Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 | Talk 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
My RFA
Hey, would you like to add a few words about my technical contribs as a nom statement at my RFA, or would you be more comfortable taking a less prominent role? Either way, no worries: I'd just like to know before I take it live. If anyone else wants to join in, feel free. Sorry for any hassle. Graham87 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham87, it appears that an RfA cannot have more than two co-nominations in addition to the primary nom, and two co-noms (Vanamonde93 and Drmies) had already been added by the time that you posted here (yesterday, Australian time). The restriction is in Template:RfA/readyToSubmit, and I don't think that I should amend that without first proposing it at WT:RFA. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to add space for more co-noms in, but it was reverted ... eh I was going to right more, but I think I'll take this to Template talk:RfA, where what I was going to say is much more relevant. I think I'll take the implicit hint and make the RFA live relatively soon. Graham87 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After advice (see the email thread if you want to), I've substituted the RFA template so there's space to add a co-nom statement, if you like. Graham87 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to write something, but I can't work out what to write. It's got to be 100% bang-on right. I've spent half the day on diversionary gnoming. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think a long statement is necessary. If you have any experience of Graham as an admin, especially in obscure technical fields, that hasn't been covered by one of the other nominators, that might go down well. If you don't have anything "new" to cover, then you might do just as well as an early supporter when the RfA is live. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?00:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I was just thinking of you saying a little bit about my contributions from a technical angle (perhaps something from the technical village pump ... and maybe accessibility). Maybe a comment you remember me making somewhere? If you're still wracking your brains trying to say something, I could start the RFA with the noms already there ... Graham87 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I'm not sure what you mean by "come on"? We normally put the county in articles with the exception of Greater London. Greater Manchester does include distinct places like Wigan that aren't part of the settlement so its not like they are similar enough not to need to be mentioned even if the county includes the name of the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But its still in the county of Greater Manchester and no longer in Lancashire (which could probably also be mentioned) so I still think the correct thing is to mention the current (and probably former) county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Normally" implies room for common-sense exceptions, of which this would appear to be an obvious one. The determining factor should be what is most helpful to the reader. That's often local government divisions but those are arbitrary and a lot less relevant in major built-up areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?10:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using HTML markup: I didn't think it would work specifically with the ACE question template, since it introduces a sublist, so wasn't sure how an unclosed HTML list item would interact with it (normally I would recommend closing it explicitly). In any case, the template has been extended now to support a parameter to set a value explicitly using HTML markup. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl: The closing tag of a li element is always optional, since it is implicitly closed by the next <li> tag at the same level, also by the closing </ol> of the enclosing ol element. A li element may enclose zero or more sublists of any type, to any depth. See this demo.
The way that this works relies on my first sentence - effectively, what we have is
<p>Here is a list:
<ol><li>This is the first item
<li>Second item
<li><livalue=4>Not the third item
<li>List continues
</ol><p>with text after.
and your browser gets served with this:
<p>Here is a list:
</p><ol><li>This is the first item</li><li>Second item</li><liclass="mw-empty-elt"></li><livalue="4">Not the third item</li><li>List continues</li></ol><p>with text after.
</p>
Thanks for the info. The unclear issue for me wasn't the HTML standard, but what the resulting HTML output would be from MediaWiki when the ACE question template was used in combination with the <li> syntax within wikitext. In any case, it's moot now that the template has been enhanced, so please don't feel obligated to spend any additional time on explaining its workings. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry
Would you mind explaining your revert here? There is no need for that page to be archived, and the addition of auto archiving was done disruptively by WP:LTA/BMN123 who is just trying to conceal a discussion that did not go their way. I see no reason not to restore this revision by DatGuy. I'll also ping ScottishFinnishRadish who has assisted in cleaning up similar disruption by this LTA in the recent past. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving was set up as long ago as February 2022. Since then, Lowercase sigmabot III has created three archive pages. Your edit goes only a small way toward reverting all of that. If you don't think that Talk:Nival (company) should be archived, you should start a discussion on that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JUJUJUL DU 72 is a DUCK sock of BMN123 and blocked, likewise for 2A0A:8C42:0:0:0:0:0:16 still blocked as an open proxy. That said I hadn't taken a close enough look at the degree of disruption, and so I agree there should not be three duplicate archive pages. I can't remember if G5, G6, or blanking is preferred for cases like this; SFR or DatGuy might be able to chime in on that, but there is no reason not to revert the pages to their states prior to sock disruption. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I took a moment to review the history, looks like every edit after this was either sock-disruption, bot edits resulting from sock-disruption, or reverts. So the solution there should simply be to restore that revision, update the templates and call it good. I suspect the duplicates can just be cleared until needed, unless some other procedure is preferred in which case feel free to let me know. I have two other LTAs I need to follow-up on first, after that if I still have time I may get back to this one. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:Rail-interchange
I saw that you reverted my earlier edit of Template talk:Rail-interchange with an edit summary "Undid revision Special:Diff/1258433919 by Anomalocaris (talk) that breaks the rest of the page". I am baffled. When I compare my version and the previous, they display exactly the same, and mine has fixed the stripped </code> tag. When I compare your version and the previous, they display identically, and yours has added back the stripped </code> tag without addressing the new-since-my-edit missing end tags for <code> and <span>. Nothing needs to happen to the page now, because you subsequently took action to "remove *all* code blobs and demos." But I'd still like to what it was about my edit that breaks the rest of the page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to track down what had caused the massive screwup that left several sections in a monospaced font, usually this is a missing </code> tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 and Anomalocaris: Starting a line with a space will cause it to display that way.
