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)[reply] 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

My Talk Archives

Hints: 13 July 2009- Suggestions: 13 July 2009- Responses: 20 July 2009- Thanks: 17 August 2009- Complaints: 26 August 2009- Requests: 18 October 2009- Queries: 6 November 2009- Miscellaneous: 26 March 2010- Admin: 24 August 2010- Unclassified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Moved to Talk:The Invasion of Time § Variant theme music

Sorry I'm bad at using wikipedia and messed up adding the cite, I asked Northern the other day about Bolton's Platform 2 and they replied to me https://twitter.com/northernrailorg/status/291975325221535745?uid=17412258&iid=am-34365388813588638626255904&nid=56+427

Moved to m:Talk:Meetup/Reading/4#Shall we continue?

		Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

I was sitting with a high steward, discussing Anglo-Saxon monks. The name we couldn't remember was Nennius. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Dear Redrose64,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Hi Redrose64, quick message. On Template talk:WikiProject Biography, I removed the category not because I had been lazy and just not fixed the issue, I just hadn't realised that it might have been there because someone had posted a link to it in the talk. I had assumed it was just a one-time problem with the actual template itself at the top of the talk page, and so I could fix that by removing the category. I used hot cat, so didn't actually see what I had deleted. I should have checked changes before pressing to save my edit. I apologise, I just wanted to clear any misunderstanding. Thanks, SamWilson989 (talk)

Where can you sail to by Stena Line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IkbenFrank (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 April 2015

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke. —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

WP:Help desk#Sign issue

Hi there,

Just wondering about your reversion of my edit to the opening date of Carluke Railway Station. I'd changed it to the opening of the actual station in its current location, rather than the earlier station on the Wishaw and Coltness line, though I appreciate that I should probably have changed the line to Caledonian too. But if you feel it should reflect the earliest of any station that was called Carluke, then that's fine too. Weatherman22 (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Weatherman22: You refer to this edit. At Carluke railway station#History, the only source given for the opening date is "R V J Butt 1995", which refers to this book, which I have: and on pages 220 and 54 it shows that the station named Stirling Road was opened on 8 January 1842 by the Wishaw and Coltness Railway, and renamed Carluke on 15 February 1848 by the Caledonian. There is no indication of two stations, nor of one station being resited. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that book must be wrong, looking at the old OS maps from the time, and also the Wishaw and Coltness wikipedia page Wishaw_and_Coltness_Railway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherman22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• See a discussion which is developing in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Recent "uncontroversial" page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anthony Appleyard: Er, a thread which I started... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Your explanation was perfectly clear but I just missed the S. Even after all these years, category stuff is in large part a dysfunctional mystery to me. I'm sure that is my fault! - Sitush (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello R. A new conundrum has come up at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Several "Portal" pages have shown up and I can't track down the cause. Any help you can provide will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't either because Lua is happening in these pages. You may need to ask somebody like RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) - who made the last edit to Portal:Earth sciences/Selected article/9, or Certes (talk · contribs) who wrote Module:Excerpt. I suspect that what is happening is that the lead section of an article (in this case, Ediacara biota) is being transcluded, including any templates that it may contain, and such templates may of course include protection templates. If it is a simple transclusion, we can use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the {{pp-move-indef}} - but I have absolutely no idea how Module:Excerpt works, nor even if it respects <noinclude>...</noinclude>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Excerpt tries hard to remove such templates and almost always succeeds. The current problem is detecting whether a template is before the lead and should be discarded, or forms the first words of the lead and should be kept. As it would be impractical to write a bulletproof wikitext parser which deals individually with 500,000 different templates, it has to apply some heuristics. It's currently failing to handle three types of line: misnested braces such as I just fixed in Ediacaran biota; a template followed by part of another template as in William Bruce (architect); and a template followed by a File: image as in Food. I'll see what I can do about the last two. Certes (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD and Redrose64:  Fixed, thanks for the ping. By the way, the module does respect noinclude but I see that as a last resort. I'd prefer to find out about such problems so that they can be solved in the module rather than by adding noinclude tags to potentially large numbers of articles. Module:Excerpt may have gained 1500 transclusions but it's still supposed to be in alpha test so it's not too late to fix this sort of thing. Certes (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for working on this Certes. If it is okay I can let you know if new ones pop up in the category in the future. Thanks to you as well Redrose64 for taking a look and for contacting the right people. Regards to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Note that the Parsoid version of the parser automatically generates sections based on wikicode headers example. This is used for the mobile/app versions to do lazy loading, and for VE as well I believe. This only works if the wikicode of that page is well balanced, because the parser needs to be able to guess. If it cannot, then it will give up and return the output without section elements. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new here and didn't make many contributions so I'm not really familiar with the system and was seeking help to report a page for deletion since I think it's violating the page as it is clear that the company is the one who created the page even making a section called "Our Vision" so I tried to report it my self but I didn't really understand the system and was afraid to screw up the whole thing so thought you may help me or at least guide me on how to report it since tgis company is already controversial enough here in Egypt. Thanks Mohab mazhar (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm User:ChieftanTartarus, I'd like to address your points in a list so here goes:

