User talk:Redrose64

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

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 Button sig.png 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)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

rendering bug for flag of trondheim[edit]

Hello, I'm sorry for linking imgur uploads. I was simply not familiar with WP:WPSHOT. I have replaced the images with commons hosted counterparts. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

liverpool Central High level[edit]

Hi RedRose

I am willing to accept that, despite the box inferring that both St James Station, and the line through that station is closed, when it is not, that it actually means the line out of Central High Level is closed, which is true as it was rerouted to Low Level.

however I am intrigued to know what the box will be changed to if they reopen the station, as the council and Merseyrail plan to do? Station open but line closed? Station reopened but line closed? I am not trying to be awkward, I just want to understand the logic behind how this region is used.

thanks! Pwilkinsonliverpool (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Pwilkinsonliverpool: (also notifying LicenceToCrenellate) Reopen which station? High Level or St James? They can't reopen High Level (which was a terminus on the surface), the station is long since demolished and the site has been redeveloped. Reopening St James won't have any bearing on whether the line out of High Level is closed or not, since northbound trains from St James will use the existing tunnel line to Central (Low Level). If St James does reopen, then on the routebox of High Level, the cell for St James will show "Line closed, station open"; on the routebox of Brunswick, the cell for St James will show "Line and station open"; whilst on the routebox of St James, the cells for Brunswick and for Central (Low Level) will both also show "Line and station open" but the cell for High Level will continue to show "Line and station closed". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


Is there a reason a talk page of a redirect needs to stay active and can't be redirected to the actual talk page of the working template? --Gonnym (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gonnym: None of the threads that had been on those talk pages bore your signature, and I could find no evidence that you moved any of those threads to another talk page (or archive); therefore, you deleted threads that were not yours to remove, contrary to WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question though... --Gonnym (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
If you're going to redirect a talk page, please preserve the discussions somewhere, otherwise they will appear to have evaporated. Some people may get the impression that the threads have been deliberately squashed in order to prevent any further discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121[edit]

I agree with you that my <code>...</code> markup in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121 is "ugly", but it did preserve the appearance exactly and it did solve a misnested <code> tag, which, after your edit, is the only remaining lint error other than obsolete <font> tags. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Which lint error have I left behind? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I received an alert "Redrose64 mentioned you in an edit summary on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121." I clicked and went to the Difference between revisions page, edited it, and saw the misnested <code> tag. I should have checked to see if I was editing the most recent version. I see you have cleaned this up elegantly. Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Roll back bot class 322[edit]

Please could you send the roll back bot onto the page for the British rail class 322 and have the bot roll the page to how it looked as of the edit made by SK2242 22:11 13th November 2020.

There has been major vandalism to the page and It could do with being rolled back to how it looked before it was vandalised.

Many thanks Maurice Oly. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've had a go. Maurice Oly you can go back through the edit history of a page and restore it to a pre-vandalism version. I went to one later than the one you mentioned, in fact, as Narky Blert is an always-safe pair of hands. Hope this helps. DBaK (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@DBak: thank you sooo much you have fixed all the issues with the page.

Kind Regards Maurice Oly (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Maurice Oly and DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I don't hunt out vandalism (though I hammer it if I spot it), and it can be easy to miss. Subject specialists are the people most likely to get suspicions about the subtler wrongnesses, and be motivated to look. (Earlier this year, a WP:INCOMPETENT IP-hopper was breaking multiple links in Indian film lists. It was about the fourth time I came across them that I noticed a DABlink so peculiar that an alarm bell began to ring faintly. It took me two hours research to build a case for WP:ANI, which resulted in a WP:RANGEBLOCK. I was one of three or four DABfixers who hadn't realised for several months what they'd been up to.)
If I get reverted on the way through to hitting vandalism behind me, I applaud.
Anyone can use WP:TWINKLE to restore an older page version, reverting one or several editors in one go. If something more complicated (such as WP:ROLLBACK) is needed, it can be handy to know a friendly admin. If there's persistent abuse, a trip to WP:RFPP or ANI may be justified. I would be happy to advise on how to present a case, should it be needed. Narky Blert (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both @Maurice Oly and Narky Blert: – a pleasure doing business with you! Cheers DBaK (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks {@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: and @Narky Blert: for all your help pleasure doing business with both of you. Maurice Oly (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Template parameter use question[edit]

