharest

I saw that the bot "reverted" my edits but I didn't know how to solve the issue. Thank you for the help! 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 14:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Turkey Street Station

I don't think sourcing it is particularly relevant to whether or not using an archaic measuring system that will be incomprehensible to the vast majority of readers (and most americans won't be able to use the km conversion directly) is a good idea, but I agree that it would be best not to be inconsistent. PRL42 (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@PRL42: Yes, to some people it's obscure; but that's why it's linked (the |lk=in parameter). Please see the discussion at Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

My revision regarding the works grey livery photos

There is absolutely no doubt of the mock up identities of the streamlined loco photographed in works grey livery. A close look at original prints clearly shows the temporary names and numbers affixed to one loco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwoch (talk • contribs) 08:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jwoch: Which "revision" does this refer to? When making comments about anything on a discussion page, it always helps to link to the page under consideration. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98

As you are probably aware, I blocked Moylesy98 for continuing to add unreferenced material to articles and edit warring. The block was appealed and upheld.

Suggest that should Moylesy98 continue to add unreferenced material, a formal topic ban should be requested at WP:ANI preventing him from adding unreferenced material to articles. He's been around more than long enough to know that references are required and that there's no rush to be up to date. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this unreferenced addition to a Featured Article. I really think this needs to be escalated, as he just does not seem to get it that references are required, does he? Mjroots (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

They've added similar unrefd tables to other articles on loco classes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Now at WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (really) for reverting my edit

I didn't know about redlinks. Now I do, and it all makes perfect sense. MalcolmStory21 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Notifications on possible 2nd blocking

Iv been posting references to where iv been getting info from especialy with 31806's loaded test run as a link to the timings for the run have been included and I have also included reference to the BR database page for where I got the info for the SR light pacifics. References are being provided now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit long ago, but still: in this 2015 edit you removed one of two sets of coordinates from the Hannington transmitting station article. It might have been a good idea to check whether the one you left in was correct. I've fixed it now. – gpvos (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the article as it was before my edit, there are two clear problems: (i) at upper right, two sets of coords which conflict with one another, creating a visual mess; (ii) at the bootom of the page, the message . --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course you should have deleted one set of coordinates, I am not disputing that at all. It's just that they were both different coordinates (which was hard to spot because one used minutes and seconds and the other a decimal fraction), and the one you deleted actually pointed at the correct spot for the transmitter (which is easy to recognise on a satellite image), while the one you left in was a mile or so off, at the village of Hannington. Not a huge problem though. – gpvos (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Requests for closure / manual archive

Hi. You reverted my archiving with the edit summary please leave it for the bot. The reason I manually archived is because the bot wasn't going to do it. The request was posted without an Initiated-template. It seemed easier to just manually archive rather than creating a Initiated-template to catch the bot's attention. Does that raise any issues I am unaware of? If so, I'll certainly avoid doing that in the future. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: The bot was going to archive it, and if left to itself, you'll see that the thread does get archived. ClueBot III (talk · contribs) doesn't care about {{initiated}} - what it looks for is one of the templates listed in the |archivenow= parameter of the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} template at the top. One of these is {{Done, which is precisely what you added in this edit.

Another reason for letting ClueBot III do the archiving is that it doesn't just move threads from one page to another - it also searches for inward links to the threads that are being archived, and updates them so that they point to the archive instead of the main page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Alsee: Et voilà. First thread of that set. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I forgot to thank you for your constant assistance, oversight and comment at the Moorgate tube crash article during the rewrite and reviews it went through. Your knowledge and expertise was most welcome throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ghost stations

This is the station I was telling you about once...never completed..Lullingstone railway station. In 1937, proposals were made to move an airport to Lullingstone, near Eynsford, in Kent. In anticipation, Southern Railway built a station, ready to train into Victoria’s platform 17. Known as the ‘ghost station’, it was demolished in 1955, although the two original platforms still remain today. 🚂 Whispyhistory (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: Ah yes, I recall this one: if you look at the page history, whose name is third from bottom? The article was created by Lamberhurst (talk · contribs), one of our main creators of Kent railway pages. Another of our main creators of Kent railway pages is Mjroots (talk · contribs), who has also edited the Lullingstone railway station article. You might like to discuss airport matters with Mjroots.

BTW regarding your third sentence, we would normally write "In anticipation, the Southern Railway built ..." - although omission of the definite article is normal for British Rail and its successor train operators, it's almost never done for pre-nationalisation railway companies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fix

Thanks for fixing this. Appears it was caused by a browser bug while I was at work. – Craig Davison (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Initiated

Sorry about that duplicate 'Initiated' tag. Where is it supposed to be placed? Above the request, on the same line as the request, or after the request? I would like to add a sentence or two to the instructions so that it's clear to others.- MrX 🖋 19:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter; but recently we have been listing requests in chronological order by the date the discussion began (instead of simply adding new reqs at the end of the list) so it makes sense for the {{initiated}} to go at the start of the request. Newlines are optional. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox question

You left a message in the history for Chemeketa Cooperative Regional Library Service saying one should not use |thumb for images in the infobox. Can you tell me, is it the inclusion of that text in the text string, or is it the nature of the image that is the problem? I'm new to this, and didn't find the Infobox help page to be very enlightening on this topic. I want to be sure I got it right, this time! Jam today, jam tomorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayjam (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Everydayjam: This is the page as it had been before my edit: the infobox image has a double border - which with the infobox border makes three - and the font size of the caption is below the minimum permitted by accessibility guidelines. This is how I left it: no superfluous extra borders, caption font size matches the rest of the infobox. The relevant guideline is WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explaining that, and especially for the examples so I could see to what you were referring. Much appreciated! Jam today, jam tomorrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayjam (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Wey navigation template

Hi

You complained about interweaved replies on User talk:Useddenim. Unfortunately when you moved the comment it no longer made sense. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: You dropped your comment into the middle of a post by Useddenim (talk · contribs). In doing so, you divorced their signature from their comment "I'm not sure; I'm still trying to nail down that glitch." thus making it look like you made that comment. This goes against WP:TPO#Interleaving replies which says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts."

This was the subject of an RfC a few months back, see Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 12#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Lisle Park District

Hi, @RedRose64!

Can I ask why they moved it back to my sandbox? Were there any issues regarding the article?