• First of all, it is okay in Wikipedia policy to edit a page referring to yourself/your company as long as it is independently assessed for bias by other users (which of course is normally the case).
• Secondly, they are not required to disclose their link to the topic, although it is good practise to do so, the exception to this is if they are getting paid to write/edit the page, in which case they must disclose this.
• Thirdly, can you please provide a link to the page in question so that I, User:Redrose64 or one of the other WP:TPS's can take a look at the page?
• Fourthly, it could be that they have copied/pasted from the company's website, in which case, it will need to be urgently reviewed in case any copyright claims are violated by the inclusion of content.
• Fifthly, failing this, the page may possibly be in violation of policy, in which case it can be nominated for deletion.

Thanks for taking the time to reach out with your concern rather than sporadically nominating pages for deletion, I appreciate your good practise. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thank you for replying and for taking my matter seriously and replying so soon to this so I really appreciate it.

The page is about some sports advertising company called "presentation sports" or "برزنتشن سبورت" (in Arabic) the problem is that I'm almost quite certain that they are using the community as an advertising platform unfortunately this topic isn't available in other languages than Arabic which made it more suspicious to me since it's a really big company and also I think that would be a problem to you reviewing since I know Arabic isn't common in other regions than the Middle East which is understandable of course.

Again I am really thankful for your reply and hope that we can find a solution to tell if it is abusing the Wikipedia policy or not since I really appreciate this site and it's community. Mohab mazhar (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm afraid I cannot provide further existence if it is not on the English Wikipedia other than to say it may be best to seek out someone on the Arabic Wikipedia to help you out, but be advised that policy can and does normally differ depending on the regional Wiki (i.e. different languages). Apologies for not being much help, but perhaps @Redrose64: may still be able to provide you with assistance. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohab mazhar and ChieftanTartarus: I speak no Arabic and can read even less; my userpage at ar.wikipedia should have indicated that. I have no idea why this has been brought to me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Redrose64,

Sorry to bother you, especially with something which is probably a stupid/obvious FAQ and I am just not getting it, BUT:

1. I'm trying to get Tees Transporter Bridge so that if you click its geographical coordinates you see a localized version of the GeoHack page with the GB stuff like OS at the top right.
2. If I go to, say, Carluke railway station then click its coordinates it takes me here showing the GB stuff at top right as I would like.
3. If from Tees Transporter Bridge I click the same(ish) link then I go here to a more general version of the GeoHack page. The GB stuff is there, further down, but you have to scroll or search down for it.
4. You can see a couple of my inept attempt to fix this here. Obviously, it didn't work!

So, I hate to be a nuisance, but could you please enlighten me? Apologies in advance if it is painfully obvious and I am just being seriously dim. It would not be the first time. :( Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: See this edit. The coords that you were editing were ignored because they were inside HTML comment markers; the coords displayed top right were actually generated by the infobox which gets its data from Wikidata. The thing to do is override the Wikidata coords by using the |coordinates= parameter in the infobox, and that allows you to set a value for region: Note that I didn't copy your region:GB-MDB - only half of the bridge is in Middlesbrough, the rest is in Port Clarence in the Borough of Stockton-on-Tees for which the ISO 3166-2:GB code is GB-STT. Since neither GB-MDB nor GB-STT is correct, it's best to use something more generic: either region:GB-ENG or the simpler form region:GB. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thank you so much for this lovely clear explanation, for sorting it out for me, and for stopping me from offending Stocktonians about their half! I see that I was thoroughly barking up the wrong tree and I'm most grateful to you for putting me right. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redrose64.
Regarding your revision on Wikipedia talk:Redirect, isn’t it fine to have more than two shortcuts if they differ enough? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 05:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Interqwark: WP:2SHORTCUTS says "The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:Whatlinkshere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects." Nothing about how different they should be. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does say “generally,” and I’ve seen multiple guideline or policy pages with upwards of ten shortcuts for one section. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 01:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the people who added those were unaware of 2SHORTCUTS? In any case, WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point.

