User talk:Redrose64

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

Template talk:Rail-interchange

Hi, thank you for your contributions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Galtee More

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1150s BC births

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

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

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

Seasons Greetings!

File:Statues of Three Wise Men in the Philippines 06.jpg

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

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

Removed tag

Dear RedRose64,

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season's Greetings

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

Template : Newcastle-Gateshead RDT

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

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

Redlinked categories

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

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

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

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

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

Seasons Greetings

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

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

,

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

December music

story · music · places

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

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

Naleork

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

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Redrose64 conduct at VPT. Thank you. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you doing okay? In this diff it appears you were baited (and you bit down). And kept escalating it. With a longtime wikipedian. Not your best moment, but nothing actionable. I don't know all the backstory, but it looks like for just a second, you got defensive. Don't feel bad, and don't feel alone. Lately I have felt the pace upped somewhat, in my case by ai stuff. By your self-post it appeared you were looking for feedback. I think it was trolling, but you didn't have to own it. They hadn't provided diffs or mentioned anyone, so their complaint was not an issue at all. So I'm asking in a friendly way: how ya doin? BusterD (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. It's frustration. Advice was requested, which I gave; and was shot down for doing so. See also User talk:Liz#Reporting myself - why. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Liz's talk page was where I saw it first. There's a lot going upon right now and 2025 will be much weirder. Hang in there. Both of you are adults, so no harm done. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs) is now criticising me at VPT for fixing the problem, and is also claiming that I reverted some edit or other. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Just decide how much you're going to let it bother you. That's all I can add. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who: December 2024 Newsletter

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue III — December 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Anyone for a Ham and Cheese Toastie and a Pumpkin Latte? Joy to the Doctor Who WikiProjects Hello and welcome to the third issue of the new newsletter! A look ahead to the happenings of the WikiProject as we welcome a new year Continued Improvement of Content Since the last Newsletter, the articles "Eve of the Daleks", Terror of the Zygons, "The Name of the Doctor", "Silence in the Library", Doctor Who series 2, Mel Bush, Peter Capaldi, "Midnight", "Forest of the Dead", "The Church on Ruby Road", Doctor Who specials (2023), and Doctor Who series 14 have all been promoted to Good Article status. The Good Topic Doctor Who specials (2023) and the Featured Topic Peter Capaldi have also been promoted. With the amount of articles promoted in the year, we have had our second most productive year of all time, falling just short of beating the record set by 2012. Work is continuing underway on articles Project-wide, and the Good Topic for the revived era nears completion. Ongoing discussion and goals can be found at WP:WikiProject Doctor Who/Goals and nominees for promoted content here. Feel free to contribute in writing or in reviewing! Reliable Sources A discussion on the reliability of CultBox has determined that it should be phased out of use in the WikiProject. This source has been widely used across project articles, especially for information about filming. Concerns that the website is self-published and has poor editorial standards were raised. In some articles, project editors have already begun depreciating the source. Similar concerns were raised about Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv.co.uk). Uses of this source have also been depreciated. This website should NOT be confused with Doctor Who TV (doctorwho.tv), a commercial website published by the Beeb, which is acceptable for use as a primary source. As discussed in the previous issue, Doctor Who News has been widely phased out where possible. If you have any comments about these sources or any others, please contribute to the discussions on the project talk page. Novels Being Overhauled The scrutiny on many of the Doctor's past adventures through print over the years continues in regard to determining their individual notability. Discussions can be found on the WikiProject's talk page, with discussion still well under way in ironing out which articles pass the notability bar. You can contribute by helping to improve articles of the novels, and other extended media, and bringing attention to the ones that might not. Project Barnstar In breaking news, it appears that Torchwood Three has been raided. The resurrection gauntlet has been stolen and used on the WikiProject Doctor Who Barnstar. If you notice exceptional contributions in project areas by any editor, feel free to show them some appreciation by awarding them their very own ✨barnstar✨. Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network The War Between the Land and the Sea concluded filming on 10 December. A 90-minute colourised version of The War Games aired on 23 December. "Joy to the World" aired on 25 December. An animated version of the completely missing First Doctor serial, The Savages, is due to be released in March 2025. The editorial board of the newsletter is able to exclusively confirm that there will be no Dalek shenanigans for the third consecutive New Year. Polish off those resolutions, don't start a revolution, and celebrate New Year's Eve responsibly. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

