User talk:Redrose64

Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2025 disestablishments in North America

A tag has been placed on Category:2025 disestablishments in North America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 23:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Explicit: Although I created the original version of this page, the page logs show that the most recent two incarnations were created by Daniel James Mcmahon (talk · contribs). Judging by the other categories that they have created (several of which have been deleted again), this user seems intent on WP:CRYSTALBALLing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

About members of one direction to be past members

Hello, could u elaborate why you put all of them to past members? because there's no statement about the group status, thank you Kayanad (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kayanad: There is an ongoing discussion on that exact matter at Talk:One Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox, so for the time being the article should not be changed until there is consensus in that discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

MOS:NOBR - North Kent Line

Hi there, thanks for your edit summary note on North Kent Line. I didn't change that formatting - the anonymous edit before mine did, and I was just patching up the broken part. However, I actually wasn't aware of the MOS:NOBR guideline, so thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: The {{ubl}} template makes a list, the individual items of which are separated uning the pipe character. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Admin newsletter

Hi Redrose64 -- was there a reason you removed me from the admin newsletter subs? For the record, I'd prefer to receive it even if hibernating as I still intermittently check my talk page and on return it forms a convenient summary of issues of which I need to be aware. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: Delivery of the October message failed, the log shows that you opted-out of message delivery. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing that I did??? I'm very confused now. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's probably a template at the top of your user talk page. Something like {{nobots}}, but not necessarily that specific one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Uw-spamublock

I don't understand what you meant by this edit summary. When I marked the ER as "already done", I was referring to this edit. Was I supposed to do what you did (i.e., change the title)? M.Bitton (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: Exactly: the first parameter is for the name of the page for which an edit is being requested, accordingly the OP had put |Template:Uw-spamublock. Since the edit was to Template:Uw-spamublock, you should not have altered it to |Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace as nobody edited that page, nor intended that page to be edited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I see what happened: it was altered by the "Edit Request Tool", that's why I didn't notice it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Mail

Hey, I sent you one last night my time ... did you get it? Just asking now because time zones can be ... interesting. Graham87 (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've never started one of those before, so making it my first probably isn't a good idea. I would prefer that it be done properly, and so have a good chance of succeeding. In the past I might have suggested RexxS (talk · contribs) or Kudpung (talk · contribs). Try HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this about the re-RfA? I'd be happy to, and Redrose can co-nom if he's happy. Redrose would do a better job of addressing the more technical things you use the tools for. You might have to agree to something regarding blocks, like not blocking anyone who hasn't been reported by another editor or similar but I think it's a winnable battle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is about the re-RFA. Yes there'll be a very strong pledge re blocks ... and a refocus. That's why I was thinking of Redrose as a co-nom because he can speak to my technical work. You don't have to start the page, just say a few words about what I've done in that arena when the time comes. Or if you are most comfortable just putting these thoughts in a !support vote, that works too. @HJ Mitchell: yes, I'd be happy for you to co-nom me too, as a lead nom or however the cookie crumbles. I have a couple of other people lined up, but your thoughts would be good to add to the mix as well. Graham87 (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Harry, good to see you here. Graham87, I would like to see what you'd write up for the nomination before I sign on; obviously you can anticipate some of the questions and it would be good to work on some possible answers. You got my email; a group email with Redrose and Harry might be helpful. Harry, Redrose, just to be honest, I did not agree unconditionally, but we can talk about that. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging Vanamonde93, who I've also been conversing with. Now we're all here, and this'll end up being public anyway, I may as well say this now: I'll pledge not to block at all, just to report when I find another user's done something wrong. And I should find a lot less weird stuff once the watchlist cleanup I'm about to start is done. I don't have any strong opinions on where we should go from here in terms of who starts the page, etc., but some of you know the modern practice re that a huge amount better than I do so I'll defer to y'all. The main part of my nom acceptance (is that how it would work?) would basically be a paraphrase of what I said in this message. Graham87 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems very similar to my RfA - I passed as a technical admin with a similar but less strict pledge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist purging done ... it's now 1,173 items (almost all articles) lighter ... much better! Graham87 (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't really do watchlist purging, but I'm quite discriminate about what gets on there in the first place. I'm at about 7,200 pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't either; this is my first full watchlist purge since 2007 and I've otherwise done only a couple of minor narrow topic ones. It's only got a few hundred active pages now. Graham87 (talk) 12:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The RFA page has been created (but is not live) at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2. If you want to add your piece, feel free. Graham87 (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

en tags

If you check the revision of the article before I even edited for the first time, some of those tags were already there; from the article's original creation in fact. Advise taking it up with the editors who originally added, or those who applied them inconsistently, rather than singling me out for applying consistency and sticking with the original citation style set out. Kyteto (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI report on Golden409bus' abusive behaviour