So, should I remove all the shortcuts until there are two left whenever I see a Shortcut template with more than two shortcuts? Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 13:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hunt them down; I also don't reduce them to two on sight - when I notice somebody adding shortcuts in a way that takes it above two (whether from 0, 1 or 2 to 3, 2 to 4 or even from 9 to 10), I usually bring it back down to two. The way that I select the two to keep is based partly on how long they have been there, partly on how many incoming links each one has, partly on intuitiveness. So, when I spotted this edit, I selected the two to keep I found that WT:R had 16 incoming links; WT:REDIR had 5 incoming links; but WT:RDR had none, so the choice was obvious. I made a similar edit to the subject page on the same basis, and fixed some vandalism on the way. The intuitiveness factor was not necessary here, but it could have been (to somebody who used the CP/M operating system back in the 1970s, RDR is one of the input devices). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question about shortcuts

Why did you remove the shortcuts that I added? They’re not on Redirects for discussion. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 15:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about RFD? I removed them because we don't need more, MOS:ENGVAR has stood on its own for over seven years, people are used to it. What's AMENG anyway - something said when a preacher finishes a prayer? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was only one shortcut to the section, I thought MOS:AMENG and MOS:BRITENG would be fine useful additions. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 16:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You only invented them today - less than six hours ago, to be exact. On what basis did you think that they would be "fine additions"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they would be easier to remember, but I’m sorry. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 00:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Redrose! We need some help getting a table to look aesthetically pleasing, aligned and orderly - see User:Dawnleelynn/Sandbox. Can you help, or recommend someone? Thanks in advance...^{Atsme📞📧} 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme and Dawnleelynn: It is never a good idea to arrange a wide table to look good on any given screen - you don't know how wide anybody else's screen is, nor what zoom level they are using. Even such things as browser configuration and installed fonts can make a difference. The best thing to do is to omit all formatting (other than appropriate use of header cells and data cells), including forced line breaks, and let the browser arrange the column widths.

On the matter of forced line breaks, the tags <br> and <br /> are equally valid, the space and the slash are both optional. A commonly-found invalid form is </br> which should either be removed, or altered to one of the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I use the slash because of the highlighting feature in Preferences - without it, everything is pink highlighted from the first <br> until <br />. I added the formatting after the fact, so that was easy enough to undo. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose, thanks for your help. We are converting several lists into tables in an existing article. But I'm doing the table in my sandbox first to keep the mainspace article unaffected. I looked the tag up in HTML documentation; it's been awhile since I've done HTML coding. I know that the tag <br /> is meant for xHtml, but see that many editors are replacing any other versions with this one. There is an editor who changes all of mine when I create new articles because I am set in my ways and use </br>, which as you say is a no-no. But now I am rethinking this and going try to use less. Of course, are instances when you really need one. But many times, there are other choices. Because I know exactly what you are saying. In my last job as a tech writer, I had Help web documentation that was mostly HTML tables that was for a company product and I knew that the programmers who were reading my Help documentation were using many OSes, browsers, and even cell phones to read it. So I let the table decide all of the formatting options. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morning,

I am interested in why you reverted my update on 72010.

I am the commercial Director of the company building the locomotive, so I can assure you that any information that I add will be true, and as up to date as I can make it.

I have edited the page again, please leave as I have edited this time, as the information added is correct as of June 9th 2018.

Best regards,

Bob Ife Commercial Director The 'Clan' Project commercial@theclanproject.org UBT - The Prof.... (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UBT - The Prof....: You removed sourced content and replaced it with unsourced content - twice now. Please read the policy on verifiability. You clearly also have a conflict of interest and so should avoid editing articles about subjects with which you have a personal or business connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Do you know if Legobot is still indexing contents? It stopped indexing my talk page a year ago. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 21:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: To my knowledge, you have left similar messages at User talk:Legoktm#Bot no longer indexing my talk page; User talk:Legobot#Bot no longer indexing my talk page, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User:Legobot indexing, User talk:Harej#Legobot indexing feature and Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#User:Legobot stopped indexing my talk page - and that's just the ones on my watchlist. Please observe WP:MULTI and don't spam discussion pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit summary, the documentation of Extension:SyntaxHighlight has suggested for years that <source>...</source> should generally be avoided in favor of <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight>, since the former is a valid HTML element with an unrelated purpose; the latter tag was specifically introduced during MediaWiki 1.16 to work around this conflict. I have made this exact same change in several other places over the years, including in the sitewide CSS and JS files, and you're the first person to object to it. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 I see you have kept an eye on sources being used in articles on subjects related to Wales and I believe I have a good source. I have listed it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales "Parliament for Wales Campaign- potential source". As you can see by my atrocious use of wiki editing protocol, I am relatively new to editing here and ask you be gentle and please have a look at something I believe you will find helpful for this project. I am not yet of the caliber to construct such an article but believe your works speaks for itself. I have added this page to my watchlist, and look forward to peeking in occasionally to see the many things that you address as time allows. Respectfully, Mrphilip (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as per this message, I posted there after reading the title of page REQUEST FOR CLOSURE that also mentions XfDs as I wanted to close or remove the discussion having same arguements even where I tried to include such parties of those fellow wikipedians who agreed with me for what I said and trying to proof is correct. Still the users from whom the article is protected doing same arguments, same unsourced thinkings, same unauthentic sources provided same to same, I tried to delete discussion by myself, tried to close discussion by myself but no one is listening. See, WWE.com still lists Cruiserweight Wrestlers under RAW Section as well as they have their own section 205 Live too. regarding this issue outside wikipedia I saw that this is a rumor as WWE.com even company itself hasn't made any announcement officially also. I know they aren't making appearances on RAW but that doesn't mean that they aren't RAW Rosters. it seems to be discussions full of arguements has been initiated at 10:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC) especially what I requrested for deletion(that discussion). You can see my talkpage for block templates for proof as well as events and incidents happened for why I got blocked. I need this thing to be cleared and closed i.e why I did requests. Well, the changes are same regarding 205 Live and RAW as what I wanted at article List of WWE personnel. I don't wanted to reply there where you've left me message So I visited your talk page to respond, Thanks. CK (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Broken nutshell: From what I can tell, you wish the article List of WWE personnel to be deleted: but WP:AN/RFC is not for initiating deletion discussions. It does mention XFDs, and has a heading "Deletion discussions"; the purpose of this is for requesting formal closure of an existing XFD that is still open but perhaps has stalled, and where consensus is not clear. For example, an AFD that has been open for a month or so and been relisted something like three times.