Andrianajohnson (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Andrianajohnson: The person to ask is the person who moved the page, which (as may be seen from the page history) is Calton (talk · contribs), and you already asked them a question at User talk:Calton#Lisle Park District. But we can find out quite a lot by examining the events: first, you created the page in your own userspace (and there is nothing wrong in that) when it looked like this; it contains nothing apart from the template {{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}. Ten days later, when it still did not contain any actual text, you moved it to mainspace; 100 minutes later, Calton moved it back, notice the edit summary "empty sandbox". In fact, the page was not quite empty at the time, since it still contained the template {{dashboard.wikiedu.org sandbox}}, but this on its own would have been sufficient for the page to be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G2 (Test pages), WP:CSD#A1 (No context), or WP:CSD#A3 (No content) - take your pick.

You ask "were there any issues regarding the article?" - yes there were, since there was no actual article as such. I think that Calton was being lenient in simply moving the page back where it came from rather than requesting speedy deletion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Gabriele Evertz

Dear Radrose64, you added the category [[Category:Year of birth missing (living people)]] - but in the article, it is named that she is born 1945. I would have loved to add this to the template on the right side, but there is only a possibility to name her day and month of birth also, and i don't know them. Do you know a way to add to the infobox the year 1945? Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gyanda: Now that you mention it, I do see that 1945 is there - but there are two problems: one is that it doesn't actually say that she was born in 1945, it's just a figure in parenthesis with an unexplained asterisk and the words "in Berlin"; the other is that per the policy on living people all personal information, including year of birth, must be referenced to a reliable source. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. Would a gallery who has the vita of the artist be counted as a reliable source? (It only gives the year though, not day and month). Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The asterisk is a symbol for born, i saw it more often here on wikipedia. --Gyanda (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gyanda: Regarding reliable sources, this should be covered at the link that I provided; there is more info at WP:BLPSOURCES and if you have questions on a particular source, the place to ask is WP:RSN. As for the asterisk - I've not seen it in a Wikipedia article before, and it's not mentioned at MOS:DOB, so please give an example of where this is done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm deeply thankful that you took the time to answer me in such detail. This helps a lot! Thank you very much - and i will delete the asterisk! Kind regards and THANKS again!!! --Gyanda (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

London Paddington Station Platforms

I can see you undid my edit. Paddington dose in fact have 14 platforms, not 13 and this is shown on the Network Rail Website how runs the station. So I have undone your edit. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Slindsell15 I think that what Redrose is saying is that that diagram is out of date (which wouldn't surprise me). However, you are correct, Redrose does need to show sources to refute yours. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slindsell15:

On the right: platform 14; on the left: the former platform 13, now numbered 12 following the extension of platform 12 in 2017

As mattbuck says, the diagram at https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Paddington-Station-Map.pdf (linked from https://www.networkrail.co.uk/stations/paddington/ ) is wrong in several respects. In particular, it has not been updated for the changes that took place in Summer 2017 (which were completed by 8 October 2017, and no earlier than 13 August 2017), under which the former platforms 12 & 13 were combined into a single platform numbered 12 for its whole length. The accompanying photo shows the former platform 13 now bearing signs for platform 12. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, After doing some research and actually contacting Network Rail I believe I have a solution. Paddington Has 14 platforms, it has 6 lines splitting into 14 rail tracks going into the station which are all connected to the GWR network. I can see that there was an extension to platform 12 and you are correct about that. However, platform 12 and 13 did not share a rail track, they were separate platforms. If platform 13 was removed and called platform 12 there were still two lines serving Paddington which means two trains, two services which means this has to be counted as a platform. Therefore Paddington has 14 platforms serving the GWR in London. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slindsell15:

On the left, Platform 12 at Paddington; on the right, platform 11

No, as part of the platform remodelling in 2017, the tracks were realigned. Previously, there were indeed two tracks; now there is only one. The accompanying photo was taken from the former platform 13, looking along the extended platform 12. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand. The map on Network Rails website is very different. Platform 12 is long anyway. Could you elaborate please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slindsell15 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Slindsell15, yes, NR's map is different. It hasn't been updated since the remodelling took place. Platform 13 no longer exists. Platform 12 may be long, but it's a single platform, not two. I've tweeted to NR to ask them to fix it. Also, please remember to sign your messages using four tildes (~~~~) and you can just edit the page rather than adding a new section each time! -mattbuck (Talk) 18:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The NR map at was updated on 10 April 2018, according to its PDF information. Bazza (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikibreak enforcer

Hi RedRose

It's TedEdwards here. Last month, to prepare for exams, I started an Enforced Wikibreak. However recently, someone is attempting to log into my account. Obviously, as I can't log onto my account (this is the case till late June) to see how many times this person has attempted to log into my account etc., could you please edit my JavaScript to end the Wikibreak enforcer. Thank you. 86.149.230.184 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled why you are asking me: I know little of JavaScript and nothing of this WikiBreak Enforcer, other than the fact that it appears to be in User:TedEdwards/common.js. Who suggested that you add this code? Is there any reason why you cannot ask that person, rather than me?

But more importantly: what proof do I have that you are the real TedEdwards (talk · contribs) and not somebody who is attempting to log into TedEdwards's account? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you because according to your user page, you're a computer programmer and the first admin I could think of. To remove the Wikibreak Enforcer, just blank the page of the JavaScript. And no one suggested I should add the code, I found a mention of it of WP:SELFBLOCK and thought it would serve my need. Due to my account being password protected, it hasn't been breached yet, I'm just getting emails saying someone has unsucessfully attempted to log onto my account multiple times. I can log into my account, however when I do, I can't do anything before I'm automatically logged out again. So to be clear, this person does not know my (strong) password, so only I can log in. To explain how I know you, I hate to say this, but I changed my username from User:Theoosmond a few years ago, if that rings any unwanted bells (check User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 14 if you can't remember). I hope you realise that I have grown up since those incidents, and to reiterate, I am sorry and embarassed about what happened, and I hope you don't hold a grudge against me as I don't as I accept my behaviour was immature, offensive and unacceptable in general. I'm asking you because your the only admin I've had extensive dealings with before that I can think off. 86.149.230.184 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Record of me changing my username: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple/Archive203#Theoosmond → TedEdwards. 86.149.230.184 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear, I believe you were completely in the right when the incidents described above occured, hence I don't hold a grudge. 86.149.230.184 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you want to stop a piece of Javascript running, disable Javascript, and once you're logged in to your account you can adjust whatever preferences you like. You do not need to be going around trying to persuade admins to delete other peoples' user pages to access your account. If Redrose, or any other admin, did delete someone else's .js page at the request of a dynamic BT IP who could literally be anyone in Britain, the net result would just be one less admin. ‑ Iridescent 2 21:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Iridescent 2: Wish I knew that! So cheers for that. But I never asked for my Javascript to be deleted, just blanked. And I would like to make it clear (if it isn't already) that the IP was me. To RedRose: Thanks for that anyway. Again I sorry and I hope you moved on from what I descibed above and I wish you well in editing. TedEdwards 21:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

RedRose/Iridescent 2. Either of you wouldn't happen to know where and if I could find the location of who attempted to log into my account. TedEdwards 22:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Not all computer programmers know all computer languages - ask a JavaScript expert to write a program in COBOL-74 and they'd be totally flummoxed.

