User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 32

Legobot weirdness
I figured I'll get quicker and better response here than at Legobot's talk page.

In a new RfC, I replaced the DNAU with . A few hours later, Legobot did this. That doesn't look right (for starters, it exposed the markup rfcid=8CD1F7B}}), so are we to conclude that can no longer be used in RfCs?

And, how to fix that RfC now without breaking something? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone else added some RfC categories between those two diffs,, but that shouldn't cause the bot to change the RfCid. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  12:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, just guessing. The bot had added the line with the "DoNotArchiveUntil" date and the rfcid.
 * You overwrote part of the "DoNotArchiveUntil" line when you added the pin, and the bot interpreted that as a new RfC and added a new "DoNotArchiveUntil" line and a second rfcid to the first one.
 *  rfcid=8CD1F7B}}
 * Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga)  19:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're prolly right. So I guess the solution is to add without removing, and hope the archive bot respects the ten-year expiration and ignores the one-month expiration. As I said on the Trump talk page, the one-month expiration unnecessarily introduces a risk of accidental premature archival. And 's message box means you don't have to edit the section to see that it's pinned, making things that much more user-friendly. You don't have to be experienced enough to know to do that.Legobot is one craaaazy dude. Why it had to be made to be sensitive to a removal of its DNAU baffles me. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  19:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nothing to do with your edit. Whilst Legobot adds ths DNAU code and the rfcid in the same edit, it doesn't care if the DNAU gets subsequently modified or even removed entirely. The only thing that I would say about pinning is that it must be above the tag, and that is exactly what you did, so no problem there. But since Legobot doesn't care what happens to the DNAU, you can safely extend its expiry by any amount you like.
 * What happened to cause the problem was by, which was wrong in several ways: (i) the hist category was already present, a second one is redundant; (ii) langmedia is an invalid RfC category; {iii) Reli is also invalid, because rfc categories must be all lowercase; (iv) they added a pair of closing braces before the 8CD1F7B parameter, this terminates the  tag before that parameter, so Legobot considered that the parameter was absent. Whilst they fixed problems (ii) and (iii) in , that wasn't nearly enough.
 * I've done the best that I can to fix up the mess. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't look closely enough at SPECIFICO's first edit. I retract my bad words about Legobot (for now;).So, if we want the message box and the ten-year expiration, my method will work and will be the easiest way to achieve that goal, do I have that correct? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you've been an interested party, I'm just making sure you saw this resolution. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw it, thanks. I've been pinning discussions correctly, courtesy of Sensei Copy-and-Paste, but didn't know about the 10-year period. A typo — a couple of curly brackets instead of the slash separator | (is that what it's called?). Mea culpa, I hadn't noticed that they were already in the edit history when you added the pin. When we make errors formatting cites, error messages are shown. Maybe someone could write code for errors in templates. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  22:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The  character is properly called a vertical bar, but commonly called a pipe (in Unix, it's used to "pipe" the output of one process to the input of another process, as in ls -l | more ). A slash is the   character. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thus "piped links". Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw it, thanks. I've been pinning discussions correctly, courtesy of Sensei Copy-and-Paste, but didn't know about the 10-year period. A typo — a couple of curly brackets instead of the slash separator | (is that what it's called?). Mea culpa, I hadn't noticed that they were already in the edit history when you added the pin. When we make errors formatting cites, error messages are shown. Maybe someone could write code for errors in templates. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  22:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The  character is properly called a vertical bar, but commonly called a pipe (in Unix, it's used to "pipe" the output of one process to the input of another process, as in ls -l | more ). A slash is the   character. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thus "piped links". Thanks. Space4Time3Continuum2x  (cowabunga)  22:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Font
Hello Redrose64, I asked for help on how to get rid of the Georgia font on Wikipedia namespace and talk namespace pages. Is there any way? I haven't got a response yet. Thanks, Nearly but not perfect (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Where did you ask? Always provide a link when referring to an existing discussion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked at the Village Pump but no one has responded and that thread has since been removed. Here Nearly but not perfect (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't link the of the thread. If you had, you would have seen that I did answer, . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Drummond
What is the problem with the origin of the surname DRUMMOND in Scotland and in Portugal? I included the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:7f3:858e:34c5:50f2:4df5:ebb3:b29d (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are not articles, think of them as a list of related articles. Content and references belong on those related articles. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

CfD nomination at
A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at  on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Pro tip requested
I would like a way to modify a time-date stamp such that it's still recognizable by humans but not by the archive bot. Very occasionally, there is a need to time-stamp something without extending the retention of a discussion that is approaching auto-archival. Can you suggest the best way to do this? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would depend upon the bot - at least one uses the most recent timestamp in the thread, at least one looks at the times in the page history. So, which page are we talking about? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk:Donald Trump. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That uses . I'm fairly sure that this bot can be defeated by using a timestamp that doesn't exactly match the format used by the standard four- or five-tilde signature. You could try rearranging the date to be in U.S. format (Month day, year), leaving the time and timezone alone. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds like it should work. I'll have to save it for future reference; someone else has commented subsequently in the discussion, making my time stamp moot in this case. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  11:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The rfc template must not be placed inside comment tags
Talk:Joe_Flacco I don't get how that's a problem if I'm not using it to request comments at the moment. I imagine it's just a misunderstanding. ProofCreature (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see Template:Rfc. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ahha.
 * So many policies - it's dizzying. Something to do. Keeps one busy, I guess.
 * Thanks for the explanation. ProofCreature (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

David Lammy RFC
Hello Redrose64, I saw your comment on David Lammy talk page RFC. Should I restart a new RFC and use that question?

