User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

How did this edit to the documentation page of Template:Infobox bot fix the functionality of the Excl.Comp. parameter and thereby the addition of Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant, while the code of the infobox clearly says {{{Excl.Comp.| without a space? And how come the capitalization of the "c" doesn't influence the outcome? I seem to remember parameters are capitalization sensitive. Debresser (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The code in {{infobox bot}} reads:

| data10 = {{{Excl.Comp.|{{#if:yes|Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}

Which comes down to this:

If the parameter |Excl.Comp.= is present, whatever its value (even if blank), display that value

If the parameter |Excl.Comp.= is entirely absent, the code reduces to:

| data10 = {{#if:yes|Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

Since the {{#if:...}} parser function tests for a non-blank value, and "yes" is non-blank, the test will succeed and the code again reduces to:

| data10 = Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]

which means that we can rewrite the above to:

If the parameter |Excl.Comp.= is present, whatever its value (even if blank), display that value

If the parameter |Excl.Comp.= is entirely absent, display the word "Yes" and place the page into Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant

By inserting a space, the parameter |Excl.Comp.= became entirely absent. The presence of |Excl. Comp.= |Excl.comp.= or |Excl. comp.= does not affect the outcome (whether they have values or not), because none of those are coded for in {{infobox bot}}. The documentation doesn't point it out, but there are therefore just two possibilities: |Excl.Comp.= present (with any value, blank or not) - treated as "not compliant"; or |Excl.Comp.= entirely absent - treated as "compliant". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It would now seem that |data10= needs some fix. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Try this:

| data10 = {{#if:{{yesno|{{{Excl.Comp.|}}} }}|Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]|No}}

Here, it will behave as follows:

If any of |Excl.Comp.=yes |Excl.Comp.=y or |Excl.Comp.=1 is given, display the word "Yes" and place the page into Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant

If the parameter |Excl.Comp.= has any other value, or is entirely absent, display the word "No" and do not categorise

Note that by using {{yesno}} the parameter value is case-insensitive (so |Excl.Comp.=Yes will work as intended) although the parameter name is still case-sensitive. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Although I would like to know first if there are instances of Excl. Comp., Excl.comp. or Excl. comp. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

All seem to use Excl. comp. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of the 200+ uses of {{infobox bot}}, only three have the unspaced form |Excl.Comp.= (capital "C") - those are User:StatisticianBot, User:TFA Protector Bot and User:VoxelBot. All others use the spaced form |Excl. comp.= (small "c"). To allow both of these to be used interchangeably can be done quite easily:

| data10 = {{#if:{{yesno|{{{Excl.Comp.|}}}{{{Excl. comp.|}}} }}|Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]|No}}

but this may break if the infobox has both forms, and both are non-blank. Note that some cases aren't simple yes/no - there are |Excl. comp.=Maybe |Excl. comp.=N/A |Excl. comp.=No need. |Excl. comp.=TBD |Excl. comp.=Yes, except for sandboxes all of which will test as No. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on what it says on the documentation of {{Tl|Yesno|| "{{yesno|purplemonkeydishwasher}} result "yes" (also applies to any other value not given above)." I was under the impression that all of those will test as Yes. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I made the change to the source, and changed those 3 bots who had |Excl.Comp.=. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

See User:StatisticianBot that "N/A" indeed resulted in "Yes". Will fix that now. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Debresser (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My mistake, I had forgotten to include |def= (with blank value) in my code. Here it is without {{{Excl.Comp.|}}} seeing as you've eliminated those cases:

| data10 = {{#if:{{yesno|{{{Excl. comp.|}}} |def=}}|Yes[[Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant|{{PAGENAME}}]]|No}}

The reason for defaulting to blank (treated as "No") is because you probably want to indicate exclusion compliance as an explicit "Yes" - if they are vague about whether it's compliant or not, it's best to have an implicit "No", to be on the safe side. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I learn quickly. As you see in the diff above, I made that edit precisely as you say even before you explained it. Pointing me to {{Yesno}} and its documentation was enough. I hope to continue learning from you, and thank you for your help. On a sidenote, the decision to have {{Yesno}} return a "yes" for all other values is imho counterintuitive. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64, Your user page mentions that you are a software engineer and perhaps might know something about software graphics for 3D data visualization. This is the Wikipedia table which would be nice to see as a 3D graph, can you think of any easy way? (x-axis is importance scale, y-axis is quality scale, and z-axis is the value from this table.) What is the simplest possible way? {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics}} BillMoyers (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried the Graphics Lab? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64, Thanks for the reference. It is now on the village pump there, yet the activity level seems very low for that Lab. If you have a follow-up idea let me know. There seem to be these 3D graphs in every other issue of Time magazine or Newsweek using square columns or round cylinders of different heights to show the z-axis values. Possibly you may have seen these types of graphs somewhere in magazines or textbooks? BillMoyers (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Gnuplot command line tool may suffice. Search for Gnuplot+3D produces a series of resources for creating 3-axis plots using it. Some typing will be required. --Lexein (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen such graphs, and I think of them as "skyscraper" graphs; here's why. Let's say that you're in an aircraft flying past an American city, and you're to the south-east, looking towards the centre - it might look like Oklahoma City. The streets represent the quality, the avenues represent the importance, and the heights of the blocks represent the number of articles. So in this example, the skyscraper at the corner of SE 8th Street and SE 4th Avenue is 1,298,112 feet high. Better make that millimetres actually. But you get the idea. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

(Nods). Since a linear scale will visually zero-out the low article counts, I suggest also experimenting with a log scale representation of article counts. --Lexein (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Redrose64 and User:Lexein, Thanks for the follow-up. The "skyscraper" graphs ascription is really on target. If user:Lexein statement on "Some typing will be required" is serious then I assume he means that someone will need to volunteer to do the tedious typing of the actual table of numbers for plotting. Since I am not an expert programmer, if one of you could set up the code, then I would volunteer to do the actual grunt task of re-typing the entire table of numbers. Does this sound possible? My thought is to include it in the new subsection on "Internal quality control" on the high-traffic page for "Wikipedia" on the left side of the new subsection. The table version looked bland, and I thought the graphics "skyscraper" version would have more appeal. Regarding the 'peak' point observation, the other possibility is to simply not to include the severe peak point (but indicate by caption where it would be) since "log" scales, though effective, sometimes unnecessarily scare general users. Is it possible? BillMoyers (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The table is updated daily (it's actually transcluded from User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles), and manual data preparation in order to convert it into another form with the intention of making it more readable by a computer program is error-prone, tedious, likely to be overlooked from time to time (or even completely given up on) and pointless. It's pointless because it's written by a program, and so it can be read by a suitably-designed program. It would be far better to eliminate the human element, and arrange for a bot to prepare the graphic file - either by reading User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles or by using the same data that WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) uses to prepare the table. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW I was being ironic about "some typing will be required" because Gnuplot, though useful, is not a GUI app, and getting it to show something nice requires a lot of repetitive documentation reading, typing, and trying. It's ok for a one-off. Or, once finessed, it can be used in a unix-way tool pipeline, but never mind all that. I agree with everything Redrose64 wrote. --Lexein (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello User:Redrose64 and User:Lexein, Have to agree with both of you, and it seems like 2 questions are left. First, whether to consider this as a one-time only and stand alone graph, or, to note the thorough comment by Redrose above and consider the bot route. "Bot" route is outside my expertise, and maybe one of you might have an idea if this is limited to a one-off graph (Current wording in the "Internal quality control section" covers one and only one date, stats for 11/Dec/2013). Should it be a one-off, then what is the easiest way? Second question is whether the "skyscraper" graph should be log-scale, double log-scale, or simple linear-scale while excluding the spike point as described above? They are both good points, and possibly you might comment on the one or the other question. BillMoyers (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Remarkable. After wearing out a new grove in the left click of my mouse, one can find a Graph3d program. Could you glance at this. Since I am not an expert programmer of any sort, could you let me know if I would be able to do a one-off for the Table above. It would look well on the high traffic "Wikipedia" page next to the new section on "Internal Quality Control" there. The sequence of tabs for left clicking is

>Google Charts

>Chart Gallery

>Additional Charts page (link at top)

