User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 16

Fenchurch Street
Can you quickly skim over the article and see if there's anything left to do before this can have a GA review? I've salvaged most of the unsourced content and copyedited what's left, I'm just a bit unsure as to if I'm missing something obvious out of the history? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have time. But rather than send messages to individuals, why not post at WT:UKRAIL? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

LMS 2500
As stated many times in the change details, 2500 is not at York currently, she is in fact now at Barrow Hill, as this picture (not mine) from Flickr taken 25-06-2016 shows (https://www.flickr.com/photos/108904076@N07/27408605993/in/dateposted/) having moved since my York trip. I do not have a picture of her at York as I visited York to see her, but SHE IS NOT THERE! PLEASE just accept the fact that, as I wasted a trip to York, I would not be changing the location of the loco if I did not know where it was! The NRM has been informed that its website is incorrect, and (hopefully) will be updating their website in due course. (Leftboot83 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC))
 * I am not going to "just accept the fact" - WP:V is policy. If you can't provide a reliable source, do not remove sourced information. There must be respected magazines (such as The Railway Magazine or Steam World) that give reports on locomotive movements. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Flickr fails WP:SPS. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you seem to be a stubborn fool who cannot accept facts, despite having evidence (the picture) shown. I cannot work how to add the link as a reference, so I guess I will just have to keep undoing your pointless "correction" of fact Leftboot83 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Calling me a "stubborn fool" or a "" will not help your case. Persistently insisting that you are right is not the Wikipedia way. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * However I AM right, I provided a link to proof. If it is ok for the Barrow Hill page on wiki, why can't you accept it?!?!?!Leftboot83 (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:BURDEN, WP:WAX, also WP:DAW. Your continued insistence is getting tiresome. I have posted a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrow_Hill_Engine_Shed - they list it there!!!!!!
 * And a picture for you https://www.flickr.com/photos/108904076@N07/27408605993/in/photolist-HL1gEi-ARW838-zgYuDU-AghbKH-ynsViU-zoYDDc-zBBvV1-zBKLEe-AxrUdm-z4gqVS-yLLyad-yWwCDk-x2isLb-uJZ1Ru-uJYZCC-v25tX9-u3LUXD-qFpXyN-q2sfRB-yeRvLq-fZi56a-feUyas-eQxB2N-eGpdGQ-wKKMe3-FHZDch-GenFxh-bbErGD-gL3FjD-ow4Ah9/Leftboot83 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source either, even if you use a full URL instead of the preferred form Barrow Hill Engine Shed (see Help:Link). Besides failing WP:SPS, it also fails WP:CIRCULAR. A photo on flickr might be evidence that the loco was there on a certain date, but it is not evidence that the loco is still there.
 * And please learn how to indent your posts, see WP:TPG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for removing from your page, I thought I was on mine. I have just given up on trying to get through to you. You clearly are the type of 'enthusiast' who gives us all a bad name. And so what if I don't indent the way you want Leftboot83 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Cholsey and Wallingford Railway
RE: 18:38, 19 July 2016‎ Redrose64 (talk | contribs)‎. . (8,805 bytes) (-30)‎. . (Undid revision 730488947 by Sherwin35 (talk) we don't need to know which library you found it in. What we *really* need are article title and page number).

The British Library Newspapers is an online collection of digitised newspapers accessible free to all members of any public library. When one searches for a topic, the information provided does not include page number. In this case I searched for Wallingford and Watlington Railway.

It seems to me important that other users should know that the information is verifiable online and not by physical search. The wording follows Afterbrunel on the Wallingford Branch page references to data from digitised newspaper collections.

I hope you will agree to my restoring the original wording, please.

Sherwin35 (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You refer to . If it's available online, please include a URL for the actual source - but not the results of a website's search facility. More information at WP:CITE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The Class 373
Hey there.

I'm just wondering why you undid my changes on the page about the class 373 and it being the longest and fastest. It is the longest and fastest so now you've personally updated a page to have false information.

Bentalbot2000 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

(Edit) Just saw your message, please give me a moment to correct.

Bentalbot2000 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you look at, you will see the edit summary "WP:NPOV, WP:V", if you click the links it will take you to two different (but related) core content policy documents.
 * You did not source your edit - how am I to know that you did not personally update the page to have false information? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I had sourced it. I've updated it now

Bentalbot2000 (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Football box and id
Hi, I saw you made this to Template:Football box where you added ability to add id instead of using an empty div id tag. This was great so thank you very much. However I want to know if you know a way to fix so that we dont have to (but still could) write quotation marks (") for the id. For example this is not working. I think it would be good to not have to write the marks every time. Qed237&#160;(talk) 13:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I coded it so that conversion from the existing form would be straightforward: the pre-change versions of pages have the quote marks, so it should not be too much of a shock for people to keep on using those quote marks. If I had coded to add the quotemarks itself, and some people had added quotemarks as well, you could have produced a situation like   with all quotemarks being doubled up, which is not valid.
 * The thing about all HTML attributes (and not just the  attribute) is that their values must be quoted unless they are composed entirely of certain characters - unaccented letters A-Z and a-z, digits 0-9, the hyphen-minus, and the full stop. Letters that have diacritical marks, such as Ž and č, are not amongst these 64 characters, and nor is the space: in fact HTML uses the space as a separator between attributes, therefore syntax like   would be interpreted as the (valid) attribute   followed by two invalid attributes,   and  . The quote marks are necessary for the whole string to be treated as a single value. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the explanation, then I will use the qoute marks. And once again, thank you. Qed237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Continued at Template talk:Football box. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

run rollback
Hi Redrose64, I'm manually checking for any good edits in that batch of 25 to put back (other than one other automated run that I'm talking with the other editor on now) - wanted to make sure I didn't leave broken code in place first. — xaosflux  Talk 00:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting changes
Is it a subjective award? That's not a subjective award, that award "Train Operator of the Year" is a part of the Rail Business Awards since 1997 to recognize the excellence of the train companies on how the passengers are satisfied for taking the train including customer services and how the companies have improved including reducing journey times. Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi (talk • contribs) 01:26, 24 July 2016
 * It's subjective in that it's based on non-quantifiable opinions; the judges reach their decision based upon a self nomination which is necessarily biased, since nobody would want to mention the bad things they have done. We have succession boxes for things like business posts that don't change once a year. Some annual awards also have them, but these should be very important, e.g. Nobel Prizes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Great Western Railway
Hi. I see you reverted my citation changes to Great Western Railway. I understand why, but I was unaware of the recommendation not to change the citation style, so thanks for bring that to my attention. I was trying to consolidate some of the references. There are several which are different pages or chapters from the same source. Do you have any recommendation on how to approach this, or is it best just to leave it once a citation style is in place in an article? Andrewrabbott (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * First, if you intend making a radical change like that, discuss at the article's talk page. Perhaps drop a courtesy note on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, also any major contributors. The template is disliked by a number of editors, partly because it divorces the reference info from the page number - one is inside the <ref ></ref> and so appears at the bottom, the other is outside and so appears in the text; to read one and then the other can mean a lot of scrolling. Alternative methods exist, such as  - which you can see in action at NBR 224 and 420 Classes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC !vote
I am reaching out to you because you are the most recent response to the RFC on the administrator's noticeboard, and because you placed a !vote in all other sections. Did you intend to not cast a !vote in the section deciding whether we should use CSD at all? I'm wondering if I set the RFC up in a terrible way because the main question has only one !vote, while all of the others have 3-4. Apologies if this was your intention, but I hope you can see why I am concerned. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both "Straw poll" and "Method of implementation" are level 4 subheadings, so are distinct (although both fall within the enclosing level 3 subheading "Suggestion"). Also, "Method of implementation" begins "Assuming that the straw poll section above supports", which seems to carry an implicit "* Support" for "Straw poll". -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. That definitely was not my intention when I set up this RFC. Do you think that it is sufficiently clear as it is, or should I try to clarify somehow?  Tazerdadog (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of RfCs (all of the pages linked from Template:RFC list footer are on my watchlist), and you'll sometimes find me amending an existing RfC in order to avoid  (it soon  anyway). The best RfCs have a clear question (I sometimes direct people to WP:WRFC) and distinct sections for !votes and for discussion. Some RfCs fail because there is more than one !voting section (other than separate lists for support/oppose), or more than one discussion section with overlapping matters. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I suspect any edits at this point will make matters worse, so I am just going to let it run and hope that the support is broad enough that it doesn't matter. CheersTazerdadog (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Question about a "Talk" Item - How to be helpful and have it stick
Hello Redrose64,