In the case of List of WWE personnel, there is no currently-open AFD discussion for that; there was one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE personnel but it closed more than four years ago, and if there had been a subsequent discussion, it would be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE personnel (2nd nomination), but that doesn't exist.

Since it has been to AFD before, and closed as "nomination withdrawn", you have two possible routes as described at WP:DELETE: speedy deletion (but you need to be certain that one or another of the criteria listed at WP:CSD will stick); or start a fresh AFD - see the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO for how to proceed, bearing in mind the extra procudures noted as "if this article has been nominated before". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "Further reading" clarification at Wikipedia talk:Further reading. The subject came up after a disagreement I had with another editor at Alt right. This editor has twice reversed my attempt to code ==Further reading== so it appears in the Contents listing. I don't want to get in an edit war with this editor. Can you fix this for me at Alt right? Chisme (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chisme (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he/she reversed the edit again. What to do? Chisme (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We ask them. Beyond My Ken, why are you insisting that "Further reading" not be a level 2 heading (quote: "It's ridiculous to have an entire hierarchical section for one lone book") when the "External links" section also contains a single entry, yet you seem perfectly happy for it to have a level 2 heading? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On looking at the RDT, the line connection areas to the north of Slateford seem "jagged". Is there anything that you can do to correct matters, please. Useddenim'Bold text' seems to be away from Wikipedia according to his notes.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially fixed it but the right hand line still needs more attention (search for 3+1). Note that I've naughtily put a dark corner on the light diagonal: please fix if you can find a syntax for doing so! Certes (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to have been broken in this edit. You'll need a {{Routemap}} expert for that, I'm not (and have stated as such on several occasions) - best bet is Jc86035 (talk · contribs) who converted it from {{BS-map}} in November 2017. If it were still {{BS-map}} I'd be able to sort it, no trouble. At first glance, it looks like some of the icons are narrower than square. The Slateford Junction row, for example, has a width of 1+1⁄2. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your repair work like these, after my moving the templates, just want you to know I'll remember to fix these at the same time. :) Thanx for you back-up, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does Wikia Staff contact a user when they (user) are blocked, do they leave a message on a message wall, please tell me.2601:540:8200:D52E:78B0:F4DB:51C5:6CAA (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Typhuss999[reply]

I have no idea. This is the English Wikipedia, which is nothing to do with Wikia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks anyway.--2601:540:8200:D52E:78B0:F4DB:51C5:6CAA (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Typhuss999[reply]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:Rail-interchange has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally Saturday 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again R. Alan Sabrosky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is now in the category. As it is fully protected I can't make any adjustments. When you have a moment any assistance you can provide will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 21:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit should fix it. When MilborneOne (talk · contribs) added the protection earlier today, they should either have updated the |expiry= parameter, or simply removed it - nowadays it's autodetected and does not need to be set explicitly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I had a suspicion that might be it when I looked at the log but I couldn't confirm that. Thanks also for mentioning that expiry time is now autodetected. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I question this edit to a talk page. You invoke the indentation section of "Manual of Style/Accessibility". I am not prepared to accept this guideline at all, because it does not prominently answer the question "if we don't have the technology, at this moment, to make a feature that is usable to users with no accessibility issues, should we disable the feature, or should we make it available to users with no accessibility issues, or make it available and work toward making it more accessible"?