>CHAP Links Library

>Graph3d

Since I am no expert programmer indicating how to do this in layman terms may help to enhance the new subsection on the "Wikipedia" wikipage. BillMoyers (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where, or what, any of these are. You say "the sequence of tabs for left clicking" - but starting from where? If it's a website, a URL would be much more useful than a sequence of clicks. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, This is the link I meant to provide for the first one. Google Charts. After that just click on the tabs in the sequence above until "Graph3D" comes up. It should give an illustrated sample 3D graph which is easily spotted. BillMoyers (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Graph3D - judging by the various examples - produces a graph which implies that the x- and y-axes are continuous, that is, that for any two adjacent values on the x-axis, there are other values in between which obey the same scaling rule as the values which are shown. However, in User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/OverallArticles the only relationship between one row and the next is largely arbitrary: there are B-class and C-class, but there isn't a class halfway-between. Another way of considering it: is FL-class "better" than A-class, or is Unknown-importance "worse" than Low-importance? There is some order to both class and importance, but the values are discrete, not continuous. Just as it is an error to draw a continuous curve which connects the ends of the bars in a two-dimensional bar chart, it is an error to draw a continuous surface which connects the ends of the bars in a three-dimensional bar chart. Compare histogram, where such continuous lines (or surfaces) would not be errors. Histograms and bar graphs are not the same, whether there be two dimensions or three. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and see When Graphic Design Goes Badly. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, The last link was really interesting since Fig.3 in "Design Goes Badly" (written by MS Excel) actually gave a sample "skyscraper" graph. This suggests strongly that the MS Excel package probably has the app in there, if anyone at Wikipedia perhaps has access to it. On your other question on "continuous", it seems that the x-axis for importance is just the four levels (1 to 4, best to lowest), while the Y-axis would be eight values (FA, FL, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub) from 1 to 8, best to lowest. I agree that more than this gets things more confused than they need to be. Someone once told me that you can do an 3D FFT on discrete data to make them look continuous but this sounds overdone, so "Graph3D" is probably out. Can someone find the skyscraper graph maker on MS Excel or something close to adapt here for wikipedia? BillMoyers (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I deliberately made the link point to the heading just before that figure 3. Excel does create graphs and charts, but not only are these difficult to produce in a form that is suitable for upload, but the data needs to be retyped as well because Excel can't import a Wikipedia page. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, Ok, if that was a hint I can step up on my side. I'll offer to re-type the entire table of values in any format needed if you could take a stab at running it through the software. This would make the one-off work and it could enhance the new "Wikipedia" subsection on Internal Quality Control. If I read it correctly, then using the number sequence given in my last note above it would be something like (1,1,value)...(4,8,value). On your indication I could offer to re-type it in whatever format would work for you? BillMoyers (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, P.S. Someone else suggested that I give up on the 3D version and consider sticking to simple 2D graphs. The idea was to use a 4-color graph on each of 8 columns in 2 dimensions. The eight columns would be for each quality gradation, and the 4 colors would be for each level of importance. The 4 colors on each column would be over-lapping tough slightly staggered to avoiding "blurring" of one color directly on top of another color. Does this 2D idea make sense, or should I just put it aside? (Village Pump seems very quite). BillMoyers (talk) 17:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a feeling they are possibly similar to Jamesbutch (talk · contribs) Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 20:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but no edits for a week. Also similar: all the anons with an obsession about the routeboxes on the GE main line. Semi-protting some of the pages slowed down the anons and Jameesyby14, but instead they raise edit requests which are always unactionable. When I find time, I'm going to go through Tables 5, 6, 11 also WTT Book LA] and work out the actual off-peak service pattern. Then I shall redraw the Greater Anglia rows for all the routeboxes between Liverpool Street and Norwich, with consistent west-at-left format. I also have reason to believe that "Dutchflyer" is not a separate service at all, but a ticketing deal: the actual trains that the tickets are valid for are normal Greater Anglia services. If so, we have no reason to retain the "Dutchflyer" rows. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can confirm that Dutchflyer is a ticket (valid from any Greater Anglia station, not just London), not a specific train. This Stena Line web page says: "The dutchflyer operates an "open" rail ticket which means that you can travel to the port at whichever time is most convenient to you." -- Alarics (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas greetings to you and yours from John in Reading. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I undid your edit as I merely changed a link to the petition which had sat there for over a year. This isn't anything to do with promoting or being on a soapbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbonjela (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@Jonbonjela: Regardless of how it got there, or who added it, or why, WP:ELNO#EL4 is clear: links to online petitions are forbidden; Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Your second reversion of my removal of the petition's link from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Line - which is therefore your third addition of the same forbidden link - could therefore be seen as disruptive editing. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, at the Oliver Bulleid article and a few other places. I really ought to know what the British English spelling is, oughtn’t I? It just didn’t look wrong, which has set me wondering. Anyway, thanks, Moonraker12 (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your amplifications - it would have taken me hours to put that lot together! Flying Stag (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

hi. i want to explain this: this is simply the coords that google-maps generates. i do not look at them, and i do not spend any time thinking about what the digits mean: i have a little bookmarklet that train google-maps to excrete a fully populated {{coord}} template. the bookmaklet works by locating the place on google-maps, activating the bookmarklet, right-clicking on the exact spot, and voila! a prompt box with the fully populated "coord" template pops up. from there it's a simple copy/paste to wikipedia.

you are absolutely correct that the "precision" in which google-maps provides the data is completely ridiculous. OTOH, it is also harmless, and inasmuch as i'll continue adding or correcting "coord" templates on enwiki, i think i'll continue to paste it as is, without trimming. if you can point to any harm in doing so, i'll consider trimming it. the rationale given at WP:OPCOORD (Overly precise coordinates can be misleading by implying that the geographic area is smaller than it truly is) does not seem right, at least when using pure decimal input: the template displays the coords using DMS (without decimal points), regardless of the phony precision the editor uses, so the "given impression" discussed there just does not exist. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64,
Thanks for reverting me, I wasn't even aware coordinates could help with maps,
So thanks :), Regards, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Yes, if you look at a page like Bromley South railway station or Sale Metrolink station, you'll see a pushpin map in the infobox, this is an integral feature of both {{Infobox London station}} and {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}}. With these, the position of the red dot is calculated from the |latitude= and |longitude= parameters of the infobox. There's a suggestion to add something similar to {{Infobox GB station}}; the details haven't been finalised, but to make this work, the |latitude= and |longitude= will also need to be present in the infobox. Some years ago, these parameters were added to all of these varieties of infobox, so that the infobox would generate clickable coordinates at upper right, rendering a separate {{coord}} superfluous. These clickable coordinates only need the latitude and longitude to be provided - the other information (region, type, scale) is filled in automatically by the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A question you may be able to help answer over at Template talk:Infobox comics character. Prhartcom (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Works well, thank-you! Prhartcom (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please could you look at the page Rushden, Higham and Wellingborough Railway. I'm not any good at editing route diagrams, so please could you pop by and change it to show Wellingborough railway station as station open, line closed, and a symbol to indicate the interchange to National Rail.

Thanks,

109.148.81.64 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? I can't find anything on the website stating that there is any open station at Wellingborough other than the National Rail one. Therefore, I believe that the RH&WR do not (yet) have a station at Wellingborough. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that RedRose, what I meant was please could you show, like Higham Ferrers, Wellingborough as part of the former branch line, and include some reference to a National Rail interchange.