You delete a "Talk" item I posted saying, "Wikipedia is not for publishing your own pet theorems, even in talk space".

What do you recommend when there is downright incorrect information "out there", and you want to be helpful to others?

I am not talking about posting a "pet theorem", nor any material that is "likely to be challenged", since it is demonstrably correct.

True, what I posted in the "Talk" page was a "synthesis" that involved more than "routine calculations". But in this case, I posted it because I had found multiple internet references to erroneous calculations.

Should I have shown the derivation of the first derivative that I found incorrect?

I was trying to be helpful to others like myself. It was a post I wish I didn't have to make.

Wikipedia is truly wonderful, and I am a frequent financial contributor. I just want it to be as useful as possible.

Thanks, ScottAllenRauch (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a number of policies, the most important of these are (in alphabetical order) Neutral Point of View, No Original Research and Verifiability. The article Darcy friction factor formulae attracts an unusually high number of previously-unpublished "solutions". My advice is to first get your solution published in a reputable peer-reviewed academic journal, and then suggest on the article's talk page that the published article could be used as a source. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

4472 dead link
i looked, if I can't find it quickly no bot will find it Dave Rave (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You underestimate the capabilities of our bots. Given time, they'll come up with something. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ramal Talca-Constitución
You reverted one of my edit there thanks for it but tell me then is Talk:Puente Alto-El Volcan Railway also out of policy. Thanks VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was against policy; but since you mention Talk:Puente Alto-El Volcan Railway, I'll state that I was not aware of that page (it wasn't on my watchlist), and (until I ) had the same problems as Talk:Ramal Talca-Constitución. If one page is misformatted, this is not a good reason to apply the same misformatting to another page, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.
 * What was "never add  to a page that doesn't go against WP:TPG; misuse of / . This is two distinct problems, neither is against policy. If you copied the formatting of Talk:Ramal Talca-Constitución from Talk:Puente Alto-El Volcan Railway, let's consider the latter.
 * The first problem here is that the was  by  to a page which did not require it: the template's documentation indicates that it "should be used only when needed" - other phrases or sentences such as "no need to add this template to every talk page"; "should only be placed where it's needed"; "Don't visit talk pages just to add this template, and don't place it on the talk pages of new articles." state this several times in different ways.
 * The second problem is that you put and  at different nesting levels: you put  inside the, but  outside it - they should all be outside, partly because they should be at the same nesting level, but also because they are not WikiProject banner templates, so should not be inside .  should also be on a line of its own.
 * Oh, and since you mention policy, I should point out that your signature is still against policy, despite your assurances that you would fix it. It's too long (by 100 characters), it contains <big ></big> tags, it has malformed HTML ( has invalid attributes;  and  are exchanged) malformed CSS (  is not a valid declaration). -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RedRose for pointing it out, I do not know coding and I copied this sign can you help me to make it look the same after correcting the problems you stated out. I do not know how exactly it is to be done. Could you explain it to me so as to I correct it. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What you should really do do is, stop piss-arsing about with your signature, stop gussifying your user / talk pages and actually contribute to the encyclopaedia. You have been told this before, and yet still only seven per cent of your contributions are to article sapce. And only fifteen of them have not been reverted! <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  17:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok
 * ✅ and implemented thank you VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What have you ✅ ; what has been implemented? <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  17:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixing their signature to comply - more or less - with WP:CUSTOMSIG. It . -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ramsey railway station
Hi. You reverted my redir of Ramsey railway station (disambiguation) to Ramsey railway station on the grounds that it was a copyandpaste move. It wasn't. I had already moved the previous Ramsey railway station to Ramsey railway station (IoMR) and recreated it as a dab page before I discovered the (disambiguation) page, and my redir was the final phase of a merge of the two competing dab pages. I don't wish to rerevert your change and there is some merit in preserving the history, however as I'm not an admin, I don't think I can achieve this. What do you suggest?. -- chris_j_wood (talk)
 * What should really have been done was a move of Ramsey railway station to Ramsey railway station (IoMR) (which you did) followed by a move of Ramsey railway station (disambiguation) to Ramsey railway station over the redirect. I'm sure that can sort it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring
Don't tell me about edit warring thank you very much. I'm not the one making a mockery of the words - If you want to give your opinion you should have done so - I don't take too kindly to being told what to do i've been a user on here for a while I'm only pointing out that it does not makes sense. FYI it does not make sense saying "Liverpool's city centre". But I'll leave it can't be bothered with petty "edit warring (For some reason I cannot add signature babydoll9799).Babydoll9799 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't giving an opinion: I didn't come down on one side or the other. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I served an identical warning to the other party. If you've been a user on here for a while you should know that having been reverted once you should have taken it to the talk page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And never from my own talk page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not removed any posts from your talk page. You will see above I did had trouble with the signature, that is all. With reference to the above, I think the point is you could have made an observation rather than suggesting there was edit warring, which there was not. You pointed out about collaborating opinions - you could have easily made your opinion known - I do not ask for other opinions unless someone else becomes involved. I made my own opinion clear when reverting the edit and this is something I stand by it does not make sense but as I said it is trivial and I am not going to continue with reverting. Babydoll9799 (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How can you say you didn't remove a post of his, when he just provided a diff showing you did?—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat :Limited Access 21:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Network Rail is not the original company for Ebbw Vale Parkway

 * Aylesbury Vale Parkway railway station
 * Bermuda Park railway station
 * Coventry Arena railway station
 * Cranbrook (Devon) railway station
 * Crosskeys railway station
 * East Midlands Parkway railway station
 * Ebbsfleet International railway station
 * Ebbw Vale Town railway station
 * Edinburgh Park railway station
 * Energlyn and Churchill Park railway station
 * Eskbank railway station
 * Glasshoughton railway station
 * James Cook railway station
 * Kelvindale railway station
 * Liverpool South Parkway railway station
 * Merryton railway station
 * Newcourt railway station, Exeter
 * Oxford Parkway railway station
 * Pye Corner railway station
 * Risca and Pontymister railway station
 * Rogerstone railway station
 * Shawfair railway station
 * Stratford-upon-Avon Parkway railway station
 * Tweedbank railway station
 * Workington North railway station

The above is a list of railway stations which were opened by Network Rail, but do not have Network Rail listed in their infoboxes as the "original company" - the correct thing to do. Network Rail is a public body (essentially part of the Government) responsible for the infrastructure of the UK rail network, as I'm sure you know. This does not make them a railway company in the sense that is meant by the "original company" field of the infobox. The field is referring to original companies as in before state ownership. The company which built the line/station with a profit in mind, 1830s-1921. Midland Railway, Great Central Railway, Great Northern Railway, Caledonian Railway, London and North Western Railway, and others. The company from which Network Rail has taken over the responsibility. This is why the "original company" field is at the start of a section of the infobox entitled "History". Original company, which comes before pre/post grouping companies in the box, and obviously in chronology too. Therefore, to use this field to suggest that Network Rail was a historical company which built the line/station is absurd. We can see that they have responsibility in the "owned by" field. And besides, the station is actually built by contractors on behalf of the Department of Transport, which is not really the same as Network Rail being the body that made it happen.