This applies to your edit in that the only widely used method of editing talk pages is to use the colon to indent contributions. If a contribution consists of more than one paragraph, the only widely used way to create a blank line between the paragraphs, so that readers can see that the paragraph exists, is to write a paragraph preceded by n colons, a blank line, and then another paragraph preceded by n colons. What is your solution to this issue? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't paragraphs. It was colon-indented: and this is MediaWiki's way of creating an association list. In MediaWiki, any blank line in a list causes termination of the list and the commencement of another list, which has implications for screen reader software. Let's consider the second group of line removals, but trimmed down to the first 7/8 words of each line. Without the blank lines, this is

:OMG I just looked for where this has
::Thanks, {{para|order|out}} is exactly what I need.
::As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),
::I guess my question is, why is

and the generated HTML is

<dl>
<dd>OMG I just looked for where this has
<dl>
<dd>Thanks, <code class="nowrap">|order=out</code> is exactly what I need.</dd>
<dd>As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),</dd>
<dd>I guess my question is, why is</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

There are two <dl>...</dl> elements, and four <dd>...</dd> elements. However, with blank lines, as in

:OMG I just looked for where this has

::Thanks, {{para|order|out}} is exactly what I need.

::As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),

::I guess my question is, why is

the generated HTML is

<dl>
<dd>OMG I just looked for where this has</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>Thanks, <code class="nowrap">|order=out</code> is exactly what I need.</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>As suggested by the description above ("rather weird"),</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>I guess my question is, why is</dd>
</dl>
</dd>
</dl>

The first thing that you notice is that it is much longer. There are now seven <dl>...</dl> elements and seven <dd>...</dd> elements. Each one needs to be read out by screen reader software; and somebody like Graham87 (talk · contribs) is not going to be happy to hear "End of list. End of list." repeatedly when still only part-way through the discussion thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that talk pages misuse the colons for things that really aren't lists. But you have not answered my question: How do I prepare a talk page reply that contains more than one paragraph, in a way that will be familiar to other editors and that they will know how to deal with? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought this up at Help talk:Talk pages#"Indentation" section is inadequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned WP:INDENTGAP, and that is where you will find the answer to your question. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDENTGAP is part of the Manual of Style. The MOS does not apply to talk pages; the very first sentence of the page says "This is a guide to editing articles for accessibility." (I added the italics for emphasis). Talk pages should generally not be edited to bring them into compliance with the MOS. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to accessibility, it applies in all namespaces. It is not something that can be opted out of. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Accessibility" as a general concept may apply to all namespaces, but the MOS page MOS:ACCESS does not - it explicitly says that it is a page about editing articles. Your argument would be stronger if you had pointed at WP:TALK, which also has something about blank lines between comments. We don't want to start a trend of people point to MOS guidelines for talk pages.

But I think it would be more productive to discuss the question Jc3s5h asked -- how should someone format an indented response that has more than one paragraph, in a way to leave a space between the paragraphs? Based on looking at the results generated by these examples [1] it looks like one of the two options in LISTGAP does not work - in my browser an empty dd has height 0px. So to follow INDENTGAP a bare paragraph tag is needed instead of a blank line. But I think I have almost never seen someone use a paragraph tag in that way in practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a space between indented "paragraphs", and it's a very similar gap to that between unindented paragraphs and other block content, a little less than 1em. If someone wants to have a bigger space on a talk page between each of their "paragraphs" (and it's reasonable to ask "why"?), they can add a <p> tag, just as they can to increase the gap between real paragraphs. What they can't do in this case is use wikimarkup (a blank line) when they are (mis)using association lists to create indents, because of its effect on those using screen readers. That restriction is a consequence of the legacy misuse of definition lists to create indents, as was common twenty years ago before we realised what would happen when screen readers became commonly available. There is little value in rehashing a problem that has a perfectly good solution outlined at WP:INDENTGAP, and there's even less value in being deliberately awkward and creating real disruption to screen reader users just to make a point. Especially when that point is worthless anyway. --RexxS (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The example at [2] show a significant difference in vertical space - at least to me - between various options. The first and fourth are not the same as the second and third. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Significant in what way? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CBM: Yes, they are different. The first and fourth have an extra 0.7em of bottom+top margin compared to the second and third.