You are demonstrating the output of a template on its talk page. That is not the purpose of the talk page. The talk page is for various purposes for which text is appropriate, such as (but not limited to): describing why the present version is unsatisfactory; suggesting an amendment (with diffs to the sandbox page when appropriate); explaining why your proposal is better then the present version; inviting comments from others; responding to those comments. Demonstrations - both of the template as it stands and of the template as you would like it to become - belong on the testcases page of the template. See WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refer you again to WP:TPO, which asks us to "(Fix) format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible." Your edit here [1] did not preserve content, instead removing it - this goes against our behavioural guideline. Collapsing is a better way to handle this.
Messing with other editors' talk page writing is generally off limits, but that page was seriously broken by invalid markup. I probably would have tried to wrap the whole mess in <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> or similar code that disabled the breakage, but removing it while keeping it available in the history may have been the only way to fix the mess in this case (I haven't examined it in detail). 162 etc., if you are contemplating restoring the deleted text, please ensure that it displays properly and does not result in any Linter errors that are listed on the "Page information" page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Galtee More
Hi, Red link removed as there is no article to link to and unlikely to be one. How many racehorses have articles? Especially one from around 50 years ago. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to the likelihood of a racehorse having an article: pretty much all winners of British Classic Races are going to be notable, since all the major mainstream newspapers cover these races. Most of their winners have articles - all winners of the Epsom Derby since its inception in 1780, all winners of the St Leger since 1876, all winners of the 2,000 Guineas since 1880, all but one winners of the Epsom Oaks since 1886, and all but one winners of the 1,000 Guineas since 1890. That said, we don't (yet) have articles for the 2024 winners of either the 1,000 Guineas or the Oaks, but I'm sure that somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing will sort this at some point.
In 1897, Galtee More won the 2,000 Guineas, the Derby, and the St Leger, and so is one of a small number of horses to have achieved the Triple Crown. It would be hard to imagine us not having an article, and indeed, the fact that the link is blue, not red, demonstrates that we do have one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld09:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I much appreciate your effort to fix the issue. Naturally I don't expect you or Jones95 to fix it, but if this is has happened more than once at Christmas, perhaps something could be coded for it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld17:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed tag
Dear RedRose64,
Hi! I’m sorry to bug you, but I saw that you removed an {{rfc}} tag on a postI put up about a template for the reason that I ignored WP:RFCBEFORE.
I might be wrong, but I don’t think I ignored RFCBEFORE—I posted a request at the talk page for the American politics taskforce of the Politics WikiProject for comment but received no input.
Is it ok if I put the RFC tag back up, or am I missing something?
Ok—I’ll add the link the next time I’m able to go on a computer (sorry).
The reason for the two RFCs is because one was about the disc logos, and although the participants did reach a consensus about that we did not reach one about the template (simply because nobody responded) before it was recommended to me that the RFC be closed. As a result, I later posted the question on the project talk page and, when that didn’t get any responses, I created the RFC.
Does this still violate WP:TALK? If so, what can I do to fix it?
I just added the link to the previous talk post to the former RFC—do you have any other concerns, or can I (should I) repost the RFC? Sorry. RiverMan18 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be too problematical to show both the former closed railway stations of Gateshead West and Gateshead East on an expanded version of the RDT if someone could do that?
Obviously, creating categories takes longer than removing them does, because one has to spend time investigating whether the category should exist or not, where in the tree would it fit, are there any other articles that need to be filed in it alongside the one page that's already there, and on and so forth. Removing a redlinked category only takes a few seconds, while creating a redlinked category takes a few minutes.