109.149.115.228 (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just edited the template, although it does not show in the article, to show the relationship between this line and the Midland Main Line. Britmax (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The job queue is supposed to fix articles that transclude it. Until a year ago, a template change would show up in the articles within an hour or two; now it can be days or weeks. If it's crucial that the amendments be displayed immediately, give each of the transcluding articles a WP:NULLEDIT. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with that, and for spotting that I saved time by duplicating the top crossing but forgot to put it back into use. As an aside I think they are being a bit optimistic, but there you are. Britmax (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Optimistic, yes. There are a large number of articles concerning preserved lines and their stations which attract a significant amount of unsourced speculation. If these are to be believed, the Gloucestershire Warwickshire Railway (to take just one example) will be operating through from an interchange at Cheltenham Spa to Stratford-upon-Avon within the next ten years, including a triangular junction at Honeybourne. Presumably these pipe dreams will (like the major football clubs) be paid for by foreign investors, since we are still in recession. Many other examples abound, but I think that just one or two people are adding most of it. Treat with extreme scepticism any edit which is in bad English; which misuses words like "respectively" and "whom"; which uses phrases like "could eventually be reinstated"; or where the edit summary contains the single word "Update" with up to three exclamation marks. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello R. This IP is adding a cat entitles "Six-part serials" to numerous articles. It, of course, does not exist and I don;t think it would survive a CFD if it did. Is it possible to mass rollback the edits. I would do it the slow way but I have to log off in a few minutes. Thanks for checking into this. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Rollback is not justified here (see last paragraph of the lead at WP:ROLLBACK) - generally it may only be used for clear vandalism, which this isn't, so mass rollback is even less justifiable. Anyway, by the time that you'd left this note, you've done three by a normal edit and Spudgfsh (talk · contribs) has done twelve via WP:TW. I've used a plain "undo" to revert the five that you both missed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand what you are saying. Thanks also for following through on the reverts. I guess the 50th and the Xmas regen ep were so spectacular that they decided to make us wait until next fall to see Peter's Dr. I know you are getting Sherlock now so I hope you are enjoying it. The DVD is going to get to me before it shows up on TV :-) As ever thanks for your time and your explanations. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 22:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the Christmas DW and two episodes of Sherlock on my PVR - I visited a somewhat sensitive elderly relative over Christmas/New Year, who doesn't like TV or film drama that involves crime, violence, vengeance or anything with a 12 certificate (or higher). Not even Flash Gordon is permitted. Anything based on an Agatha Christie novel is OK though - I must try her on The Unicorn and the Wasp; except that she doesn't like Catherine Tate. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah the joys of PVR (DVR over here) you have some treats awaiting you. Mentioning Christie reminds me that I watched my DVD set of the last Poirot films a couple months ago. Sean Pertwee was in one story - he is looking more like his dad every day. Curtain was extraordinary. The physical changes that Suchet put himself through were extraordinary. In fact it felt like everyone behind and in front of the camera was giving their all to make it a special production. I was quite choked up by the end. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 00:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Re this revert: (i) observe that in my edit, I removed one unsourced sentence, andt since your edit included the addition of two sources, the edit summary was untruthful in its use of the words "Undid revision 588889663 by Redrose64"; (ii) please read WP:NPA before you call somebody an "idiot"; (iii) I did read it, and it appeared to fall within WP:NOR in its use of the phrase "were more likely factors"; (iv) please read WP:VAND before you use words like "vandalising". --Redrose64 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I feel fully justified in my edit summary comment (1) why do we have general references? They were already in the footer, yet (2) in your usual "I'm right, the rest of you are wrong" attitude, your edit summary was your normal vindictive "speculation" style (have you actually read your edit summaries?) (3) which seems to suggest an attitude at preset beyond encyclodpedic and verging specifically in edit summaries of pedantic. I don't know you except from your edit record, but it seems that much as though you could add much to the project, your edit summaries at present are excluding co-operation and engagement with others editors - specifically, excluding particularly new editors. Perhaps you are holding on too tight, and should review your edit summaries? Accuracy and referencing yes, but does that need to come with a present attitude of non-co-operation on a human scale and vindictive exclusion? I hope that you find a more human and inclusive situation - Good Luck! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with general refs is that there is no way of knowing which ref(s) support which sentence(s) in the text. There are six books listed under "Further reading" - how am I supposed to know which one to request from my local library?

It is easily demonstrable that Swindon is not the mid-point - the station is at milepost 77+1⁄4, and since Bristol T.M. is close to mp 118+1⁄2, that places Swindon 65% of the way along the line - almost two thirds. The true mid-point is close to mp 59+1⁄4, which is between Steventon and Wantage Road. I have checked through

• MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833-1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. pp. 120–121.

in which we find a letter from Gooch to Brunel, dated 13 September 1840, containing the reasons for the choice of Swindon: it is too lengthy to reproduce here, since it occupies 1.5 pages of small type - but it does include several relevant points: it is the junction for Cheltenham; it was the point where the gradients change - in particular, it is close to the bottom of Wootton Basset incline; it was close to a canal. There is nothing about it being chosen as the mid-point for the line - indeed, Gooch notes "an apparent inequality of distance or duty for the engines to work", and gives "the actual distances are as 76+1⁄2 to 41". He later observes that since Reading is "36 miles, the next distance, to Swindon, would be 41 miles, and on to Bristol, another 41" - so Swindon is a mid-point, but between Reading and Bristol, and not for the line as a whole, which is what was implied by the text that I removed.

There are a number of people that (for whatever reason) are ignoring WP:NOR and WP:NOT#OR. Offering unsourced opinions on why something was done in one way as opposed to another is original research. What you don't see when I am reviewing my watchlist is the large number of edits made by others which go without comment from myself. These I do look at, but since I see nothing wrong, I pass on to the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can not see the references beyond your opinion, then why edit an encyclopedia that relies on its credibility through stating third party references? You can argue mid-point in your opinion until the cows come home, but at the end of the day that's your opinion not a referencerable fact. As the references and article states, the "mid-point" in not defied by Gooch as the physical distance mid-point, but the engineering journey mid-point between the smooth journey from London to Swindon, and the relatively steep journey to Bristol thereafter. Early locomotives were not reliable, needed changing, and like all steam powered devices needed a supply of water. But that's the whole point you are missing here - you are reading the facts (distance not journey) from your perspective, not from the written references. That's the whole point that you are missing here, and its a difficult one to grasp - and it shows in your far too aggresive edit summaries. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You want refs: here you are.

• Yonge, John; Padgett, David (2010) [1989]. Bridge, Mike (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 3: Western (5th ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. ISBN 978-0-9549866-6-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Bristol Temple Meads station is at 118 miles 31 chains (Yonge & Padgett 2010, map 5B) Half that is 59 miles 15 chains 10 yards.

Steventon station was at 56 miles 32 chains (Yonge & Padgett 2010, map 4A)

Wantage Road station was at 60 miles 36 chains (Yonge & Padgett 2010, map 4A)

But Swindon station is at 77 miles 23 chains (Yonge & Padgett 2010, map 4B)

I'm not disputing the need to change engines at Swindon, nor the need for watering them. Gooch, quoted by MacDermot, states "the only objection I see to Swindon is the bad supply of water"; "Steventon, where plenty of water may be had ... all trains will stop there"; and "I am not aware of any difficulties connected with Swindon other than the water". What I am disputing is the stated reasoning for the selection of Swindon. What part of "However Swindon's midway point between GWR terminals and the topography of land near the town were more likely factors." implies that the "midway point" was anything other than half of the physical distance from London to Bristol? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is a picture of Carole Ann Ford (and actress that didn't appear in this episode) as an adult more applicable to the article than a picture of Maureen O'Brien as her character (that actually did appear in the episode)? In Defense of the Artist (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert you on Planet of Giants; I reverted you on The Rescue. It's not a question of applicability; the problem is a lack of compliance with the non-free content criteria. There is a checklist here, and as I stated in my edit summary, File:Maureen O'Brien as Vicki.jpg fails WP:NFCCP#10c: this is because it does not have a fair-use rationale for any article other than Vicki (Doctor Who). It cannot therefore be used on The Rescue (Doctor Who). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake with the title of the article then. Thank you for the explanation. My question then is why is a photograph of an actor that didn't appear in the episode which is the subject of the article appropriate for the article, and if so why a picture of her as an adult is important. It should be removed or replaced by an image of an actor or character from the episode. In Defense of the Artist (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't my choice in the first place - the image was added with this edit by Glimmer721 (talk · contribs). Yes, an image of Maureen O'Brien or Vicki would be better - but the problem is one of obtaining one which is free-use. Fair-use images are only permitted under some very tight criteria. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Would a screen-shot of her first appearance on the show count since it is illustrative of her debut in the series? In Defense of the Artist (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The programme is copyright (the BBC being the copyright owner), so any screenshot would also be copyrighted to the BBC. Therefore, if uploaded, the image must satisfy all of the WP:NFCC criteria, including the provision of a cast-iron fair-use rationale specific to The Rescue (Doctor Who). That article already has one screenshot - File:Rescue (Doctor Who).jpg - and justifying a second can be difficult. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I wanted an image of O'Brien but there wasn't one, so this was the next best image for the content. There is a bit of discussion on how the original producers wanted O'Brien to look more like Ford's portrayal. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did you put a slightly better interpretation on the bit i wrote on The Leiecster railway page/ the bit about ""Arrivals " as it may have been removed because some body may have wrote the same words i never notised WAS THERE ALL ALONG?

