User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 17

Jacobo Árbenz

Hello, Redrose64 -- I just finished copy-editing Jacobo Árbenz. I went to the talk page Talk:Jacobo Árbenz and added the GOCE template. The banner shell was already there. However, I couldn't figure out how to hide the WikiProject banners, as I usually do when the list of projects starts to get long.  – Corinne (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: After your edit, there are now five banners. At one time, the advice in the documentation for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was that "WikiProjectBannerShell is normally used when more than two and fewer than six banners are present on the talk page, and WikiProjectBanners when six or more are present"; the main difference between {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} was that the former collapsed the banners but did not hide them (it left their names and ratings visible) whereas the latter hid the banners completely. This advice seems to have been removed from the documentation, probably when the functions of the two templates were combined, producing {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Although they were merged some months ago (see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 27#Template:WikiProjectBanners), the combined template doesn't detect the quantity of banners automatically, but provides the |collapsed= parameter to control visibility, so you need to use |collapsed=yes to force all to be hidden. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh...thank you. I guess that goes right after "shell" in {{WikiProject banner shell}}, right? I notice, at least in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, that a space is normally left after "Shell" and before the pipe. Should that space be added before the pipe after the last word (Shell, shell, Banners) in each one of those templates?  – Corinne (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It's just a normal named parameter; for the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template it would typically be placed after the template name but before the parameter |1= like the |blp=yes parameter. Spaces around the pipe and the equals sign are ignored, therefore optional, and so all of the following are equally valid:

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell |collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell| collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed =yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed= yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes |1=

or any combination of those - there are 32 possibilities, I didn't list them all. It can go also in either of two places: in the first line as just described, or the last line can be altered from

}}

to

 | collapsed = yes }}

all these spaces are again optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you for explaining.  – Corinne (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

engrailed (gene)

Redrose64, shouldn't the formatting of the title of an article that follows "Talk:" at the top of an article's talk page match the formatting of the title at the top of the article itself? I've come across an instance where they do not match, and I've tried to explain it to another editor, but perhaps I failed to make myself clear. Or perhaps I'm wrong about my assumption. See User talk:Apokryltaros#engrailed (gene). (Note something I have just learned. This is one of many words that, when in lower case and italicized, it is a gene and when in Roman font and capitalized it is a protein. See User talk:Corinne#Evolutionary developmental biology, Item 6.) You can reply here or there.  – Corinne (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Replied there. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature template

Hi Redrose64, I recently had a conversation with a user who is inadvertently using a signature template (discussion here). He does not seem to understand Transclusions of templates and parser functions in signatures (like those which appear as {{User:Name/sig}}, for example) are forbidden for the following reasons. Though the other strange part of his reply is that he seems to suggest that his signature has not changed in years, and there was a point when his signature did not transclude {{trim}}, see Special:Diff/693971980. Any advice? I suppose I could bring this to WP:VPT in case someone know how the template just happens to appear in the signature without it being in the field as the user essentially claims. Thanks, — Andy W. (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC) amended 02:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... {{font color}} is being substituted into his signature, but not recursively substituted all the way, and the timing is just right. I believe I fixed the template issue. Apologies if this was noise — Andy W. (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Railway station routebox - where should it be placed?

I have noticed that many railway station articles now have their routebox placed at the foot of the page, beneath the "External links" heading and the associated links. For example Cold Norton railway station. To me this does not look right, but I recall (and cannot now find) editors referring to guidelines that navboxes should be at the foot of an article. Where are those guidelines, and is the Cold Norton example the correct and intended implementation? Efficacy (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Routeboxes are not navboxes, they are more akin to succession boxes. As such, they may be placed at the bottom of the article, or they may be placed at the bottom of a related section, such as one describing the services from that station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#Minor edits

Thank you, I suspected what you described might be the case. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Alive and kicking