But the current run of Special:WantedCategories had 522 redlinks on it, meaning that if I were to spend five minutes on each category for a rate of just 12 redlinks sorted per hour, then I would have to invest 43 hours of time into cleaning up the list. And since the list reupdates every three days with hundreds more redlinked categories, dealing with a few redlinks at a time over the course of several weeks isn't an option — each time the list updates, I have just 72 hours to get it cleared. But, of course, people also have to sleep for 24 of those 72 hours, effectively giving me an actual deadline of just 48 hours to clear the report to zero — so if I were to go with the five minutes per category option, I would have to spend 43 of those 48 hours doing nothing but creating redlinked categories, with just a five-hour reprieve before having to spend another 43 hours creating more redlinked categories.
It's not my job to spend 43 hours on it, however — I'm entitled to get through the job in a matter of minutes, which means spending no more than a few seconds on each page.
Sure, if you're seeing just one or two redlinked categories on just one or two pages, then obviously it doesn't seem to you like it should be a deep burden for me to just create the categories instead of removing them — spending five minutes instead of five seconds doesn't seem that onerous if you're talking about just one or two pages. But the job isn't one or two redlinks on one or two pages, it's hundreds of redlinks on hundreds of pages, which means that if I spend five minutes on each category I'd never have any time left to do anything else at all.
So the way redlinked categories work is not that it's my job to create them on other people's behalf. It's the job of the people who want any category to exist to create it themselves right away — if they leave it as a redlink, it's neither my job to create it for them nor my job to take any clapback from anybody about it. My job is to get the report cleaned up in the absolute shortest amount of time possible, which means getting each redlink cleaned up in a matter of seconds rather than minutes. And it isn't my job to apologize to anybody for deleting a redlinked category instead of creating it, either, so edit summaries criticizing me for not creating the categories are not appropriate or appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you doing okay? In this diff it appears you were baited (and you bit down). And kept escalating it. With a longtime wikipedian. Not your best moment, but nothing actionable. I don't know all the backstory, but it looks like for just a second, you got defensive. Don't feel bad, and don't feel alone. Lately I have felt the pace upped somewhat, in my case by ai stuff. By your self-post it appeared you were looking for feedback. I think it was trolling, but you didn't have to own it. They hadn't provided diffs or mentioned anyone, so their complaint was not an issue at all. So I'm asking in a friendly way: how ya doin? BusterD (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz's talk page was where I saw it first. There's a lot going upon right now and 2025 will be much weirder. Hang in there. Both of you are adults, so no harm done. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the amount of articles promoted in the year, we have had our second most productive year of all time, falling just short of beating the record set by 2012. Work is continuing underway on articles Project-wide, and the Good Topic for the revived era nears completion.
Ongoing discussion and goals can be found at WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals and nominees for promoted content here. Feel free to contribute in writing or in reviewing!
Reliable Sources
A discussion on the reliability of CultBox has determined that it should be phased out of use in the WikiProject. This source has been widely used across project articles, especially for information about filming. Concerns that the website is self-published and has poor editorial standards were raised. In some articles, project editors have already begun depreciating the source.
Similar concerns were raised about Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv.co.uk). Uses of this source have also been depreciated. This website should NOT be confused with Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv), a commercial website published by the Beeb, which is acceptable for use as a primary source.
As discussed in the previous issue, Doctor Who News has been widely phased out where possible. If you have any comments about these sources or any others, please contribute to the discussions on the project talk page.
Novels Being Overhauled
The scrutiny on many of the Doctor's past adventures through print over the years continues in regard to determining their individual notability. Discussions can be found on the WikiProject's talk page, with discussion still well under way in ironing out which articles pass the notability bar.
You can contribute by helping to improve articles of the novels, and other extended media, and bringing attention to the ones that might not.
Project Barnstar
In breaking news, it appears that Torchwood Three has been raided. The resurrection gauntlet has been stolen and used on the WikiProject Doctor Who Barnstar. If you notice exceptional contributions in project areas by any editor, feel free to show them some appreciation by awarding them their very own ✨barnstar✨.
An animated version of the completely missing First Doctor serial, The Savages, is due to be released in March 2025.
The editorial board of the newsletter is able to exclusively confirm that there will be no Dalek shenanigans for the third consecutive New Year. Polish off those resolutions, don't start a revolution, and celebrate New Year's Eve responsibly.
If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.
If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.
Perhaps it's best to keep it as List of jazz tunes, given that many are minor standards. Then entries can gradually be added once the articles are started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld22:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on Wikipedia for over a year and have more than enough edits to be autoconfirmed. However, I do not have the permission for some reason. I have "extended confirmed users" and "pending changes reviewers," but not autoconfirmed, so I cannot move pages. I was trying to change the title of a category I created ("Category:Negro League Baseball players from Puerto Rico"); I wanted to make "League" and "Baseball" lowercase to conform with the format of their parent category, "Negro league baseball players." However, when I went to move it, I could not find the move button and did some research, leading me to realize that I do not have the "autoconfirmed" status.
