Open main menu

Contents

Visible anchor/doc revert

My edit to the documentation was based on Sandbox experiments and direct observation. Editing a section with a visible anchor in it produces a blank auto-filled edit summary, not a "broken" summary. There is no "gray" text in the summary, and there has never been "blue" text in the summary: The text in the "Edit summary" box is and always has been black. If you're talking about the article's history page, section information in summaries has always appeared in light gray text, regardless of whether the "Edit summary" box is auto-filled or manually filled. The auto-filled content of the box is optional in any case, and editors often replace it in toto before saving their changes. Moreover, Wikipedia is not generating HTML5. It appears to be an illegal mix of mostly XHTML and some HTML 4.0 Transitional, as is evident by a simple visual inspection of the source code of any page. If a Wikipedia page is submitted to the W3C Validator, it results in copious errors, since the content of the source does not match the DOCTYPE. Now that I've made you aware of this, how are you going to correct the misinformation on the Visible anchor/doc page? — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hydrargyrum: Any page on the web which uses <!doctype html> is an HTML 5 document. It may not be valid, but that is what it is. The majority of "invalid" HTML output on Wikipedia is a result of editors using obsolete elements and attributes or incorrect positioning of elements according to the HTML 5 layout rules (see also WP:Linter) rather than being due to the software itself (many documented exceptions exist as tasks to be worked in WP:Phabricator). Validation tools are not the be-all end-all, and the original author of that particular tool has since sworn off that tool somewhat. --Izno (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hydrargyrum: My revert is here. In my edit summary I linked to Special:Diff/874816157 which is your second edit to the sandbox. If you visit that diff, you will see at the top of the right-hand side, the following text:
(→‎JUNK Raft Project: Editing just this section)
The part between the opening parenthesis and the colon is grey, and it's a clickable link. Until a few weeks ago, only the arrow was clickable, but the link has always been there. If you click it, you are taken to the section heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Redrose64, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019

  Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Redrose64, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,

Whispyhistory (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

  Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Shepherds (Cariani) is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

 
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Redrose64, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year


Merry
Rexxmas
2018


  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

thank you about multi column answer

Thank you for the answer about {{div col|colwidth=20em}}. Works great! RJFJR (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Template : SYR Barnsley to Doncaster

Is it possible to add Mexborough (Ferry Boat) Halt to this template,but I am unsure if it situated before or after Mexborough Junction in the river area shown on the template, from what information that I have gleaned from a reading of the Wikipedia article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Redrose64!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Redrose !

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi!
That is Welsh and translates to:
Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019!
Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.

Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Replying to your question in a recent edit summary

Hello Redrose64, thank you for your recent efforts to improve Wikipedia.[1] While the rhetorical question you asked in the edit summary doesn't exactly invite a reply, I wouldn't be true to myself, after seeing it, If I didn't stand tall in your presence to proudly acknowledge the same, and ask you directly if there was anything about that edit that you wanted to discuss? I am willing to account for my actions to any needed degree, and as willing to directly move on; depending on whichever you think is best. I'm not, however, keen with pretending that I don't care when I most certainly do. With esteem, I remain.--John Cline (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

We have templates like {{tlc}} and {{tlxs}} to simplify how markup is demonstrated, so there should not be a need to re-complicate it with the <code>...</code> and <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand, and primarily agree. I've never reviewed an edit appended by you where there wasn't something that I learned and I thank you for that. At times that process of learning involves reinforcing things that I'd already learned but allowed to fall in disrepair from laziness and a lack of proper focus. In this case I had forgotten that keeping things straight forward and less complex is always the better approach and would have done well to have stayed that course. Chances are good that I'm less inclined now of forgetting again any time soon. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Double chimney link on 4767 article

There is no page in existance for the highlighting of the word double chimney so what is the point of the link as it makes absolutely no sense unless your willing to create an article for it since you clearly claim to know more. XD Either remove the link or create a page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Moylesy98: As Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) and myself have both told you, non-existence of an article is not grounds to delink a redlinked term. Please read and understand what it says at WP:REDDEAL. Remember that there is no deadline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Even if double chimney was an inappropriate link, you're 4RRnow 5RR edit-warring. That's what the WP:ANEW filing is about (ANEW doesn't get involved in content arguments). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Llansadwrn pronunciation

I'm aware that Llansadwrn is not in Ynys Mon, but despite its filename the audio just consists of someone saying "Llansadwrn", which ought to work both for Anglesey Llansadwrn and Carmarthenshire Llansadwrn. I realise there are differences in accent between North and South, but as these two places have the same name should the title of the audio file really be a barrier to including it in this article? Or am I missing something important here? Beorhtwulf (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

It just seems strange to mention a place at the other end of the country that just happens to share a name. In England, there are a number of places with identically-spelt but differently-pronounced names - such as Gillingham, Dorset and Gillingham, Kent. I expect that there are also examples in Wales. If the pronounciation is basically the same, was it not possible to name the file File:Llansadwrn.ogg? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC

How am I meant to know the RFC bot was going to add it all at a later date? .... I waited a good 2 minutes or so and It did nothing .... so I was therefore under the impression it wasn't going to actually to do anything otherwise I would've obviously waited, Damned If I do and damned if I don't. –Davey2010Talk 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: As you can see from its contributions, Legobot (talk · contribs) updates the RfC listings once per hour. Very few bots run constantly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Dundee railway station

Hi there Redrose,

Hope you are well. I wanted to message you to ask why you reverted the Dundee railway station Wikipedia page and placed the former station picture on the infobox?

I don't know if you are from Dundee but there is a new station built and there was updated information I added and I also took a photograph which was then taken down due to copyright even though I captured it because I am a photographer from Dundee.

I appreciate your edits but I don't understand the need of removing the relevant content on the page when it was clearly up to date. KeyKing666 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@KeyKing666: I didn't revert. I moved one image from the article body to the infobox, because there wasn't one there. This in turn was because the one that had been there previously was removed as a copyright violation, see c:User talk:KeyKing666#File:DundeeRail20180711.png and the file logs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Redrose, My apologise I hadn't realised you were reverted otherwise I would've reverted them, I had only just woken up and usually when I've just woken up I never pay any attention to edit summaries but anyway sorry about that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have no problem with you making date formats consistent. What I do have a problem with is people like Chris0512 (talk · contribs) updating the |date= parameters of cleanup and maintenance templates for no good reason. For example, amending the date of a {{use dmy dates}} implies that they have actually been through the article (as you did) and made any necessary amendments in order to bring about consistency. But their edits to the |date= params have not been accompanied by any such amendments. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I vaguely recall another editor changing the dates and yet not actually doing anything, I don't quiet understand why anyone would...,
I just didn't you thinking I've done it to (excuse the language) be a dick... as I said I hadn't even realised they changed these otherwise I would've reverted,
I'm sensing an AIV report will be done by Monday!, I'll keep an eye out anyway,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Bit hard to reply to them when they keep on reverting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

If you will

Please look at this edit and the one that follows it; to help me understand the problems. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@John Cline: Basically, it's not a good idea to use braces (curly brackets) in section headings, and templates are particularly bad in this respect. If you need to name the template, either do so as a normal wikilink [[Template:Ambox]] or put the {{tlc|Ambox}} on a separate line after the heading. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Redrose64. I appreciate your advice, understand its importance, and will comply with its counsel. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Cards84664 (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cards84664: Presumably this is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on Module:Adjacent stations. Am I correct? Please note that {{subst:ANI-notice}} allows the section name to be specified in its |thread= parameter, without requiring guesswork. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't notice that before. Cards84664 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
 
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Re the undo section

Whoops. I thought I cut the bottom and moved it up. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sonasan railway station