It's been a long journey and nearly 3 years since seeing you at the Four Candles... Went down for a protracted period with cancer of the oesophagus but things a much better now and looking to get back to article creation so would like to meet up again sometime soon. Unfortunately we move in a couple of weeks from one side of Wokingham to the other so going through a busy period. Also, if I have failed to pick up on the Talkbox facility you can email me at (Redacted). I have a lot of updating on Wiki to do and some new articles but lack of recent activity is a handicap so a refresher would be of great help. Look forward to hearing from you and all the others in the Oxford area. Kind Regards.... G.GeoffH 112SU (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffH 112SU: sorry to hear that. Oxford meetups continue to be third Sunday of the month, except December as it's too close to Christmas. Next is 20 November 2016 --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

British and American English

Hello Redrose64. I note that you have performed a total 'undo' on my recent edits, citing "rv changes from British to American spelling", which rather surprised me since I am of English descent and born and raised in Kent, where I remember seeing Merchant Navy locomotives running and where I attended a grammar school in the 1950s. I presume that you have objected to my spellings of 'ageing', 'riveted' and 'riveting', but the Complete Oxford English Dictionary shows all of these as the generally preferred spellings in British English. Furthermore, your 'undo' has also undone edits which were minor corrections of grammar or punctuation, the correctness of which can be verified from any authoritative British English source. Blurryman (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hm, my OED

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860259-6. LCCN 99020834. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

lists both "aging" and "ageing" (at my school the former was preferred); but it does indeed give "riveted"/"riveting" without variants. These two seem unusual when other participles (e.g. travelled/travelling) double the last consonant.

Anyway, I've undone. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving Abellio Greater Anglia to Greater Anglia (train operating company)

Hi Redrose64 (and anyone else who wants to have input! In particular, pinging Mjroots as another admin i've had help with in the past on UK railway articles) - I've closed the RM discussion at Talk:Abellio Greater Anglia and moved the article to Greater Anglia (train operating company) as per consensus. It would just be good to have another couple of sets of eyes who are active in the area of UK transport to make sure I haven't missed any references/non free image use rationales (incidentally - is there a way of checking these without clicking every image on the page?) when carrying out the move, as I've not done one on this scale for a while. Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 10:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Mike1901: You don't need to click all the images. Use "What links here" on the old name, and restrict it to File: namespace, as in Abellio Greater Anglia and Greater Anglia. Compare Greater Anglia (train operating company). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

model railways sources

hello, i know we have been clashing but i wish to talk to you about sources relating to products, if a product is in the development page and has a news article about the product on bachmann or a retailer website such as hattons would you accept it and let it be up until it can be replaced as i feel people should be informed about the product and a primary source is quite reliable on what products they are going to make, sorry Teabagishere (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Teabagishere: Neither of them is independent. As shown at WP:3PARTY,

Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. The opposite of a third-party source is a first-party or non-independent source. A first-party, non-independent source about the president of an environmental lobby group would be a report published by that lobby group's communications branch. A third-party source is not affiliated with the event, not paid by the people who are involved, and not otherwise likely to have a conflict of interest related to the material.

So Bachmann's own website is a first-party source (inadmissible); that of Hatton's (who will retail the product) is second-party (barely admissible). What we need are writeups from such respected magazines as Railway Modeller, Model Railway Journal or Model Rail. These are third-party sources.

But if you "feel people should be informed about the product", you should be very careful that you are not in breach of WP:NOTADVERTISING or, worse, WP:SPAM. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

if i use a temporary source such as the bachmann websites for the announcments of products with a note they will be changed when sources permit will you leave them up, even though bachmann is a primary source they do not sell the products on there site and the news articles have no links to other sitesTeabagishere (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

i am asking this in relation to the LNWR coal tank locomotive which only has news announcments on bachmannTeabagishere (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

What part of WP:3PARTY allows primary sources to be used as "a temporary source"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

An article without third-party sources should not always be deleted. The article may merely be in an imperfect state, and someone may only need to find the appropriate sources to verify the subject's importance, this part essential allows it to be used as a temporary source until a third party of more appropriate source is found Teabagishere (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Problamistic User Uanfala

It had been extended edit war by Uanfala [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] .