I don't have the ability to rename users. Examining the CHU request, it's clear that the rename was performed by K6ka (talk · contribs).

I don't have access to the relevant data tables, so cannot find out anything about who was making the attempt; all I can offer is what it says in a typical email, which is the blue button Help.

Anyway, try what Iridescent said; failing that, you could ask for assistance at WP:AN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't know why you're talking about changing usernames, as I know you didn't do it nor do I want to change my username, but nonetheless thank you. TedEdwards 15:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about changing usernames because that is precisely what 86.149.230.184 (talk) mentioned in this edit and this one. Since you deny having mentioned that matter - and I have no reason to doubt you - it is therefore clear that 86.149.230.184 is not you, and they were indeed attempting to gain access improperly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand, the IP was me; I mentioned changing my username in a crap attempt to prove who I was (by showing how I came across you a couple of years ago, and showing that me and Theoosmond are the same person).

I've been on the admin's noticeboard, and apparently people trying to hack peoples' Wikipedia accounts has been going on a lot recently, so there isn't a problem. TedEdwards 21:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of Sheila Fox

Hi. Can you go through Disappearance of Sheila Fox and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Go through it for what? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for reminding me. I completely forgot about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WikiProject_Death - what a muddy pool that one is. JarrahTree 23:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!

Roses are red,
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

.

Luton to Rainham

I am holding fire in this. I just popped down to Strood to get a photo on the new livery- but no trains. All the timetables except the Govia website- said there was an 12: 17 and a 12:24. But nothing is running- there are only Tameslink timetables and no Southeastern ones available- no staff and the historic services. Govia website suggests this bill be a Monday- Friday service until mid-June- their paper timetable just have a red overprint- check before you travel. When this does happen- the Template:Medway area RDT and I suspect everal others will need a little hacking.--ClemRutter (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Template:Medway area RDT appears to be a fork of Template:Medway Towns RDT, which I created. The latter is nothing to do with services, who runs what train or anything else current. It is a diagram of all the railway lines within the Borough of Medway, plus all the passenger stations that were open at any time in history. Unless a station is closed and resited (like Rochester a couple of years back), it should need no amendments as a result of a new TOC taking over services in the area. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Got it- the train does exist

In spite of the cancellations- I finally got a photo. Overall the picture here is bleak. Thameslink is a replacement for our CHX service not an addition as we had been led to believe and the last train from London is now 22.25 (late afternoon by my standards). Borough of Medway refers to previous name for Rochester (1974-1979)- not the Medway Council, but I see a few redirects need to be redirected!ClemRutter (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

East Coast (train operating company)

I am not sure why you reverted my edit, but there was a discussion on the subject here. 2.24.142.61 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In which case you need to consider carefully what Keith D (talk · contribs) has said, and not WP:EW to force your own personal preference upon the rest of us. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment there, but in response to this and to your edit summary, I draw your attention to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. 2.24.142.61 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

CSS question @ Village pump/technical

Thank you for the reply. I was using Firefox to look at Wikipedia's CSS as an example of clean design and table design, that's why I asked. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

UK Railways

• See a discussion which is developing in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Recent "uncontroversial" page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Anthony Appleyard: Er, a thread which I started... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

CFD/CFDS

Sorry. Your explanation was perfectly clear but I just missed the S. Even after all these years, category stuff is in large part a dysfunctional mystery to me. I'm sure that is my fault! - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A new one

Hello R. A new conundrum has come up at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Several "Portal" pages have shown up and I can't track down the cause. Any help you can provide will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I can't either because Lua is happening in these pages. You may need to ask somebody like RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) - who made the last edit to Portal:Earth sciences/Selected article/9, or Certes (talk · contribs) who wrote Module:Excerpt. I suspect that what is happening is that the lead section of an article (in this case, Ediacara biota) is being transcluded, including any templates that it may contain, and such templates may of course include protection templates. If it is a simple transclusion, we can use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{pp-move-indef}} - but I have absolutely no idea how Module:Excerpt works, nor even if it respects <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Module:Excerpt tries hard to remove such templates and almost always succeeds. The current problem is detecting whether a template is before the lead and should be discarded, or forms the first words of the lead and should be kept. As it would be impractical to write a bulletproof wikitext parser which deals individually with 500,000 different templates, it has to apply some heuristics. It's currently failing to handle three types of line: misnested braces such as I just fixed in Ediacaran biota; a template followed by part of another template as in William Bruce (architect); and a template followed by a File: image as in Food. I'll see what I can do about the last two. Certes (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and Redrose64:  Fixed, thanks for the ping. By the way, the module does respect noinclude but I see that as a last resort. I'd prefer to find out about such problems so that they can be solved in the module rather than by adding noinclude tags to potentially large numbers of articles. Module:Excerpt may have gained 1500 transclusions but it's still supposed to be in alpha test so it's not too late to fix this sort of thing. Certes (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for working on this Certes. If it is okay I can let you know if new ones pop up in the category in the future. Thanks to you as well Redrose64 for taking a look and for contacting the right people. Regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sections

BTW. Note that the Parsoid version of the parser automatically generates sections based on wikicode headers example. This is used for the mobile/app versions to do lazy loading, and for VE as well I believe. This only works if the wikicode of that page is well balanced, because the parser needs to be able to guess. If it cannot, then it will give up and return the output without section elements. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Localizing the GeoHack link

Dear Redrose64,

Sorry to bother you, especially with something which is probably a stupid/obvious FAQ and I am just not getting it, BUT:

1. I'm trying to get Tees Transporter Bridge so that if you click its geographical coordinates you see a localized version of the GeoHack page with the GB stuff like OS at the top right.
2. If I go to, say, Carluke railway station then click its coordinates it takes me here showing the GB stuff at top right as I would like.
3. If from Tees Transporter Bridge I click the same(ish) link then I go here to a more general version of the GeoHack page. The GB stuff is there, further down, but you have to scroll or search down for it.
4. You can see a couple of my inept attempt to fix this here. Obviously, it didn't work!