Rhadow created the Sonasan railway station article, then nominated it for deletion seven minutes later. It was tagged as G7. I deleted it as G7/WP:POINT. Rhadow has recreated it again, and it has been tagged again. This is part of the notability of stations discussion at WT:TWP, which you are probably aware of. As I see it, an essay cannot trump policy, which is why station articles need to demonstrate that GNG is met. Would it be in order for me to delete the article and salt it, as has been suggested to me, or am I now WP:INVOLVED? Mjroots (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Mjroots, You may also be interested in Special:WhatLinksHere/Sonasan_railway_station which shows the author of the page canvassing users to vote on the AFD --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
To avoid fragmentation, continue commenting at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

When you have a moment

Hello R. Sorry about the error. I hope that you are well. When you have the time would you take a look at our old friend Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. One of the items is fully protected so I can't fix it and I'm not sure about about the talk pages. I haven't been monitoring the cat as much as in the past and have forgotten some of the pointers you've given me over the years. My apologies. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 15:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: After making these three edits, plus a couple of null edits, there is only one page left: Portal:Dominican Republic. The problem code here is
{{Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow | paragraphs=1-2 | files=1 | more=
| Template:{{PAGENAME}} topics
|
}}
which is very hard to debug, partly because it uses Lua (Module:Excerpt slideshow), and also because it seems to be picking articles at random (I think from those listed at Template:Dominican Republic topics) and transcluding portions of these. One of these portions almost certainly includes a protection template, either Template:Pp or Template:Pp-protected. You'd need an expert on Template:Transclude list item excerpts as random slideshow to fix this, probably Evad37 (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
You could do it the old-fashioned way and figure out which of those articles is protected, then wrap the protection template in noinclude tags. It's probably not a bad idea for them to be wrapped in those tags by default. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but what exactly is the point of patrolling that category? Isn't there a bot that resolves most of them? And the templates' display depends on the protection level anyway so {{pp-semi}} (for example) won't show on an unprotected page, and will show a gold lock on a fully protected page etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks R. There was a different portal (I forget which one) doing the same thing a few months ago but it finally stopped. Hopefully Evad37 can figure this one out. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
HJM. A bot gets most of them but does miss some. Occasionally the bot goes on the fritz and our patrolling of the cat allows use to alert the bot operator that something has gone awry. Checking also allows us to fix transclusion snafus on AFD's and such. MarnetteD|Talk 17:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: I certainly would use the <noinclude>...</noinclude> technique if I could work out which article it is. These are the articles that are transcluded:
Other than going through them individually, how do I check which is the culprit? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I used Popups to check the histories for recent protections (still not entirely convinced it's a good use of editor time and that's five minutes of my life I won't get back, but I did volunteer myself) and the only one I spotted was Captaincy General of Santo Domingo, but adding the protection template to that article (in noinclude tags) doesn't seem to have solved the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not one of a protected article that lacks prot tags. It is one where an article (protected or not) has an exposed prot tag, which is being transcluded (along with the desired portion of the article) to Portal:Dominican Republic and so causing the latter page (which is not protected) to appear in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD and HJ Mitchell: The excerpt slideshow templates have |random=no and |limit= parameters, which can be used for diagnostics. Playing around with these in preview mode, I found the problem was in article #11, La Trinitaria (Dominican Republic), which had the protection template within heading markup from this edit [2]. This meant that the excerpt functionality (from Module:Excerpt) got confused, and didn't remove the protection template like it usually would. Fixing the article, and then null-editing the portal, has removed the portal from the category. - Evad37 [talk] 23:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Evad for your work. MarnetteD|Talk 00:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Evad can you work your magic on Portal:U.S. roads which showed up yesterday. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the part of my comment that you reverted on Template talk:Brexit note

Hi Redrose. Lots of folks announce themselves as summoned by bot. I agree that it is usually not relevant, but sometimes it is, so I do it by habit. I'm sure you mean the best, if you think it's not a good thing, feel free to talk to me about it -- I've never heard another side to it -- rather than edit my comments for me. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if that came off prickly! Just wanted to say thanks for all your service to the encyclopedia. CHeers. Chris vLS (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Chrisvls. There's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 15#New templates for !voters! which is related. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Brain farts and template breakage

Hello Redrose64, I received your message about using templates recognized by CluebotIII at wp:an/c, and understand. I actually knew of this already and would have meant to append things correctly; that I did not is one of those inexplicable things that happen, at times, in spite of our best intent. I'll redouble my efforts to ensure future compliance.

Aside that, I noticed the substitution of {{Happy New Year fireworks}}, further up the page, and observed that it breaks when text is enlarged (in mitigation of visual impairments). I view pages at %170 of the default size; in that situation, its output is thoroughly corrupted. I worked up a tentative fix but would like to see how you would modify the coding (for instructive comparison). If you have the motivation, and time, I'd love to see what changes your experience would bring. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@John Cline: At WP:AN/RFC, ClueBot III looks for the use of the following templates: {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{done}},{{Done}},{{DONE}},{{already done}},{{Already done}},{{not done}},{{Not done}},{{close}},{{Close}},{{nd}} - if ClueBot III finds any one or more of those in a thread, it archives the thread; it's case-sensitive, and doesn't follow redirects, hence all the variations.
As to the fireworks, what kind of breakage or corruption is this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes Redrose64, thank you. Regarding the template, a self evaluation would be best by enlarging your own view using ctrl-shft-+ while the screenshot shows the page as I see it.--John Cline (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@John Cline: I have previously noticed that a number of these greetings templates contain poor markup - such as misnesting, elements left unclosed or closed in the wrong order, and I thought at first that what we had here was probably a mis-closed <div> tag. Instead, it seems that we have another kind of sloppiness - making assumptions about the characteristics of another user's setup (device, monitor, browser etc.). The box with a round-cornered border has been drawn to the same height as the images inside it, without allowing for the fact that the text that is also inside the box may be too much to fit in. Consequently, at high zooms and on narrow screens, some of it spills out. This edit should fix it for that one specific instance. Since it's a substituted template, a similar fix to the template itself may be done, but will only affect future uses - it won't fix the hundreds (if not thousands) of times that the template has been used in the past. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Aylesbury Railway Station

Thank you for your instruction. Forgive me, but I don't understand 'pipe' and 'redirect'. Could you enlighten me? Valetude (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

@Valetude: The pipe character is a vertical line like this → | ← we use it in wikilinks when we want the displayed link to differ from the name of the page that we are linking to, as in [[British Rail|British Railways]] which produces British Railways, see Help:Link#Piped link. But that can be cumbersome, and a means for simplifying links exists, the redirect: basically, a redirect is a way of giving a page another name - if you link to that other name, and click the link, you are taken directly to the "real" page. This allows us to write [[British Railways]] which produces British Railways, see Help:Redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Another conundrum

Hello again R. I hope you enjoyed the first round of the Six Nations. Template:Wikipedia's sister projects/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has popped in the category. My fix of a few days ago caused problems so I am hoping that you can figure things out. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 03:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It was the {{pp}} template, which is completely superfluous because the {{documentation}} automatically displays any prot icon that may be appropriate. It seems to have been added to the main template with this edit by Ks0stm (talk · contribs) and later copied to the sandbox. I've removed it from both. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Good deal R. I now understand that my removing the letters pp was not enough. I'm just not used to seeing that extended versions of a protected template. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 21:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Category question

Is there a way of changing the way that a category's name displays on a page, whilst still linking to the actual category? Similar to how a piped link works. Mjroots (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: No. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Do you just mean using the colon prefix? (links to the category, doesn't put the page into the category)
Category:Pinnipeds / [[:Category:Pinnipeds]]
Pinnipeds / [[:Category:Pinnipeds|]]
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Andy Dingley - No, I meant what I asked. Looks like we'll need add some code in somewhere then, something like |display as= so that a category's display can be changed if desired. Mjroots (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, so still at the bottom in the normal cat bar? On MediaWiki generally this is easy (it's accessible through the skinning, and I recall there are already extensions that do it). The one time I've done it, I had regexes matching category names and then colour coding them based on embedded prefixes (this made sense for that business, as the categories were already based on product names). For WP though, I think it's unlikely to ever happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Colour coding is one thing but changing the text of the link is another. Consider the page title displayed at the top: we allow this to be altered in some ways, such as italicisation for the names of books like Moby-Dick, but we don't allow different characters to be displayed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Suzannah Lipscomb

Suzannah Lipscomb I wonder why you changed the order of the subject's last book listed under Bibliography. The book I refer to is Witchcraft, it is ordered differently to the previous books, and as she has a new book coming out on 14th February it would be useful to understand why, and also why, if you changed the order of this book, you didn't do the same with her previous books?