Because it may have been removed because some body may had wrote the same words i never noticed? if you did put a better interpretation of what i had wrote about the stations "Arrivals and departures" thanks for your help. Can i ask your opinion and if you think it is wise to leave un edited the words at the very top of the leicester railway page that claims Leiester station was "rebuilt in 1894" a bit untrue because because the new entrance started construction in 1899 , and the Swain street bridge was built in 1833 Formally called Fox Street , and the new glass platform roofs was replaced in 1894 i do believe. So it should read at the top off the page "built 1899 and compleated in 1894, or "or "The re modernisation of the 1840 station began in 1899 and ended in 1894"? John Johnstone Smith (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page, you will see a tab marked "View history. All the changes to the page are listed there, in reverse chronological order; near to the start of each entry is a link named "prev", which shows the difference between that revision and the previous one (the one immediately below). I believe that you are referring to this edit. I rewrote your paragraph, partly to clean up some very poor English, and partly to give a more accurate explanation of the "Departure" and "Arrival" archways. The meanings of these are the same now as they have always been - if you look at the electronic display screens in the entrance hall of the station, you will see that some are titled "Arrivals", which refers to trains arriving at the station; others are titled "Arrivals", which refers to trains departing from the station.

If there is information in the article with which you disagree, such as the date of rebuilding, you should provide a reference source when changing it. If you cannot give a reference, or are unsure how to carry that out, start a discussion on the article's talk page. This is accessed by clicking the Talk tab at the top; use the "New section" tab to start a new discussion thread, which when saved will appear at the bottom of the page. If contributing to an existing discussion, please add your post at the bottom of the relevant section. More at talk page guidelines. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I see you changed Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Calhoun County, Mississippi. So I've just created Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Lincoln County, Mississippi and did it the way you did, without mentioning the county in the new page, but now it does not show the category for Lincoln County in [1]. Can you please help me figure this out one? My goal is to have a subcategory for photo requests in each US county, but linking those subcategories to the main category for photo requests in each state. It makes it a lot easier if we can find photo requests in each county, for people who live there or are visiting and can thus take pictures around the county more easily. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: The initial problem that I addressed with Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Copiah County, Mississippi; Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Calhoun County, Mississippi; and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Marshall County, Alabama was that you had set each of these categories to be a member of itself (but not a member of of any other categories); and so was being reported at Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories. I made only the minimal fixes to these, which was to move them from being subcategories of themselves to being subcategories of Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Mississippi and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Marshall County, Alabama - I probably wasn't careful enough at checking the existing structure of that category.

Looking at Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Mississippi, I see that Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Lincoln County, Mississippi is listed there, but is sorted under "W" (that being the first letter of "Wikipedia requested photographs ..."), and not under "L" which is what I think you're trying to achieve. To make it sort under "L", I've made this edit. I've made similar amendments to the other three: see Wikipedia requested photographs in Calhoun County, Mississippi; Wikipedia requested photographs in Copiah County, Mississippi; and Wikipedia requested photographs in Marshall County, Alabama. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey there, remember you helped update the Same-Sex marriage in Europe map to reflect the situation in Croatia and Hungary? I've put up some new suggestions re: constitutional vs. statutory bans and was wondering if you agree and could update the map again. I don't think anyone's looking at the Talk page right now. Thanks for your time :)

File_talk:Same_sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg#Constitutional_vs._Statutory_Bans 176.63.153.93 (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. I think it needs more discussion on that page before we amend the map. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixups in talk:Betamax. *sigh* Based on past experience, this will likely get worse before it gets better. Jeh (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jeh: I did intend sorting out that talk page earlier, before ClueBot III got to it; but I was busy all day. There were a huge number of posts which should be considered "new threads" which were posted either at the top of the page, at the bottom of an existing thread (sometimes with ---- as a separator) or even at the top of an existing thread. This was a particularly extreme example. I've made no attempt to fix the archive page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the archives need further attention. Threads that old can stand to be a little disorganized. I just hope ClueBot gets to the "to be archived" ones before JJS posts any more replies to them. Jeh (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jeh: I've unwatched Talk:Betamax. It's clear that John Johnstone Smith (talk · contribs) will continue to post original research amongst other rant, but there is nothing that I can offer in response. From his other contributions, I'm certain that we're dealing with a WP:YOUNG user (possibly one who is still at primary school), and I don't consider myself qualified. We may have specialists in such matters: but I'm certainly not one of them. I'm better off concentrating my efforts on topics for which I can confidently offer sources to back up my statements, such as Talk:Leicester railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks again! Jeh (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at resolving confusing and overlapping pages in this series of articles, but I suspect it needs more work esp by a proper editor. Esp See talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:GWR_2-6-2T for suggestions. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I put in a request for a move for that page, but its attracted no comments and has been relisted. As you're the only fairly recent past editor of the page/general topics who appears to be still active on Wikipedia maybe you'd like to support or oppose or do the move yourself if you consider it appropriate or something... 212.159.44.170 (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved the page to GWR 5100 Class. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 212.159.44.170 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

{{talkback|MediaWiki talk:Edittools|angle brackets|ts=02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)}} I accidentally typed RedRose64 when typing out your name and since it didn't ping you, figured I would TB you instead. Is K correct that you support the change, or am I correct you don't? I would have thought you would have just changed it if you supported it. Meh... Anyways.  :) Technical 13 (talk) 02:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your feedback at Help talk:Table#Help with Wikitables. I asked you a follow-up question at that page. Please let me know if you can help with the follow-up question. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I saw it in my watchlist. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. So, I will just reply at that Help Talk Page ... and not on your User Talk Page going forward. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection template fixups. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Phileasson|Warning templates - escalation of|ts = 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)}}

You may be interested in WP:ANI#Bad deletions, WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, and Personal attacks by admin Jni since you commented in the relevant WT:CSD thread. DES ^(talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I see you work on this. I was wondering if you can help me - I'd like the list to show my account, plus my 2 inactive alternative accounts, User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3, together. Can you help? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not my report, and I've never worked on it - all I do is field questions at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. You would need to ask MZMcBride (talk · contribs), the operator of BernsteinBot (talk · contribs), which is the bot that prepares the report. But I suspect the answer will be "no", because there have been questions before concerning users with two or more identities. They're always shown as one entry per username. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Watcher 7 has taken Woodlands Road off the diagram again giving an edit summary reason. I was just going to revert it but I think you know more about this than I do. Britmax (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary given in WatcherZero's second edit is more explanatory than in the first. It is true that High Street is not shown, even as pale blue (denoting a stop that is not open); but it was shown in the original version drawn by DrFrench, being removed with this edit. But the template has no documentation (like most RDT templates), and I can't find anything on the talk page which states the criteria for what should or should not be shown. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Normally closed lines and stations are done in red on pages about historic lines, however this RDT is principally for the networks main page infobox to indicate the operational network. If you did want to add a closed section in red probably best place for it might be the History of Metrolink page where you can talk about station closures. WatcherZero (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Red is for open heavy-rail lines; pink for heavy-rail lines not in use; dark blue is for open light-rail; light blue is for light-rail not in use. See WP:RDT/C; Template:RDT colors; or the Legend link shown upper right of many RDTs (such as Template:Bury Lines RDT, but not Template:Metrolink RTD). --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Metrolink RTD but not Template:Metrolink RDT?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answering to my problem of {{Infobox hurricane}} last month. I found a solution to it and I think you may be interested to know more about it at Template talk:Infobox hurricane.--Quest for Truth (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That was an error which happened when I tried to change the 1956 date, which was given as a second opening date, to its correct cat as that of closing. I'm not sure what went wrong but thanks for pointing it out. Britmax (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

good work --78.156.109.166 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I fail to see why. I've never edited that page (or its talk), I'm not American, I'm not a politician (although I do vote every May), and I don't own a gun. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I sent notice to any editor whose name is currently on the Gun control talk page. This discussion is related to the material that page was edit protected over. Lightbreather (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 383rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Heya,