Furthermore, having this field in such circumstances unnecessarily adds more length to the infobox, something all articles should be trying to avoid. I hope this persuades you to follow the precedent set by Aylesbury Vale, Bermuda Park, Coventry Arena, Cranbrook, Crosskeys, East Midlands Parkway, Ebbsfleet International, Edinburgh Park, Energlyn and Churchill Park, Eskbank, Glasshoughton, Kelvindale, Liverpool South Parkway, Exeter, Oxford Parkway, Pye Corner, Rogerstone, Shawfair, Stratford-upon-Avon Parkway, Tweedbank, Workington North and probably others.  Rcsprinter123    (speak)  21:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of the documentation for states that it "is referring to original companies as in before state ownership"? Grouping has nothing to do with it: if both pregroup and postgroup are blank or omitted (as is usual for any station first opened on after 1 January 1948), the Original company will clearly not precede these, it will simply be followed by the years/events pairs. Also, WP:OTHERCONTENT, so maybe the people who added the infobox simply forgot to fill in original. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point I'm pinging Robevans123 to see if he has any comment on this matter.  Rcsprinter123    (chinwag)  00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The ping didn't get through for some reason but I stalk this page anyway! After even more thought after my original revert and subsequent comments, I believe RedRose64 is correct. NetworkRail are the original company - even though they are not a ToC, as they built the station (and, as owners, could presumably get any company to manage it on their behalf). Robevans123 (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I know you are pretty good at getting articles cleaned up

Take a look at this mess Accrington

Do not even know where to start, it is a disaster. 190.46.24.169 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you described the problems on the article's talk page, Talk:Accrington? -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

RE: British Rail class 150
Apologies, I was just copying down the same information from another Wikipedia page and it turns out that, that information was false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeB rolyaT (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Suffolk24
Our friend is still adding future services to station articles. Just left a final warning backed by an indef threat. Mjroots (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Meon Valley Railway
I can see a major problem with Robertson's series of books on the line. Not one page is numbered. As I'm going to be using sfn, I know that text related to illustrations can be cited by using, but how do I cite text not related to an illustration. Would  work? Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to examine the books. Fortunately, my local county library service has one copy of part 1, which I've just sent in a reservation for. I should be able to collect it on Monday or Wednesday. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Part 1 will do, they're all the same. Mjroots (talk)
 * My suggestion isn't going to work, unless the coding of the template can be tweaked. I tried it, without success. Mjroots (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The template doesn't recognise a location parameter; try loc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Eureka! Mjroots (talk) 21:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you managed to get a copy of Part 1? Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Collected it today. My first impression is that most of the captions are actually quite long, and much of the text is associated with one illustration or another, so fig. 3 etc. will normally suffice. Less than half of the text is outside the captions, so for this content, the best thing to use is the chapter name, as in A Missionary Man. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Leonid Keldysh PROD
Hey there! You restored that PROD, but I don't think that the article qualifies for a PROD now that I've added a reference for it. It clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC now. I don't want to revert you though, so would you mind taking down that PROD and taking the article to AFD if you're of that inclination? I've already left a note over at WikiProject Physics asking for a subject matter expert to weight in.

Cheers!  A  Train ''talk 09:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I guess you're not around. I'm just going to take that PROD down again because I guess you hadn't spotted the edits made to article since the PROD was originally put up. Take the article to AFD if you want, of course. I'm going to get back to the PROD backlog. :)  A  Train ''talk 09:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a WP:PROD, it was a WP:BLPPROD - the rules are different, and notability has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, whilst the removal of a terminates a PROD process permanently (per WP:DEPROD), it's different if a  is removed without the issue (absence of reliable sources) being addressed: it must be replaced until such sources are provided. See WP:BLPPROD. There are three sources in that article: all are listings, rather than something biographical. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * From BLPPROD: "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." The article has three links that support statements made about the person, so BLPPROD does not apply. I learned this the hard way. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The circumstances for removal are not the inverse of the circumstances for adding. WP:BLPPROD says "only add a BLPPROD if there are no sources in any form that name the subject, but once (properly) placed, it can only be removed if a reliable source is added" in its lead section. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY
I have discovered a very detailed loco history of the ECR which is available as a download from the Great Eastern Railway Society. It has not been published as a magazine or in book format but it has a wealth of reference material in its 53 pages. How can I reference this in Wikipedia? No ISBN. Cite Magazine template is the nearest I can get.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the URL? -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.gersociety.org.uk/index.php/home/sales/files-emporium-2/product/105-lm008-locomotives-1856-1923 - cost me a princely 80p. Should I add in the reference it is not a free information source? I thought about adding the URL as well tot he sales link byut that rather felt like free advertising and probably infringes wiki rules.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You could probably use and specify yes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

certain living people
I think you did make a mistake. Those edits concerning content related to those living people I made are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.169.144 (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not make a mistake: WP:BLP is policy - if you are going to add the place or date of birth, you must support it with a reliable source, see WP:CITEBEGIN for how to do that. Saying "those edits concerning content related to those living people I made are true" does not satisfy the policy on verifiability. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you consider IMDb a reliable source because here is a link; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.172.201 (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2016
 * No, we do not. See Citing IMDb. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some links;, ,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.172.201 (talk) 09:36, 12 August 2016
 * Regarding and : do NOT use somebody else's signature on your own posts, do NOT use a false timestamp, and do NOT add your own signature to my posts. If you don't know how to sign correctly, see WP:SIGN.
 * You can ask for advice on what constitutes a reliable source for the purposes of WP:BLP at WP:RSN. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Football
Hi Redrose64, there have been recent changes to Template:WikiProject Football and I think they may have affected the way importance is defined for the English non-league task force. For example, Chester F.C. appear in the list of low importance articles, yet they are set to be "non-league=high" in the template on the talk page. Could you please advise what has gone amiss? Cheers,  Del <sub style="color:black;">♉ sion 23  (talk)  09:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:WikiProject Football (and the aliases): non-league is a yes/no parameter, the one that accepts values like  is non-league-importance.  should fix it. More info at Template talk:WikiProject Football. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