Thank you.

Fitzwimarc (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Fitzwimarc: Do you mean this edit? It adds more information, and presents it in an order that is consistent with many other Wikipedia pages - and incidentally in the same order as the entry for Henry VIII and the court : art, politics and performance two rows above.
Apart from that, when adding references please do not use the link of a Google search query, use the URL of the actual page that provides the information. Similarly, do not use the URL for a website's home page, the content of which will change frequently - again, use the URL of the actual page within the website that provides the information. This is all in accordance with our policies on verifiability and biographies of living persons. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis

Hello Redrose64,
I see that you revert my User Talk page edits with the unauthorized survey comment. Therefore, I wondered whom's authorization I would need to ask users to participate in my survey. I already asked the admin noticeboard as well as the help desk if my approach would be ok.
For my posts on the user pages I oriented myself at the sample text provided by Wikipedia.

Kind regards,

Robert Wintermeyer--Rwinterm (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Which edmin noticeboard? Which help desk? Please link the discussions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Admin Board history discussion and the Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis. Yet, I saw today that someone also mentioned I could add it to the Village pump. Would it be ok if I add in the Village pump under the Miscellaneous rubric? I don't mean to disturb anyone --Rwinterm (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Apologies, but we have had trouble in the past from people with few (or no) prior Wikipedia edits who then send out requests to participate in a survey of some sort, falsely claiming that they have the authority or backing of the Wikimedia Foundation (or similar organisation). So when going through my watchlist and see that various user talk pages have each received near-identical posts concerning a survey, I get concerned.
Anyway, if you send (or re-send) such notices in future, it would be best if you would please include a note that you have been given agreement for the survey, and include in that note the links to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 January 24#Survey regarding the community guidelines for my master thesis. That way, people will be aware that you have not decided to come in "cold" with a series of spammy posts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah okay. Yes I get that issue, that's why I approached the community before I started contacting people. I'm glad we could resolve the issue. I will follow your advice with including the links, thank you. --Rwinterm (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
For this brilliant suggestion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

CYM Group

You removed my comment on the notability talk page "I have proposed CYM Group for deletion but I am hoping for some input in the discussion as to whether achieving a Guinness World Record and some press attention is sufficient to give notability to this otherwise non-notable student club. Alternatively, the article could be redirected or merged." I wanted to establish what the consensus was about this. Did I put the query in the wrong place? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: It wasn't at "the notability talk page" (presumably you are thinking of Wikipedia talk:Notability), it was at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion (here's my revert), which is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The WP:AFD process creates a certain amount of automatic notification for each nomination; and we also permit a certain amount of extra publicity - informing the creator of the page is encouraged, it's also permitted to inform major contributors, and we also have the WP:DELSORT and WP:AALERTS processes. All this is covered by WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, which says nothing about putting a notice on WT:AFD - if we encouraged this, it would gain something like 80-100 new sections each day.
As it is, your AfD is transcluded (copied in full, verbatim) to these pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 18; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday (this one will be removed at midmight (UTC) tonight); Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Asia; Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Education; Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organizations; Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Vietnam. It is also mentioned (and linked) from CYM Group; User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's; User:Pldx1; User:Snotbot/Current AfD's; User talk:Midori Kha Han; Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam; Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam/Tasks; Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam/Article alerts; Portal:Vietnam; and Portal:Vietnam/Things you can do. I think that's pretty comprehensive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You said: at User:Pldx1. Maybe, but I am not that sure ! Pldx1 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Pldx1: Yes, go to User:Pldx1#Some Tools and at the bottom of the section, open up the "Active AFD's" list. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you were right! This was an old feature, now commented out. Pldx1 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Basically it was in the wrong place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Cascading efn < ref(n) < sfn

I think you know something about it, or at least know where to ask.

It's all about cascading ref and efn.

I don't know anything about these. I don't know even the different between #tag and {{tag}}.

There are a couple of problems I've come across. Can you help me:

  • AMD Ryzen 1000 Series
    {{notelist|refs=
    {{efn|name="kib"|AMD defines 1 kilobyte (KB) as 1024 bytes, and 1 megabyte (MB) as 1024 kilobytes.<ref name="AMD_programming_guide">{{cite web|title=Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h Model 01h, Revision B1 Processors|url=https://support.amd.com/TechDocs/54945_PPR_Family_17h_Models_00h-0Fh.pdf|website=Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h Model 01h, Revision B1 Processors|publisher=AMD|accessdate=14 July 2017}}</ref>}}
    {{efn|name="pcie"|PCIe lane count includes 4 lanes used for connectivity to the chipset.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Hagedoorn|first1=Hilbert|title=AMD Ryzen 5 1500X and 1600X review – The AMD Chipsets|url=https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-1500x-and-1600x-review,4.html|accessdate=4 August 2017|publisher=Guru3D|date=11 April 2017}}</ref>}}
    {{efn|name="pro"|Model also available as Pro variant for [[Original equipment manufacturer|OEMs]], which may offer additional features not listed in this table. Pro models were released by AMD on {{dts|2017|June|29|nowrap=off}}.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Shilov|first1=Anton|title=AMD Launches Ryzen PRO CPUs|url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/11591/amd-launches-ryzen-pro-cpus-enhanced-security-longer-warranty-better-quality|accessdate=29 June 2017|publisher=Anandtech|date=29 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=AMD Ryzen™ PRO Processors|url=https://www.amd.com/en/ryzen-pro|website=AMD}}</ref>}}
    }}
    ^ a b AMD defines 1 kilobyte (KB) as 1024 bytes, and 1 megabyte (MB) as 1024 kilobytes.[35]
    ^a b PCIe lane count includes 4 lanes used for connectivity to the chipset.[36]
    ^a b c d e f Model also available as Pro variant for OEMs, which may offer additional features not listed in this table. Pro models were released by AMD on June 29, 2017.[37][38]
Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page).
{{template reference list}} maybe nothing to do with it. NB this is a template.
  • Bombing of Stuttgart in World War II
  • a
    ==Notes==
    <br />{{reflist|group=lower-alpha|refs=
    {{efn|name=19October1944|19 October 1944 was the first double attack on Stuttgart.{{sfn|Schutzbauten Stuttgart, Luftangriffe}}}}
    {{efn|name=29January1945|The raids of 28–29 January 1945 were the final large-scale RAF attack on Stuttgart.{{sfn|Bomber Command Campaign Diary, January 1945|loc=28/29 January 1945}}
    }}
    a ^ Jörg Friedrich specifies in The Fire that 4,477 of those citizens were residents of the city of Stuttgart.[51]
    b ^ 5 May 1942 was the first large-scale air raid launched against Stuttgart.[16]
    c ^ This was the United States Army Air Force's first day-time attack on Stuttgart.[24]
    d ^ a b c 19 October 1944 was the first double attack on Stuttgart.[24]
    e ^ a b The raids of 28–29 January 1945 were the final large-scale RAF attack on Stuttgart.[3]
    Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTEBomber Command Campaign Diary, January 194528/29 January 1945" is not used in the content (see the help page).
  • b if I swap the last two, the Cite error changes, which means (to me) that the problem is outside the {{efn / sfn}}
    ==Notes==
    <br />{{reflist|group=lower-alpha|refs=
    {{efn|name=19October1944|19 October 1944 was the first double attack on Stuttgart.{{sfn|Schutzbauten Stuttgart, Luftangriffe}}}}
    {{efn|name=29January1945|The raids of 28–29 January 1945 were the final large-scale RAF attack on Stuttgart.{{sfn|Bomber Command Campaign Diary, January 1945|loc=28/29 January 1945}}
    }}
    a ^ Jörg Friedrich specifies in The Fire that 4,477 of those citizens were residents of the city of Stuttgart.[51]
    b ^ 5 May 1942 was the first large-scale air raid launched against Stuttgart.[16]
    c ^ This was the United States Army Air Force's first day-time attack on Stuttgart.[24]
    d ^ a b The raids of 28–29 January 1945 were the final large-scale RAF attack on Stuttgart.[3]
    e ^ a b c 19 October 1944 was the first double attack on Stuttgart.[24]
    Cite error: A list-defined reference named "FOOTNOTESchutzbauten Stuttgart, Luftangriffe" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Help! Talk about confusing (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