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Leeds Central railway station

In the most detailed navbox that you have added to the article, someone has altered your entry of Copley Hill claiming doubts on there being a passenger station there and replaced it with Farnley and Wortley. HAVE YOU ANY VIEWS ON THAT ALTERATION?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: Why are you shouting? Anyway, it's shown on three different maps:

• Conolly, W. Philip (January 1976). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 21, section C2 (Leeds inset). ISBN 0-7110-0320-3. EX/0176.
• Batty, Stephen R. (1989). Rail Centres: Leeds/Bradford. Shepperton: Ian Allan. endpapers. ISBN 0-7110-1821-9.

and also on this diagram. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware that the last part was in capitals. I must have accidentally caught something in error. All I wondered why it was that someone had altered the navbox that you had gone to so much trouble to compose which adds much the artcle on that railway station.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Rail-interchange - Thessaloniki Metro request

Hi, the talk page to Template talk:Rail-interchange breaks down after the TextDiff on the previous request if I attempt to add a reply, so putting it here. You have marked the request answered, and I do not think that it is.

@Redrose64 There is no need to be choppy. This has already been changed on the sandbox.

If people still persist, maybe it's because nowhere is it stated that the correct procedure is to amend the sandbox first. The text at the top of the page is very clear that changes must be discussed on this talk page first (all emphasis my own):

Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit.

Any mention to the sandbox is purely optional:

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Michail (blah) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

{{TextDiff}} is fine when used to describe changes to text, such as in article prose - hence its name, TextDiff. For an article about a building, on its talk page somebody might put, for example,

−

The building was closed in 2014 and subsequently demolished.

+

The building saw little use after 1996, and was closed in 2014. Demolition began in 2016 but the site was not cleared until 2020.

As you noticed (several times) it breaks hopelessly if used for template code. I don't know why people keep attempting to use it.

Template:Rail-interchange has itself been broken on several previous occasions by people putting live changes that were insufficiently tested. Even the omission of one bracket can have consequences that can take days to put right, whilst we wait for the fix to propagate through the job queue. So we need to make sure that every change is right the first time. There is plenty on this matter in the talk page archives. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, would you like to add a few words about my technical contribs as a nom statement at my RFA, or would you be more comfortable taking a less prominent role? Either way, no worries: I'd just like to know before I take it live. If anyone else wants to join in, feel free. Sorry for any hassle. Graham87 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, it appears that an RfA cannot have more than two co-nominations in addition to the primary nom, and two co-noms (Vanamonde93 and Drmies) had already been added by the time that you posted here (yesterday, Australian time). The restriction is in Template:RfA/readyToSubmit, and I don't think that I should amend that without first proposing it at WT:RFA. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried to add space for more co-noms in, but it was reverted ... eh I was going to right more, but I think I'll take this to Template talk:RfA, where what I was going to say is much more relevant. I think I'll take the implicit hint and make the RFA live relatively soon. Graham87 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

After advice (see the email thread if you want to), I've substituted the RFA template so there's space to add a co-nom statement, if you like. Graham87 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to write something, but I can't work out what to write. It's got to be 100% bang-on right. I've spent half the day on diversionary gnoming. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think a long statement is necessary. If you have any experience of Graham as an admin, especially in obscure technical fields, that hasn't been covered by one of the other nominators, that might go down well. If you don't have anything "new" to cover, then you might do just as well as an early supporter when the RfA is live. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just thinking of you saying a little bit about my contributions from a technical angle (perhaps something from the technical village pump ... and maybe accessibility). Maybe a comment you remember me making somewhere? If you're still wracking your brains trying to say something, I could start the RFA with the noms already there ... Graham87 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that you'll have to - I'm going to be out most of the day. Then Monday is a work day... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, ta for the note. I'll do that. Graham87 (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your latest comment there and I'm so sorry to put you through all that. Graham87 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Names of social media reps in articles