So, I hate to be a nuisance, but could you please enlighten me? Apologies in advance if it is painfully obvious and I am just being seriously dim. It would not be the first time. :( Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: See this edit. The coords that you were editing were ignored because they were inside HTML comment markers; the coords displayed top right were actually generated by the infobox which gets its data from Wikidata. The thing to do is override the Wikidata coords by using the |coordinates= parameter in the infobox, and that allows you to set a value for region: Note that I didn't copy your region:GB-MDB - only half of the bridge is in Middlesbrough, the rest is in Port Clarence in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees for which the ISO 3166-2:GB code is GB-STT. Since neither GB-MDB nor GB-STT is correct, it's best to use something more generic: either region:GB-ENG or the simpler form region:GB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you so much for this lovely clear explanation, for sorting it out for me, and for stopping me from offending Stocktonians about their half! I see that I was thoroughly barking up the wrong tree and I'm most grateful to you for putting me right. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A new member who needs help

Hi, I'm new here and didn't make many contributions so I'm not really familiar with the system and was seeking help to report a page for deletion since I think it's violating the page as it is clear that the company is the one who created the page even making a section called "Our Vision" so I tried to report it my self but I didn't really understand the system and was afraid to screw up the whole thing so thought you may help me or at least guide me on how to report it since tgis company is already controversial enough here in Egypt. Thanks Mohab mazhar (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm User:ChieftanTartarus, I'd like to address your points in a list so here goes:

• First of all, it is okay in Wikipedia policy to edit a page referring to yourself/your company as long as it is independently assessed for bias by other users (which of course is normally the case).
• Secondly, they are not required to disclose their link to the topic, although it is good practise to do so, the exception to this is if they are getting paid to write/edit the page, in which case they must disclose this.
• Thirdly, can you please provide a link to the page in question so that I, User:Redrose64 or one of the other WP:TPS's can take a look at the page?
• Fourthly, it could be that they have copied/pasted from the company's website, in which case, it will need to be urgently reviewed in case any copyright claims are violated by the inclusion of content.
• Fifthly, failing this, the page may possibly be in violation of policy, in which case it can be nominated for deletion.

Thanks for taking the time to reach out with your concern rather than sporadically nominating pages for deletion, I appreciate your good practise. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

First off, thank you for replying and for taking my matter seriously and replying so soon to this so I really appreciate it.

The page is about some sports advertising company called "presentation sports" or "برزنتشن سبورت" (in Arabic) the problem is that I'm almost quite certain that they are using the community as an advertising platform unfortunately this topic isn't available in other languages than Arabic which made it more suspicious to me since it's a really big company and also I think that would be a problem to you reviewing since I know Arabic isn't common in other regions than the Middle East which is understandable of course.

Again I am really thankful for your reply and hope that we can find a solution to tell if it is abusing the Wikipedia policy or not since I really appreciate this site and it's community. Mohab mazhar (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm afraid I cannot provide further existence if it is not on the English Wikipedia other than to say it may be best to seek out someone on the Arabic Wikipedia to help you out, but be advised that policy can and does normally differ depending on the regional Wiki (i.e. different languages). Apologies for not being much help, but perhaps @Redrose64: may still be able to provide you with assistance. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mohab mazhar and ChieftanTartarus: I speak no Arabic and can read even less; my userpage at ar.wikipedia should have indicated that. I have no idea why this has been brought to me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Table help

Hi, Redrose! We need some help getting a table to look aesthetically pleasing, aligned and orderly - see User:Dawnleelynn/Sandbox. Can you help, or recommend someone? Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme and Dawnleelynn: It is never a good idea to arrange a wide table to look good on any given screen - you don't know how wide anybody else's screen is, nor what zoom level they are using. Even such things as browser configuration and installed fonts can make a difference. The best thing to do is to omit all formatting (other than appropriate use of header cells and data cells), including forced line breaks, and let the browser arrange the column widths.

On the matter of forced line breaks, the tags <br> and <br /> are equally valid, the space and the slash are both optional. A commonly-found invalid form is </br> which should either be removed, or altered to one of the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I use the slash because of the highlighting feature in Preferences - without it, everything is pink highlighted from the first <br> until <br />. I added the formatting after the fact, so that was easy enough to undo. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Redrose, thanks for your help. We are converting several lists into tables in an existing article. But I'm doing the table in my sandbox first to keep the mainspace article unaffected. I looked the tag up in HTML documentation; it's been awhile since I've done HTML coding. I know that the tag <br /> is meant for xHtml, but see that many editors are replacing any other versions with this one. There is an editor who changes all of mine when I create new articles because I am set in my ways and use </br>, which as you say is a no-no. But now I am rethinking this and going try to use less. Of course, are instances when you really need one. But many times, there are other choices. Because I know exactly what you are saying. In my last job as a tech writer, I had Help web documentation that was mostly HTML tables that was for a company product and I knew that the programmers who were reading my Help documentation were using many OSes, browsers, and even cell phones to read it. So I let the table decide all of the formatting options. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

72010 Hengist

Morning,

I am interested in why you reverted my update on 72010.

I am the commercial Director of the company building the locomotive, so I can assure you that any information that I add will be true, and as up to date as I can make it.

I have edited the page again, please leave as I have edited this time, as the information added is correct as of June 9th 2018.

Best regards,

Bob Ife Commercial Director The 'Clan' Project [email protected] UBT - The Prof.... (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@UBT - The Prof....: You removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content - twice now. Please read the policy on verifiability. You clearly also have a conflict of interest and so should avoid editing articles about subjects with which you have a personal or business connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Legobot index

Hiya. Do you know if Legobot is still indexing contents? It stopped indexing my talk page a year ago. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Tyw7: To my knowledge, you have left similar messages at User talk:Legoktm#Bot no longer indexing my talk page; User talk:Legobot#Bot no longer indexing my talk page, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:Legobot indexing, User talk:Harej#Legobot indexing feature and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:Legobot stopped indexing my talk page - and that's just the ones on my watchlist. Please observe WP:MULTI and don't spam discussion pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

source versus syntaxhighlight

In response to this edit summary, the documentation of Extension:SyntaxHighlight has suggested for years that <source>...</source> should generally be avoided in favor of <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>, since the former is a valid HTML element with an unrelated purpose; the latter tag was specifically introduced during MediaWiki 1.16 to work around this conflict. I have made this exact same change in several other places over the years, including in the sitewide CSS and JS files, and you're the first person to object to it. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Wales articles- thank you for your work.