But the second and third have spacing very similar to these two normal paragraphs. So I have two questions: (1) Why would anybody need even more space than that between two normal, unindented paragraphs? (2) Even if there were a good reason to demand extra space, why would anybody choose to deliberately disrupt a thread for all screen readers by using your option 1, when they are aware that exactly the same visual effect can be created without disruption by using your option 4? --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you actually seen someone use option 4? As for whether someone wants extra space, that is up to them, in my opinion. I think it is pretty common - I was able to find several examples just scrolling through the text of WP:VPR just now. I think that "deliberately disrupt" seem like strong language to refer to an extremely common editing practice. I would say that any disruption for screen readers is coming from the way Mediawiki generates the HTML, rather than from the users. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen option 4 a few times. How many times have you seen a genuine need for extra spacing between paragraphs? If your opinion is that someone can do what they feel like on a collaborative project like Wikipedia, then your opinion sucks, in my opinion. It may be common, but your argument then becomes "a million lemmings can't be wrong". If someone knows that they are disrupting the thread for a screen reader, then that is deliberate by definition. Strong language is justified to describe such behaviour, and you wouldn't be taking that position if you were unfortunate enough to have to use a screen reader, would you? The way that wiki-markup translates into html is perfectly predictable: you know that using spaces between indented pseudo-paragraphs causes problems for screen readers, yet you choose to do so (despite being aware of a non-disruptive alternative) and then blame the software which is simply working as intended. You should be ashamed of your attitude to the visually impaired. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS asked "Why would anybody need even more space than that between two normal, unindented paragraphs?" In the skin I use, the vertical space between lines within a regular paragraph is the same as lines with a paragraph that has been indented with colon(s), and the same as the vertical space between two indented paragraphs with the same level of indentation. The space between unindented paragraphs is greater than between lines within a paragraph, by about 3/4 the height of an n. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc3s5h: What is the skin you're using? and we'll get it fixed. In the Vector and Monobook skins, the vertical space between lines within a regular paragraph depends only on the line-height of 1.6em, while the the vertical space between two indented [pseudo-]paragraphs with the same level of indentation is determined by the line-height of 1.6em plus the extra space provided by the margin-bottom of 0.4em and the margin-top of 0.4em of the <dd>...</dd> tags. That's almost the same as that between two normal, unindented paragraphs, which is the line-height of 1.6em plus the extra space provided by the margin-bottom of 0.5em and the margin-top of 0.5em of the <p>...</p> tags (or 0.5em + 0.4em in Monobook). For normal text, as we use in articles, nobody seems to need more than 1em/0.9em of top+bottom margin between paragraphs, so why would anybody need more top+bottom margin than that on a talk page? --RexxS (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When I suggested equalising the margins between paragraphs and pseudo-paragraphs, I only specified the CSS as applying to talk pages, so CBM's sandbox is not illustrative of what we see on talk pages. See User talk:CBM/sandbox for the real picture. --RexxS (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tested the spacing in my sandbox. I suggest that this sort of appearance difference, combined with the execrable documentation for indentation, lists, and talk pages, makes this whole area unintelligible. I mean really, I can't use my sandbox to figure out the best way to edit a talk page!? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you use your sandbox talk page to figure out the best way to edit a talk page? Why would anybody assume that a one class of page will behave exactly the same as a different class of page? --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where in Help:Talk pages am I warned that I can only practice editing a talk page on another talk page? Why does Wikipedia:Indentation fail to explain the markup only works on talk pages, not other pages? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where in Help:Talk pages that information might exist. I also have idea why you need to have it written down for you. You're old enough to understand these things for yourself. The reason why Wikipedia:Indentation fails to explain why the markup sometimes behaves differently on talk pages is because this is a volunteer project and no volunteer is under any obligation to make that particular explanation on that specific page. Why don't you fix it yourself? It is a wiki, after all. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this after seeing the {{FYI}} at WT:ACCESS § Indentgap (permanent link). I am not entirely sure what the issue is here, Jc3s5h, but it appears to be one of paragraphing text that has already been indented with colons. If that is the case, then a quick and somewhat accessible workaround is to simply use {{pb}}, which I and others have used in the past for exactly this purpose. An example of its use is in the following break.

