Hi there! Did you know that there will be a meetup in Birmingham on the 15th of November? There hasn't been many meetups in Birmingham. I will be passing through on the 15th of November, so I thought I would see who fancied meeting up, while I'm in the area. I'm leaving this message on your talk page because you have previously expressed an interest in a meetup in Birmingham or Coventry. Yaris678 (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Yaris678: Replied with this post. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"first name spelled with 'y', not 'ie', on the end": Thanks, I have now italicized it, since writing "Ronnie Lee" instead of "Ronny Lee" is an error that even some of the referenced articles about him made (and he didn't like it, because "Ronnie" usually used to be short for "Veronica").

"Years" in "Early years" section header: Thanks, I have now done the same for "Later years" section header.

"D'Angelico": I have now put back the link in "D'Angelico guitar", but intentionally made it to D'Angelico--not to D'Angelico Guitars--since RL's guitar was made before 1964 (1927 + 14 = 1941) and that article more-accurately describes its features.

"Unpreparing for War" in Daugherty ref.: I have now put the phrase in single quotes, since you don't like double-quotes in ref. title--but they are double-quotes in title of Daugherty's paper.

"[sic]" to " [sic]": Thanks, I didn't know that existed.

DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, dammit. I usually catch those myself when they happen - I don't know how I missed those.

I'll fix them right away; thanks for bringing them to my attention. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, protect Beats of Rage from anonymous users because uncontrolled editwar of the mad 31.173.243.24 and it's offsprings (I am the Recent changes patroller and I've caught that IP by the tail, but I can't block it)! I am suffering from his vandalistic edits. Natsume96 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Natsume96: requests for increases to a page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have been trying to make the infobox image on Harry Potter and the Cursed Child‎ appear larger, but don't seem to be able to. Is there something I'm missing. Maybe its not possible.Blethering Scot 21:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox play}} doesn't recognise |image_size=, nor is there any equivalent. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

damn thats really annoying. Image doesn't display properly at that size. I see it was removed here, but i dont see consensus for it on the talk page of the template. Do u know if discussions were held elsewhere.Blethering Scot 13:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you asked Alakzi (talk · contribs) why that change was made? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will ping him on template talk page. Someone else has asked the same question.Blethering Scot 21:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Could u do me a favour. Could u look at the template talk page and explain to me what he means by you can change image size by using |image_upright= . I just am not getting how I can use that peramater to increase size.Blethering Scot 19:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied at Template talk:Infobox play#Image size option. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, thanks for correcting my image placement, this is my first day on Wikipedia! BristolIcarus (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I had just realised that I had gotten ahead of reality and had begun to repair the damage. Sorry if I've wasted your time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: I'm at Oxford station most weeks, last visit was Thurs 29 Oct, next is Tues 3 Nov. The replacement bus service is still running but instead of being Oxford to Islip and Bicester, it's now Oxford to Oxford Parkway. The proposed lengthening of platform 3 (and the conversion of the parcels dock to passenger plat) has not yet commenced. Engineers are still working on the track from Oxford North Junction northwards. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I can partly blame sloppy reporting in the media but I really ought to have asked questions first and shot second.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose, have you seen East West Rail delivery could be delayed by seven years (rail technology magazine, 03.11.15). Any idea what the proposed rephrasing is? It talks about 'phase 2' being Bicester - Bedford, but we already know that electrification of Bletchley - Bedford is 'planned but not scheduled', so it's hardly that. What we really need to know is this - is Bicester - Bletchley now 'phase 2a' and Risboro' - Aylesbury - Claydon Jn now 'phase 2b'? Or something else? Whether or which, we need a source that is less vague than this to qualify as a citeable wp:rs. Expletive deleted journalists --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I shot an innocent bystander again. Rail Technology was just reprinting this press release from the East West Rail consortium. Perhaps they have political reasons to conflate Bicester - Bletchley with Bletchley - Bedford? Was it ever likely that these two sub-projects would go ahead in parallel rather than sequentially? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note you have made the same reversion to this article at least 5 times in a row now, over the last few days, despite there being ongoing discussion. If you continue to do this you will be banned from editing Wikipedia. --Rebroad (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "this article"? Please state which one you have in mind. If you don't like what I do, you are free to take me to WP:ANI. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You know full well which article I am referring to - the one we are currently talking about. But, if it pleases you:-