Hi Redrose, just wondering if Anamyd's edits to Class 756 where they mentioned a social media rep's name is something that would be allowed on Wikipedia? Not talking about the WP:OR aspect here, but whether the name being mentioned is something that is permissible or should be suppressed... Many thanks! Danners430 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Danners430: This edit is right out. This edit summary does not satisfy WP:V, nor does the previous one. All in all, this was a good revert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m just really wanting to check regarding the inclusion of the social media rep’s name from a privacy standpoint whether it should be left or the edit history suppressed, that’s all I’m concerned about - I simply don’t know either way :) Danners430 (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

There's only one name that I can see, and it's just one word - it might be a forename, or an alias. I don't think that it can be used to identify a real-life individual. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s fair - thank you for checking and confirming however :) can never be too careful! Danners430 (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Southcote Junction

Hi again. I see you have contributed to the discussion on Soutcote Junction but without expressing a delete or keep. I'd value your thought on this, whichever way you call it. I must admit I feel a bit under siege on this one, especially after the latest delete call from an anonymous IPV6 address with a visible history of just 7 edits over a period of all of 12 minutes!. Trying hard not to think the word sockp****t. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Collyhurst

I'm not sure what you mean by "come on"? We normally put the county in articles with the exception of Greater London. Greater Manchester does include distinct places like Wigan that aren't part of the settlement so its not like they are similar enough not to need to be mentioned even if the county includes the name of the city. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

But Collyhurst isn't in Wigan, it's in Manchester - only a mile and a half from the centre. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

But its still in the county of Greater Manchester and no longer in Lancashire (which could probably also be mentioned) so I still think the correct thing is to mention the current (and probably former) county. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Writing Collyhurst is an inner city area of Manchester, in Greater Manchester, England introduces redundancy, not to mention WP:OVERLINKing. There is absolutely no need to point out that Manchester is in Greater Manchester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Counties are normally linked and wouldn't likely be considered over linking, linking England would be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"Normally" implies room for common-sense exceptions, of which this would appear to be an obvious one. The determining factor should be what is most helpful to the reader. That's often local government divisions but those are arbitrary and a lot less relevant in major built-up areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That was with respect to Greater London, as far as I'm aware we expect all counties outside of London to be included in the lead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely no need to point out that Manchester is in Greater Manchester. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

List renumbering

Regarding using HTML markup: I didn't think it would work specifically with the ACE question template, since it introduces a sublist, so wasn't sure how an unclosed HTML list item would interact with it (normally I would recommend closing it explicitly). In any case, the template has been extended now to support a parameter to set a value explicitly using HTML markup. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: The closing tag of a li element is always optional, since it is implicitly closed by the next <li> tag at the same level, also by the closing </ol> of the enclosing ol element. A li element may enclose zero or more sublists of any type, to any depth. See this demo.

The way that this works relies on my first sentence - effectively, what we have is

<p>Here is a list:
<ol><li>This is the first item
<li>Second item
<li><li value=4>Not the third item
<li>List continues
</ol><p>with text after.

and your browser gets served with this:

<p>Here is a list:
</p>
<ol><li>This is the first item</li>
<li>Second item</li>
<li class="mw-empty-elt"></li><li value="4">Not the third item</li>
<li>List continues</li></ol>
<p>with text after.
</p>

MediaWiki silently adds the missing closing tags, even though the only one that is required is the </ol>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The unclear issue for me wasn't the HTML standard, but what the resulting HTML output would be from MediaWiki when the ACE question template was used in combination with the <li> syntax within wikitext. In any case, it's moot now that the template has been enhanced, so please don't feel obligated to spend any additional time on explaining its workings. isaacl (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Inquiry

Would you mind explaining your revert here? There is no need for that page to be archived, and the addition of auto archiving was done disruptively by WP:LTA/BMN123 who is just trying to conceal a discussion that did not go their way. I see no reason not to restore this revision by DatGuy. I'll also ping ScottishFinnishRadish who has assisted in cleaning up similar disruption by this LTA in the recent past. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Archiving was set up as long ago as February 2022. Since then, Lowercase sigmabot III has created three archive pages. Your edit goes only a small way toward reverting all of that. If you don't think that Talk:Nival (company) should be archived, you should start a discussion on that page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