It's not technically semantic, since it is not a <p> (though that can also be used in these circumstances), but it does render well enough both visually and for screen readers—at least, according to this discussion (in which Redrose64 was a participant). Perhaps that will resolve your concerns? If not, or if I am misunderstanding the issue here, then I am sorry. I just noticed that nobody had mentioned {{pb}} here yet, so I might as well bring it up. ({{pb}} was actually mentioned at the WT:ACCESS notification thread, which I did not see until now. My apologies.) —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC); revised 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, {{pb}} could be useful. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? One edit is edit warring, is it? Fish+Karate 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as an experienced editor you ought to know by now that templating experienced editors just tends to rile people up and is really unhelpful. See WP:DTTR. Fish+Karate 15:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: You knew full well that the content concerned was disputed, and under discussion at the article's talk page. You also made similar edits to at least two other articles. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but not addressing my point at all. Fish+Karate 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR has a per-user count; WP:EW (which is what I templated you for) does not. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t meet those requirements either (clue is in the first line of WP:EW).) But still not addressing my point: a template was unnecessary, and although I don’t get flustered by that sort of thing, templating experienced editors almost always causes exacerbations. Fish+Karate 17:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to figure out what Ahecht was trying to do with this template. Was it to prevent the template from accidentally categorizing the parent article if {{Railway-routemap‎}} is not placed between <noinclude> </noinclude> tags? And if so, why was the documentation changed to read “It will also place the template in the appropriate category … if placed in the article namespace.”? Useddenim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: The categorisation was because of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Userpage artificially transcluded into inappropriate category. The documentation I don't know about. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim and Redrose64: Sorry, that was my mistake. I got distracted by something mid-edit, and forgot that I should've been limiting to {{ns10}}, not {{ns0}}. I've updated the documentation accordingly. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Useddenim (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, the reason its in that other section is because it is not a properly-formed RFC. It has neither clear/correct A-B choices nor neutral wording (that's the point of requesting early closure), rather it not be buried in with the moldy other RFCs. It needs more immediate action to send us back to the drawing board and format it properly. -- Netoholic @ 09:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Redrose. I reverted your change to the lead of Patchway railway station. While I accept that 6mi is not accurate to 2dp, the lead is in integer miles, per several GA reviews on station articles. The lead is for general info, it goes more detailed in the body: chainages are referenced and explained when they appear as a unit of measurement in the description section. I've also had several reviewers point out that lead sections should not include references. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i recently opened an RFC and now the other user has edited my post, the reference links i posted dont work anymore. Can you please intervene and fix this please? Is he allowed to edit my posts? Samsparky (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsparky: Which page is this? Or, better still, please provide a diff link for the changes concerned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff. [3] Samsparky (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsparky: I think that McKhan (talk · contribs) was trying to eliminate the list of refs at the bottom of the page, and have the refs appear as part of your post instead. There are two ways of doing this - one is to forget about <ref>...</ref> tags and put the {{cite journal}} etc. templates into a bulleted list:

• Avon, Dominique (2008). "The Ahbash. A contested Lebanese Sunni movement in a globalized world". University of Montpellier Religion Studies. 2. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
• "Paths of the sublime". Al Ahram. Retrieved 30 October 2017.
• Kabha, Mustafa. Al-Ahbash and Wahhabiyya: Interpretations of Islam (PDF). Cambridge University Press. p. 523.