List of jazz tunes

Hi, can you move this back to List of jazz standards? I've moved the big list to me mainspace for personal use. I think it's clearer to just have a simple list of blue linked entries. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: It's ten months since the move took place. In the meantime, the redirect has become a set index. What should be done with List of jazz standards? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I created the index.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it's best to keep it as List of jazz tunes, given that many are minor standards. Then entries can gradually be added once the articles are started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wheel arrangements

Thanks for that, I did wonder when I saw it go by. I'll flag it as a false positive at AWB. John (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

IMSA SportsCar Championship template

Thanks for fixing that. That's my fault for not noticing and updating the name in the template. Sorry about that. SteeledDock541 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

ANI regarding the IP hopping editor

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the IP hopping editor adding invalid parameters to locomotive articles. The thread is IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed permission disappeared

Hello,

I have been on Wikipedia for over a year and have more than enough edits to be autoconfirmed. However, I do not have the permission for some reason. I have "extended confirmed users" and "pending changes reviewers," but not autoconfirmed, so I cannot move pages. I was trying to change the title of a category I created ("Category:Negro League Baseball players from Puerto Rico"); I wanted to make "League" and "Baseball" lowercase to conform with the format of their parent category, "Negro league baseball players." However, when I went to move it, I could not find the move button and did some research, leading me to realize that I do not have the "autoconfirmed" status.

There is not a way to request that status, which is why I am contacting you. Either I am not able to find the move button, or my "autoconfirmed" status got taken away for some reason. Thank you for your time! BittersweetParadox (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@BittersweetParadox: First, you do have autoconfirmed - you couldn't have got extended-confirmed without it. I also don't think that it's possible to lose autoconfirmed, even if you're not extended-confirmed. But see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category - even with extended-confirmed, you can't move categories. This is because moving a category page is much more complicated than moving other pages; instead, you should file a rename request at WP:CFDS where experienced users will check that the move is in order, perform the move, and also all of the ancillary cleanup that is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

January music

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor disused UK railway stations.

Thanks for adding a solid source to Annesley South Junction Halt railway station. You may or may not be aware of the context: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Me (DragonofBatley). Your expertise, and your bookshelf, could be very helpful in upgrading some of the articles under consideration. PamD 10:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As the book isn't being cited, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think the {{cite book}} template is appropriate? A link for the book is here. Would you prefer this? KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The template helps to format it, it doesn't imply that the book is being cited as a reference. But the URL does not yield the text of the book - it is the publisher's web page about the book, and gives virtually no information about the station, other than the fact that it is the subject of two photographs in the book. We don't need the WorldCat link if the |isbn= is supplied. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tired, but as far as I can see neither url gives any information about the station. If you have the book and it provides coverage of the station, can't we just use it as a source, and include whatever content it has? It's not as if the article as it stands is cite-heavy. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the book. Perhaps PamD (talk · contribs) does, as they added the mention in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I only found the publishers' website, with its table of contents which helps verify the halt's existence and name, and added it as Further Reading because that seemed a good place for an RS I can't access but where the info I can access shows that it has a couple of pages about (or pages of photos of) it. PamD 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I misread it: a couple of photos, not pages. But still evidence of station name, which was thin on the ground when I added it. I think the other two sites are External links, rather than FR. And yes using the cite book template when not citing is common eg in lists of an author's work: it formats it consistently, and links the isbn. PamD 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No worries. I will leave as is. If I get really obsessed I shall buy it online, pay the exorbitant shipping costs, and cite it myself! It’s one of the many odd quirks of Wikipedia - my grandfather was born in Annesley and likely travelled on that very line. KJP1 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Railway Children

Thanks for getting the 1991 Series changed to the original Radio 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.44.232 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1852 events by country

A tag has been placed on Category:1852 events by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 00:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30 § 7th century mass cleanup

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 30 § 7th century mass cleanup on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beland (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom

I made a contribution regarding the death of my grandfather on the 9th December 1970 at the Chivers Level Crossing.