There is not a way to request that status, which is why I am contacting you. Either I am not able to find the move button, or my "autoconfirmed" status got taken away for some reason. Thank you for your time! BittersweetParadox (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BittersweetParadox: First, you do have autoconfirmed - you couldn't have got extended-confirmed without it. I also don't think that it's possible to lose autoconfirmed, even if you're not extended-confirmed. But see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category - even with extended-confirmed, you can't move categories. This is because moving a category page is much more complicated than moving other pages; instead, you should file a rename request at WP:CFDS where experienced users will check that the move is in order, perform the move, and also all of the ancillary cleanup that is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the book isn't being cited, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think the {{cite book}} template is appropriate? A link for the book is here. Would you prefer this? KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template helps to format it, it doesn't imply that the book is being cited as a reference. But the URL does not yield the text of the book - it is the publisher's web page about the book, and gives virtually no information about the station, other than the fact that it is the subject of two photographs in the book. We don't need the WorldCat link if the |isbn= is supplied. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm tired, but as far as I can see neither url gives any information about the station. If you have the book and it provides coverage of the station, can't we just use it as a source, and include whatever content it has? It's not as if the article as it stands is cite-heavy. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only found the publishers' website, with its table of contents which helps verify the halt's existence and name, and added it as Further Reading because that seemed a good place for an RS I can't access but where the info I can access shows that it has a couple of pages about (or pages of photos of) it. PamD23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misread it: a couple of photos, not pages. But still evidence of station name, which was thin on the ground when I added it. I think the other two sites are External links, rather than FR. And yes using the cite book template when not citing is common eg in lists of an author's work: it formats it consistently, and links the isbn. PamD23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I will leave as is. If I get really obsessed I shall buy it online, pay the exorbitant shipping costs, and cite it myself! It’s one of the many odd quirks of Wikipedia - my grandfather was born in Annesley and likely travelled on that very line. KJP1 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a contribution regarding the death of my grandfather on the 9th December 1970 at the Chivers Level Crossing.
His death certificated states: Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. I can provide a copy of the death certificate.
I think that is sufficient evidence for you to see my grandfather was killed there. I am not sure what "Source" you read but you unfortunately missed the part about my grandfather the train driver being killed there on the 9th of December.
Look forward to hearing from you. Please don't delete again.
@Isimmons1: You refer, presumably, to this revert. This is now the fourth time that you have added that content. Your edit summary reads redrose has not check his facts. I will message redrose with the fact as I had to with another person who deleted my contribution regarding the death of my grandfather. I think his family and friends know more about this. it was more than merely a "car accident". This accident was identical to one in 1976 same location. See that report. top of page 4 paragraph 5.
Can we forget, for the moment, your claim that your grandfather was killed there. The content that you wish to include reads:
Chivers Occupation level crossing, Cambridgeshire: Passenger train collided with lorry on unmanned level crossing
It was agreed, some years ago, that level crossing collisions were simply not worth writing about, unless they were major accidents such as Hixon (1968) or Ufton Nervet (2004). Many level crossing accidents are the fault of the road user, and there are several each year. Why is this incident at Chivers occupation crossing at all significant? The fact that there is no entry for it in The Railways Archive for 1970 could be because of several reasons, but two that immediately spring to mind are (i) no report was published; or (ii) a report was published, but The Railways Archive do not consider it to be significant enough to prioritise over other, more serious, accidents. You will see from the link that I have provided that they don't ignore level crossing accidents entirely - but Low Fields Farm (October 1970) was an error by railway staff, and Upper Denton (December 1970) was due to the design of the crossing. The report on Chivers occupation crossing (1976) blames the road driver, and in mentioning the 1970 accident, remarking that the two occurrences were very similar.
Whether the driver who was killed was your grandfather or not should have no bearing on including the content, because Wikipedia is not a ... memorial site. Your possession of a death certificate is inadmissible, per the policy on verifiability. Even if the death cert were allowed, the statement Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. does not give the location. This seems to me that you are putting two different sources together to draw a separate conclusion, which is inadmissible per the policy on synthesis of published material. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And once again you have miss read the 1976 report which said the driver was killed in 1970. It is totally irrelevant that he was my grandfather, first thing we do agree on. However, you can't include the 1976 accident if you don't include the 1970 accident as the were both almost exactly the same. I have written to the Railway Archive along with many other people and sites, all have taken time to reply to me accept for Railway Archives. I have no understanding of why they have not even taken the time to send me a polite reply but they have not. Maybe you could ask them for me ? Isimmons1 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.JPG)
.jpg)