I know you were acting in completely good faith on {{Same-sex unions}}, but I should point out that, nevertheless, protecting a page that you're engaged in an edit war on is misuse of admin tools. For what it's worth, I agree with your reversion, so I'm not going to complain, but try to be more careful in future? :) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sceptre: I wasn't edit-warring: it was my third edit in three months. The first and third of these were reverts, yes; but the first was in November, and concerned a completely different aspect of the template. The second edit of the three was five days ago, and was purely cosmetic: a <small> had been left unclosed, and it caused all subsequent entries to be smaller than they should have been. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I hope that this message finds you well! I came across the "interesting" article which is the current version of the Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway. At present its pretty bad/atrocious, thanks to (a) being out of date, (b) out of control, with text slapped into place, and (c) largely unref'd. I'd also question if a competent editor rearranged the article, if the associated article at the Bowaters Paper Railway would be necessary? The history sections are poor copies of each other, and the locomotive list could be integrated into one decent table. Thoughts? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much information on it, although I did ride it once in about 2002. AFAIK they're the same railway, so should be on the same article, like we do with Talyllyn Railway or Ffestiniog Railway. Have you tried some of our railway-minded Kentish editors/Editors of Kent such as Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) and Mjroots (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you one of the admins who approves gadgets at WP:Gadget/proposals? It took me a few tries to get right, but I have a 7 line script there (I could've actually combined lines 4 and 5) that properly turns off search suggestions. I remember you taking part in the Village Pump discussion on whether this mandatory AJAX was a good thing.

Any comment would be welcome. Connor Behan (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't approve gadgets. I occasionally comment on proposals, but don't take a final decision, nor do I set up finished gadgets; although I have on occasion patched an existing gadget. Have a look at WP:US. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello R. Looks like a newbie is moving a couple pages and making a mess of things [2]. The moves may well be legit but they are being done haphazardly. For one thing the qualifiers should not be capitalised. Also, the hat notes leading to the DAB page are now redlinks. It looks like this is in aid of creating this article for which there may (or may not) be notability and COI problems. While I have moved pages a time or two I am leery of reversing moves for fear of missing something and messing things up. If you would check things out it would be much appreciated. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I restored "our" Colin Baker to his rightful place, per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. It wasn't a particularly well-performed move either, since the talk page was left behind. There already is a Colin Baker (disambiguation), containing two footballers, and this minor songwriter may be added to that - if the AfC is approved for mainspace. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Many thanks. MarnetteD | Talk 22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

From email sent by BullRangifer (Redacted)@(Redacted) 2 February 2014 22:59

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace&diff=prev&oldid=593639708

I AGF and believe your application of an article style guideline for "lists" to threaded conversation on talk pages is well-intended. It does make individual comments in discussions harder for me and others to notice, but I'll try to live with it and not revert you. Many times I've seen people make ill-informed comments because they didn't notice another comment had already been made, largely because there was no visible separation between comments. Better too much separation, than none at all. I recall a time (pre 2003) when separation was the norm, and many of us older editors still do it.

If you wish to continue this practice, I suggest you get it made into an official guideline which applies to talk pages. Right now it only applies to mainspace articles and lists. Until then, it's just an irritation to me and makes it easier to miss others' comments. I need the actual physical separation to notice it.

Above, I've copied verbatim the email that I recieved when I checked my emails this afternoon. I don't believe in holding Wikipedia discussions off-Wiki, except when meeting somebody face-to-face.

@BullRangifer: WP:LISTGAP is part of MOS:ACCESS; and accessibility considerations apply to all pages, not just those in article space. As it says there, Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons) or an unordered list, by leaving blank lines or tabular column breaks between them - using leading colons to indent is exactly how threaded discussions are constructed. It also states Blank lines should not be used between indented lines as they are currently rendered as the end of a list and the start of a new one. WP:LISTGAP is a matter that has come up several times at various places, see for example Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines/Archive 9#new lines between comments or not? (May 2013); Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 13#RfC: What is the scope of this guideline? The advice of Graham87 (talk · contribs) and RexxS (talk · contribs) is particularly worth consideration. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I do understand BR's concern and I too find it difficult to spot individual conversations when there are no gaps. Nevertheless, it's a nuisance I'm prepared to accept as it helps some visually-impaired visitors. Having said that, there is a work-around that minimises the annoyance for screen-readers, while making it easy to spot individual contributions. Instead of separating contributions with a blank line (which of course causes the previous list to 'unwind' and a new one to start), you can use a blank paragraph with the same level of indentation as either the previous or following comment - see the wikitext I just added. That seems to fix the problem for NVDA, and Graham has already noted that JAWS is smart enough not to suffer from the original problem anyway. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen that work-around, just seen what I've always done (the use of blank lines by many editors), but it seems to work. It only seems to work for the editing view.

It's going to be a huge pain in the ass to add them to whole threads, which trouble seems to be far worse than just allowing traditional practice for many years..... Editing here used to be fun until this type of nitpickety stuff came along. Now I'm going to add a bunch of colons.

Note that no matter how many sets I use (a whole lot), they get ignored. I can't get the final version to show a blank line, or even slightly wider gap, between paragraphs. That's unsatisfactory. In an article or talk page one just adds a blank line. Period. Very simple. To get the colons to actually make a gap, there has to be text, as the ? marks below show. Above there are just as many colons, but without text, so no gap is shown.

?

?

?

?

Now to the matter of forcefully applying a guideline for articles/lists to talk pages. I understand there's an RfC on the matter, which apparently went against the idea, but I don't know where it's located. I know that attempts to add wording to LISTGAP, which would justify applying this to talk pages, have been reverted, leaving me in my good right to continue to do as I have always done since 2003, when it was the norm. Here are the diffs:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility&diff=558102534&oldid=558100174
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility&diff=558105503&oldid=558105105

Obviously this matter is not fully settled or truly consensus, and being hounded for doing it is rather unpleasant, so and I'd like to know the consensus of that RfC. Where is it located? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I already linked the RfC above, but it was just one thread in a whole series that were begun within a few days of each other in May 2013. The first of your two diffs is found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#Discussion of recent controversial changes to this guideline as links [25] and [28]; your second diff is link [30] in the same paragraph. The main thread for that is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 12#including talk page discussions (which continues to the end of the archive), but it was not the first such thread: at one point, I counted seven ongoing discussions on various pages. Other people noticed the multiplicity too, hence the comment by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) "Stop forum shopping". There may have been other related discussions that I was not aware of at the time. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

%

Thanks for the links. So that's the RfC. It appears that there is no consensus. That RfC even started with concerns about editing others' comments, which is exactly what you did to me, without a consensus backing such an intrusive move. Do you do this consistently to every editor, including admins who add blank lines (many do)? Do you do it to all talk page threads? Is this intrusive practice wise? Does it create a more collaborative and collegial environment, or does it create more heat than light? I really think there should be a very strong consensus about this before you or anyone else removes blank lines. If someone with visual handicaps objects, let them contact me. It's never happened. Right now this handicaps me, and my reading glasses aren't even very strong. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was not formally closed, so perhaps an uninvolved admin should do so? Looking at recent edits to WP:AN/RFC, I see that several closures were made by admin HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), who wasn't involved in this RfC.

I didn't edit your comments. I removed some blank lines, which does not change the meaning of the comments one bit. What it does do is to alter the presentation so that instead of a series of disjoint comments, it's presented as a continuous thread. Such an action is covered by WP:TPO#Fixing format errors and WP:TPO#Fixing layout errors. When somebody puts one blank line above their latest post, I usually ignore it; but if they insert blank lines between every single existing line in a thread, I feel that it's time to remove those unnecessary blank lines and point them to the relevant guideline. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Referencing the ambiguously interpreted link in an unsettled dispute isn't a usable technique for settling this. Getting a consensus for applying a guideline for articles and lists to talk pages would do it for me, as I always seek to abide by consensus. That's the point of this discussion, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Until you have that, this seems to be nitpickity harassment. It's totally unnecessary and takes the joy out of editing here. Newbie harassment would be bad enough, but harassing an oldtimer like myself? You should be above that. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not make it harder for each other. You've got to have better things to do than try to enforce a disputed interpretation of LISTGAP. Get that consensus and I'll abide by it, no matter how inconvenient for myself and myriad other editors who do as I have always done. If the consensus exists, point me to it. Until then, you seem to be a rogue sysop with a penchant for making a mountain out of a molehill at the expense of experienced editors. Guidelines are not policy. If you had been polite and discussed this with me first, we might not be here.