and the other is to do this. Which one you choose is largely a matter of personal choice. I'm curious as to why you need to reference the word "Yes". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is Clapham Junction a legitimate "urban locality" or district of the London Borough of Wandsworth? An IP with a dubious edit history thinks so, but I thought I'd run this by someone more familiar with London. Though my dad graduated from Battersea Polytechnic, I've only visited as a young adult. wbm1058 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Did he ever think it would happen with him and the girl from Clapham...?  ;)  :) but seriously, no; I would proffer that it's a district of Wandsworth, not an economically, culturally, politically or administratively distinct area in its own right. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clapham Junction is the name of a pair of railway features: a physical junction between railway lines (originally, where the line to Richmond (later extended to Staines and Windsor) deviated from the main London-Southampton line), and a station that was built at that junction. Neither of them are actually in Clapham, which lies somewhat to the south-east; the locality of the junction is more usually described in railway texts as Battersea. The name may be explained as being "the junction for Clapham", that is, the place where you would change trains if you wanted to reach Clapham. Other such examples include Chard Junction, Seaton Junction, Sidmouth Junction, Stourbridge Junction, Tiverton Junction, Yeovil Junction. Before the station named Clapham Junction opened, the area was served by a station named simply Clapham, which was further towards Wimbledon at approximately the point where the line is crossed by a bridge linking Strath Terrace with Bolingbroke Grove/Boutflower Road. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the background, though I'm primarily concerned with fixing the hatnotes. I cleaned up the navigation, given the newly started article on the topic. Noting that there was an {{R with possibilities}} tag on the former redirect. Feel free to revert me if there's a consensus not to have this separate article. wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get the page numbers from No One Must Know shortly. It's just I've lent the book to someone.Bmcln1 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrator is irrelevant - unless the information appears only in illustrations, and not in the text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went for a little walk this afternoon: Commons:Category:Plaques on bridges in the United Kingdom and picked up a few more examples on VIR, the North Kent Line (HDR) and the Medway Valley line (PWS2). Hows that for a bit of energetic WP:OR? ClemRutter (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ClemRutter: I took the photo (right) one day recently when out for an angry walk after reading some utter crap that had been posted at Talk:East Croydon station (it has now spilled through to WT:UKRAIL, WT:MOSNUM and Talk:Chain (unit) with a further note at WP:AN/RFC). It's far easier to find railway bridges with the distance shown in miles and chains than not: every day on my way to and from work, I cross six railway bridges - and I've seen these indications on five of them, no matter how old or new the bridge is (the only exception is the former siding into Didcot power station, which may lack a plate because (a) it's a private line or (b) the track is lifted). But I simply can't convince those people that the measurement unit is still in use - there are none so blind as those that will not see. I've asked them to give examples of sources which give distances in decimal miles, miles and yards, or kilometres - but they're totally silent: my suspicion is that such sources simply do not exist. But still they deny me the right to cite reliable sources. I'd like to see them take me to WP:ANI or even to WP:ARBCOM for the crime of abiding by WP:V. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of the Beaumont children (as of this writing) lists the full address of the home the Beaumonts lived in. This house still exists today' and remains a private residence. Should Wikipedia be encouraging pranksters and "ghoul tourism"? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Benjamin Austin: Why are you asking me? I have never edited that article. In any case, you have already posted similar questions at Talk:Disappearance of the Beaumont children#"Their house was at 109 Harding Street" and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography#policy guideline requested/needed - please see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my RfC on the flag of NATO is not appearing in the RfC page. Thank you. 475847394d347339 (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@475847394d347339: Yes it is, see this edit. But you didn't need to start another, just fix the first one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for catching my error regarding the Devon Belle. I used a source which I shouldn't have. After using a more reliable source it became apparent what the original passage was conveying. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedenMike (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of edits by IPs using the word "Shadow" in the edit summary editing UK rail related articles. It seems to me that they may be editing in contravention of WP:INVOLVED WP:COI. Any thoughts? Mjroots (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: This is an anon who started using that name when I reverted some of their edits, they want to include recent coverage of what preserved locos have been doing. They have no respect for WP:V, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:UNDUE etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, looks like some targeted semi-protection of pages may be required. I've corrected my original post, but pretty sure you knew what I meant. Mjroots (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gatwick Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have reverted my recent edit (under the ip 2a00:23c4:d885:7f00:59e2:b6c5:afb9:e538) of the Cambrian Line wiki page on the grounds that there is no such thing as the grouping act of 1921. I did in fact provide a wiki link to the Railways Act 1921 page with a pipe, which if you had followed you would have read, The Railways Act 1921 (c. 55),[1] also known as the 'Grouping Act', was an Act of Parliament enacted by the British government and intended to stem the losses being made by many of the country's 120 railway companies..." Looking at your edits you obviously have some knowledge of railways. I am extremely surprised that you have never heard of the Grouping Act, the common name of the Railways Act 1921, which formed The Big Four, the LMS, LNER, GWR and SR. If you enter 'Grouping Act' as a search term you will find it redirects to the Railways Act 1921 page. Please restore my edit. Thanks. 2A00:23C4:D885:7F00:9516:B0F0:4B85:498 (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping Act of 1921

FYI, Re you edit on Cambrian Railways, the Railways Act of 1921 is commonly referred to as the Grouping Act [4] [5] [6] etc. Best, Railfan23 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems that I am having right now is people who are dumbing down Wikipedia by insisting on inaccurate terminology on the grounds that "ordinary people" (whoever they are) won't understand the accurate term. We should strive for accuracy, and if you think that people might not understand something, then give them a wikilink. But please don't link from the inaccurate form. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very common alternative name for the Act, and it's in the nature of Acts that their canon names are typically bland, obscure or downright misleading - hence the tendency to give them alternative names. I don't see this as anywhere near "dumbing down", bad though that would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy Dingley and the original IP user. "Grouping Act" makes much more sense in the article. It was the common name for the act, and is widely used in the literature. This is not a case of "dumbing down". As you can see from This Google Books Search it is a very common term, and was used from 1921 onwards to refer to the act. Railfan23 (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's my first day at AfC and I noticed the inline content was BLP-only after I had tagged a couple articles. Sorry to make you do work! Will improve in the future. Cheers SportingFlyer talk 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for paying attention, both to the RfC being unsigned and to this list issue. I did not notice the change from numbered list had been made, but had I, I would've assumed it reflected prior consensus. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The signature is optional, but the timestamp is mandatory: this marks the end of the opening statement, and is also used to calculate the thirty-day expiry. The list problem is summarised at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Line breaks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption related to systems of measurement in the United Kingdom. Before continuing to make edits that involve units or systems of measurement in United Kingdom-related contexts, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Kahastok talk 17:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]