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Double jeopardy, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Rebroad (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rebroad: At first that was the article that I assumed that you meant. But I looked at its history, and found that I had made four edits in a week, not "at least 5 times in a row now, over the last few days". To get the count up to 5, we need to go back to 23 September 2015‎, where I restored two templates that were apparently removed inadvertently by Sc0187 (talk · contribs) in this series of edits. As for "ongoing discussion", the only one that I am aware of is on your talk page, so you are just as aware of it as I am, so I could call you on WP:EW for four edits to Double jeopardy in well under two hours, every single one of which was a revert. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64 - Just seen that I left York off the list for the Tile Maps on Whitby Railway Station (D'Oh). Thanks for putting it right. How could I even forget York....? The joy of all things (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I spotted it was missing because the one at York is about the only one that I've actually seen in the flesh - something like 30 years ago, it reminded me of the tiled map at Manchester Victoria. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mr Rose, you recently removed something on the wikipedia page, star trek generations 1997 video game.

I find it annoying that I should find out some behind the scenes information only to have it removed because of a link?! A link that actually illustrates a point. Forgive me but I thought wikipedia was a free source of information, and a lot of people like to read behind the scenes information about things.

Sorry for trying to post information. Maybe next time I just won't bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.146.15 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean Star Trek Generations (video game)? I have never touched that page: my name does not appear in the revision history. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please undo this edit to MediaWiki:Move-redirect-text, as pages in the MediaWiki namespace should not be edited without consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Why are you asking me, and not Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: I've reverted it, seeing as this is the second request for me to do so. Also pinging Paine Ellsworth, as they are the user I've most often seen using {{redr}} in this way. Personally I think that using redr here is a good idea, but Geoffrey is probably right that this needs a wider consensus than just "what I've seen Paine doing". — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up...I noticed you adding "class=c |importance=" to many "WikiProject Women" templates. That's fine, but I didn't want you to do excess work for nothing. Someone recently went around tagging all the tennis pages with "WikiProject Women" template and they shouldn't have. Per a discussion with that wikiproject, they only tag women's articles with "WikiProject Women" IF there aren't already templates for "WikiProject Women's sport" or "WikiProject Women's History." So many of those templates you are adding to are being removed anyway. I just didn't want you wasting time and effort. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Do you mean this thread, which I initiated? It seems inconclusive to me. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No, that was a later thread. One that I started earlier here. Where it was said "Our policy has been that if the page has one of the umbrella tags on it, others aren't necessary." Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

That one also seems inconclusive. If it hadn't been, my thread wouldn't have been necessary, or the replies to it would have pointed out an earlier consensus. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. You contributed at the Stirling Moss BLP in the not too distant past, so you may already be fairly familiar with it. Would you be willing to take a look at the recent massive WP:COPYVIO cutting a pasting by LordAnon of Essex? Yesterday I restored the article to its pre-copyvio state (noted on the article talk page) and left a warning on the talk page of the user User_talk:LordAnon_of_Essex#Copyright_violations_at_the_Stirling_Moss_article, who has been warned several times in the past for cut-and-paste copyvios on several other articles. The user either hasn’t seen the warnings or has chosen to ignore them—and simply continues with copyvio edits. I posted a second warning to their talk page,User_talk:LordAnon_of_Essex#Persistent_reinsertion_of_copyright_violations_at_the_Stirling_Moss_article and again posted to the article talk page noting the resumption of copyvios. The user’s talk page shows a warning by administrator Garion96 as long ago as February 2013 that they would be blocked if the practice continued.User_talk:LordAnon_of_Essex#Copyright_violations Nevertheless it has continued. I have pinged Garion96, whose contribs history shows only very sporadic contributions, with nothing since October 24. I have also notified WikiProject Formula One Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Formula_One#FYI:_copyvios_at_Stirling_Moss. The scale and persistence of the violations are such that I think it might be time the user received attention from an administrator. Writegeist (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@Writegeist: My only recent contributions to Stirling Moss concerned unsuitable links for OBE added by a user who was making similar poor edits on a variety of articles. I'm not a copyright expert - per WP:DCV, this is really a matter for WP:ANI. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. But the ANI cesspit? No thanks! I never drag anyone there. Screw it, I'll just let it go. I mean, who cares, right? It's only some writer's work being used without permission. Writegeist (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So ask a copyright expert --Redrose64 (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the well-intentioned advice but rather than search for a "copyright expert" it's simpler and more straightforward for me to let the relevant authors and publishers know. Writegeist (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to, please take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks selected TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing my errors! As always, I won't let them happen again. JAGUAR  17:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your edits there: please be aware of WP:OUTING. While the other user was the one attempting to out someone, you repeated their accusation, and copied it onto another page, which is pretty much the same thing. Please be more careful in the future. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: By "repeated their accusation", I assume that you meant that I copied their post verbatim from this page to that. This I did because I dislike split discussions: when a third person comes along, such as yourself, it's harder to follow a split discussion through in chronological order, working out what is being replied to. Then, when third person wishes to reply - do they do so on the page bearing the post that they are replying to - or on the other one (or taken to its illogical conclusion) on their own talk page?