Your two links are to exactly the same content, which allows for adding a blank line, and nowhere actually forbids it. ("Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line).") I wasn't aware of the rest about HTML "complexity", but as I am now aware from the discussion above, some screen-reader software doesn't like blank lines. So I guess millions of sighted editors are supposed to be inconvenienced by taking account of this? So does irritating two sides make one right ? (bad joke...)

Have you taken a look at all the blank lines on the talk page of the style guideline? There are massive amounts of blank lines, exactly as I always do. Why pick on me? Have I offended you in the past? Your way of dealing with this has certainly offended me:

1. Your misuse of my email offended me. You should know that by publishing my email without my permission, you violated copyright law and ethical behavior. I'm just letting you know so you don't do that again to anyone else, and certainly don't do it to me again. When someone writes you an email, the proper thing to do is to reply by email, or get permission first before publishing their email.
2. Your false claim offends me. I obviously didn't "insert blank lines between every single existing line in a thread" (see straw man), only between a few comments, making them visibly noticeable as separate comments, instead of a wall of text.

I added the lines so I could read the content more clearly and not miss any comments. Missing comments can cause serious offense and misunderstandings which are far worse than this issue. You removed the blank lines, making it harder for me again. (That's when I wrote you the civil email above, which you then brought here, violating good ethical behavior.) I didn't change the meaning of the content by adding blank lines, anymore than you changed the meaning of the content by removing them. The comments are still individual comments, identified by the sigs of the authors, and I didn't add blank lines in the middle of people's comments. No editor, including those using screen-readers, would misunderstand that.

Please, for the sake of peace, get a consensus before making more out of this. Why only pick on me, and not also correct the myriad other editors and sysops who don't follow your interpretation? There are millions of talk pages to choose from. No one is dying or getting hurt by this longstanding practice, but your actions are creating more heat than light, and that is what's hurtful.

Rest assured, I'm not a disruptive editor. If you get a clear community consensus, I will abide by that consensus. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer: I have found it uncomfortable to read the thread above, which leads me to presume that it may have been even more uncomfortable for the recipient to read. Perhaps a solution would be to try to limit your own use of unusual newlines, and to be tolerant when other editors politely remove them for the intended benefit of others. Please could I remind you of WP:CIVIL; perhaps take a deep breath before replying because everyone is here to contribute to a common cause. —Sladen (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer It seems I didn't understand your problem after all. Most people have problems in the edit window finding comments, so I gave you the work-around for that (indent an empty paragraph). If you want to see bigger gaps between comments in talk page view, you only need add the following to your common.css or your vector.css/mononbook.css or whatever skin you're using (Preferences -> Appearance -> Skin -- you'll find a link to custom.css for both common and your skins):

dl {padding-top:1.2em;}

After you've saved your skin page take a look at any talk page and you'll see spaces between each indented comment. If you want spaces between every paragraph instead use the following instead of the above:

dd {padding-top:1.2em;}

You may vary the 1.2em to change the size of the gap. That should solve the problem you complain about without causing inconvenience to users of the NVDA screen reader.

On a broader point, there's no need to be so aggressive when addressing other editors. "Rogue sysop" is completely uncalled for and you owe Redrose an apology. You know already that there will never be consensus on doing thing for the visually impaired because there are simply too many selfish individuals who don't mind inconveniencing the disabled considerably in order to make life a tiny bit easier for themselves with arguments like "... some screen-reader software doesn't like blank lines. So I guess millions of sighted editors are supposed to be inconvenienced by taking account of this?" You wouldn't be taking that line if you were unfortunate enough to the one with the affected screen-reader. --RexxS (talk) 16:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, thanks for your wise words. Now that I have reread what I wrote, without the fresh feelings I had at the time, I can see what you mean, and I have stricken a whole lot of it. My concerns still exist. We do need a clear consensus, but even without it, I have not been following my old practice, simply because I don't want to cause anymore irritation. When I get time, I'll try your latest suggestion. I hope it works! Thanks.

Redrose64, I am truly sorry for being so blunt. It was unnecessary and you didn't deserve it. Please accept my apology. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

BR, thank you for your kindness. I'm am pretty sure that the CSS will solve the problem for you, but if it doesn't, please tell me and I'll search for something else for you. Redrose's page is actually a pretty good place to raise technical concerns as the talk page stalkers are often able to help as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why the information regarding the opening of a coffee shop at Sevenoaks Station is 'unencyclopedic' however, I understand that it may have not been in the corect section as it does not effect the operation of the services at the staion; I would have possibly concidered adding it to a new section entitled Facilities. GeorgeBurgess24 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's mostly covered by WP:NOTTIMETABLE, but also falls within WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NOTGUIDE/WP:IINFO. We can say that the station has refreshment facilities, even say that there is a coffee shop; but the name of the specific coffee shop chain is unimportant; and the opening of that shop several weeks later than promised is even less important. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, I personally would like to see the refreshment facilities added to the page however shan't do it myself as to avoid error. GeorgeBurgess24 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Related to Talk:Superpower#Protected edit request on 6 February 2014

I was wondering if I could get some guidance from you about when it would be appropriate to reactivate my edit request for this page. In particular there are a couple of editors on the page who aren't making any points about the categories themselves, but about the main editing dispute on which countries constitute a superpower. One is a bit tangentially relevant in that he's saying that his (now discarded) version of the page was best and we shouldn't be adding anything to the page until we go back to his revision. As these argument seem to have nothing to do with whether the categories should be added, how are they weighted in determining if there's a consensus. I know consensus is not a vote, and is based on arguments, so if there are editors in favour of the change and the only arguments against it are 'if I can't have my edit you can't have your edit either', would that be considered a consensus in favour of the change? I honestly thought the edit would be completely uncontroversial (which is why I just put the template straight up), and I'm a bit flustered because I'm not sure how to respond to arguments that have literally nothing to do with the content of the requested edit. And it seems crazy to me to have to put an RFC up for something so ridiculously minor where nobody can give me a reason not to put it in place. So any guidance here would be really appreciated. Thanks! Wieno (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that agreement exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just having difficulty understanding what objections have been raised to the categories. I haven't the foggiest idea what Occultzone was saying, and it appears the IP editor was saying that no edits at all to the page should be made unless we first revert to the December 30th version. I honestly do not know how to either engage with those arguments or compromise with those editors to get consensus. To put it another way, no editor on that talk page has asserted that the categories are inappropriate for the page. Per WP:CONSENSUS, "[t]he quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever." I honestly don't see what substantive arguments have been put forward against the change. If there are actual arguments beyond 'no edits until we revert to the old page', then I'd really appreciate if you could point them out to me. Thanks. Wieno (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you help out with the article?E.g:Grammar,tone,and relevant info?Guru-45 (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no information on this system. I've never edited that article or its talk page. Have you asked WT:RAIL? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I had asked there,at first.Guru-45 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Redrose64. I thought I should let you know that the wikiarticle about "Eric Butler-Henderson" has been nominated for use in the "Did you know..." (DYK) section on Wikipedia's MainPage. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. You may want to keep an eye on the nomination in case reviewers at DYK have comments or questions regarding your edits. Thanks. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Redrose64. May I ask if this article is ready for an appearance on MainPage yet, please? The DYK nomination has been approved. Please let me know if we should put a stop sign on this DYK. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I still think that it has potential for expansion, see Talk:Eric Butler-Henderson - I was going to suggest that you adjust the hook based on the suggestion of Rcsprinter123, but I see that it's a bit late for that now. Feel free to copyedit the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily too late; if you feel that it could be changed you can always pull the hook from prep until its ready. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 11:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This is on MainPage now... caught me a little bit by surprise. I didn't expect this to appear on MainPage so soon. I was hoping to see the train picture, too, but... oh, well... Thank you for starting the article. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Red I see you reverted my correction in the info box back to the Ipswich Bury and Norwich railway. Are you sure this actually existed? I checked the Great Eastern Railway Society page http://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/information and its list of predecessors and its listed as Ipswich and Bury there. That's why I corrected the box. regards --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

According to

• Butt, R.V.J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations. Yeovil: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 62. ISBN 1-85260-508-1. R508.