JUJUJUL DU 72 is a DUCK sock of BMN123 and blocked, likewise for 2A0A:8C42:0:0:0:0:0:16 still blocked as an open proxy. That said I hadn't taken a close enough look at the degree of disruption, and so I agree there should not be three duplicate archive pages. I can't remember if G5, G6, or blanking is preferred for cases like this; SFR or DatGuy might be able to chime in on that, but there is no reason not to revert the pages to their states prior to sock disruption. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok I took a moment to review the history, looks like every edit after this was either sock-disruption, bot edits resulting from sock-disruption, or reverts. So the solution there should simply be to restore that revision, update the templates and call it good. I suspect the duplicates can just be cleared until needed, unless some other procedure is preferred in which case feel free to let me know. I have two other LTAs I need to follow-up on first, after that if I still have time I may get back to this one. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Rail-interchange

I saw that you reverted my earlier edit of Template talk:Rail-interchange with an edit summary "Undid revision Special:Diff/1258433919 by Anomalocaris (talk) that breaks the rest of the page". I am baffled. When I compare my version and the previous, they display exactly the same, and mine has fixed the stripped </code> tag. When I compare your version and the previous, they display identically, and yours has added back the stripped </code> tag without addressing the new-since-my-edit missing end tags for <code> and <span>. Nothing needs to happen to the page now, because you subsequently took action to "remove *all* code blobs and demos." But I'd still like to what it was about my edit that breaks the rest of the page. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I was trying to track down what had caused the massive screwup that left several sections in a monospaced font, usually this is a missing </code> tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64 and Anomalocaris: Starting a line with a space will cause it to display that way.

No space at start of line.

With 1 space at start of line.

Bazza 7 (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't the case here, the problem persists to the end of the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Rail-interchange

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

Note that it is generally not advisable to edit another user's comment on the talkpage. Simply displaying an icon, as I did at Template talk:Rail-interchange, is certainly not disrupting anybody's user experience. See WP:TPO. 162 etc. (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You are demonstrating the output of a template on its talk page. That is not the purpose of the talk page. The talk page is for various purposes for which text is appropriate, such as (but not limited to): describing why the present version is unsatisfactory; suggesting an amendment (with diffs to the sandbox page when appropriate); explaining why your proposal is better then the present version; inviting comments from others; responding to those comments. Demonstrations - both of the template as it stands and of the template as you would like it to become - belong on the testcases page of the template. See WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll refer you again to WP:TPO, which asks us to "(Fix) format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible." Your edit here [1] did not preserve content, instead removing it - this goes against our behavioural guideline. Collapsing is a better way to handle this.

I urge you to self-revert your content removal and to follow the best practices suggested by WP:TALK. 162 etc. (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It broke the page, massively. I will not restore such bad markup. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Messing with other editors' talk page writing is generally off limits, but that page was seriously broken by invalid markup. I probably would have tried to wrap the whole mess in <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> or similar code that disabled the breakage, but removing it while keeping it available in the history may have been the only way to fix the mess in this case (I haven't examined it in detail). 162 etc., if you are contemplating restoring the deleted text, please ensure that it displays properly and does not result in any Linter errors that are listed on the "Page information" page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Galtee More

Hi, Red link removed as there is no article to link to and unlikely to be one. How many racehorses have articles? Especially one from around 50 years ago. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Thousands of racehorses have articles, see Category:Thoroughbred racehorses and its subcategories. This horse isn't from 50 years ago, but 130 years ago - it was foaled in 1894. But we have articles for horses foaled as long ago as 1700, 324 years ago.

As to the likelihood of a racehorse having an article: pretty much all winners of British Classic Races are going to be notable, since all the major mainstream newspapers cover these races. Most of their winners have articles - all winners of the Epsom Derby since its inception in 1780, all winners of the St Leger since 1876, all winners of the 2,000 Guineas since 1880, all but one winners of the Epsom Oaks since 1886, and all but one winners of the 1,000 Guineas since 1890. That said, we don't (yet) have articles for the 2024 winners of either the 1,000 Guineas or the Oaks, but I'm sure that somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse racing will sort this at some point.