British Rail Class 380
I thought "work" and "newspaper" were interchangeable parameters in "cite news"? Or has something changed recently? -- Alarics (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Kerning
I'd like to manually kern the "Y" and "d" in "Ydigoras" in Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes and Guillermo Flores Avendaño (not so much in the title of the first article, but elsewhere). Do you know how to do that in a way that won't cause any problems? – Corinne (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No; it may be that the problem is insoluble since it depends to a very great extent upon the fonts installed on your machine, and their characteristics. But you could try WP:VPT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Medway area RDT
I know you don't like the Routemap template, but it does make editing double-side (BS-2) RDTs substantially easier (because Routemap parses left-to-right, as displayed, instead of 'icons | left | right | left | right | right')—just look at the edit history and see how much trouble had in making a minor change. So for double-sided diagrams I do consider the conversion 'technically necessary'. Useddenim (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any difficulty I had was nothing to do with BS-2 or Routemap! Mjroots (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You should have obtained consensus first, and definitely should have discussed before reinstating the edits that I reverted. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Medway_area_RDT&curid=44848909&action=history This] is bordering on WP:EW. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given, it’s a stretch to call it edit warring. (P.S. See also: WP:BEBOLD.) Useddenim (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They both use, the syntax of which is incomprehensible. (P.S. See also: WP:BRD.) -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It’s different, not incomprehensible. (To aid your understanding:
 * {|class=wikitable

! scope="col" | BS-map ! scope="col" | Routemap ! scope="row" | Icon separator ! scope="row" | Overlays ! scope="row" | Text column separator
 * - remove that backslash and the CSS will be OK. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The backslashes are needed as for some reason, they parse as an indented number and destroy the signature, in some cases. I used to have them without, and this was the suggested fix for that.  But my signature shouldn't be exceeding the limit.  In any case, it used to be shorter, not sure what changed. :/—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat :Limited Access 18:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At User:Cyberpower678/SignatureStandard you've got two instances of  Try altering them both to   It's because the MediaWiki template parser assumes that if the return value of a template or parser function begins with one of the four characters   you are emitting a list item so it adds a fake newline immediately before that char. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI No changes have been made yet!  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 14:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both User:Justinzilla and User:Bishzilla have extremely big signatures both were warned but no action was taken so is that allowed? Please don't consider this as any form of retaliation just FYI.  Varun FEB2003   I am Online 14:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We gotta be careful round here, name-checking the 'zillas <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  15:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OSE. Also, as far as I know, neither nor  go around offering "advice" on matters that they have little experience in themselves. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also WP:OTHERCONTENT and WP:OSE. Also, as far as I know, neither nor  go around offering "advice" on matters that they have little experience in themselves. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Bishzilla's sig is more compliant nowadays than it used to be. For a thorough discussion from 2014, see this on her talk, where Bishzilla explains the symbolism of her design: "Size shifting is very soul and expressiveness of sig... representing not merely growing thunder of roar, but also represent (in modest symbolic compass), shift in size from ordinary little users such as 'shonen or RexxS, to majestic bigness of zilla". Anybody want to goad her into again offering as a compromise, in lieu of modifying sig, to speak less on Wikipedia — much less — hardly ever — and not offend eyes so often with sig? (Remember, when Bishzilla goes passive-aggressive, lightning stands still!) She's very proud of her sig. So much more beautiful than mine! Bishonen &#124; talk 22:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC).
 * User:Justinzilla is a pub and joke account which isn't used often. also due to the fact his sig is ripped from bishes sig, I will change it if bish does. Mainly due to the fact I suck at sig making. Clubjustin  Talkosphere  06:51, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Battersea Park station
The dates of electrification which I altered today were taken from the same book (Southern Electric by G.T.Moody) accordingly the source of information remains the same. I have the 3rd Edition which states on page 3 "Public service started on 1 December 1909". On page 4 the service between Victoria- Crystal palace started 12 May 1911.Steamybrian2 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Chiltern Main Line
Yor edit summary "if you admit that you can't source it, it's unlikely to be accurate" leads me to share with you a question I would like to ask all such editors. "If you can't source it, how do you know it is even happening?" Britmax (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Same thing. My good-faith guess is that they've been told so verbally by a member of railway staff. My bad-faith guess is that it's a WP:HOAX. My neutral guess is that they would like that type of train to be used, but don't know how to influence the railway company to allocate some to the route. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Green text used for highlighting
I'd be interested in your insights regarding the color issues at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Do you think Kendall's idea of creating a css (a mystery to me until now) to change the green color of highlighted text is a good one? – Corinne (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) is "a style sheet language that allows authors and users to attach style (e.g., fonts and spacing) to structured documents (e.g., HTML documents and XML applications)." This means that if you know the syntax, and what to do with it, you can affect the appearance of all or part of a web page, such as a Wikipedia page. Styles set using CSS may be applied either for all users, or for one specific user; they may also be applied for all Wikimedia sites, or just one. As an example, m:User:Corinne/global.css, being in your user space, affects your own experience, but nobody else's; and as it's named "global.css", it affects all sites, not just the one that it's on.
 * Now, at MOS:CENTURY, the parenthesis "(the 18th century, not XVIIIcentury)" has some dark green text and some dark red text, both of these phrases are in a different font. Templates are used for this: produces the green text, it sets the appearance using the attribute , the colour here is ; and  produces the red text, it sets the appearance using the attribute  , the colour here is . The font effect will vary between users, depending upon installed fonts; I see it in the Georgia font, if that isn't installed you might see it in the DejaVu Serif font or even in whatever your browser has set as its default fallback serif font.
 * Unfortunately, as it's done via a  attribute, we can't use CSS to override that. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thank you for explaining it so well. What do you think about the particular color green that is being used for highlighting example text in MOS? I can barely distinguish it from the surrounding text. – Corinne (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's dark, but if we lighten it up (which should be discussed at Template talk:Xt first) we risk WP:CONTRAST issues between text and background. Not all pages have white background, especially in MonoBook skin: this page, for example has a background colour of #F8FCFF and the contrast ratio between that and the green of  is 7.21 - well above the minimum of 7.0 required by WCAG 2 AAA which is what we aim for. The lightest green that will still satisfy that requirement is #006600 or  which doesn't look much lighter: compare <span class="example good-example" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #006600;">#006600 with #006400, which is what you would expect since the change from 64 (hexadecimal) to 66 (hex) is 2, or 0.78125% of the total scale. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Question on how to proceeed
Thank you for your time. As you may have seen, I added factual, properly referenced biographical material originating from the subject of the biography's own webpages, commercial outlets and conferences to Gershon Baskin's wikipedia biography. An editor removed claiming that I lacked the stature of having submitted 500 editing actions required to edit an article on the Arab Israeli conflict. I suspect the action of removing the material that I added is improper. How should I best proceed to add the authenticated biographical material and protect it from being reoved.