Hi RedRose64, we met at the WP Banner discussion page. Could I pick your brains about something? Is there a way to track whether parameters are used on templates apart from creating a particular tracking category? I am looking at Template:WikiProject China and strongly suspect there are a couple of parameters that are likely to be unused. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A tracking category is normal, but I have seen another method - a hidden link to a non-existent page. It's very rarely used, and I can't find a current example. It's probably best to stick with the commonly-used techniques. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll stick with the conventional route. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for educating me about references within an RfC statement (diff). I had no idea I was messing things up! Now I know. Much appreciated - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


I'm not here to tell you what to do or how to feel, but I will say that what you're doing now is a bad look and can only have one outcome. Please consider carefully. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The Daleks[edit]

In this edit, you say The Daleks is an episode rather than a serial (which may be true), but the article The Daleks seems to be about a serial with the same title. i know very little about Doctor Whatsisname (you know who i mean), i was just bothered by the way Mutant (disambiguation) had these two Mutants listed. If The Daleks was in fact an episode rather than a serial, please correct Dalek (disambiguation) and Mutant (disambiguation); if it was a serial, please revert your edit.

Um... live long and prosper? (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. For clarity:
  • The Daleks is one accepted title of a seven-part serial broadcast in 1963-64, the official title of which has been given as The Mutants in some sources, such as those by Howe, Stammers and Walker
  • "The Daleks" is the second episode (broadcast on 28 November 1964) of the six-part serial The Dalek Invasion of Earth
  • The Mutants is a six-part serial broadcast in 1972
I've reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Hi Redrose64 I've noticed some edits made by Mainline45 they made edits around the restore my railway bids. Is this verifiable? Special:Contributions/MainLine45 Thanks RailwayJG (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Which articles, specifically? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Manchester, Buxton, Matlock and Midland Junction Railway to the Leamside Line ones. It mentions on some they failed in a bid. So what relevance is the link as it was a bid. Not an actual solid reopening strategy and stuff. Almost like a proposal then a fact. If you see their contributions. You might get a rough idea on if they are verifiable. RailwayJG (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It reminds me somewhat of the activities of TarzanBoy24 (aka JoshuaIsTheFalco) who was using local government documents such as long-term transport strategies and feasibility studies as evidence that certain lines or stations would definitely be reopened. WP:SYNTH, perhaps? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably is RedRose64. Again I noticed this while browsing the Oswestry page you helped me to fix services on that were missing. He added it but it was nothing to do with Oswestry. But rather Warrington and Stockport railway. And also he edited the South Staffordshire Line and Sutton Park Line. And the Bolton to Bury line. I'm not sure he might be the person you mentioned. RailwayJG (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


Sorry for the way I wrote the capacity numbers on the 323s, I only did it that way because it had been done that way in the past.

Thanks for cleaning it up, oh and many thanks for cleaning the cite up as well I could not get that to work last night. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also I was counting fold down seats if I remember. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REFBEGIN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for that link. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chad Wolf RfC[edit]

I couldn't figure out what was wrong with the listing. What did you do to fix it? I know you gave me a diff but I don't know what part of your change fixed it. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's still not showing up correctly. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The RfC statement should be brief. It wasn't brief - there were more than 2,000 bytes, measured from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp, which made it too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle. Adding another timestamp (or signature with timestamp) at an earlier point shortens the statement to a point where Legobot can handle it without a problem. This doesn't happen immediately, because Legobot runs once an hour. Check again after 23:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Hover title[edit]

Template:Hover title has been nominated for merging with Template:Tooltip. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Class 170 lead text[edit]

It began with "The Class 170 Turbostar" for years, but apparently 2020 is the year in which it has to be changed, so now "British Rail" appears *3* times rather than 2 at the top of an article about a *post-privatisation* class of train (!) Apparently the rule doesn't apply to the 196 and 197, for some reason. Anamyd (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE applies. Regarding the name of the article, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 20#Naming convention. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for not checking[edit]

I just wish to apologie for when I updated the infobox for the class 323 to add in the link to the British rail class 319 for not checking the code and the link went to the page for the class 319.