Redrose64 I see you have kept an eye on sources being used in articles on subjects related to Wales and I believe I have a good source. I have listed it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales "Parliament for Wales Campaign- potential source". As you can see by my atrocious use of wiki editing protocol, I am relatively new to editing here and ask you be gentle and please have a look at something I believe you will find helpful for this project. I am not yet of the caliber to construct such an article but believe your works speaks for itself. I have added this page to my watchlist, and look forward to peeking in occasionally to see the many things that you address as time allows. Respectfully, Mrphilip (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply regarding WP:DELETE

Hi, as per this message, I posted there after reading the title of page REQUEST FOR CLOSURE that also mentions XfDs as I wanted to close or remove the discussion having same arguements even where I tried to include such parties of those fellow wikipedians who agreed with me for what I said and trying to proof is correct. Still the users from whom the article is protected doing same arguments, same unsourced thinkings, same unauthentic sources provided same to same, I tried to delete discussion by myself, tried to close discussion by myself but no one is listening. See, WWE.com still lists Cruiserweight Wrestlers under RAW Section as well as they have their own section 205 Live too. regarding this issue outside wikipedia I saw that this is a rumor as WWE.com even company itself hasn't made any announcement officially also. I know they aren't making appearances on RAW but that doesn't mean that they aren't RAW Rosters. it seems to be discussions full of arguements has been initiated at 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC) especially what I requrested for deletion(that discussion). You can see my talkpage for block templates for proof as well as events and incidents happened for why I got blocked. I need this thing to be cleared and closed i.e why I did requests. Well, the changes are same regarding 205 Live and RAW as what I wanted at article List of WWE personnel. I don't wanted to reply there where you've left me message So I visited your talk page to respond, Thanks. CK (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Broken nutshell: From what I can tell, you wish the article List of WWE personnel to be deleted: but WP:AN/RFC is not for initiating deletion discussions. It does mention XFDs, and has a heading "Deletion discussions"; the purpose of this is for requesting formal closure of an existing XFD that is still open but perhaps has stalled, and where consensus is not clear. For example, an AFD that has been open for a month or so and been relisted something like three times.

In the case of List of WWE personnel, there is no currently-open AFD discussion for that; there was one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE personnel but it closed more than four years ago, and if there had been a subsequent discussion, it would be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE personnel (2nd nomination), but that doesn't exist.

Since it has been to AFD before, and closed as "nomination withdrawn", you have two possible routes as described at WP:DELETE: speedy deletion (but you need to be certain that one or another of the criteria listed at WP:CSD will stick); or start a fresh AFD - see the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO for how to proceed, bearing in mind the extra procudures noted as "if this article has been nominated before". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Template : Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Edinburgh) RDT

On looking at the RDT, the line connection areas to the north of Slateford seem "jagged". Is there anything that you can do to correct matters, please. Useddenim'Bold text' seems to be away from Wikipedia according to his notes.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I've partially fixed it but the right hand line still needs more attention (search for 3+1). Note that I've naughtily put a dark corner on the light diagonal: please fix if you can find a syntax for doing so! Certes (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears to have been broken in this edit. You'll need a {{Routemap}} expert for that, I'm not (and have stated as such on several occasions) - best bet is Jc86035 (talk · contribs) who converted it from {{BS-map}} in November 2017. If it were still {{BS-map}} I'd be able to sort it, no trouble. At first glance, it looks like some of the icons are narrower than square. The Slateford Junction row, for example, has a width of 1+1⁄2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Further reading

Thanks for the "Further reading" clarification at Wikipedia talk:Further reading. The subject came up after a disagreement I had with another editor at Alt right. This editor has twice reversed my attempt to code ==Further reading== so it appears in the Contents listing. I don't want to get in an edit war with this editor. Can you fix this for me at Alt right? Chisme (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Easy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chisme (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, he/she reversed the edit again. What to do? Chisme (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We ask them. Beyond My Ken, why are you insisting that "Further reading" not be a level 2 heading (quote: "It's ridiculous to have an entire hierarchical section for one lone book") when the "External links" section also contains a single entry, yet you seem perfectly happy for it to have a level 2 heading? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Redirect shortcuts

Hi, Redrose64.
Regarding your revision on Wikipedia talk:Redirect, isn’t it fine to have more than two shortcuts if they differ enough? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Interqwark: WP:2SHORTCUTS says "The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:Whatlinkshere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects." Nothing about how different they should be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It does say “generally,” and I’ve seen multiple guideline or policy pages with upwards of ten shortcuts for one section. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 01:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the people who added those were unaware of 2SHORTCUTS? In any case, WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You have a point.

So, should I remove all the shortcuts until there are two left whenever I see a Shortcut template with more than two shortcuts? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 13:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't hunt them down; I also don't reduce them to two on sight - when I notice somebody adding shortcuts in a way that takes it above two (whether from 0, 1 or 2 to 3, 2 to 4 or even from 9 to 10), I usually bring it back down to two. The way that I select the two to keep is based partly on how long they have been there, partly on how many incoming links each one has, partly on intuitiveness. So, when I spotted this edit, I selected the two to keep I found that WT:R had 16 incoming links; WT:REDIR had 5 incoming links; but WT:RDR had none, so the choice was obvious. I made a similar edit to the subject page on the same basis, and fixed some vandalism on the way. The intuitiveness factor was not necessary here, but it could have been (to somebody who used the CP/M operating system back in the 1970s, RDR is one of the input devices). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about shortcuts

Why did you remove the shortcuts that I added? They’re not on Redirects for discussion. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about RFD? I removed them because we don't need more, MOS:ENGVAR has stood on its own for over seven years, people are used to it. What's AMENG anyway - something said when a preacher finishes a prayer? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Since there was only one shortcut to the section, I thought MOS:AMENG and MOS:BRITENG would be fine useful additions. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 16:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You only invented them today - less than six hours ago, to be exact. On what basis did you think that they would be "fine additions"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought they would be easier to remember, but I’m sorry. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

fix v-t-e links

Just noticed your repair work like these, after my moving the templates, just want you to know I'll remember to fix these at the same time. :) Thanx for you back-up, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Carluke Railway Station

Hi there,

Just wondering about your reversion of my edit to the opening date of Carluke Railway Station. I'd changed it to the opening of the actual station in its current location, rather than the earlier station on the Wishaw and Coltness line, though I appreciate that I should probably have changed the line to Caledonian too. But if you feel it should reflect the earliest of any station that was called Carluke, then that's fine too. Weatherman22 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@Weatherman22: You refer to this edit. At Carluke railway station#History, the only source given for the opening date is "R V J Butt 1995", which refers to this book, which I have: and on pages 220 and 54 it shows that the station named Stirling Road was opened on 8 January 1842 by the Wishaw and Coltness Railway, and renamed Carluke on 15 February 1848 by the Caledonian. There is no indication of two stations, nor of one station being resited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that book must be wrong, looking at the old OS maps from the time, and also the Wishaw and Coltness wikipedia page Wishaw_and_Coltness_Railway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