With all the <nowiki>...</nowiki> it's difficult to work out which are code examples and which are demonstrations of a problem. I get the impression that you are trying to nest two or three templates, and having difficulty. Normally a {{sfn}} may be placed within a {{efn}} without difficulty, but neither of these may be placed inside <ref>...</ref> tags.
When you use the |refs= parameter inside either {{notelist}} or {{reflist}}, this is WP:LDR, and it is known that problems occur if you try to nest a {{sfn}} or <ref>...</ref> inside an {{efn}} which is itself within a LDR structure. There have been discussion threads on this, in the last two or three years, and it wasn't satisfactorily resolved in a manner that allowed full use of LDR. Just use plain {{notelist}} and {{reflist}} without parameters, and put all the {{efn}} in the main part of the article, and similarly the {{sfn}} or <ref>...</ref>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I did what you said. Now Stuttgart is fine. I think the Zen one should be OK, just more complicated. Tomorrow (GMT-8). Thanks Talk about confusing (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Joseph H. Kler

hi...I created this Joseph H. Kler by moving it from my sandbox....but an old talk page is attached. I'm not sure how to fix it. Are you or @Philafrenzy: able to help please. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Whispyhistory: I deleted the redirects that had been at Talk:Joseph H. Kler and User talk:Whispyhistory/sandbox. Philafrenzy does not have the ability to do this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thank you it was worrying me. I’ll add to talk page tomorrow. Whispyhistory (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Réseau Albert

Can you tweak the {{Réseau Albert RDT}} so that it is normally collapsed please? Also, the Réseau Albert article needs reassessment, if you would be so kind. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Done, it shows as uncollapsed at Template:Réseau Albert RDT but will be collapsed when transcluded, unless the parameter |collapse=no is provided. The article is certainly better than Start-class, but I don't have time for a WP:BCLASS assessment, so I've given it C-class. The MILHIST banner has busted this back down to Start because WP:MHA#CRIT says that for C-class, "the article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria" and I didn't fill in the checklist. In other words, a MILHIST C-class is the same as everybody else's B-class except that either B1 or B2 is not met, and they don't care about B6. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Timestamps, RfC's, and Legobot

Re your edit [3], I thought that when a new topic area was added to an RfC tag after the bot had already initially processed the tag, that I needed to place a comment/timestamp before the initial timestamp in opening RfC statement in order to get the bot to process the newly added topic area. Is this not correct? Will Legobot see the change anyway even without a new timestamp? Sparkie82 (tc) 05:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: Legobot is somewhat peculiar when it comes to RfCs. I've been observing its behaviour for about four years now, and have worked out what it does in various circumstances. Legobot runs frequently, but has a number of different tasks; for RfCs, it's essentially once an hour. As far as I can tell, during each RfC run, Legobot checks all open RfCs. A full description of what it does is lengthy, I won't bother to do that. The main points are:
  • If you add another RfC category - in this case |bio - to an {{rfc}} tag that has at least one category already, Legobot will add the RfC to the appropriate listing page - in this case WP:RFC/BIO - on its next run
  • If you alter anything between the {{rfc}} tag and the first timestamp, or alter that timestamp, Legobot will amend the RfC listing pages will be amended to match on its next run
So if you are adding another RfC category to the {{rfc}} tag, it's not normally necessary to do anything else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Train IP editor

Hi there. Sorry to bother you but if you had a moment could you please have a look / keep a bit of an eye on this editor? They are only editing train articles but with some apparently bizarre/random effects – everything they've done so far has been reverted by me or others. It's not obvious vandalism but it's not really working out either. I don't want to be bitey at them and I don't know enough about trains to know if there is some sense in what they are doing like, I don't know, class numbers that are used in different ways or something. But you might know that stuff! So a quick look would be much appreciated. With thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing worth keeping there, revert all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
OK and thanks for looking. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: This is clearly Shity247 (talk · contribs) who has since been blocked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes. Goodness me, what a loss. Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Railway stations