• Despite nearly 10 Wikipedians not agreeing with his views on talk pages of effected Talk pages.
• He cherry picks and tries to define dialects in to Language.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• Wikipedians can not cherry pick.
• Wikipedians can not impose a point a view.
• Wikipedians move with consensus.
• Wikipedia is an informational project. It can not misguide about language hierarchy.
• Only standardisation of few dialects can not make them language. However few follow this rule for defining Hindko Saraiki Potwari as language. He cherry pick those.
• Even those "few" along with "opposite others" have details whether "Explicit" or "Implicit" which demonstrate a common hierarchy Language Family: Indo European, Branch: Indo Iranian, Sub branch: Indo Aryan, Macro Language: Punjabi, Language: Western Punjabi, Dialects: Potwari Hindko Saraiki and many others, Sub dialects: North Hindko South Hindko.
• All such linguistic sources are mentioned / added by many wikipedians.
• If we accept Uanfala version of "cherry pick" and "Defining" then we will end up with a dilemma mentioned by User Flipro on this move request for 30 odd Punjabi dialects [6].

Time to report User Uanfala for topic ban for Cherry picking, Forum shoping, Edit warring, ignoring talk page consensus on western punjabi diffrent dialect talk pages. Please you being a registered senior editor start the proceeding for Topic Ban and violation of 3Rs. 39.60.232.41 (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)₯€₠€₯

The above message was also posted on the talk pages of several other users, and it has already received responses on Andy Wang's and on Paine Ellsworth's. – Uanfala (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw it at User talk:Paine Ellsworth before I saw it here. I shall ignore it, as it wasn't posted to a proper noticeboard but instead went against WP:CANVAS. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re

Clearly unintentional -- people do make mistakes, surprisingly. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 15:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Railway accident

At 19:01, 26 September 2016‎, You deleted someone's entry about a railway accident. It only took me a few seconds to find a reference for it :-- http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=127 Can you please try to correct and improve other folks' contributions, instead of destroying them ?

Also, I put an entry in the Talk page about an accident in 1838 :-- Talk:List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom Perhaps you would like to make a précis and table entry for that ? ; but if you can't improve it, leave it as it is. 78.147.36.12 (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is far too much made-up crud and outright hoaxing being added to Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide a reference, and that must be placed in the article. Talk page discussions count for nothing towards the satisfaction of WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

History of rail transport in Great Britain‎

Hi,

Just seen your edit. Appreciate the sentiment but surely the point is that Intercity was purely a passenger service. LMS and the others were, in their heyday, primarily freight railways with passenger services as an additional, more high profile, part of the operation. You'd have to go back to the early days of the Met to find a purely passenger railway that made a profit.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

What I didn't say - because there wasn't room in the WP:ES - is that the source used isn't what we would understand by an independent source. Although not a direct publication of one of the railway companies (it's a staff magazine), it's in their own interest to big-up the modern railway system (whether they admit it or not, all management watches what the workforce are saying about the company, and promotes or holds back accordingly), so the content is not going to be something that would satisfy WP:NPOV either. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Fairy snuff Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just as a drive by TPW point of order, the Met was never "a purely passenger railway" until the late 1960s; it carried freight services along its length right from the time it opened (initially mainly meat from West Country farms to Smithfield, and later milk from Buckinghamshire to London, as well as the usual coal, bricks, industrial rubble, parcels etc) although because their rolling stock was fairly ropey, the freight services on the Widened Lines were usually hauled by GWR and GNR locos. On the outer reaches, the Met was very much a freight company with passenger services tacked on as an afterthought, particularly on the Verney Junction and Brill branches, and on the Uxbridge route prior to their decision to build intermediate stations between Uxbridge and Ruislip. ‑ Iridescent 16:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Redrose64.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit counter userbox