How does Wikia Staff contact a user when they (user) are blocked, do they leave a message on a message wall, please tell me.2601:540:8200:D52E:78B0:F4DB:51C5:6CAA (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Typhuss999

I have no idea. This is the English Wikipedia, which is nothing to do with Wikia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway.--2601:540:8200:D52E:78B0:F4DB:51C5:6CAA (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Typhuss999

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Rail-interchange

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Rail-interchange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bristol meetup

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally Saturday 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another

Hello again R. Alan Sabrosky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is now in the category. As it is fully protected I can't make any adjustments. When you have a moment any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit should fix it. When MilborneOne (talk · contribs) added the protection earlier today, they should either have updated the |expiry= parameter, or simply removed it - nowadays it's autodetected and does not need to be set explicitly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks. I had a suspicion that might be it when I looked at the log but I couldn't confirm that. Thanks also for mentioning that expiry time is now autodetected. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Templating me for edit warring

Seriously? One edit is edit warring, is it? Fish+Karate 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And as an experienced editor you ought to know by now that templating experienced editors just tends to rile people up and is really unhelpful. See WP:DTTR. Fish+Karate 15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: You knew full well that the content concerned was disputed, and under discussion at the article's talk page. You also made similar edits to at least two other articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Noted, but not addressing my point at all. Fish+Karate 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR has a per-user count; WP:EW (which is what I templated you for) does not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Didn’t meet those requirements either (clue is in the first line of WP:EW).) But still not addressing my point: a template was unnecessary, and although I don’t get flustered by that sort of thing, templating experienced editors almost always causes exacerbations. Fish+Karate 17:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Railway-routemap‎

I am trying to figure out what Ahecht was trying to do with this template. Was it to prevent the template from accidentally categorizing the parent article if {{Railway-routemap‎}} is not placed between <noinclude> </noinclude> tags? And if so, why was the documentation changed to read “It will also place the template in the appropriate category … if placed in the article namespace.”? Useddenim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim: The categorisation was because of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Userpage artificially transcluded into inappropriate category. The documentation I don't know about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Useddenim and Redrose64: Sorry, that was my mistake. I got distracted by something mid-edit, and forgot that I should've been limiting to {{ns10}}, not {{ns0}}. I've updated the documentation accordingly. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. Useddenim (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

move of Request for closure

Re this, the reason its in that other section is because it is not a properly-formed RFC. It has neither clear/correct A-B choices nor neutral wording (that's the point of requesting early closure), rather it not be buried in with the moldy other RFCs. It needs more immediate action to send us back to the drawing board and format it properly. -- Netoholic @ 09:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Chains at Patchway

Hi Redrose. I reverted your change to the lead of Patchway railway station. While I accept that 6mi is not accurate to 2dp, the lead is in integer miles, per several GA reviews on station articles. The lead is for general info, it goes more detailed in the body: chainages are referenced and explained when they appear as a unit of measurement in the description section. I've also had several reviewers point out that lead sections should not include references. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hi i recently opened an RFC and now the other user has edited my post, the reference links i posted dont work anymore. Can you please intervene and fix this please? Is he allowed to edit my posts? Samsparky (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samsparky: Which page is this? Or, better still, please provide a diff link for the changes concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Diff. [2] Samsparky (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Samsparky: I think that McKhan (talk · contribs) was trying to eliminate the list of refs at the bottom of the page, and have the refs appear as part of your post instead. There are two ways of doing this - one is to forget about <ref>...</ref> tags and put the {{cite journal}} etc. templates into a bulleted list:

• Avon, Dominique (2008). "The Ahbash. A contested Lebanese Sunni movement in a globalized world". University of Montpellier Religion Studies. 2. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
• "Paths of the sublime". Al Ahram. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
• Kabha, Mustafa. Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam (PDF). Cambridge University Press. p. 523.

and the other is to do this. Which one you choose is largely a matter of personal choice. I'm curious as to why you need to reference the word "Yes". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Blank lines in talk pages

I question this edit to a talk page. You invoke the indentation section of "Manual of Style/Accessibility". I am not prepared to accept this guideline at all, because it does not prominently answer the question "if we don't have the technology, at this moment, to make a feature that is usable to users with no accessibility issues, should we disable the feature, or should we make it available to users with no accessibility issues, or make it available and work toward making it more accessible"?

This applies to your edit in that the only widely used method of editing talk pages is to use the colon to indent contributions. If a contribution consists of more than one paragraph, the only widely used way to create a blank line between the paragraphs, so that readers can see that the paragraph exists, is to write a paragraph preceded by n colons, a blank line, and then another paragraph preceded by n colons. What is your solution to this issue? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

But it wasn't paragraphs. It was colon-indented: and this is MediaWiki's way of creating an association list. In MediaWiki, any blank line in a list causes termination of the list and the commencement of another list, which has implications for screen reader software. Let's consider the second group of line removals, but trimmed down to the first 7/8 words of each line. Without the blank lines, this is

:OMG I just looked for where this has
::Thanks, {{para|order|out}} is exactly what I need.
::As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),
::I guess my question is, why is

and the generated HTML is

<dl>
<dd>OMG I just looked for where this has
<dl>
<dd>Thanks, <code class="nowrap">|order=out</code> is exactly what I need.</dd>
<dd>As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),</dd>
<dd>I guess my question is, why is</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

There are two <dl>...</dl> elements, and four <dd>...</dd> elements. However, with blank lines, as in

:OMG I just looked for where this has

::Thanks, {{para|order|out}} is exactly what I need.