Are the list of references not important to answer the question, I believed it was because this is a contentious issue and the references reveal a potential preference of David Lammy in the article. Can you briefly explain why they are not?

Also one user has dropped their objection, changing from a no to neutral, what advice do you have if the 3rd user doesn't engage?

Trying to learn, thanks. Erzan (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a need to restart the RfC. Just make sure that the existing tag is directly followed by a brief and neutral statement, optional signature, and mandatory timestamp. A statement containing nineteen inline external links is no way brief. You might like to read up on WP:WRFC but that's not binding. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on South London line
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South London line, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Redrose64&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1208497745 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_London_line&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1208497745%7CSouth%20London%20line%5D%5D Ask for help])

Meetup/Oxford/97
At the moment it looks like just the two of us. What do you want to do?©Geni (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Check again in the morning? How much notice do you need? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Need to know by before 8:30.©Geni (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Geni I am hopeful, but I will still be in bed art 0830 whether I'm coming or not Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 23:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go ahead and be there. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Cool. Been wanting to re-vist the Ashmolean for a while.©Geni (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not going to make it to Oxford today. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Help to find line number
Please can you help me as to how to find a line number in an article. So far I have found no method. The difficult situation arises in differences between revisions when there is no context to search on and there is repetitive material in a table eg in. How can I find the line 690 in the article? Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally I never bother with the line numbers. To find the line concerned, I mark some of the text in the diff - sufficient to uniquely identify the text but not spanning into a second line. I copy this to clipboard, then I go to the relevant section (in this case Preserved locos) and open it in source editor. Then I use the browser's find feature (usually Ctrl-F) and paste in the text from the clipboard. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is what I usually do. But what in the example would you search on? All there is is N/A or No which give several results.SovalValtos (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Awaiting restoration - geograph.org.uk - 1887942 -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Maryland cookies
Thanks for the tipoff where I could find a couple more flavours.©Geni (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

2girls1cup
You fully protected this redirect for vandalism back in 2007, and I highly doubt that it is still needed. The article it redirects to is only semi-protected. Would you mind removing or downgrading the protection? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't an admin in 2007, indeed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Redrose64 I wasn't even an editor back then], so I can't have done what you claim. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I misread the page history. Sorry! QuicoleJR (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your Constants Template
Just sending this to be polite, but do you mind if I nick your constants template? Sneezless ( talk ) ( contribs ) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's very out of date, I've not updated it in years. Mainly because I don't edit other Wikipedias (except Welsh) any more. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fani Willis
Hi there. I see you fixed something at Talk:Fani Willis. Would you be willing to close the discussion? It seems to have run out of steam, and there also seems to be a consensus. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's an RfC, and RfCs typically last 30 days. This RfC began at 16:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) so in the normal course of things Legobot will list it until 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC). If you really need it to be closed after just half its scheduled duration, please make your request at WP:Closure requests, or see WP:RFCEND. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Oxford
Looks like its just the 2 of at the moment but I need to visit to get an image for the Shrine of Taharqa article I'm planning.©Geni (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just setting off now. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CR
Hi, I see you reverted my edit on WP:CR where I archived a load of discussions. I did this because I saw some discussions that have been marked as done but not archived for 2 weeks now, and the fact that other editors have done the same thing - although now I see you also reverted their edits. I definitely think some form of notice regarding the manual archiving, like the note at WP:ANI, would be a good idea. What do you think? JML1148 ( talk &#124; contribs ) 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ClueBot III would have archived them, given time. This bot doesn't act like lowercase sigmabot III, there are several differences. In essence, lowercase sigmabot III carries out a cut-and-paste, but ClueBot III does a lot more than that. The most important difference in this case is that it maintains an archive index (see example edits and ), something that is not done by either manual archiving or by one-click-archiver scripts. A second is that it deactivates all of the  and similar templates. A third is that it selects threads to archive based not on timestamps but on activity as read from the page history. This is what's holding it up: each time a thread is restored, the clock for that thread is reset even if no new posts were added and none of its timestamps were altered.
 * The notice at WP:ANI is in small type, and it's often overlooked or ignored. There's so much clutter at the top of WP:CR that anything extra there would probably be ignored too. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , and . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Redrose64 :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Define "correct"
Would you mind expanding slightly on your rather bald summary for this edit, please? Why does having two linked pieces of information (a citation and the origin of the citation) split over two entirely separate sections constitute "correct"? Pyrop e  21:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Notes" is correct per WP:CITESHORT which also shows the use of two level 2 headings; since I added that heading, WP:CITEVAR applies too. "Bibliography" is discouraged by MOS:REFERENCES; personally I would have used "References" (per CITESHORT), but "Sources" was already in use - it goes right back to the creation of the article in 2008. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi . Apologies for the delay in getting back to you, but I've been mulling my response a while. In short, I think we have a mismatch between various parts of: wanting to have a logical, clear, and succinct way for readers to look up information; poorly thought out and explained MoS guides; and misapplication of parts of MoS. CITESHORT's use of 'Notes' for the citations is weird and not very helpful to a reader. As that section itself states, 'notes' is a broad term that can cover all sorts of inline addenda, including citations, explanatory notes, additional information, and so on. I feel that if a section contains citations, it should probably be called 'Citations'. Keep it simple, and all that. Why they split the full citation from the short citation using two level two headings is not explained, and absent that, I think a reasonable justification (i.e. keeping all references together and making links from short to full citations clear) should easily trump 'per MOS' as a reason. This is what WP:IAR is all about, after all. The use of the term 'bibliography' is only discouraged for biographic articles, where it might be confused with a list of works of the person in question. This clearly doesn't apply to an article about a loco, and I would argue that in the context of a 'References' section most intelligent readers would understand which use of the word is being invoked. Finally, improving an article's use to a reader shouldn't be subservient to maintaining an article's existing structure, no matter how long that has been in place. I hope you see what I am getting at here. I have been using the structure I employed at lots of articles over the past decade or more; so far I don't think anyone has had an objection, so yours intrigues me. Pyrop  e  14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting
NO MORE REVIRTING EDITS PLEASE REDROSE64 Robbie Kirillov (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