Hi...What was the name of that railway station that was never built...in Kent? Would it be in the book by Raymond Butt? Would the book have anything on Victoria station and platform 17? I notice that the article on Victoria station doesn't mention anything about it. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Would it be Lullingstone railway station? ‑ Iridescent 08:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's the station that I mentioned a few months ago; I first heard about it here but at that time, Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) hadn't yet started the article. It's not mentioned in Butt because it never opened. Butt does not describe alterations to a station (such as the opening or closing of individual platforms). For Victoria, Butt shows:
VICTORIA LB&SC OP 1 October 1860 (VS&P)
VICTORIA MD OP 24 December 1868
VICTORIA SE&C OP 25 August 1862 LC&D(VS&P)
This describes three different stations at one location: the abbreviations are: LB&SC - London, Brighton and South Coast Railway; OP - Opened; VS&P - Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway; MD - Metropolitan District Railway; SE&C - South Eastern and Chatham Railway; LC&D - London, Chatham and Dover Railway.
The first and third the three stations are the two halves of the main-line station - these are treated as two separate stations because that's how they were built and administered until the start of 1923, and the second is the Underground station. Although just over 100 years separated the opening of the District line platforms and the Victoria line platforms (March 1969), the Victoria line isn't mentioned because its platforms shared a ticket hall with the District, which makes them the same station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both...I was reading this [4] Whispyhistory (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Part of the reasons the platform numbering at Victoria is inconsistent over the years is that the practice of earmarking one or two platforms as an international terminal was regularly introduced and abandoned, owing to the fluctuating popularity of boat trains and the shifting abilities of the creaking infrastructure at Dover Western Docks, Folkestone and Newhaven Marine to process paperwork. Victoria is a nightmare to write about as there were so many different companies involved in operating it and they all had different archiving systems, plus while there are a lot of writers who specialise in the history of the Southern Railway and its predecessors as well as the feverishly active Southern Railway Group and their regular magazines, the Kent lines tend not to get much attention as it was always the London–Brighton and London–Portsmouth lines that were strategically and commercially significant and consequently got the fancy buildings and the shiny new locomotives. (Although Kent is nearest to the continent, during the railway age London, Harwich and Southampton were the major ports and Dover/Folkestone were something of a backwater as they weren't convenient for onward shipping of goods. Dover in particular had (and has) very poor freight facilities, owing to the docks being in a confined and unexpandable area at the foot of the cliff.) ‑ Iridescent 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent:...had a look earlier today... I can sort of see the different areas of the station. Would the platform numbers have changed? Is platform 17 in 1939 the same as platform 17 today? The Imperial Airways building (now the National Audit Office) would be at its end. Interesting. Thanks. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The platform numbering has changed, I don't know how often. Present-day platforms 1 to 8 are the "Chatham side", the former LC&D station; platforms 9 to 19 are the "Brighton side", the former LB&SC station. At the start of 1923, the LB&SC and LC&D amalgamated with other railways to create the Southern Railway, and the two stations became one. Despite that amalgamation, there is still a wall in between platforms 8 and 9 with these archways - the rightmost arch was created in 1924, soon after amalgamation; the left and middle arches are comparatively recent, dating from the 1990s. The two sides of the station are of differing architectural styles, and Platforms 2 to 7 have their buffer stops closer to the street than the other platforms. This plan shows that at one time the two sides each had a separate series of numbers, with platform numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 being duplicated. Interestingly, the Chatham side (headed "L C & D Ry) seems to have numbered the tracks rather than the platforms: numbers 1, 6 and 8 seem to correspond with tracks that have no platform, but on the Brighton side (headed "L B & S C Ry) there are unnumbered tracks without platforms, for example between platforms 2 & 3. You may find more info in these books: Southern Main Lines: Victoria to East Croydon, Southern Main Lines: Victoria to Bromley South, London Suburban Railways: South London Line, all of which have photos taken at different periods along with contemporary maps. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. A wealth of knowledge...just to think how many times I have walked through without noticing. I hope someone can integrate some of that into the history of the station. I think the current platform 17 is likely the same Imperial's private platform that took passengers to Southampton and the flying boats, therefore bypassing flights from Croydon. Whispyhistory (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Victoria—aside from Droxford which is something of a unique case, I haven't paid much attention to the Southern—but in general at the big London termini the private platforms were tucked away in physically separate structures to stop other people wandering in. The Necropolis terminal at Waterloo is probably the most obvious example, but there are instances right up to the present day such as the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo. Ritchie333 might still have the sources lying around. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole with regards to London railway stations, the London Railway Record has been running for long enough that by now it's at some point or other published an article on just about everything, but the back issues can be quite hard to find—it's so niche that no library other than that of the London Transport Museum is likely to keep it. ‑ Iridescent 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

- IP addresses (Welcome to Wikipedia!)

Thank you for the tip. I don’t fully understand, but at least I know my computer is not malfunctioning.  2A02:C7D:275:4800:1418:BF8B:291E:82CE (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For the benefit of my WikiJaguars, this is User talk:Gilliam#Welcome to Wikipedia!. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Quick questions about WP:ANRFC

Few things:

  1. When do I use |done=yes exactly? When the RfC peters out? I thought it was just for when I use {{Done}}. (I have no intention of completing the request)
  2. Does using {{Already done}} work the same as {{Done}} from a bot standpoint? (My initial instinct was no, but then it's a template listed in the edit notice, so I self-reverted.)
  3. Why are none of Cluebot's procedures written down exactly?
  4. Wait, does saying {{Not Done}} mean anything besides that I personally am not able to do it after I indicated I could?

Please ping response. Thank you! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Normally, the {{initiated}} template displays its message in colour (blue, green or boldfaced red according to the supplied date and the |type= parameter) in order to draw the attention of humans to those threads that still require attention; such instances of the template will also put the page into Category:Administrative backlog. When no further action is required on this request, we add |done=yes as a signal to the {{initiated}} template that it should display using normal-weight black instead of a colour; it also prevents that instance of the template from putting the page into Category:Administrative backlog (of course, there is a high probability that other threads are still unfinished, so the page will still end up in Category:Administrative backlog - but because of other {{initiated}}, not because of the one in this thread). Basically, it's used not just when {{Done}} is added, but whenever you add any of the templates that will be detected by ClueBot III (talk · contribs). These templates are listed (in abbreviated form) in the |archivenow= parameter of the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} in the first section of the page (please note, the list is case-sensitive, which is why both {{done and {{Done are present). Since {{Already done}} and {{Not done}} are both in that list, use of those templates means that the thread is to be archived on the next ClueBot III run; and so {{Not done}} means "this is not going to be done by anybody, so we are rejecting this request".
The workings of ClueBot III are known to Cobi (talk · contribs), perhaps others. I'm having difficulty determining all of its methods, I can only describe my conclusions based on observations made over some years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Redrose64, so I probably would not have marked it {{Not done}} if I had known that to be the case. My apologies. What would an appropriate remedy be now that it was just archived.Matthew J. Long -Talk- 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you for all the help! :D ―Matthew J. Long -Talk- 00:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Redrose64, I have a question to these regards. Wouldn't using {{subst:Not done}} with an optional message and ~~~~ allow the markup and signed message to post without signaling ClueBot III to initiate the archiving process? If so, and it seems that it should, substituting would make for an expedient work around IMO. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would defeat ClueBot III. But why would you want to use that anyway? Whether you use {{Not done}} or {{subst:not done}}, it's a signal to everybody that the request is not going to be actioned and can therefore be moved to the archive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I figure that the signer's optional comment should provide the definitive context.--John Cline (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
If you're not going to be taking on a request, just leave it for others to pick up. There's no need to mark it to say that you won't personally be closing it. If we all did that, every thread would have about a dozen "not done" marks and we wouldn't see the wood for the trees. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC closure

Hey. I saw this edit you made, where you marked that an rfc had been closed. If you look at the previous edit to the page, you see that Matt did not in fact close the discussion, but nor did they say it shouldn't be closed; rather, they said it should be closed by someone else, meaning that it was not yet done. I would just undo your edit and leave an explanation, but the thread has since been archived, and I know that ClueBot III does some fancy stuff when it archives, so I don't know what to do - the RfC still needs to be closed. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I used |done=yes because MattLongCT (talk · contribs) had used {{Not done}}. ClueBot III picks up on the {{Not done}} - it would have been archived even if I hadn't added |done=yes. See thread immediately above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Thanks for the explanation, but my primary question still stands - how can I unarchive it (and then remove the offending archive template) without messing up the fancy stuff ClueBot III does? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I unarchived it by restoring the thread to the main page and removing it from the archive page. I also removed the {{Not done}} so that ClueBot III won't re-archive it again. Its indexes are probably all screwed up now, I have no idea how to fix them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A new one

Hello R. A new problem has cropped up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates causing all sorts of user pages to show up there. I think it has something to with a signpost page somewhere but the only one I can find with a recent protection is this one. As ever your help in finding what is going on will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 02:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: As usual, it's not a recent protection but a recent misuse of a protection template. Specifically, it was a {{pp-semi}} that was added by Kingerikthesecond (talk · contribs) to a page that has been protected for a long time (since 10:02, 24 April 2010). The page is transcluded, so <noinclude>...</noinclude> is mandatory; this will fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. Now that all those user pages have been cleared out of the cat two new ones have shown up' This redirect is fully protected so I cant fix it. Also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts is now appearing - this page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter shows up in the transclusions but I can't find any recent edits so it might not be the problem. MarnetteD|Talk 13:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The redirect was because Primefac (talk · contribs) used {{pp-protected}} when they should have used either {{R protected}} or wrapped the existing {{R to project}} in a {{R cat shell}}. That MfD page is no longer in the category, it wasn't there when I visited it half an hour ago. It's all clear now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirects

Fair enough, but should it then be removed from Article Wizard as well? That's where I copy/pasted the text from. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Yes, that was mine (see Talk:Article Wizard#Edit request). I wonder where I got it from? Clearly the prot template rules have changed in seven years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh! Didn't even see that it was you that had originally created it. Glad to see it's sorted out (and kind of silly that I didn't see the thread above this one when I posted!)! I'll be more cautious in the future when blindly copying pages over. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

LNWR Chopper Tank Class

IF you rename/move the LNWR Chopper Tank Class class to whereever you want I'll blank the original (As I'm permitted to as original editor) and sort out what links where. (The Irish locomotives where converted from 2-4-0Ts not 2-4-2Ts which was my core focus. Thanks.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a redirect, it shouldn't be moved without very good reason. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A good reason is yours truly created it I think yesterday or possibly the day before with a seemingly poor choice of name which is a good reason for moving it. It's there to hold the correct categories for 2-4-0T's as the LNWR 4ft 6in Tank Class article specifically covers the 2-4-2T's with a build date of 1879. Only Locomotives of the London and North Western Railway and your talk page currently points at the redirect. The redirect *could* be made into an article which is the reason for pointing Locomotives of the London and North Western Railway at it for the 2234 (choppers). Good luck following this through ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The 2-4-0T and 2-4-2T will be different classes, although related. Let's not lump them together, though this does require general competence. Tony May (talk) 03:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Talk:LNWR 4ft 6in Tank Class .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry Djm-leighpark: but I cannot pay any attention to this until Tony May informs me what is important and what isn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Indept Pedantry

It may serve you well if you were a little bit more caring about important things (particularly removing WP:DRIVEBY tagging, inappropriate photographs) and rather less pedantic about unimportant things such as calling engines "she". Tony May (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tony May: If you are going to remove this, you must either supply a source, or remove the disputed claim - specifically the sentence They were also classified as Class G3 under the former LNWR system. The edit summary "It is in the sources." does not satisfy the policy on verifiability (which is a core content policy) - you need to state exactly which sources. If the claim had also been made elsewhere in the article with a source, it would have been a different matter.
As for calling engines "she", it may have escaped your notice but I and others have spent well over a year persuading Moylesy98 not to use "she" and "her"; only in the last few weeks am I seeing that they are starting to pay attention. This is not unimportant, but part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, see MOS:GNL (and the related essay WP:GNL).
Finally, please read up on WP:NPA. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and I totally agree with this edit by SovalValtos (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deal with the important things please, such as articles covering multiple unrelated subjects. Moysley, whose English is generally terrible, is also a he, not a they. It is common to call engines "she" particularly if they have been named after females. Tony May (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If I am editing against agreed policies or guidelines, say so. Otherwise, do not tell me what I should or should not be working on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is nothing in the essay (WP:NOTPOLICY) you quote which says "locomotives shouldn't be called 'she'" - moreover if you allowed the Dave to use "her" he wouldn't keep writing "it's". Tony May (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
MOS:GNL (which is not an essay) has a specific exemption for ships, and nothing else. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Because there was no need. Let's face it - WP:YOU'REMAKINGTHISUPASYOUGOALONG and wilfully ignoring other more important things! Tony May (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
What "other more important things" am I ignoring? Why should I pay any more attention to those than to the things that I do pay attention to? Oh, and by the way, this edit was WP:POINTy, --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
List of things to not pay attention to: 1. Tony May. Useddenim (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nuneaton Bridge railway station......possible inclusion on Wikipedia existing line templates.

There is a very short Wikipedia article on this station, to which you were the last person who made an edit upon, so I send my query to you. The station is shown as being in working timetables, being opened on 1 March 1866 and closed on 1 October 1887. Its situation is said to be between the two stations of Nuneaton Abbey Street and Hinckley.

Do you think it should be included as an entry on the Wikipedia Template : Birmingham to Peterborough Line or any other Wikipedia line templates where Nuneaton Abbey Street and Hinckley are shown?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry Xenophon Philosopher: but I cannot pay any attention to this until Tony May informs me what is important and what isn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Do I find myself caught between an ongoing dispute between Tony May and your good self? I was unaware of any such dispute until I read your response above. I have always been grateful to you for the kind manner in which your have responded to my enquiries in past years, so this is why I made the original response to you. Therefore, can you act as an intermediary on my behalf and ask a fellow member if they can assist in my enquiry.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nuneaton Bridge?
 
 
 
Nuneaton Abbey Street
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nuneaton North Chord
 
 
 
 
Nuneaton
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hinckley
 
 
@Xenophon Philosopher: Where exactly is Nuneaton Bridge situated? There's a whole lot going on between Nuneaton Abbey Street and HinckleyUseddenim (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

If you look at this very short Wikipedia article on Nuneaton Bridge station, all it gives information about location is the box at the foot stating it lies between the two stations that I have stated above, so it will either be before or after the currently open Nuneaton station. When people write a new Wikipedia article on a station, it would help if information regarding its location could be incorporated. So all I have to go on is this and I do not know the exact location, as this very question was asked of me by someone else who also noted the Wikipedia article on Nuneaton Bridge station. Perhaps you may know someone on Wikipedia well versed in the knowledge of the railway area of Nuneaton who could provide it. However, thank you for responding so quickly.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Number

Is there an accessibility issue in using № that requires the use of No.? Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mjroots: It's MOS:NUMERO, but Tony May won't like me telling you that because they would prefer me to throw the MOS out of the window. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to do with that editor (you do seem to be a bit preoccupied here, maybe take a step back?). I was wondering whether or not to raise this edit with the editor in question, but having checked the MOS I'm happy that it was fine. Mjroots (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Special Barnstar
For your excellent work at WP:ANRFC and the patience you exhibit when dealing with other editors there. It is most appreciated!! –MJLTalk 13:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Extending RfC and div tags

Re your edit here... Thank you for letting me know about that (other) Legobot bug. I was not aware that including div tags in the opening statement would mess up Legobot's handling of entries in the RfC topic discussion pages. I carefully reviewed WP:RFC and Template:Rfc/doc prior to making my edit, but there were no warnings there about using div tags. (Note: I just edited each of those pages to add such a warning.) My intention is to extend the discussion another thirty days per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Length, which says to add a new timestamp between the rfc tag and the original signature. There is no guideline provided as to how to do that -- I thought that placing a short comment about the extension, right justified immediately after the the template message would be appropriate. Sparkie82 (tc) 16:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: It doesn't matter where it is ultimately displayed - whatever occurs in the Wikisource after the {{rfc}} tag is copied to the RfC listings, up to and including the next timestamp. This means that if you have an opening HTML tag in that interval, but the matching closing HTML tag is after the timestamp, only one of the pair will be copied to the RfC listings. It doesn't matter if it is div, small or anything else - imbalanced HTML is an error. So if there is an opening <div> between the {{rfc}} and the timestamp, there must also be a closing </div> between that <div> and the timestamp in order to balance it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

class 111

Hi

Should have checked my Ian Allan "combine" one car appears to be from a 108 and one from a 111 according to the number series, unfortunately (for me) the 108 is the leading vehicle. Cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Dabs on Template:Abellio Greater Anglia RDT