Thanks.NYC source (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a dispute over the content of an article, the best place to discuss it is on the talk page of the same article. Remember that any controversial content must observe the core policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
As I am sure you are aware, there has been quite a bit of controversy over infoboxes over the years. Some editors like to see infoboxes in all/most/many articles and others absolutely do not want to see infoboxes, at least in certain types of articles. The controversy has even figured in recent decisions by some editors to quit editing on WP altogether. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. I've been thinking for some time that a solution to this controversy might be in technology. I'm wondering if computer-savvy techs could devise a way to allow editors to hide infoboxes if they do not like to see them, in a way that would not ruin the appearance and layout of the article. It could be an option just like others in "Preferences". It would be even better if editors could select the fields in which they do not want to see them. I know this would not satisfy editors who do not want any infobox visible to any reader (at least in certain types of articles such as biographies) since they feel the information in an infobox might mislead the reader), but it might satisfy those who simply do not want to see them. Do you have any ideas on how this might be implemented or whether it is a good idea? – Corinne (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * and R the Frank Sinatra article has one example. It seems to fit your description C but I think there was some resistance to using it on other articles - though I can't point to a specific thread about this so I could be wrong. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Peter Sellers also has one. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that thread (since I had watched the page when I posted this one), and I was disappointed to see that three people would quit over that matter. Others have been sanctioned in the past; some have topic bans. More than once it's been a subject of conversation at an Oxford meetup (next one is in two weeks time) where over beers there have been opinions that some people are taking the matter far too seriously. Since the areas that I work in are largely pro-infobox, it's never really affected me.
 * Anyway, to your main q. I also watch WP:VPT, and have done for some seven years now; there's a thread that is very much related to this matter at Village pump (technical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

St Helens Junction station
Can the Wikipedia article and its associated information boxes at the right hand side and the foot of the article be looked at with regards to the opening year of this station.

The box at the foot states 1830 but in the early text, a different date to that is shown and the box at the right-hand sides states somewhere between 1833 to 1837.

This is all very confusing.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The "box at the foot" is the category box. The "box at the right-hand side" is the infobox. The opening dates of the old Liverpool & Manchester stations are, for the most part, uncertain. This is because most of them weren't stations in the modern sense (with the exceptions of Liverpool (Crown Street) and Manchester (Liverpool Road)), but were convenient points near road crossings where a train could halt - there were no platforms, and several lacked buildings. For example, Parkside was only a station because it was near the middle of the line and a convenient point to fill up with water. Butt (1995) says that St Helens Junction opened 15 September 1830, which was the opening day of the line, but this is doubtful, since there was no junction at this point until later, when it became desirable to connect the L&M with the St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway - which didn't open until 1833.
 * I would say that you should express your concerns on the article's talk page. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As ever, I am indebted to you, as it does appear that accurate hard and fast evidence in the 1830-1833 early line period is hard to source.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Another random train editor
You may want to take a look at 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:6C0A:D392:DB3C:1600. Their edits seem to be of a similar standard and area to those of 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:987F:DA5C:402C:90F2 who you recently blocked... I've reverted all their edits. Cheers Robevans123 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Optimist on the run has done the deed - blocked for a week. But I fear it may be a dynamically assigned IP, so we may see more of the same... Robevans123 (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's definitely dynamic. They seem to have fiction and reality mixed up (with some WP:MADEUP too), and are either unaware of WP:V or don't care about it. The thing to do is to watchlist all the pages that those two IPs edited, and as soon as you see an edit to one of the pages that is along similar lines, revert, open up their contribs, revert the rest and watch those pages too. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would a range-block be practical here, if the vandalism continues? (Beyond my technical know-how I'm afraid). If not, semi-protection of some articles could be a solution until they get tired of the game. Optimist on the run (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2601:8C3:4000:E25B::/64 range can safely be blocked, in fact it should be — there's no reason not to, as a /64 range is all allocated to the same person or at most household. You can see the edits from the range here. Once you get your head round it (which for me took a lot of patient explanation from several tech savvy users), IPv6 is actually easier to rangeblock than the "oldfashioned" IPv4, where you pretty much always risk collateral damage. I've blocked 2601:8C3:4000:E25B::/64 for one week, following your lead for the duration, Optimist on the run. (PS: The "IP-hopping" isn't the person's fault, but the ISP's.) Bishonen &#124; talk 11:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
 * More PS: It strikes me that you may not see the contribs on the page I linked to — perhaps I only see them because I have a script enabled in my prefs ("Javascript-enhanced contributions lookup 0.2"). Anyway, if you care, the IPs in question are 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:A5C1:4BF8:7027:60E (1 edit found), 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:987F:DA5C:402C:90F2 (99 found), 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:6C0A:D392:DB3C:1600 (22 found) and 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:211F:7E84:242E:4D5D (1 found). Bishonen &#124; talk 12:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
 * No, it's too big a range. Starting at the left-hand end of the two IP addresses given, look for what's common - both begin 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:, also written 2601:08C3:4000:E25B: This is 16 hex digits (or 8 bytes), representing 64 bits and an IPv6 is specified with 128 bits, so there are 64 bits which are different. The next four hex digits in the first one are 6C0A and in the second are 987F - looking only at the first digit of these, we have 6 or 0110 binary, and 9 or 1001 binary, so there are no more common bits. So we're looking at a 64-bit range, and 2^64 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 so that is how many IPs we'd block if we rangeblocked 2601:08C3:4000:E25B:/64. A single /64 subnet can represent anything from a single user to hundreds or even thousands of users. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand it's a lot of IPs, but according to this table, /64s are supposed to be "sub-allocations for same enduser". I'm sure you understand that stuff better than I do, Redrose, but I've been told in layman's terms by people in the business (principally my son, who's not a wikipedian) that a /64 is safe to block. Could you take a look at this, ? Bishonen &#124; talk 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC).
 * No,, ISP's generally allocate 2^64 IPs to each user, because that gives 2^64 instances of that allocation block available in the IPv6 range - i.e. there are 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 such allocations possible, which means 2,526,951 blocks of /64 for each man, woman and child on Earth, with a few billion left over for my cat to use. Block away, I say. --RexxS (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Per Bishonen's comment above, the way to decide whether the /64 represents a single user or the rare case of many users at an institution is to enable the gadget to check contributions in that range. Previewing an edit of a sandbox containing  is a convenient way to see a link to the contribs with a note about the gadget that is needed. Looking at the contribs shows they all concern trains so it's a safe bet is is a single person. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've learned more about range blocks from this discussion than in ten years of editing! I'm still going to leave them to the experts though Optimist on the run (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, good points all, and having heard positive things about Bishonen from RexxS in the past, I'll follow their advice - or I would if they had not [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Bishonen?offset=20160825115500&limit=1 already rangeblocked]. Roaarr! -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that is the same guy. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * blocked and reverted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Back again
I've just blocked 2601:8C3:4000:E25B:8960:B18E:F353:CFB9 for two weeks - could you or perform another range block please? Optimist on the run (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. 2601:8C3:4000:E25B::/64 blocked for two weeks. It contains many IPs with many train-related edits; I see you had already blocked some of them, Optimist on the run. And the ones that hadn't been blocked had been warned. So, an obvious case, again. Soon time for a longer block, perhaps? Bishonen &#124; talk 09:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC).