::As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),

::I guess my question is, why is

the generated HTML is

<dl>
<dd>OMG I just looked for where this has</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Thanks, <code class="nowrap">|order=out</code> is exactly what I need.</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>I guess my question is, why is</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

The first thing that you notice is that it is much longer. There are now seven <dl>...</dl> elements and seven <dd>...</dd> elements. Each one needs to be read out by screen reader software; and somebody like Graham87 (talk · contribs) is not going to be happy to hear "End of list. End of list." repeatedly when still only part-way through the discussion thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that talk pages misuse the colons for things that really aren't lists. But you have not answered my question: How do I prepare a talk page reply that contains more than one paragraph, in a way that will be familiar to other editors and that they will know how to deal with? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I've brought this up at Help talk:Talk pages#"Indentation" section is inadequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have already mentioned WP:INDENTGAP, and that is where you will find the answer to your question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:INDENTGAP is part of the Manual of Style. The MOS does not apply to talk pages; the very first sentence of the page says "This is a guide to editing articles for accessibility." (I added the italics for emphasis). Talk pages should generally not be edited to bring them into compliance with the MOS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to accessibility, it applies in all namespaces. It is not something that can be opted out of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Accessibility" as a general concept may apply to all namespaces, but the MOS page MOS:ACCESS does not - it explicitly says that it is a page about editing articles. Your argument would be stronger if you had pointed at WP:TALK, which also has something about blank lines between comments. We don't want to start a trend of people point to MOS guidelines for talk pages.

But I think it would be more productive to discuss the question Jc3s5h asked -- how should someone format an indented response that has more than one paragraph, in a way to leave a space between the paragraphs? Based on looking at the results generated by these examples [3] it looks like one of the two options in LISTGAP does not work - in my browser an empty dd has height 0px. So to follow INDENTGAP a bare paragraph tag is needed instead of a blank line. But I think I have almost never seen someone use a paragraph tag in that way in practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

There is already a space between indented "paragraphs", and it's a very similar gap to that between unindented paragraphs and other block content, a little less than 1em. If someone wants to have a bigger space on a talk page between each of their "paragraphs" (and it's reasonable to ask "why"?), they can add a <p> tag, just as they can to increase the gap between real paragraphs. What they can't do in this case is use wikimarkup (a blank line) when they are (mis)using association lists to create indents, because of its effect on those using screen readers. That restriction is a consequence of the legacy misuse of definition lists to create indents, as was common twenty years ago before we realised what would happen when screen readers became commonly available. There is little value in rehashing a problem that has a perfectly good solution outlined at WP:INDENTGAP, and there's even less value in being deliberately awkward and creating real disruption to screen reader users just to make a point. Especially when that point is worthless anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

The example at [4] show a significant difference in vertical space - at least to me - between various options. The first and fourth are not the same as the second and third. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Significant in what way? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@CBM: Yes, they are different. The first and fourth have an extra 0.7em of bottom+top margin compared to the second and third.

But the second and third have spacing very similar to these two normal paragraphs. So I have two questions: (1) Why would anybody need even more space than that between two normal, unindented paragraphs? (2) Even if there were a good reason to demand extra space, why would anybody choose to deliberately disrupt a thread for all screen readers by using your option 1, when they are aware that exactly the same visual effect can be created without disruption by using your option 4? --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

How many times have you actually seen someone use option 4? As for whether someone wants extra space, that is up to them, in my opinion. I think it is pretty common - I was able to find several examples just scrolling through the text of WP:VPR just now. I think that "deliberately disrupt" seem like strong language to refer to an extremely common editing practice. I would say that any disruption for screen readers is coming from the way Mediawiki generates the HTML, rather than from the users. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I've seen option 4 a few times. How many times have you seen a genuine need for extra spacing between paragraphs? If your opinion is that someone can do what they feel like on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, then your opinion sucks, in my opinion. It may be common, but your argument then becomes "a million lemmings can't be wrong". If someone knows that they are disrupting the thread for a screen reader, then that is deliberate by definition. Strong language is justified to describe such behaviour, and you wouldn't be taking that position if you were unfortunate enough to have to use a screen reader, would you? The way that wiki-markup translates into html is perfectly predictable: you know that using spaces between indented pseudo-paragraphs causes problems for screen readers, yet you choose to do so (despite being aware of a non-disruptive alternative) and then blame the software which is simply working as intended. You should be ashamed of your attitude to the visually impaired. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

RexxS asked "Why would anybody need even more space than that between two normal, unindented paragraphs?" In the skin I use, the vertical space between lines within a regular paragraph is the same as lines with a paragraph that has been indented with colon(s), and the same as the vertical space between two indented paragraphs with the same level of indentation. The space between unindented paragraphs is greater than between lines within a paragraph, by about 3/4 the height of an n. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: What is the skin you're using? and we'll get it fixed. In the Vector and Monobook skins, the vertical space between lines within a regular paragraph depends only on the line-height of 1.6em, while the the vertical space between two indented [pseudo-]paragraphs with the same level of indentation is determined by the line-height of 1.6em plus the extra space provided by the margin-bottom of 0.4em and the margin-top of 0.4em of the <dd>...</dd> tags. That's almost the same as that between two normal, unindented paragraphs, which is the line-height of 1.6em plus the extra space provided by the margin-bottom of 0.5em and the margin-top of 0.5em of the <p>...</p> tags (or 0.5em + 0.4em in Monobook). For normal text, as we use in articles, nobody seems to need more than 1em/0.9em of top+bottom margin between paragraphs, so why would anybody need more top+bottom margin than that on a talk page? --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. When I suggested equalising the margins between paragraphs and pseudo-paragraphs, I only specified the CSS as applying to talk pages, so CBM's sandbox is not illustrative of what we see on talk pages. See User talk:CBM/sandbox for the real picture. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I tested the spacing in my sandbox. I suggest that this sort of appearance difference, combined with the execrable documentation for indentation, lists, and talk pages, makes this whole area unintelligible. I mean really, I can't use my sandbox to figure out the best way to edit a talk page!? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't you use your sandbox talk page to figure out the best way to edit a talk page? Why would anybody assume that a one class of page will behave exactly the same as a different class of page? --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Where in Help:Talk pages am I warned that I can only practice editing a talk page on another talk page? Why does Wikipedia:Indentation fail to explain the markup only works on talk pages, not other pages? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea where in Help:Talk pages that information might exist. I also have idea why you need to have it written down for you. You're old enough to understand these things for yourself. The reason why Wikipedia:Indentation fails to explain why the markup sometimes behaves differently on talk pages is because this is a volunteer project and no volunteer is under any obligation to make that particular explanation on that specific page. Why don't you fix it yourself? It is a wiki, after all. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I came across this after seeing the {{FYI}} at WT:ACCESS § Indentgap (permanent link). I am not entirely sure what the issue is here, Jc3s5h, but it appears to be one of paragraphing text that has already been indented with colons. If that is the case, then a quick and somewhat accessible workaround is to simply use {{pb}}, which I and others have used in the past for exactly this purpose. An example of its use is in the following break.