His death certificated states: Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. I can provide a copy of the death certificate.

See the accident report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Chivers1976.pdf this crash was almost identical. On page 4 paragraph 5 it mentions the his death on the 9th of December 1970.

See: https://www.eastanglianrailwayarchive.co.uk/Railways/Ely-to-Norwich/i-2QFmqfB

I have had feedback from: https://www.railwayaccidents.port.ac.uk/sorry-no-registration-allowed/

See: https://www.railcar.co.uk/topic/accidents/1970s

Also read the the 1970 Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Health and Safety Report – see paragraph 123. I can provide a copy.

See: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=460 follow link to the PDF report.

I think that is sufficient evidence for you to see my grandfather was killed there. I am not sure what "Source" you read but you unfortunately missed the part about my grandfather the train driver being killed there on the 9th of December.

Look forward to hearing from you. Please don't delete again.

Kind regards. Isimmons1 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Isimmons1: You refer, presumably, to this revert. This is now the fourth time that you have added that content. Your edit summary reads redrose has not check his facts. I will message redrose with the fact as I had to with another person who deleted my contribution regarding the death of my grandfather. I think his family and friends know more about this. it was more than merely a "car accident". This accident was identical to one in 1976 same location. See that report. top of page 4 paragraph 5.

Can we forget, for the moment, your claim that your grandfather was killed there. The content that you wish to include reads:

• Chivers Occupation level crossing, Cambridgeshire: Passenger train collided with lorry on unmanned level crossing

It was agreed, some years ago, that level crossing collisions were simply not worth writing about, unless they were major accidents such as Hixon (1968) or Ufton Nervet (2004). Many level crossing accidents are the fault of the road user, and there are several each year. Why is this incident at Chivers occupation crossing at all significant? The fact that there is no entry for it in The Railways Archive for 1970 could be because of several reasons, but two that immediately spring to mind are (i) no report was published; or (ii) a report was published, but The Railways Archive do not consider it to be significant enough to prioritise over other, more serious, accidents. You will see from the link that I have provided that they don't ignore level crossing accidents entirely - but Low Fields Farm (October 1970) was an error by railway staff, and Upper Denton (December 1970) was due to the design of the crossing. The report on Chivers occupation crossing (1976) blames the road driver, and in mentioning the 1970 accident, remarking that the two occurrences were very similar.

Whether the driver who was killed was your grandfather or not should have no bearing on including the content, because Wikipedia is not a ... memorial site. Your possession of a death certificate is inadmissible, per the policy on verifiability. Even if the death cert were allowed, the statement Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. does not give the location. This seems to me that you are putting two different sources together to draw a separate conclusion, which is inadmissible per the policy on synthesis of published material. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

And once again you have miss read the 1976 report which said the driver was killed in 1970. It is totally irrelevant that he was my grandfather, first thing we do agree on. However, you can't include the 1976 accident if you don't include the 1970 accident as the were both almost exactly the same. I have written to the Railway Archive along with many other people and sites, all have taken time to reply to me accept for Railway Archives. I have no understanding of why they have not even taken the time to send me a polite reply but they have not. Maybe you could ask them for me ? Isimmons1 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:Indigenous Peoples of North America/Anishinaabe

Hi @Redrose64, and thank you for pinging me regarding {{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe}}! I add WikiProjects using Rater and AFCH, neither of which show edit previews. This appears to be an issue with AFCH acceptance, where I am seeing this project listed as a possibility. I'll bring up the concern there.