Hi there, just a quick question. I saw your userbox that says how many edits you've done in total and on each language Wikipedia, and I assume those are probably from an admin tool/counter, but there's an edit counter for general users from X! as well and I have my own set up here. Would you happen to know how I can add this as a userbox? Google has been of no help so far :( Yilangren (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There are two problems with using those edit counters: one, they emit a report, you can't tell them to return a single figure; two, they are run on the fly, not stored statically. My edit count userboxes all read a figure that is read from User:Redrose64/constants - mostly these needs to be updated manually (like this), and so they get very out of date; but the one for English Wikipedia, presently displaying as "157,000+", is generated daily by Cyberbot I (talk · contribs). This bot stores some figures in Template:Adminstats/Redrose64, careful use of which allows a single figure to be returned: {{adminstats|Redrose64|style=raw ed+del}} → 274407. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help, much appreciated! Yilangren (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway RDT

Can you correct the computer coding to ensure that Groesffordd Halt at the top of this template is in exactly the same geographical position as on the template for the Mid-Wales Railway 109.152.147.177 (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to link to the page where the problem lies, otherwise you leave me guessing. Is this in relation to Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway, which at present, is broken - and coincidentally, the breakage concerns a row showing "Groesffordd Halt". This was added by Xenophon Philosopher (talk · contribs); which leads me to my next q: are you Xenophon Philosopher? If so, please log in. If not, your post here is your only edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That user appears to be one of my sons who saw the problem that I faced and he was trying to help, as he had asked me who was a good person to contact and I immediately thought of you. I saw the notification flagged up on my account. However, my attempt to show Groesffordd Halt, on the correct side of the Talyllyn tunnel appears to have achieved naught, as the template still makes no mention of it. Is there any reason why Groesffordd Halt can be shown at the end of the template on the Mid-Wales Railway and also at the start of the template for the Brecon and Merthyr Railway, for indeed, Brecon Free Street is shown on both templates. I will be interested to hear your views on that matter. Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher:  Done by Useddenim (talk · contribs), in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

EWRL electrification

If you get a moment, would you check my update to East West Rail Link under 'announcements'. In inferring a consequence to the deferral of Didcot - Oxford electrification on EWRL, have I offended wp:crystal more than trivially? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It was all over BBC TV News Oxford last night. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Absolutelypuremilk reverted my inference as being OR, which I suppose is fair. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: Keep an eye on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement next week. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_person/doc

Just what my edit summary states, your summary doesn't explain why you don't like it. - Mlpearc (open channel) 23:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit summary is "Define link trgts", which you use often - but means nothing. I assume that "trgts" is short for "targets" - but why do they need "defining" when they are already defined? From what I can tell by examining the actual edits (and not your summaries), you are bypassing redirects: this is is not only unnecessary, it goes against WP:NOTBROKEN. Regarding my question "what *is* that mess for?", I fail to see how altering a link that uses meaningful commas to one that uses cryptic encodings like ".2C" is in any way useful or constructive. The link "Do not use a flag template" works - why is it necessary to alter it? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If the links are already piped, how is changing the "trgt" to the actual link/page against WP:NOTBROKEN ? - Mlpearc (open channel) 01:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes the link through a redir is intentional, there are six reasons listed at WP:NOTBROKEN. In particular, you frequently go against the fourth one ("Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors ..."). --Redrose64 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That's very thin rational, I do not mess with anchors, seems you're reaching for straws to validate your personal opinion revert. My edits do not violate WP:NOTBROKEN, you also seem to think that if a redirect is available it must be used. Unless you have something subtantial and not personal opinion such as unnecessary or not useful or not constructive I'll be on my way and resume my 8 year editing pattern and revert you revert on Template:Infobox person/doc. Happy editing, - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Redrose64. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Margam railway station

Moved to Template talk:South Wales Railway RDT

 – Useddenim (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

List markup

Hi Redrose.