It's not technically semantic, since it is not a <p> (though that can also be used in these circumstances), but it does render well enough both visually and for screen readers—at least, according to this discussion (in which Redrose64 was a participant). Perhaps that will resolve your concerns? If not, or if I am misunderstanding the issue here, then I am sorry. I just noticed that nobody had mentioned {{pb}} here yet, so I might as well bring it up. ({{pb}} was actually mentioned at the WT:ACCESS notification thread, which I did not see until now. My apologies.) —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC); revised 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, {{pb}} could be useful. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Clapham Junction

Is Clapham Junction a legitimate "urban locality" or district of the London Borough of Wandsworth? An IP with a dubious edit history thinks so, but I thought I'd run this by someone more familiar with London. Though my dad graduated from Battersea Polytechnic, I've only visited as a young adult. wbm1058 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Did he ever think it would happen with him and the girl from Clapham...?  ;)  :) but seriously, no; I would proffer that it's a district of Wandsworth, not an economically, culturally, politically or administratively distinct area in its own right. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Clapham Junction is the name of a pair of railway features: a physical junction between railway lines (originally, where the line to Richmond (later extended to Staines and Windsor) deviated from the main London-Southampton line), and a station that was built at that junction. Neither of them are actually in Clapham, which lies somewhat to the south-east; the locality of the junction is more usually described in railway texts as Battersea. The name may be explained as being "the junction for Clapham", that is, the place where you would change trains if you wanted to reach Clapham. Other such examples include Chard Junction, Seaton Junction, Sidmouth Junction, Stourbridge Junction, Tiverton Junction, Yeovil Junction. Before the station named Clapham Junction opened, the area was served by a station named simply Clapham, which was further towards Wimbledon at approximately the point where the line is crossed by a bridge linking Strath Terrace with Bolingbroke Grove/Boutflower Road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the background, though I'm primarily concerned with fixing the hatnotes. I cleaned up the navigation, given the newly started article on the topic. Noting that there was an {{R with possibilities}} tag on the former redirect. Feel free to revert me if there's a consensus not to have this separate article. wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Trainspotters book

I'll get the page numbers from No One Must Know shortly. It's just I've lent the book to someone.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The illustrator is irrelevant - unless the information appears only in illustrations, and not in the text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Plaque spotting

I went for a little walk this afternoon: Commons:Category:Plaques on bridges in the United Kingdom and picked up a few more examples on VIR, the North Kent Line (HDR) and the Medway Valley line (PWS2). Hows that for a bit of energetic WP:OR? ClemRutter (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I dare anybody to tell me that "41ch" does not mean "41 chains"

@ClemRutter: I took the photo (right) one day recently when out for an angry walk after reading some utter crap that had been posted at Talk:East Croydon station (it has now spilled through to WT:UKRAIL, WT:MOSNUM and Talk:Chain (unit) with a further note at WP:AN/RFC). It's far easier to find railway bridges with the distance shown in miles and chains than not: every day on my way to and from work, I cross six railway bridges - and I've seen these indications on five of them, no matter how old or new the bridge is (the only exception is the former siding into Didcot power station, which may lack a plate because (a) it's a private line or (b) the track is lifted). But I simply can't convince those people that the measurement unit is still in use - there are none so blind as those that will not see. I've asked them to give examples of sources which give distances in decimal miles, miles and yards, or kilometres - but they're totally silent: my suspicion is that such sources simply do not exist. But still they deny me the right to cite reliable sources. I'd like to see them take me to WP:ANI or even to WP:ARBCOM for the crime of abiding by WP:V. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Beaumont children

Disappearance of the Beaumont children (as of this writing) lists the full address of the home the Beaumonts lived in. This house still exists today' and remains a private residence. Should Wikipedia be encouraging pranksters and "ghoul tourism"? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Paul Benjamin Austin: Why are you asking me? I have never edited that article. In any case, you have already posted similar questions at Talk:Disappearance of the Beaumont children#"Their house was at 109 Harding Street" and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#policy guideline requested/needed - please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag of NATO

Hi, my RfC on the flag of NATO is not appearing in the RfC page. Thank you. 475847394d347339 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@475847394d347339: Yes it is, see this edit. But you didn't need to start another, just fix the first one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you for catching my error regarding the Devon Belle. I used a source which I shouldn't have. After using a more reliable source it became apparent what the original passage was conveying. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedenMike (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

"Shadow" IP editor

I've noticed a number of edits by IPs using the word "Shadow" in the edit summary editing UK rail related articles. It seems to me that they may be editing in contravention of WP:INVOLVED WP:COI. Any thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mjroots: This is an anon who started using that name when I reverted some of their edits, they want to include recent coverage of what preserved locos have been doing. They have no respect for WP:V, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:UNDUE etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah right, looks like some targeted semi-protection of pages may be required. I've corrected my original post, but pretty sure you knew what I meant. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gatwick Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Cambrian Railway. No such thing as the Grouping Act?

I see you have reverted my recent edit (under the ip 2a00:23c4:d885:7f00:59e2:b6c5:afb9:e538) of the Cambrian Line wiki page on the grounds that there is no such thing as the grouping act of 1921. I did in fact provide a wiki link to the Railways Act 1921 page with a pipe, which if you had followed you would have read, The Railways Act 1921 (c. 55),[1] also known as the 'Grouping Act', was an Act of Parliament enacted by the British government and intended to stem the losses being made by many of the country's 120 railway companies..." Looking at your edits you obviously have some knowledge of railways. I am extremely surprised that you have never heard of the Grouping Act, the common name of the Railways Act 1921, which formed The Big Four, the LMS, LNER, GWR and SR. If you enter 'Grouping Act' as a search term you will find it redirects to the Railways Act 1921 page. Please restore my edit. Thanks. 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:9516:B0F0:4B85:498 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Grouping Act of 1921

FYI, Re you edit on Cambrian Railways, the Railways Act of 1921 is commonly referred to as the Grouping Act [5] [6] [7] etc. Best, Railfan23 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

One of the problems that I am having right now is people who are dumbing down Wikipedia by insisting on inaccurate terminology on the grounds that "ordinary people" (whoever they are) won't understand the accurate term. We should strive for accuracy, and if you think that people might not understand something, then give them a wikilink. But please don't link from the inaccurate form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a very common alternative name for the Act, and it's in the nature of Acts that their canon names are typically bland, obscure or downright misleading - hence the tendency to give them alternative names. I don't see this as anywhere near "dumbing down", bad though that would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley and the original IP user. "Grouping Act" makes much more sense in the article. It was the common name for the act, and is widely used in the literature. This is not a case of "dumbing down". As you can see from This Google Books Search it is a very common term, and was used from 1921 onwards to refer to the act. Railfan23 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)