Aberangell Railway Station
I thought it would be worth discussing the date categories on Aberangell railway station. Although passenger services at the station ceased in 1931, the station itself did not close then. It continued in use for goods deliveries to the village and surrounding areas. The "station building" at Aberangell was mainly a goods facility, not a passenger facility, and continued in that capacity until 1951. I think it is accurate to describe the station as staying open until 1951. See the Cozens/Kidner/Poole book for details. What are your thoughts? Trantium7 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Our categories for "Railway stations opened/closed in year" refer to passenger service, mainly because of the policy on verifiability: plenty of reliable sources exist that give the dates for passenger services, often precise to the day. Goods services are somewhat less well covered, particularly because it can degenerate gradually over a long period, losing different categories of traffic at various times, until it becomes essentially a freight terminal not just for a single class of traffic, but a single customer - like an oil depot; and at or before such time, the general public can no longer turn up with a lorry load of merchandise for forwarding to a station at the other end of the country. The station still handles goods of a kind, but is it "open" or not? We cut through that problem by considering only passengers. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Francisco J Alvarez Dream Work
--Francisco J. Escalante (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisco J. Escalante (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you are referring to. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Rocky Valley Halt
You have reverted my alteration which I deleted the category opening date of 1896. It states in the text of the article quote "The halt is a later addition to the line opening after the second world war..". Accordingly please reconsider deleting the category opening date of 1896. I cannot offer a reference for a precise opening date.Steamybrian2 (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look at . It is not constructive. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Company
Hi, Redrose. Anent a recent reversion you made to List of constituents of the Great Western Railway, the Hatton to Stratford on Avon line was built, and initially operated, by the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Company. See inter alia
 * http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12863 and
 * https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/21944/page/3935/data.pdf

Incidentally, we could do with a Wp article on this company! (Am currently collaborating on a connected project, so may make a start on such a page soon.) -- Picapica (talk) 09:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see e.g.
 * which clearly names it as "the Stratford-on-Avon Railway Company". -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * which clearly names it as "the Stratford-on-Avon Railway Company". -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * That the work you site (clearly) got it wrong does not alter the fact that the company was incorporated and conducted its affairs under the name of the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Company! See also http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C12863 and numerous contemporary press accounts of the company's doings (e.g. http://search.findmypast.co.uk/bna/viewarticle?id=bl%2f0001485%2f18820216%2f041).


 * As an Old Stratfordian myself, I'm fully aware of the extent to which S-on-A and S-upon-A are, especially informally, used interchangeably. Nevertheless, when it comes to the names of incorporated entities (such as, for example, the Stratford-on-Avon District Council, as opposed to the Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council), I do think it's important that we keep things accurate here in the Wikipedia. -- Picapica (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The name of the town (present-day or historical) has no bearing on it. What we use is the name of the company; if the company's founders got it wrong (and they wouldn't be the only ones) then we do not attempt to "correct" their mistakes, what we report is the historical fact, and MacDermot is one of the most reliable sources on pre-1922 GWR matters that there is. I fail to see how he "(clearly) got it wrong". Who is to say that the nationalarchives people didn't get it wrong themselves? I can't comment on that findmypast link, except that it doesn't lead to any page mentioning "Stratford", "Avon" or "Railway". -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Redrose64, I do wish that, in commenting on edits, you wouldn't impute to their author motives based on nothing more than your own surmise. It comes across as highly patronizing. I cite your » please do not "correct" the actual names of railway companies; no matter how inaccurate their names may seem in modern conventions. « You have no evidence at all that that is why I corrected the name of the "Stratford-on-Avon Railway" to Stratford-upon-Avon Railway.


 * And now you are at it again! You comment that » The name of the town (present-day or historical) has no bearing on it. « When did I ever state, or even imply, that it did? I mentioned the town in my last post here only to illustrate an instance of the fact that the names Stratford-on-Avon and Stratford-upon-Avon are both in common use and that they are in most instances interchangeable BUT that this observation cannot be applied to the names of legally established entities.


 * What it comes down to is that either:
 * the Stratford-upon-Railway is, and has been, often referred to as the "Stratford-on-Avon Railway" -- not only in newspapers (I could quote you a number of examples) but also in books (such as the MacDermot work that you mention); or
 * Parliament, in passing the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Act 1857 (for the making and maintaining of the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway) -- see http://www.amazon.co.uk/Stratford-upon-Avon-Railway-Stratford-upon-Avon/dp/B00X8C6FDS -- and the directors of the company "got it wrong".


 * I favour explanation 1.


 * I stood corrected on your reversion of my edit concerning the Berks and Hants Railway since, although "Berkshire and Hampshire Railway" may be found in published sources, it was indeed authorized by the Berks and Hants Railway Act 1845. I think you might with equal grace accept that in the case of the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway MacDermot erred.


 * P.S. Here is the text shown at the findmypast link which didn't work for you (I'm sorry about that: it may be that access to it under that address is limited to my subscriber account)


 * "THE STRATFORD-UPON-AVON RAILWAY — At a meeting of the directors of the Stratford-upon-Avon Railway Company yesterday, it was resolved to recommend to the shareholders a dividend at the rate of 8 per cent. for the past half-year, compared with 8½ per cent. per annum for the corresponding period of 1880. (St James's Gazette - 16 February 1882)"
 * -- Picapica (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , You might like to contribute to the discussion at Talk:Carmarthen to Aberystwyth Line. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Hill railway station vandalism
Could you intervene in the vandalism going on at Old Hill railway station? G-13114 (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was out at work when most of this was going on; they have not repeated the comments after the block warning was by  (and have made [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Lewis_C?offset=20160916154500&dir=prev only three edits] since). But if they do it again, they're blocked. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

lang in XML
Regarding your comment in this discussion, about the XML  attribute; I see that, for instance,   emits the HTML:. Should that be changed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw your post at Help talk:Citation Style 1 last night, and it did remind me of my post (to which you have linked above) although I could not remember where I had made it. But in this case the problem is not in the template: the construct initially parses to   which on evaluation of the parser functions, and removal of that, simplifies to   which lacks the   attribute. If I use that HTML markup directly, with only the   attribute, like this: Twoje zdrowie! and use my browser's "View page source" or "Inspect element" feature, I find that that a second attribute has mysteriously been added to that opening tag:   I assume that it's added by the MediaWiki software, and so a  change request will be necessary to get that behaviour altered. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki shouldn't be doing this (anymore) according to phab:T46609. I will comment there. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Old Hill Railway Station
Would this then be acceptable as a whole as it uses sources that are used on other Wikipedia pages? I understand that not all of this was written by me but for the sake of layout I have the whole services section. Please let me know what I need to do to ensure it won't be removed as I just want to add more reliable content to the page. Cheers :D (Lewis C)

For some reason its appeared twice (the section with the header Services below this comment shouldn't be there but the references 1-5 should. Sorry (It won't let me fix it)

The typical Monday-Saturday daytime service is every 30 minutes, between Stourbridge Junction and Stratford-upon-Avon via Birmingham Snow Hill. During the daytime, services run alternately via Whitlocks End and via Dorridge; in the evenings the frequency remains unchanged but one service runs between Dorridge and Kidderminster. 7 Westbound services per weekday terminate at Worcester Foregate Street, these being at 0626, 0712, 0742, 0812, 1947, 2114 and 2217, the latter of which continues to Great Malvern. On Saturdays 3 services travel to Great Malvern at 0724, 2015 and 2215.

On Sundays, trains are hourly. No trains travel beyond Stourbridge Junction from this station on this day.

London Midland services generally consist of Class 172/2 and 172/3 DMUs. Some services are comprised of 170/5 and 170/6, which are often coupled with a 153.