Thanks again for pinging me with this issue! I hadn't seen your previous edit. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

closing RfCs

Hi, Regarding Talk:Alan Turing, what you did produced visible text {{rfc|bio|sci}}. I've never seen anything like that on a closed RfC before (or maybe I didn't look carefully enough). Perhaps that should be removed altogether? Zero^talk 02:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Please see WP:RFCEND, which states:

To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} tag from the talk page. Legobot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run. ... If you are also closing the discussion, you should do this in the same edit. As an alternative to removing the {{rfc}} tag, you may use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx}} to disable it, as in {{tlx|rfc|bio|rfcid=fedcba9}}.

Do not enclose the {{rfc}} tag in <nowiki>...</nowiki> or <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> tags, nor place it in HTML comment markers <!--...--> since Legobot will ignore these and treat the RfC as if it is still open – and may also corrupt the RfC listing pages.

This is exactly what happened here - although you didn't touch Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, its entry at WP:RFC/ECON became corrupted. My edit caused it to be restored.

But speaking personally - this is not in WP:RFC - I would say that if the RfC is being suspended (or closed temporarily), use the {{tlx}} method; if it's being closed permanently, remove the {{rfc}} tag entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed reply and your help. Cheers. Zero^talk 23:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:One Direction

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:One Direction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oxford Bus Company

If Thames Travel have been operating the service to Wallingford since last year there must be a record of the change that can be quoted. I did point out that Google Maps still thinks it is OBC. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't trust Google Maps. They're not a bus operator, so are under no obligation to ensure that bus information is up to date.

Two or three times a year, when there are timetable changes on several routes all at once, Oxford and Thames Travel jointly produce a Service Changes web page; the most recent one mentioning the X40 route is Service Changes from 14th April 2024, but these pages don't always indicate a change of operator.

Have a look at Buses in and around Oxford - the last line of each box shows the operator, and about three-fifths of the way down is the entry for

River Rapids X40, River Rapids 40C, River Rapids NX40
Oxford City Centre to Central Reading
via Iffley Road, Berinsfield, Shillingford, Benson, Wallingford, Woodcote & Caversham
Thames Travel

Note that it says "Thames Travel", not "Oxford Bus Company".

On a more technical level, the current X40 timetable is at https://passenger-line-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/oxfordbus/THTR/X40-timetable-20240414-44ad4fa7.pdf - in that URL, THTR denotes Thames Travel (Oxford would be OXBC as in https://passenger-line-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/oxfordbus/OXBC/X1-timetable-20240901-173a237c.pdf) and 20240414 is the effective date in CCYYMMDD format. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Any of those the original editor could have used as a reference, instead they just assumed everybody woud believe it because they said so. I may be wrong but I thought that was the antithesis of everything WP stood for. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

There is also Buses in and around Wallingford - all four entries show Thames Travel as the operator. From this we may conclude that Oxford don't serve Wallingford. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

And your point is? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

That removing Wallingford from the list of places served by Oxford was a valid removal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

So we can change what we like without providing evidence, fine, glad we got that sorted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Might I remind you of WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So, by restoring the mention of Wallingford as a place served by Oxford BC, it's up to you to supply a source for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

My problem on Dracula's Guest

Thank you for taking the time to explain what was happening to me on this article. It was driving me nuts and I thought I had accidently ruined the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your repair my RfC. I was experimenting with syntax because the text of the RfC was not populating on the notice page -- it was just showing the title. Would be interested in learning what it was that I did wrong. Thx. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: It's simply that this edit lacked a signature (which is optional) and a timestamp (which is mandatory, see WP:RFCST item 6). My first edit, at 23:02 (UTC), added that missing timestamp (and also a copy of your usual signature), but since Legobot only runs once an hour, WP:RFC/HIST and WP:RFC/POL were not updated until 00:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I has spent so much time properly formatting the RfC that I neglected the signature! Thanks again! Johnadams11 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 16 § Category:July 1852 in the United Kingdom

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 16 § Category:July 1852 in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Foundation Books

Debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#We_want_to_buy_you_books.©Geni (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)