Claydon was "OP 24 December 1846 IB&N", which using the tables on pp. 9 & 291, decodes as "Opened 24 December 1846 by the Ipswich, Bury & Norwich Railway". If it had been the Ipswich & Bury St Edmunds Railway, the second acronym would have been "I&BStE". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Red - I do not doubt your source but my sources in the Great Eastern railway Journal(the article referenced) and other articles on the stations covering the same route all refer to the Ipswich and Bury Railway. Given that the society specializes in the area I would give more credance to them as a source of the Directory of Railway Stations. The IBR did have a branch to Norwich but other than your reference I can find no other mention of them. I will ask the question of the on line discussion group to see if I can shed any further light. Perhaps it started off as the IBR and added the Norwich later?--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Red

I have had an answer to this question form a member of the GER Society discussion group -

'Work did not officially commence on the Norwich extension until 25th Feb 1847, indicating that there was no intention to build it concurrent with the Bury line. As a result of the Act (27 July 1846) being passed the Company name was changed to Ipswich, Bury and Norwich Railway the next day. This line opened on 7th November 1848 but was not fully finished.'

So it would appear that it did change its name. Strangely then that it was still called I&BR in the amalgamation Act (9th July 1847) with the EUR. That would suggest that it was either a short lived change or an operating name rather than its legal title." --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Some railway companies, when seeking to extend their lines, formed a nominally-separate company for the extension; this was something of a legal trick so that if the extension suffered heavy losses, and needed to go into receivership, it would not bring down the parent company at the same time. Once the extension was completed and making money, the two companies would amalgamate, perhaps by the parent company buying the shares of the extension company. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I need to correct you West Wycombe was provided as an original Wycombe Railway station here is a link to the photo of the original station prior to its rebuilding in 1906 http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=L1429&searchitem=west wycombe&mtv=L1&pnum=1. You will find the station appears in all the early time tables from 1862

The design of building was a typical Wycombe railway design if you send me your direct email I can send you a photo of Risborough taken between 1868 and 1870 and you will see both Risborough and West Wycombe stations are identical

Here are some more photos of the original 1862 building at West Wycombe http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=L1824&searchitem=west wycombe&mtv=L4&pnum=1

http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=L1216&searchitem=west wycombe&mtv=L2&pnum=1

my email is (Redacted)

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.169.114 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not disclose my email address on Wikipedia, and I advise you not to do so either. I have removed it from the above. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Your edits to Princes Risborough railway station were not sourced - see WP:REFBEGIN for advice on doing that - but please note that examination of old photographs may fall foul of the policy on original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my views on the discussion about removing a7 speedies!

P.S. Fresh Air Aviation is not defunct.

Sparkyb10123 (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I read "They operated flights between Charlevoix and Beaver Island.", being in the past tense, as meaning that they were no longer in business. I've struck the word "defunct". --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

{{Talkback|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)|Purge-refresh_major_math_pages|12:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)}} per your request for pages that purge doesn't fix.
Thanks for your attention. SBaker43 (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad that got fixed. You're right about the cut and paste diagnosis — essentially what happened was that the creator of the first version kept reverting anybody who made any edits to the article at all (maintenance templates, formatting corrections, etc.), so I put it under "pending changes". So he then started cut-pasting his preferred text into the other two versions of the title in an attempt to get around the restriction — and then kept flipping each title back and forth between a full article and a redirect to one of the other two versions, depending on which one he thought he had the upper hand at, until I finally just full-protected them all. But they were all created by the same editor; he was just trying to do an end run around Wikipedia process. Looks like it's been fixed now though. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

i have real official source how the flag should look right here http://www.constitution.ru/symbols/flag.htm, and the file does not seem to be at commons, can you please change the flag now 83.180.213.146 (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No. I explained at Talk:Flag of Russia#restoring original version. that this is not a matter for the English Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64 – in regard to this edit I was reminded of at least two discussions, here and here, on the subject of fixing a toolserver and/or bot problem with the "What links here" pages of tagged redirects. Do you know if this is still a problem or not? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 23:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No I don't, sorry. I don't have a toolserver account (and toolserver is undergoing a slow painful death), nor do I operate bots. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, since I haven't heard any recent rumblings about it, I shall stop using the [[w:... in Rcats and the Redr template. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you unprotect Template:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree? Now that it's been moved, the titleblacklist takes care of it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like it was moved against my intentions. I created it at Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice (see the original request which is now at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/The Faraway Tree) because these characters appear in several of Enid Blyton's books, and I could see that there could be a need for a similar notice to be given on several pages. However, DoctorKubla (talk · contribs) - who made the original request - never got back to me on that. I still feel that there is such a need: it's clear from edits like this (which took me all of ten seconds to find, even though I'd never visited that page before) that well-intentioned people will carry on "correcting" the names. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry – I think I was waiting to see if the edit notice had any effect, and then I forgot about it. There does seem to be fewer people changing the names at The Faraway Tree since the notice was created, so I think it is worth placing it on the other related articles. I don't know how you'd go about doing that; I guess by recreating the original template and then transcluding it into each edit notice? You'd have to remove the bit about "See the Updates section", which only applies to the main article. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@DoctorKubla: I've made this edit, which links the word "Updates", and also adjusts some of the text if the editnotice is used on any page other than The Faraway Tree. Which other pages should the editnotice be displayed on? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good thinking. The other articles are The Enchanted Wood (novel), The Magic Faraway Tree (novel) and The Folk of the Faraway Tree. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn and DoctorKubla: OK,  Done, editnotice is now back where it started (although the original discussion inadvertently moved to Template talk:The Faraway Tree editnotice) and it's now used on four articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you reduce its protection level to template-protection to be in line with regular editnotices then? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, done --Redrose64 (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello. You recently asked about this template at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#TFM in limbo. I see you fulfilled the last edit request on Template talk:En, but I decided to file another one to explain the history on that talk page. Cheers! —PC-XT+ 11:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you worry about it so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pieter202 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. After hearing your mention of DYK the other day :) I wondered whether you, or one of your wikifriends/stalkers, might be interested in putting Savart's wheel (oops, no redirect!) up for DYK. During the last 2 days it's grown fivefold (from 596 main-text prose characters, excluding spaces, to its current 3,166), and I feel it's an interesting page which could have a decent hook (or hooke?), perhaps regarding ultrasound(?). Of course, if you don't want the trouble I'd quite understand. In which case, other editors I know do DYKs include Schwede66, Rosiestep and Orlady. But I thought I'd give you first refusal on this. Cheers, 86.173.146.3 (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding: If anybody does decide to nominate this I'd be quite happy to help respond to reviewer requests. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I've now given up on this and will be taking a wikibreak for a few days. If anyone's interested though, I do think it would make a good DYK. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see what it's got to do with me. I've never edited that article, I've got little interest in it and no sources that could be used to improve it. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. Then I'll ask someone else (or perhaps see whether I can do it myself as an ip after my wikibreak). I just thought you might like it. No matter :) —86.173.146.3 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You might find this interesting: User talk:JPaestpreornJeolhlna#Multiple accounts – as I did. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw it; but I'm not sure what Department is referring to. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Re your edit here, I think the point is that the 1967 Bakerloo stock is older than the 1969 C Stock. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Indeed, the 1967 Tube Stock was older than the C Stock; but there are several problems with the edit: the 1967 Stock is no longer in service; it never ran on the Bakerloo line; it never could have run on the Bakerloo, because the 1967 Stock was equipped for Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and so could only run on lines also equipped for ATO, which the Bakerloo never has been (1967 Stock was only used on the Victoria and Central lines); the Bakerloo line is currently operated by 1972 Tube Stock. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was getting confused with 72 stock. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Section editing reflinks idea. This is an idea that I think may interest you and would love to hear your feedback on. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Redrose! Is it possible to get a scan of a rare work, held on Oxford Library: http://solo.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/primo_library/libweb/action/dlDisplay.do?vid=OXVU1&docId=oxfaleph015119309 I cannot get it anywhere else, so I hope you can help me, or you know anyone, who can help.