Could you help with some dabs on Template:Abellio Greater Anglia RDT? I think Bampton should be Brampton railway station (Suffolk) but I'm unsure about how to handle Newmarket railway station. Alresford railway station, Hythe railway station and Hockley railway station are also dabs. Any help appreciated (so I don't break the templates).— Rod talk 09:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Rodw: It's been converted to {{routemap}} by Useddenim (talk · contribs), which means that it is no longer maintainable by me (see this recent TfD); if I touch it, I'll probably break it too. If Useddenim has introduced incorrect links, we have two options: (i) revert their last edit, putting it back to the easily-maintained {{BS-map}} form; or (ii) tell Useddenim that they are responsible for fixing it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I've added a note on the talk page of User:Useddenim.— Rod talk 10:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
As I said before, "I didn't edit any of the links, just the overall layout". In fact, let's cast aspersions where they're due: Redrose64 made the last edit prior to mine, so he could just as (in)accurately be accused of introducing the incorrect links; although checking the past revisions shows that they have been there since Hpsuperfan created the diagram. Which brings me to the next point: the diagram was originally in {{Routemap}} format, but Nathan A RF changed it to {{BS-map}}—parenthetically, the only example of this that I've ever come across—I restored it.
@Redrose64: I don't know why you are so adamantly opposed to {{Routemap}}, but I'm quite willing to try and teach you the nuances of editing a diagram with it if you can tell me what your specific problems are. Useddenim (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Longueau-Boulogne railway

The {{Longueau-Boulogne RDT}} isn't displaying correctly on the Longueau-Boulogne railway article. The top continuation arrow is in the wrong column, but it's correct on the diagram. On the article, with the diagram displayed, there appears to be a stray - . Can't work out what is wrong, would you take a look please? Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't help you there, it's been converted to {{routemap}} by guess who. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I know, but the error has gone. Mjroots (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the ‘error’ was introduced on 19 February when Pppery made the TfD tag show up in transcluding pages of {{BS-table}}. Useddenim (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what the policy is...

On self-promoting your own images in Wikipedia, especially if better images are available? Tony May (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Using your own images is not a crime, otherwise WP:IUP#User-created images wouldn't encourage it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

ABC Rail Guide

I have been given three copies, from 1982, 83 and 84. Would you like them? It's you or the recycling bin. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Couldn't make London two days ago - I got added to the rota quite late. I'll try to let you know when I can next make London. Unless you're coming to Oxford this Sunday. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately not but I will hold the books for you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a DYK in the ABC guide based on the Christie book if I can get enough together. Do you have any sources? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Which Christie book? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I'm guessing The A.B.C. Murders. The last sentence of the first paragraph in the plot section mentions the ABC Rail Guide. If I'm wrong my apologies sending you down the wrong track :-) MarnetteD|Talk 12:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) The A.B.C. Murders ("I bet the chap drinks White Horse Whiskey") I think it'll be difficult to avoid WP:SYNTH; I had an—admittedly cursory—look for sourcing, and it's distinctly difficult to identify sources which discuss the guide itself in the context of the novel, rather than merely the novel itself. IMHO, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh Agatha Christie. I thought that you were referring to an obscure railway book about timetabling written by some man called Christie. Much like Raymond Butt. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) M. A new adaptation, The ABC Murders (TV series), was broadcast here over three consecutive nights beginning on 26 December 2018 on the BBC. Any chance you get to see it? Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Not yet Gareth but I will be looking for it. Thanks for the heads up. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User Tony May

He's constantly tampering with articles and deliberately changing photographs to try and bring me down. He needs sorting out ASAP, he's just pulled this trick on a number of pages for carnforth based engines including the one for Galatea. LMS_Jubilee_Class_5699_Galatea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talkcontribs) 21:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Merseyrail

Yes sorry about the blanking. I appreciate my error just forgot how to move the page. Hope it can be fixed overall. Does the logo need to be added on the city line page?Babydoll9799 (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Babydoll9799: Let's worry about the logo later. Please stop moving the article and blanking out redirects, whilst I try to sort this mess. Same goes for ADTelo (talk · contribs) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I will. The only difference for me is I moved it to City line (Merseyrail) lower case L like the other two lines, but links elsewhere are all City Line (Merseyrail) with capital L. Depends how it should be - the Northern and Wirral lines are lower case l. I will leave this now out of my depth I guess. Hopefully can be fixedBabydoll9799 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Noted. Sorry about the mess! ADTelo (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Babydoll9799, ADTelo, and GB fan: I've moved the article (and its talk page) back to City Line (Merseyrail), capital L, which is where it was until 13 March 2019. I have also protected the page against further undiscussed moves. If it is felt that the page name is incorrect, please discuss in accordance with WP:RM and the other procedures described there and at WP:BEFOREMOVING.
The various redirects (eight in all) that got created by this series of moves have been un-blanked where they were blanked, and in six cases pointed directly at the article City Line (Merseyrail) or talk page Talk:City Line (Merseyrail) as appropriate. Each of those six has incoming links, so should not be deleted. In two cases - Wikipedia:City Line (Merseyrail) and Wikipedia talk:City Line (Merseyrail) - there were no incoming links, so it was safe to delete those. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Great, thanks for sorting all this out - I'll take it as a learning experience not to move articles without discussing it and reaching consensus first, then making sure I know what I'm doing. 🔬🚆 | Telo | Talk to me! 01:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I've deleted three more redirects which had no inward links (City line (Merseyrail), Talk:City line (Merseyrail) and Talk:City Line (Merseytravel)); so three remain: City Line (Merseyside), City Line (Merseytravel) and Talk:City Line (Merseyside) and these do have inward links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

No need for comma to be inside the link

Well, I suppose so. There is also no harm in setting the comma inside the link. I was trained many, many years ago to set the following punctuation mark in the same style as the preceding word. Do you have some special reason to change it? ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@PaulinSaudi: You refer to this edit where you had used what I believe is known as "typesetters' punctuation". We don't do that in Wikipedia (how often have you seen other links constructed in that manner?), instead we use "logical punctuation". The best descriptions mainly concern quotation marks (see for example Quotation marks in English#Order of punctuation, MOS:TQ and Wikipedia:Logical quotation on Wikipedia), but they really cover all forms of punctuation. Just as we don't introduce commas into quotations where the actual material being quoted has no comma, we shouldn't introduce commas into links where the actual page being linked has no comma. This is akin to MOS:PIPEDLINK, the bullet beginning "Intuitiveness. Keep piped links as intuitive as possible." (notice how I put the full stop inside the quotes there, because it's a whole sentence and is also part of the material being quoted) Alternatively, think of it like this: is the comma a part of the actual name of the article that you are linking to? If so, include it in the link; if not, don't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Noted. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with me

Hi RedRose64

I couldn't help but notice you seem to keep challenging me on the former South Staffordshire Line from Walsall to Lichfield City and other pages. I provided evidence but you keep refusing to except it. I'm not happy with some of the replies you gave me. I had no problems with you but you do with me.