YOU ARE SOON GONNA BE FIRED AND BANNED FROM WIKIPEDIA! Robbie Kirillov (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

But you told me that it doesn't fit for RfC
Oh sorry, I shouldn't have removed it Alon Alush (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Code formatting
Oddly, I'm thanking you for the revert—I was struggling to find the correct logic for the line breaks and settled on (i) pipes being separators and (ii) the hyphenation principle that the end of a line should suggest the start of the next.

What I'm more concerned about is the wholesale mangling of the formatting that resulted when vast numbers of quotation marks were added and things taken outside  tags that belonged inside. I wonder if it just needs rolling back to before those edits. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have we removed all those quote marks now? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are still some near the end. I've not properly checked an earlier version yet, but I've a feeling the parameter names have been taken out of code style throughout as well. They certainly look a bit odd, because of the non-matching typeface. Musiconeologist (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Heading to London in May
Hey, I'll be in London in a couple of months as part of a European trip with my mother ... hopefully we'll see you at the Wikipedia meetup then! Today we've started the mammoth task of printing out tickets and so forth for the trip (mobile phones aren't the best for either of us, for different reasons), so that reminded me to let you know. Graham87 (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , the provisional dates for meetups are: London, 12 May; and Oxford, 19 May. Please note that these pages have not yet been created. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, I've swung the trip for the London one (I'd already put the page for it on my Meta watchlist). I didn't actually know that Oxford meetups had become more regular; I'd been looking deeply at this in 2022 (as you might remember) and it seems their times became re-standardised around early 2023. Oh well, this way we can take mainland Europe at a more leisurely pace. Graham87 (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seemed to be irregular because we always skip December - Oxford meetups are eleven times a year, third Sunday of the month, i.e. one week after London; but the third Sunday in December (15 through 21 December inclusive) would be too close to Christmas. Around that time, the pubs are typically full up, often with of people on their workplace's Christmas drinks or dinners, and we can't get a table let alone a quiet one. Some people (myself included) get extra work in December, being the busiest time of the year in shops, and that can include Sunday work. In fact regular Oxford meetups resumed in October 2022, some months after COVID-19 restrictions had been totally lifted. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, all makes sense. Oxford 86 being on 26 February through me for a loop (seems you changed it due to being unavailable on the regular date). I was looking deeply into UK meetups back in July 2022 so there's that. :-) Australia in general and Western Australia in particular managed to dodge a ridiculous number of bullets re COVID due to being locked shut for a while, so I sometimes don't take into account how horrifically it affected the rest of the world. Graham87 (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick update: the first UK meetup page for May has been created, it is at Leeds on Saturday 4 May, that is, eight days before the London meetup. Leeds is about 185 miles from London, but there is a direct rail service that is frequent - twioe an hour; regular - trains are every thirty minutes; also quite fast - it takes about two hours and ten minutes. I really don't think that I can get to that one though, I would need to take three trains with a much longer journey time. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah I'll be leaving Australia on 6 May so I don't think I'll be making it to that one either! :-) Just to clarify, I'll be in London from 8 to 16 May and in mainland Europe after that. Graham87 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've signed up ... looking forward to it! Graham87 (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great! -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

University (Birmingham)
You were quite right that University railway station (England) was unlikely to have a photograph that was out of date; the photo of the new station was up more than a month before the station buildings were opened (in January 2024). Klbrain (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Half an hour ago, on BBC South Today, there's an item on the paintings stolen from Christchurch. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes; let's hope that they find the other paintings. Incidentally, there's nothing on it at Christ Church, Oxford, but that's probably not unreasonable (not news ...). Klbrain (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

 * -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)