Chiltern Railways only operate one service per weekday from this station, the 21:10 Marylebone to Stourbridge Junction, which departs from Old Hill at 23:36 on Mondays to Fridays only. This service consists of either a 168/0, 168/1, 168/2 or 168/3.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis C (talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussions about article content belong on the talk page of the article, in this case Talk:Old Hill railway station. But I do have some general comments: first, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference source, see WP:CIRCULAR; second, times are not written in the form 1947 etc. - not only can they be confused with plain integers or even with a year like 1947, they go against MOS:TIME, so you should use a colon as in 19:47 etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Talk:Old Hill railway station and made the alterations. Could you please check that these are correct. Cheers, Lewis C (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Navbox/bar v-t-e
Hi Redrose64, how are v-t-e link fixes typically found today? Is there's an existing way to track v-t-e links needing updates post-move? I'm thinking there could be a way to track this with an edit filter (tracking category might be complicated) and I might volunteer to give it a shot. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a report, produced monthly; I forget the name, but it's on my watchlist, and when it appears there, I go through the list. There are quite a lot of different types of template listed, and the parameter used to set the links varies.
 * Tracking categories are not feasible, because there is no easy way to detect which page to test it against. Consider the last template that I edited, Template:Weather events in the United Kingdom: this is constructed using and in that, the relevant parameter is Weather events in the United Kingdom. We need to compare that value against, but only in Template:Weather events in the United Kingdom, not in any pages that transclude it, and not in  either. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

br tags
You made mention on my talk page about. I know this tag is valid in HTML5.0, but I haven't seen it in the docs for 5.1 and 5.2. In the 5.1 docs, it specifically says "No end tag". So, this means I'm missing something besides my brain. What am I screwing up on? Bgwhite (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For HTML 5.1, the relevant spec is [//www.w3.org/TR/html51/syntax.html#start-tags section 8.1.2.1. Start tags], which says "if the element is one of the [//www.w3.org/TR/html51/syntax.html#void-elements void elements], ... then there may be a single U+002F SOLIDUS character (/). This character has no effect on void elements". Since [//www.w3.org/TR/html51/textlevel-semantics.html#elementdef-br the  element] is a void element. then it may be written as ,  ,  , or   (all case-insensitive).
 * I am not aware of any HTML 5.2 spec. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I wasn't looking there. 5.2 says the same thing. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"RfC" on Talk:Phulkian sardars
Thanks. I wasn't sure what to do about the templates and the category and stuff; I thought it best somebody else remove them. So, thanks! Bishonen &#124; talk 22:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
 * is a rather unusual bot. It looks for double opening braces followed by the three letters "rfc" (case-insensitive) and treats everything from that point to the next timestamp as an actual WP:RFC. It doesn't check if those five characters are not actually a transclusion of but some other template entirely, commonly this is both  and . It also doesn't check if that RfC is inside an archive box, collapsible box, comment markers (i.e. <!-- ></!-->), <nowiki ></nowiki> tags, <pre ></pre> tags, or any of the other traditional ways of hiding or closing a discussion: all these are ignored, and the RfC is treated as open. Legobot checks back once an hour, and when that timestamp is detected as being more than thirty days ago, it will remove the  template, and delist the RfC from pages like Requests for comment/History and geography. If somebody manually removes the  template at any time, Legobot will notice its absence during its next hourly check, and (cleanly) delist the RfC whether or not the thirty days had been reached, as with . -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough
Replying on wiki like that is a form of 'outing' in its own peverse way though, clearly your sense of paranoia outdoes your sense of humour - :) JarrahTree 23:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is it outing? I didn't say what the emails were about, nor did I give your email address (which I now know). -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha - maybe my sense of humour has been soured by my own experience with wikimedia email system - it is not so much outing (ok the wrong word), but, hey, I can understand your reasoning. No big deal, I can see where you are coming from JarrahTree 23:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All that aside ( I realise I would have probably either spoken with you at some point or passed close by during London 2014, and I realise we know quite a few people in common), I am wondering considering your clear and obvious experience in coding and all - is there anything in recent wikidata/wikipedia adjustments that would have had impact upon cat sorting protocols, or are they basically still the same as say in the last 2 years or so? JarrahTree 00:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was a MediaWiki update two or three weeks ago that radically changed both the collating sequence for categories, and also the way that category pages are displayed. The main effects are seen in four areas:
 * Numeric sortkeys formerly sorted on a pure left to right basis, now they sort numerically. This means that where the sequence was previously 1, 10, 100, 101 ... 109, 11, 110 etc. with 2 sorting after 19999999, it is now 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 9, 10, 11 - the order of the natural numbers
 * As a direct consequence of that, pages with numeric sortkeys sre grouped together under a single "0-9" heading instead of under ten separate headings "0", "1", "2" ... "9"
 * Latin letters with diacritics now sort with the matching unaccented letter - "á", "à", "â", "ä" etc. all sort with "A", they previously sorted after "Z". This means that pages like Étude or Hergé no longer need  (see ) or   respectively.
 * The order of some punctuation is different. Most noticeably, the hyphen now sorts before the comma, instead of after it
 * More at Village pump (technical)/Archive 149. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your elaboration - If we ever meet in real life I owe you heaps of beer or liquid of your choice, my shout.