Sorry you feel that way

JoshIsTheFalco JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@JoshuaIsTheFalco: Please provide diffs of the edits concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Raymond Butt

 On 16 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Raymond Butt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Raymond Butt compiled a directory of "every station, halt, platform and stopping place on the British railway passenger network"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond Butt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Raymond Butt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And I hardly did a thing to it. Yay! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
You were a guiding presence in the background RedRose. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Gloucester branch lines

There's some good railway porn in the maps here that should excite you. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Customizing time display

I believe you once helped me—I think at WP:VPT back in 2016—with something related to time formatting and it involved doing something in my vector.js or something somewhere in one of my settings pages. Currently, signatures are displaying like this: Today, 9:32 am (UTC−7), March 9, 2019, 2:21 pm (UTC−8). In terms of what's actually displayed once an edit is saved, is it possible to just have Today, 9:32 AM, March 9, 2019, 2:21 PM? (Capital AM or PM and no UTC -X, as I know what time zone the times are in.) The current display is already a little bit customized from you helping me before and can probably just be customized further. Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Amaury: Your User:Amaury/vector.js certainly seems to be doing something with times, almost certainly related to the gadget "Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation)". I don't recall discussing this, and I can't find anything relevant in the VPT archives, unless it was either Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#Wikipedia Server Clock or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 152#Very minor issue with signature date and time stamps. But at VPR there's Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 134#Global date and time format in preferences and some other suggestions which might be the thread concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That last link is the one, but I remember now. You did give me some code, but it was for my common.css, as well as my common.js, in regard to styling blocked users' names with strike-throughs. I don't remember where the discussion was, but you provided me with CSS to keep the strike-through while hovering over blocked users' names. I've since had those pages deleted since it was turned into an option. And yes, that code in my vector.js is doing something. Remember that my signatures are being displayed like this, per what I stated above: March 9, 2019, 2:21 pm (UTC−8). Without that code in there, they display like so: 2:21 pm, 9 March 2019, Saturday (12 days ago) (UTC−8). Is there anything I can add to that code so signatures display as March 9, 2019, 2:21 PM? Capital AM/PM and no (UTC-X). Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time doesn't have anything about suppressing the time zone; you could ask at Wikipedia talk:Comments in Local Time. It might not be capable, so an amendment to the code may be necessary. I'm not a JavaScript expert, and last year (as with all other regular admins) they took away my right to edit .js and .css pages. I can't even view the deleted edits of User:Amaury/common.css or User:Amaury/common.js to see if I did anything there in the past; if you need these pages back, you can post at WP:IANB. As far as deciding what amendments may be necessary, if the gadget's talk page isn't fruitful, you may get better luck posting at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

RFC questions revert

FYI the reason I had changed my original post was that another editor (Quon) edited my original questions beyond what they were. I am going to return them to the original state. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP: Please do not revert me, the RfC needs a valid opening statement. Have a look at the effect on the RfC listing pages of your previous change to the RfC. See WP:RFCBRIEF: Legobot will copy your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. I was going to change it back to my original RFC, but I will leave it. The problem was that an overzealous editor went in and edited my original entry, so it was no longer my comment (even though it had my signature).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Table color schemes

Hello, Redrose64! I'm just letting you know that I responded to your points at Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system#RfC: Should we install a color scheme with 9 colors in the comparison table?. If you're still interested in helping out, please let me know and we can organize something.Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I saw it. I also saw several comments like "Please write and explain specifically like me." The more that you ask me to respond, the less likely I am to do so. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Croydon Airport robbery

Hi....if you have chance to look at this....how do I calculate today's equivalent in money? ie £21 thousand in 1935 is what in 2019? Whispyhistory (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

You've used
£21 thousand (equal to £1,431,900 in 2018)
which is a good start. But it's not an exact conversion, so the word "equal" is inappropriate, "equivalent" would be better:
£21 thousand (equivalent to £1,431,900 in 2018)
Also, it's capital wealth so you have used the wrong scale, see {{inflation}} (first box, including the phrase "For inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich") and compare this:
£21 thousand (equivalent to £1,247,760 in 2016)
You don't need the {{formatnum:...}} if you use the |fmt=c parameter:
£21 thousand (equivalent to £1,247,760 in 2016)
Since the left hand side uses the word "thousand" instead of the figures 000, the right hand side should do the same
£21 thousand (equivalent to £1,248 thousand in 2016)
which is also rounded sensibly. What else is lacking here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks...I don't know what else is lacking. What is the difference between burglary and robbery? Category:Robberies in the United Kingdom or Category:Burglaries in the United Kingdom? Whispyhistory (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
(Apologies for butting in.) You have to enter a building to burgle; just taking stuff is robbing. [5] vs [6] Bazza (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks...what is the difference between Croydon Airport robbery and Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary? Whispyhistory (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The exact term that is used is rather down to the common law of England (a person's action that can be tried in court as a crime, not because a monarch or parliament has passed a law against it, but because everybody has always agreed that it's a crime), The common law terms for various offences are ancient in origin; some (like rob) come from old German, some (like burglar) from old French, some Latin, some ancient Briton (a language whose modern descendants include Welsh). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again....should there be both categories for burglary and robbery? If so, which does croydon come under? Whispyhistory (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Whatever the references in the article call it. If both, then both. And thanks to Redrose64 for a nice explanation. Bazza (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you as always and thank you Bazza 7. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ANRFC

Hi. About Special:Diff/890084385 - I marked it as "done" because the 1 remaining sub-proposal is separate, and isn't anywhere near ready for closure, so I didn't think it needed to stay listed. Would it be okay to set done=yes and replace "partially done" with {{done|partially done}}? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, archiving is not controlled by |done=yes but by template. Near the top of the page you will find this line:
|archivenow=<!-- <nowiki>{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}},{{resolved,{{Resolved,{{done,{{Done,{{DONE,{{already done,{{Already done,{{not done,{{Not done,{{close,{{Close,{{nd,{{xXxX</nowiki> -->
It's a case-sensitive list of templates that will trigger archiving. Use any of them, except xXxX which is a dummy to terminate the list. So {{done|partially done}} will trigger archiving. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64: oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that. Are you okay with me marking it as done? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If you use one of the templates that will trigger archiving, you should mark the {{initiated}} as |done=yes in the same edit. If none of those templates is used, leave off the |done=yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant: are you okay with me changing partially done to done, and setting done=yes? I.e. having the section be "done"? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If there is no further action to be taken by WP:AN/RFC regulars, then go ahead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Redrose64:   Done, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

User contributions

Hi, RR - I was wondering if there is/could be a search function implemented in user contributions to allow keyword searches so we can more easily locate a specific edit we made weeks or years ago? For example, I remember working on Abinta Kabir Foundation which is now deleted but I don't remember when I worked on it and only vaguely recall tagging it for deletion. In article edit history, we can isolate a specific user's edits but not if the page is deleted, and that's where a keyword search in our user contribs would come in handy, or perhaps there's already a way available to us now and I'm not aware of it? The date range feature only works if you remember the dates. Atsme Talk 📧 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Searching the "all revisions" database—which I think is what you're suggesting—would fry the servers, and the WMF would almost certainly veto allowing it on the live wiki; this is why the edit-counter tool, which is performing a much simpler query, is disabled for editors with large numbers of edits. (Try searching even a single article-history for the addition of a keyword and see how long it takes.) The only practical way to make such a thing viable would be to persuade someone to host an off-wiki backup of the all-pages-all-revisions database and use that for searching, but since the full database is now up to (I think) 25TB, I doubt anyone would want to host it. ‑ Iridescent 12:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Iridescent - I don't know if my request would key-up an "all revisions" database. I would think the search would be limited to only my edits in the existing User (Atsme) contribution database the same way a search to isolate a particular user's contributions in an article's edit history or talk page history would be done. What I'm querying would be more like opening your own "User contributions" (either in the left or top margin menu bar) and when that page appears, there would be a search bar to find keywords in your logged contributions like there is now for date ranges. I think wmflabs searches an "all revisions" database via editor interaction tools but what I'm asking for is just a bit more specific than isolating a date range in User contributions view. We keep that date option, but add the keyword option as well so when we can't remember "when" we can still search by keyword (say a word we remember in the edit summary, or article title). Atsme Talk 📧 12:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The tool that I use to locate old edits by their edit summary is found in the box at the bottom of each user's contribs page, titled "Edit summary search". It doesn't scan deleted contribs though. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Redrose64/unclassified 23".