I need: "Assam Forest Records. Botany." Calcutta, India. vol. 1: part 5, t. 3. 1934 [July 1934] / There is an article about "Stercula khasiana" in it. I need a scan of this article and of the title pages and the imprint of this work. Thank you very much, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Doc Taxon: I don't think that I can. I'm not a member of the University, and AFAIK the Bodleian is not open to the general public. Have you asked at WT:OXFORD? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll ask there -- Doc Taxon (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

lyricsmode.com/lyrics/i/ian_dury_and_the_blockheads/bus_drivers_prayer.html Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Carshalton Beeches railway station page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If you want to develop any transport related articles on [3] feel free to discuss. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jackiespeel: I respectfully decline, for two reasons: (i) I don't wish to fork or duplicate my work; (ii) it's got advertising . --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

'Just drawing your attention to it' (in case you wish to post original research and other materials) - and if you use Monobook the adverts don't appear :) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But the ads still appear for most people, and I am not in the business of selling products that I didn't make to people who probably don't want them but would far rather read the page content. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said of most newspapers, many TV channels, and a range of other media - but this is wandering into a different and philosophic discussion.

No harm in mentioning the wiki. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

— {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, thanks for your note. I must say that, over time, I've come to ignore the "talk page" bit of that guideline for files. What I found is that where the note was on the talk page, files get renominated as people (including myself) don't see the flag that it's already been through the wringer. as the File page is an administrative page anyway it seemed most sensible put the "deletion closed" tag in the same place that the deletion tag was. I noticed that over time there where a number of administrators closing the discussions and creating the talk page just to hold the tag, and the file being subsequently re-nominated as people just don't see it. I think few users look at file talk pages. IF you like you can move the tags but as there may be hundreds over the past few years, and I'm not sure I see that it's useful. - Peripitus (Talk) 19:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Four years of rigidly editing, yet not one single contribution outside of mainspace, let alone answering posts to his own talk page. Bizarre. — Scott • talk 12:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• P.S. Talking of difficult editors, this post of yours is legendary. Full points. — Scott • talk 12:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, 203.97.255.42 (talk) has some odd ideas on copyediting. I gave up posting to the talk page once I realised that it had no effect. Despite serving notices to the level of {{subst:uw-disruptive3}} or {{subst:uw-disruptive4}} on at least four occasions, I didn't block because a first-time block longer than 31 hours would probably not be appropriate, and they often wait longer than that between edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. I briefly considered trying to reach out to him this morning, but decided it would almost certainly be a waste of time. He's just something to work around, I guess. — Scott • talk 13:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm still a novice when it comes to editing these templates - so thanks for the advice as regards reducing the text size, Redrose64. Bluebird207 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You've reverted one of my edits, which I shall leave as-is, for the time being. As, in your words, "St" doesn't take a period because it ends in the same letter as "Saint". As an erstwhile public school-educated specimen, I find that most interesting. That's our British grammar, apparently, on an American/international encyclopedia, with your American term for a full stop in the edit summary. Furthermore, the article itself uses that very same, full stopped, St. in the article title. I expect that you might approve of me, taking the time to point out that couple of further problems. Regards, EP111 (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPS Butting in, if I may, as an erstwhile non-public school-educated specimen... I have seen all mannner of variants for this word, all over wikipedia, just as in real life, but particularly with regard to church dedications: Saint, St, St., and even Snt., with and without a space. Surely there is some wiki policy on this? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@EP111: (after e/c with post above) I use the term "period" because most of the time I'm responding to an American, many of whom don't realise that spelling and grammar conventions differ in Britain. It's also three bytes shorter in the limited space available. Anyway, in American English, abbreviations almost always take a full stop; but in British English, an abbreviation only takes a full stop if the last letter of the abbreviation is different from the last letter of the word that is abbreviated. See

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1395. ISBN 0-19-860259-6.

where we find "St • abbrev. 1 Saint ..." - compare this with an entry slightly further down the page: "Sta. • abbrev. railway station."

Regarding <small>...</small> - there has been a move over the last few years to get rid of this from infoboxes in articles; if there is a perceived need to make the text smaller, this may be done by altering the font size within the infobox template itself. If that were done, it would require only one change rather than several thousand edits, and so is more efficient. Also please bear in mind that a reduced text size may have WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues.

Regarding the full stop at the end of the caption: MOS:CAPTION says "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period." It also indirectly discourages small text, where it says "The text of captions should not be specially formatted (with italics, for example), except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text." It's not clear what "specially formatted" means, but it's clear that italics are not the only way. I read this as meaning "in circumstances where <small>...</small> is valid in the main text" (which it rarely is) "then if those same circumstances apply in the caption, <small>...</small> may be used there as well". --Redrose64 (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm in the middle of a discussion with Keith D about the small tag markup situation, for UK places infoboxes, since he raised it with me last night. As this is non-standard formatting, compared to the settlement infobox, and I'm of the opinion that it should be standard across all UK places (indeed, the rest of the world uses the small setting for places captions in infoboxes), with London being the primary example, which all others should follow. At the moment, it's not a situation which is conducive to fast and clean editing. I expect that it will need an authorised template editor-type person to force the caption to a specific size, in the template code, regardless of any other user-employed markup. Perhaps, somebody would know how to raise this with the suitable administrator? All of your other points have been taken on board. Regards, EP111 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that all sounds very clear. But, just as an example, take a look at what's listed here. (I guess the debate over e.g. St Mark's vs Saint Mark's is a much larger one. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The place to discuss a change to {{infobox UK place}} is Template talk:Infobox UK place. It has 14 archive pages; there may be some discussion in those. The most recent seems to have been Template talk:Infobox UK place/Archive 13#Small and the image description, which goes with this amendment to the doc page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC) amended Redrose64 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and info. Is there really no wiki policy on abbreviating "Saint" in the names of churches? Oh well. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

For an article about a church building, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (architecture) applies, which states "Dot (.) after St (St.) should be always used." But this is a photo caption in an article about an English village, so it's really a WP:ENGVAR thing: see MOS:ABBR#Abbreviations widely used in Wikipedia which allows "St. or St" --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. I am surprised that someone has not gone through all the church articles and added the full stops. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you have another look at this edit to East Halton railway station as there seems to be some confusion here as the station is shown to be disused yet you have indicated it is open on a closed line. May be there is some other line that needs to be described but as it stands it does not make any sense. Keith D (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Keith D:, no, it's not East Halton that is shown as open, but Goxhill. The line between Goxhill and East Halton is closed. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it is my misreading of the change. Keith D (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Redrose! Thanks for finding the previous stub/hidden cat discussion – I was sure I'd proposed something similar in the past but when I couldn't find anything I assumed it was an idea I never put forward. A case of looking in all the wrong places! Thanks. SFB 07:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of the templates that you recently worked on now have an extra } showing art the end. For example, allrovi and rotten-tomatoes. I think also boxoffice mojo and metacritic. Please check them all. BollyJeff | talk 13:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bollyjeff and TheRedPenOfDoom: Yes, sorry; I miscounted the braces.  Fixed --Redrose64 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

}

Learn to use the preview button :P --Mdann52talk to me! 18:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I already apologised, dig? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The user analysis tool has been updated and is located at 1 (talk · contribs)&project=en.wikipedia. The same is utilised by Template talk:User2. Can you please update the template coding to accomodate the modification? Diptanshu^Talk 11:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Diptanshu.D: Are you sure that you've got that right? It's not possible to embed links inside other links. Also, why not make a normal edit request on the talk page of the relevant templates? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I admit that I have made a mistake. But I do not know what is the correct form. The link for you would be [4] and the username would vary with the person. I have already left a note on the template talk page but I thought that may be you can help. Diptanshu^Talk 11:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your excellent service to stub sorting on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld (the well-known creator of thousands of stubs). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, not so many nowadays though! BTW I've made some jazz-related proposals on the stub sorting page. Do you know if the Welsh county building and structures templates were created afterwards? I requested them a while back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, otherwise they would show as subcats of Category:Welsh building and structure stubs much like the county cats in Category:Wales geography stubs - which AFAIK is the only stub type that goes down to county level for Wales. Do you recall how long ago it was requested? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

9 months- a year ago? Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2013/January 15 months ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld on a different matter that we discussed some months back - have you seen this? It's a recently-added feature, and is much quicker than that TParis tool (which isn't always available either). The main problem is that it won't distinguish redirects from regular articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)