Regarding https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ADeletion_process&type=revision&diff=750788138&oldid=750787623

"fix horrendous list markup - accessibility"

Can you explain yourself please? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's something that comes up again and again at WT:ACCESSIBILITY. Basically, it's all about not mis-nesting lists and so causing problems for screen reader software. When you have markup like this:

*First opinion
*:Reply to first opinion
*::Reply to reply
*:Second reply to first opinion
*Second opinion

Here's the emitted HTML for that:

<ul>
  <li>First opinion
    <dl>
      <dd>Reply to first opinion
        <dl>
          <dd>Reply to reply</dd>
        </dl>
      </dd>
      <dd>Second reply to first opinion</dd>
    </dl>
  </li>
  <li>Second opinion</li>
</ul>

there is a single bulleted list, with two items. Inside the first item, there is colon-indenting, which makes an association list within the bulleted list. So there are two kinds of list, one nested inside the other. Now let's move the asterisks from beginning (correct) to end (incorrect)

*First opinion
:*Reply to first opinion
::*Reply to reply
:*Second reply to first opinion
*Second opinion

Here's the emitted HTML for that:

<ul>
  <li>First opinion</li>
</ul>
<dl>
  <dd>
    <ul>
      <li>Reply to first opinion</li>
    </ul>
    <dl>
      <dd>
        <ul>
          <li>Reply to reply</li>
        </ul>
      </dd>
    </dl>
    <ul>
      <li>Second reply to first opinion</li>
    </ul>
  </dd>
</dl>
<ul>
  <li>Second opinion</li>
</ul>

Immediately it's apparent that it's a lot longer, and more complex. At the outermost level we now have three lists instead of one - there are two bulleted lists (each with one item) and between them there is an association list with two items. The first item contains two lists - a single-item bulleted list, and another association list with one item - which itself contains a single-item bulleted list. The second item contains a single-item bulleted list. There is no longer any relation between an opinion and its replies, nor between one opinion and the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I maybe almost, but don't, get it. Compare with this "fix" by User:Godsy. I don't see the accessibility impact, knowing little of screen readers, and have generally copied the indenting style of editors commenting before me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reply appeared as "

• • • this"

While my change made it appear correctly as "

• this"

If the bullet "chain" is broken, it appears incorrectly, e.g. *comment 1, **comment 2, ::*comment3, ****comment4 does not appear as if comment three was formatted as ***comment3; in other words if someone uses colons in a subsequent tier of conversation, you can't follow it on the next tier with all bullets or it displays incorrectly.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe and Godsy: The basic principle is that you copy the list markup of the line above, and add one character (which might be any of : * # depending upon the desired effect) on the right-hand end of the markup that you copied. Godsy's fix is therefore incorrect, because it produces exactly the same problems that I described at 21:52, 21 November 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Reversal of an edit

You reversed a recent edit on Pontefract Baghill railway station without making any further changes. I'm sure you meant well in applying WP:IG (which makes sense after all), but I think you have been a little hasty. There aren't that many pictures, and introducing the gallery section (which was not meant to stay for long) had at least brought some semblance of order to the article layout. It's a fairly short article, and that calls for grouping the photos somehow. If you meant to say that there could have been fewer or better pictures, I fully agree, but I did not select them, and did not want to decide right away which ones to change. Give it some time. If you (or anybody else) have any better pictures, feel free to share them. I'll keep looking, too. --Schlosser67 (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, a gallery is unnecessary, per WP:IG - particularly when all the images are in c:Category:Pontefract Baghill railway station and a {{commons category-inline|Pontefract Baghill railway station}} is present. It's almost always best to put the images in relevant sections, otherwise the gallery simply becomes a dumping ground for any images that a passing photographer might have uploaded and to which they wish to give prominence without regard to their encyclopedic value.