In 1897, Galtee More won the 2,000 Guineas, the Derby, and the St Leger, and so is one of a small number of horses to have achieved the Triple Crown. It would be hard to imagine us not having an article, and indeed, the fact that the link is blue, not red, demonstrates that we do have one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it was red when I deleted it. If it had been a blue link I would have checked it wasn't referring to the place and left it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1150s BC births

A tag has been placed on Category:1150s BC births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz: I only created it so that Category:1152 BC births would have somewhere to live. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I much appreciate your effort to fix the issue. Naturally I don't expect you or Jones95 to fix it, but if this is has happened more than once at Christmas, perhaps something could be coded for it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed tag

Dear RedRose64,

Hi! I’m sorry to bug you, but I saw that you removed an {{rfc}} tag on a postI put up about a template for the reason that I ignored WP:RFCBEFORE.

I might be wrong, but I don’t think I ignored RFCBEFORE—I posted a request at the talk page for the American politics taskforce of the Politics WikiProject for comment but received no input.

Is it ok if I put the RFC tag back up, or am I missing something?

Thanks!

PS: I’m sorry for the lack of links—I’m doing this on my phone as my iPad is unavailable. RiverMan18 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If there has been prior discussion - as is required by WP:RFCBEFORE - that discussion should have beeen linked in the RfC statement. There was no such link. A subsequent post by yourself did link to Talk:List of political parties in the United States#RFC on US political party disc logos, but that was started just four days ago, so we seem to have a WP:TALKFORK situation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok—I’ll add the link the next time I’m able to go on a computer (sorry).

The reason for the two RFCs is because one was about the disc logos, and although the participants did reach a consensus about that we did not reach one about the template (simply because nobody responded) before it was recommended to me that the RFC be closed. As a result, I later posted the question on the project talk page and, when that didn’t get any responses, I created the RFC.

Does this still violate WP:TALK? If so, what can I do to fix it?

Thanks! RiverMan18 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I just added the link to the previous talk post to the former RFC—do you have any other concerns, or can I (should I) repost the RFC?
Sorry. RiverMan18 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Adoration of the Magi in the Snow (1563) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Template : Newcastle-Gateshead RDT

Would it be too problematical to show both the former closed railway stations of Gateshead West and Gateshead East on an expanded version of the RDT if someone could do that?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked categories

Obviously, creating categories takes longer than removing them does, because one has to spend time investigating whether the category should exist or not, where in the tree would it fit, are there any other articles that need to be filed in it alongside the one page that's already there, and on and so forth. Removing a redlinked category only takes a few seconds, while creating a redlinked category takes a few minutes.

But the current run of Special:WantedCategories had 522 redlinks on it, meaning that if I were to spend five minutes on each category for a rate of just 12 redlinks sorted per hour, then I would have to invest 43 hours of time into cleaning up the list. And since the list reupdates every three days with hundreds more redlinked categories, dealing with a few redlinks at a time over the course of several weeks isn't an option — each time the list updates, I have just 72 hours to get it cleared. But, of course, people also have to sleep for 24 of those 72 hours, effectively giving me an actual deadline of just 48 hours to clear the report to zero — so if I were to go with the five minutes per category option, I would have to spend 43 of those 48 hours doing nothing but creating redlinked categories, with just a five-hour reprieve before having to spend another 43 hours creating more redlinked categories.

It's not my job to spend 43 hours on it, however — I'm entitled to get through the job in a matter of minutes, which means spending no more than a few seconds on each page.

Sure, if you're seeing just one or two redlinked categories on just one or two pages, then obviously it doesn't seem to you like it should be a deep burden for me to just create the categories instead of removing them — spending five minutes instead of five seconds doesn't seem that onerous if you're talking about just one or two pages. But the job isn't one or two redlinks on one or two pages, it's hundreds of redlinks on hundreds of pages, which means that if I spend five minutes on each category I'd never have any time left to do anything else at all.

So the way redlinked categories work is not that it's my job to create them on other people's behalf. It's the job of the people who want any category to exist to create it themselves right away — if they leave it as a redlink, it's neither my job to create it for them nor my job to take any clapback from anybody about it. My job is to get the report cleaned up in the absolute shortest amount of time possible, which means getting each redlink cleaned up in a matter of seconds rather than minutes. And it isn't my job to apologize to anybody for deleting a redlinked category instead of creating it, either, so edit summaries criticizing me for not creating the categories are not appropriate or appreciated. Bearcat (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

,

★Trekker (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

December music

story · music · places

Coming from Graham87's talk: thank you what you told him! My first Christmas story is about Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91, 300 years today, and its song, 500 years old. Enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Naleork

Following your reversion of Naleork's future TOC stuff I thought you might have an opinion on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Too_soon_/_WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)