Many thanks for reverting my edit, I have updated the infobox again but this time I have put in the right code for the link to the British rail class 319. Maurice Oly (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You can avoid such mislinking problems by using Template:BRC. For example, {{brc|319}} produces Class 319. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Heathrow express page[edit]


Could you or somebody else please role back the Heathrow express page to my edit from last night please as the page has been changed to say that the class 387 have entered service while not updating references to prove this.

Old references from march of this year are being used to back up that the 387s have entered service and no reference is given to back up that the class 332 has been withdrawn. Maurice Oly (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Thank you so much for changing the page on the British rail class 332 back to how should look given that there is no evidence to back up that the British rail class 332 has been withdrawn from service with Heathrow Express.

Could you please edit this page as well please as it too was updated to state that the British rail class 332 has been withdrawn and that the British rail class 387 has entered service with Heathrow express.


I feel it would be better that an admin an editor with more experience look at the page and make the needed changes. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh and forgot to add, I would have used twinkle to revert the edits to the page on the Heathrow express, but there are two reasons why I haven’t.

1. I edit on mobile not on desktop so I don’t think twinkle will work for me.

2. Not sure if using Twinkle to rollback yesterday edits was really the right thing to do in terms of what would be seen as an appropriate use of Twinkle. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Rollback (whether it be true WP:ROLLBACK or Twinkle's version) is only for use in certain cases, including vandalism, not for general reversion of good-faith changes, even if those were unsourced. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All the best[edit]

Hi Redrose64,

I hope you are doing well, as I know this is a busy period of the year for you. I miss our meetups and wish they will be able to resume soon, although I am unlikely to attend in person since I have moved out of the country. I live in Germany now. I wish you a great next year and a lot of strength to go through this winter!

Best, − Pintoch (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Spelling Corrections[edit]

Hello! You said that "Stadia"[1] is the correct spelling for the plural of stadium , so I asked around, asked some experienced wikipedians and we all came to the agreement, in the context, the plural is stadiums, if the article was in Latin or based on Roman history I believe it would be fine, but since it is based on football stadiums and that stadia makes no sense. Sincerely, Neon (Talk)

Ah, but you didn't alter it to "stadiums", plural; you altered it to "stadium", singular. Anfield and Goodison Park are quite close together, but are not (and never have been) a single entity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

TfW heading in wrong place in British railway rolling stock[edit]

I hadn't noticed that it had moved up there; I had initially used the visual editor but again hadn't noticed that that happened. (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

VisualEditor is buggy, and always has been (after eight years, it is still at the beta stage). I never use it because of the problems that it causes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Class 387[edit]

Regarding the class 387 infobox, the class 387 is due to enter service with Heathrow express in the future. The entry to service date is unknown at this point.

Further this letter from the office of road and rail was released to the public today, in it there are pages where the words “HEX class 387” can be seen. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Erm edit that letter was released to the public on 18 December 2020 which was 2 days ago, my bad for getting the date wrong. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, your changes are badly formatted, creating accessibility issues; and since the infobox should really only show the present situation, you should leave out all future speculation until it does happen. Remember, there is no deadline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Best wishes for the holidays[edit]

De aanbidding van de koningen Rijksmuseum SK-A-671.jpeg Season's Greetings
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry![edit]

*Treker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Christmas roses and glory of the snow by Beatrice Emma Parsons.jpg Merry Christmas
Sending you my warmest wishes. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Strickland / Class 47[edit]