• 
  A 1912 Railway Clearing House Junction Diagram showing (lower right) railways in the vicinity of Pontefract Baghill (shown here as S & K Jnt)

For example, an image like File:Cutsyke, Crofton, Normanton, Altofts, Methley, Lofthouse, Oakenshaw & Wakefield RJD 52.jpg shows the context of the station in relation to the lines and other stations of the area, and so is best placed in a section which describes the setting - and Pontefract Baghill railway station#History has phrases which simply cry out for a map - like "was also once linked to the Wakefield, Pontefract & Goole main line by means of a short chord to Pontefract Monkhill near the intersection of the two lines" - hence the phrase "as shown on the accompanying RCH map", and the actual presence of said RCH map. Putting it in a gallery makes it so tiny as to be worthless as an image, besides divorcing it from the text which it accompanies. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about gallery images being too tiny to be useful, and my eyesight is not exactly improving, either. You say yourself "almost always"; this might have been a case of a short article with few sections where for layout reasons a gallery actually "marries" the images to the text. But - as you have seen - I have changed the article further so that at present no gallery may be necessary anyway. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

"Putting it in a gallery makes it so tiny as to be worthless as an image" is not about all gallery images being too tiny to be useful, but that particular one. I've added the image concerned to this thread, as a one-image gallery, to demonstrate just how tiny and useless it becomes. It's 120px wide, slightly more than half the default size for thumb images (220px). At that scale, you can hardly make out the lines, and none of the text - it might as well be a small child's scribble. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a good example (well, maybe to others who by chance read this), as I wouldn't put that one in a gallery anyway. I only put the photos in (temporarily). Let's give it a rest for now and decide on a case-by-case basis if the problem comes up ever again. --Schlosser67 (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Alo

lol Lets all band together and erase anything against the lion over the tiger, we Wikipedia dont allow that and will do anything we like because the truth should never be known to the public.(even though we dont own wikipedia)...huuuuuuuur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaci (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

and blocked sixteen minutes later. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Grid for Learning - education initiatives

My interest in Coldharbour Mill Working Wool Museum is more than cursory. I have been working up a proposal to bring to the attention of Teachers/Students/Parents that an article may be relevant/essential to the course/syllabus/NC topic that they are focusing on. It is documented in User:ClemRutter/proposal and I may need a little technical help on the Template design (for the mock up I hope to use tables). One possibility is to approach it as a project and for the assessment, have a container template which will display a list of child templates each of which will have the usual class=|importance= stuff along with a lot more. The container template would also need to nest within the WikiProjectBannerShell:. Have you any thoughts on who has the time and the ability to help? For practical purposes I am looking at trialing it with National curriculum and a couple of GCSE courses. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

When people screw up their WikiProject templates, it's usually myself or MSGJ (talk · contribs) who fixes them. I've created the doc page for several dozen, normally based upon what the template actually does (and not on what the WikiProject would like it to do). --Redrose64 (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Riley and Son deletion discussion

Hi, given your interest in railway matters, I would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Riley and Son. It's not my area, really, and I got involved by accident. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Is a map reading "original research"?

Surely taking the measurement of distance on a map as being OR is taking it a bit far isn't it? How else are we to measure the geographic scales of anything unless we have some specific source giving the exact distance. You could argue that as a map has a scale that it already provides the necessary information as a source could you not? G-13114 (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "ref", in full, is <ref>Google Maps distance measurement</ref> which is rather vague: the lack of a specific source means that WP:V is not satisfied. You are making an analysis of (presumably) published material that serves to reach a conclusion not stated by the source. This is from WP:NOR, which goes on to state "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Even the words "distance measurement" are a red flag for original research. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can perform a distance measurement on GM, so I don't see why that isn't verifiable. Also, that may apply to written sources, but does it apply to maps? A map can't state a conclusion, but you could argue that the information is already implicit within the map. G-13114 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I'm not sure it's ever specifically come up at WP:RSN, but as Google Maps is user-editable and notoriously full of pranks, hoaxes and errors, I'd be extremely reluctant to ever consider it a reliable source for anything but the most basic of information. ‑ Iridescent 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	thank you for your contribution on adventist today and spectrum magazine and thank you for letting me know about my mistakes Jonnymoon96 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)