 * If you you able, without having to go into too much effort, to indicate whether the suspect to whom I was taking issue, is actually following any of the above, or creating something very different and out of order or out of place ? no big deal, if you dont want to put anything here... but if there is any chance of a clue - would be much appreciated JarrahTree 08:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Arthur "Waring" Bowen - Pontyberem
Hi Redrose64, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit of the Pontyberem page, where I added Arthur Bowen as a notable person? Your given reason was "not notable". I'm guessing you've researched him on the internet and found very little information. Before you revert my edit again I wanted to explain why I, and many others, consider him notable: He devoted his life to the welfare of sufferers of Arthritis from age 19 to his death, founding a national charity, the first and only national charity devoted to assisting sufferers of arthritis (particularly young people) to achieve their aspirations. In this aim it is very similar to, and served to lay the foundations for, the Prince's Trust. Arthur was invited to Buckingham Palace to meet HRH Queen Elizabeth because of his work, and was being considered for an honour (OBE etc.) when he died unexpectedly. Also HRH The Duke of Edinburgh opened a building in Exeter named in Arthur's Honour shortly after his death in 1981. He was listed in "Who's Who" and his life is recorded (somewhat inaccurately) in the Oxford Dictionary of Biography (formerly "Who was Who"). His life and work has been somewhat neglected on the internet because few who knew him or worked with him are particularly computer literate. Remember, arthritis usually cripples peoples' fingers. I am setting out to redress this state of affairs, and am just writing a short biography for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you still think that Arthur Bowen is not notable enough to be included on the entry of his birth town - a place he left as a teenager but which always held a special place in his heart - would you mind being polite enough to explain your reasoning? With best wishes, Jon Bowen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.233.191 (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If a person is notable (see WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON for what that means), a Wikipedia article may be created for them. In the absence of such an article, they shouldn't be mentioned in a "Notable people" list on an article about the place. Pontyberem lists four people; all have a blue link, so an article about each of these individuals exists. Once an article about this Arthur Bowen exists, it may then be added and linked. More at WP:LISTBIO. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I can see problems looming regarding sources: The biography I'm compiling will be based partly on the dictionary of national biography entry and some newspaper and magazine articles from the 1980s, but largely from interviewing his sister and his widow. How do I present an interview as a source? Obviously I can publish the transcripts, but Wikipedia would not be the right place for those ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonbowenelsfield (talk • contribs) 11:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The key policies are WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. You may wish to use WP:AFC, or see WP:YFA. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A couple of questions re.
Many thanks for picking up some of my citation cock ups. I don't know how I fell into error by putting "p.27" rather than "p=27" but will try and fall out of it. Can I ask a couple of other questions while I have you. First, as I often write on architecture, I frequently use The Buildings of England, Wales etc. series. These often have two, or more, authors. Is it better to cite these as, for example, , rather than  ? Second, in the Sources section, I would cite the book as follows: ref =. I see you just put ref = harv. My style seems to work. Is one better/more approved than the other? Really appreciate any advice. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I see this looks awful on the Saved page but you'll know what I mean.
 * I first noticed your unusual use of  (as an aside, I pass these two buildings almost every day, on my way home from work - there's a blue plaque on one, and I can just make out the word "Asquith" as the bus accelerates after going round the corner). On looking at some of your other pages, I found that in  of Knightshayes Court, none of the links in the "Notes" section were taking me to the relevant line in the "References" section, so I looked to see how the  template was being used; I identified three problems - two authors sqeezed into a parameter intended for just one; absence of year; and page number in an inappropriate form. What we are aiming for is a working link between the  and the matching . If you go to Mill House and The Wharf, Sutton Courtenay, and click the "Tyack, Bradley & Pevsner 2010" link in the second ref, the matching entry under "Sources" should gain a pale blue background (this technique doesn't work with Internet Explorer 6/7/8, not sure about IE 9).
 * The templates like can handle any number of authors (at one time the limit was nine). The most that I've personally used is eleven, as with
 * although I have seen many more in other people's edits. The special parameter harv constructs a link based upon the last1 through last4 parameters, plus either year or the year portion of the date parameter.
 * The template is typically given between three and six parameters: the first four surnames, the year, and a page reference or similar, this last goes in any one of p (for single pages) pp (for multiple pages) or loc (for non-page locations). Examples of the last might be Preface, fig. 17 or section 3.2.1
 * So for the above book I might use which in the references list displays as "" (in this example, I have used  to avoid adding a reflist, the parameters are the same as, and the display is almost the same). The "et al." is automatically used when there are four surnames; if there were just three, the linked part might show as "Allen, Boddy & Brown 1970" instead of "Allen et al. 1970".
 * The template is mainly intended for the production of custom links when the harv method doesn't work - perhaps there are no credited authors, see for example refs 24 & 25 at NBR 224 and 420 Classes. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "unusual" is a very kind way of putting it! Most grateful for the very comprehensive tutorial.  I'll now go away and try and put it to good use.  Unfortunately, I am a slow learner on matters technical so may need to return for a refresher.  Your bus journey sounds idyllic.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * By way of an inadequate thanks, you may find the revised H.H. Asquith, which I and a couple of others have re-written, worth a, rather long, read. The, correctly-cited, Wharf gets a mention.  Thanks and regards.  KJP1 (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Great photos! You didn't take those from the bus.  KJP1 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No indeed, I put them on Commons, as follows:
 * locate the houses on an OS map, and work out the grid references, they are for The Wharf, and  for Mill House;
 * go to the Geograph website and feed in a grid ref, see what there is;
 * using my knowledge of what the houses look like in real life, pick out the most appropriate images;
 * for each image, follow the instructions at the link "Find out How to reuse this image", and in that, locate the heading "Wikipedia Template for image page"
 * download the highest resolution available (all the way up to 3,670 × 2,304 for this one);
 * using the pre-filled template, upload to Commons using the [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uploadformstyle=basic basic upload form]
 * add some appropriate categories.
 * So, there are now eight images in c:Category:Mill House and The Wharf, Sutton Courtenay and I picked the best one for each house. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So, there are now eight images in c:Category:Mill House and The Wharf, Sutton Courtenay and I picked the best one for each house. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Rejection edit
You need to check the London Midland official network map, Class 350/1 also serves London-Crewe service and it's not just London commuter routes, Birmingham regional and Trent Valley lines as well Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilang Bayu Rakasiwi (talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean ? Have a look at a quality map (such as one produced by the Ordnance Survey: Crewe is not between Tring and Milton Keynes. These two places are about 18 miles apart; Crewe is about 108 miles beyond Milton Keynes. Also, you did not source your edit. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Redlinked railroad-related templates
Redrose, I wonder if you can figure out why so many railroad-related templates are showing up on Special:WantedTemplates? Most of the template names that end in "style" appear to be related to railroads. Something to do with Template:S-line, I'm guessing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (replying to self) There are so many of these, I think it might make sense to test for the existence of the template before calling it, and use a default style otherwise. I can't tell if that was the original intent, but it does not seem to be working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. See for example Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 26 and Templates for discussion/Log/2016 September 26. The thing is, the template group is horrendously complicated; each different value of system requires the creation of at least four subtemplates - so for National Rail, there are: ; ; ; ; and . If you analyse how e.g.   expands, you'll find that it tests for the existence of Template:National Rail lines/branches, but assumes the existence of the other four. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, nasty. If one could parse the code, one could probably add a statement like "if the style template exists, use it, otherwise use Template:Rail default style", which would call "Template:Rail default color", etc. I'm not sure where to begin, but it looks like a nice little project for someone clever. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If anyone watching wants to take on this template project, it may be motivating to know that 176 of the 500 most-requested nonexistent templates are rail "style" templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Adhesion railway
Why would I even bother? If the deficiencies in the article are not obvious, then I won't waste my time. Old Lanky (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem regarding UTC time
Hello Redrose64, I noticed that you are an experienced editor so I am asking you one question. When I use UTC +5:45 as my UTC offset in template Digital clock the time seems wrong. I mean the time in my country will not be exactly equal to the time in Digital clock even if I use Nepal Standard time +5:45. Can you fix this problem?? Currently time in Nepal is (07:15 AM).49.126.255.56 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See Template:Digital clock where it says "the offset can be fractional to adjust the time by any number of hours and minutes"; 45 minutes is three-quarters of an hour, or 0.75 hours, so use +5.75. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Template talks
Thanks for taking the time to fix my formatting in those template talk notices. Could I beg more of your time to weigh in on the proposed edit requests? No worries if not. — swpb T 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting corrected on Gastauer page?
Apologies, I'm new to Wikipedia and still working to understand the formatting. Has this RFC been formatted correctly now? ---Fin3999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFC. The normal order is: section heading; optional preliminaries; ; the primary question or matter under discussion; signature (or unsigned timestamp); discussion or survey. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, I edited it and it looks like it's pulling more information into the rfc bio page now, so that's good. Not sure if I've got it formatted exactly right, will take another look at it later tonight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't need to remove the rfcid in, all it did was force to  - Legobot had already assigned one in  which could have been used unchanged for the whole 30-day period that RfCs normally run for. Legobot runs once an hour to update pages like WP:RFC/BIO, whether or not rfcid is removed; and if the RfC is amended subsequent to its initiation, Legobot will notice and update WP:RFC/BIO etc. with no manual intervention necessary. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Per your TFD question
In regard to your question at TFD, the page in question transcludes every template listed at TFD. The user has made it a point to routinely make sure all of the TFD tags are "properly" encased in tags if necessary. I asked them why but didn't really give me anything more. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

National Rail Conditions of Travel
Hi! Am sending you this message as you're a prolific editor on articles about UK railways. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage - the 'Terms & Conditions' for railway ticketing, were overhauled into the National Rail Conditions of Travel for journeys after 1st October; when I get time I'm going to summarise the new document, but any help would be appreciated (if you want to & have time of course!) Mike1901 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Jaffa (disambiguation)
Why did you cancel change ?--MilanKovacevic (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You used two links when there should be only one; and of the two that you added, one was a redlink, and the other was a link to a different language. Neither of these satisfies the requirement at MOS:DABENTRY to "include exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)