Hi - does the Strickland book specifically say that D1101-D1111 were fitted with ETH from new? I have never seen any other source claim this. Apart from the pilot series D1500-D1519 which had a non-standard ETH system, everything else I have read says that D1960 and D1961 were the first fitted with the "standard" AC ETH fitment in 1967-8 (the two were allocated to Derby RTC for use on test trains), and D1101-D1111 were built a year previously and at a different builder. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's a table on p. 106, I won't reproduce all the rows but it includes:
Various batches differed as shown
Boiler water tank capacity Boiler type TM type Main generator type
D1500–19 ETH+SG 1250 Spanner Mk. III (2500 lb/hr) 64-68 160-16I
D1520–49, D1682–D1718 SG 1250 Spanner Mk. III (1850 lb/hr) 64-68(I) 160-16II
(5 rows omitted)
D1782–D1836/75-D1900 No T/H 64-68(Ia) 172-50
D1960/1, D1101–11 ETH+SG 1200 Stone-Vapor 4625 (2750 lb/hr) 64-68(Ia) 172-50
D1960/1 were the last two from Brush (delivered 1967 and 1968 respectively), and D1101–11 were the last eleven from Crewe (delivered 1967). In the list of initial TOPS numbers on p. 108, these 13 are shown as 47514/5/8-28 respectively. On the same page, D1960/1 and D1101-10 are all omitted from the list of conversions to dual or electric heat, but D1111 is listed as converted to ETH only March 1971 1972. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've had a look at this, and it is wrong. A quick search for early photos of D1101-D1111 show that they weren't fitted with ETH i.e. [2] [3] [4], and compare this photo of D1103 in 1970 with this one, now fitted with ETH in 1971. Furthermore, D1111 being ETH-only in 1971 can't be correct. Most ER passenger trains were still steam-heated at that time, so it's unlikely anyway, but here's an image of it steaming in 1978. So I wonder where the author is getting their information from. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
My mistake, March 1972. But the ECML had Mark 2a stock from 1967, which was dual-heated; and Mark 2e from 1972, which (being air conditioned) was electric heat only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, they did. But the ER 47/4s found a lot of their work on such as the overnight trains (both passenger and postal), Trans-Pennine services and additional, relief and charter services, all of which were steam-heated; not to mention that they had diagrams into Scotland where (off the Aberdeen corridor) steam heat was the norm. Thus (and unlike the LMR and WR 47/4s) the ER (and ScR) steam-heat and dual-heat 47s didn't really start to have their boilers isolated until the early 1980s - indeed, a few diagrams for boilered locos existed into the 1985 timetable. I believe 47522 was the first to have the boiler removed in 1982. Anyway, given the images mentioned above, I have removed the reference to D1101-D1111 being as-built in the article, I think it reads OK. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC brief[edit]

Do you mind if I delete that RfC section (your comment included) and start it over again? --Steverci (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

If you like. WP:RFCBEFORE and WP:RFCST are good places to begin, there is also WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a word[edit]

Thank you for correcting my mistakes with the disambiguation pages formatting - I'll keep them in mind, and be careful in future! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 03:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Empire AS Talk! 18:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Meridiano de Oro Awards has been nominated for listification[edit]

Category:Meridiano de Oro Awards has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Sigs and RFCs[edit]

Regarding, either the RFC or the comment immediately after needed a name. I have no interest in arguing which of those should have gotten it. :^) --Izno (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Izno and GiantSnowman: Comments after the RfC's statement (such as opinions in the survey) should indeed have the full four-tilde signature (which, if forgotten, may he retrospectively added, such as this edit by Sdrqaz). But WP:RFCST explicitly permits (in item 3) the opening statement to be ended using the timestamp-only five-tilde form, and this choice by the originator should be respected. The originator may subsequently add the portion of the sig that identifies them, if they so choose; but that decision is theirs to make alone. I therefore respectfully request that this edit be reverted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It is for the originator to make clear what they want, not you. Should @Sdrqaz: wish to restore timestamp only then let them. GiantSnowman 14:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@GiantSnowman: Exactly, so on that basis, what right did Izno (talk · contribs) have to make the first part of this edit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I see the benefit of adding the user name. GiantSnowman 15:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Which was not required per WP:RFCST. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
You're making this harder than it needs to be. My choice was a coinflip. I anticipate no one else would be so worked up about it. The work you do making RFCs approach presentability is helpful, but "he put the name before the RFC timestamp" instead of "he put the name before the response timestamp" is not a hill that needs dying on. I did it because I thought it would be helpful to forestall someone being confused there was no name attached at all. I am happy not to be helpful in the future if you prefer. (That is phrased so just to be ornery. ;) --Izno (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Sdrqaz has affirmed their original choice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
GiantSnowman, I think I made my intention clear when I chose to use five tildes instead of four. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Izno: I take full responsibility for not putting my signature on the vote, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I'm sorry that my lack of signature has caused such a kerfuffle amongst administrators; I hope that this discussion won't dampen your working relationships moving forward. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tagged as a copyvio since March. Thank you. re: Robert Riddles. DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Dartmouth Steam Railway[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards

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

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

BlueMaxima's Flashpoint[edit]

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

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

Userpage causing cat pollution[edit]

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

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

Categorisation query[edit]

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

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

International Article Number § External links[edit]

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

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