Anyway. I didn't look too closely at the names given by Jocksterdug, other than spotting that one was the Wikipedia login name of the edits that they had been reverting; I had assumed that the other was also a Wikipedia login name, and that they meant that one of the two was a sockpuppet of the other. Reverting the edits of an alleged sock requires at the least a WP:SPI. Reverting en masse because you don't like the person's political views is not acceptable at all. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not respond to you when you first reversed one of my edits. Please explain to me why you reversed my edit on Talk:Claire Martin (gymnast). I added {{WikiProject Gymnast|class=stub|importance=low}} to that talk page. Is she not a gymnast? Is not the article a stub of low importance? I also added {{WikiProject Women's sport|class=stub|importance=low}}. Isn't she a woman, and engaged in woman's sports? Please tell me why my edits were not appropriate for this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dthomsen8, you added a nonexistent template. See the result of your edit here. Judicious use of the WP editor's "Preview" button (as RedRose's edit summary suggested) can help you to avoid this problem, and you should, of course, always check the results of your edits before you move on. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand my mistake. WP:AutoWikiBrowser is a powerful tool, but using it for manual changes is risky. AWB has a preview, but frequent use of it is unlikely, but should be used if any manual, rather than automated changes are made. Thank you, Jonesey, for your help.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Each week I go through Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken WikiProject templates and fix up the redlinked WikiProject banners on talk pages. Over a period of months, I've noticed that a lot of them seem to be caused by just three or four people, one of which is Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs), and I can only presume that they are guessing at the template name, and not checking that it actually exists. I never use AWB. I have seen people make whole streams of bad edits using AWB, and then somebody else is expected to clean up the mess. AWB has rules, first of which is "You are responsible for every edit made. Do not sacrifice quality for speed and make sure you understand the changes." --Redrose64 (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64! Hope you are well. Regarding the manual removal of protection templates... I know there's DumbBOT that gets some of them, but any idea why the rest aren't covered? How do you and MarnetteD find those pages that need the template removed? Do they show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates? You and Marnette deserve endless praise for your diligent, robotic editing in remove those, but I feel this can and should be fully automated. If it's as simple as checking that category, I can write a bot task to do this fairly easily. Otherwise I was thinking I could have the bot monitor the protection log and record their expiries, storing it in a local database, then go off of that to automatically remove the templates. This would be a sure fire way to ensure it doesn't miss any. What do you think? — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: We do find the pages through that cat, but a simple removal is not always the correct action, since the problem might be one of the wrong template being used, or an incorrectly-set parameter. See the "Remedies" text on that cat page for further information. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Unless I'm missing something, this all seems like it could be handled easily by a bot. The bot can check the page protection level, and remove the template if it is not protected. Otherwise it can change it to use the correct template and expiry date/format. For template pages it would check if {{documentation}} or {{collapsible option}} are in the source, and remove the protection template if so. I can see a scenario however where one of those template was buried more than one level down of child template transclusions (if that makes sense), and in that case I guess the bot would just have to leave it be for human review. I can even have the bot check the category after it does all of this, and try the null edit trick if it hasn't left the category. That would be where it gives up. Does that sound right? Is this worth me putting time in to? I'd like to help :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @MusikAnimal: I'll add a couple things to R's post that I have noticed in working with this category. One of the bots (sorry I can't remember which one) removes any "pending changes" templates soon after the expire. Other protections are hit and miss and I have seen a few where up to two months have passed since the protection has ended. If a page that is already protected has that protection extended or changed the template rarely gets updated and that will cause it to show up in the category. If you get a bot to do most of these that is okay but, as a confirmed wikignome, I am happy to continue to work on these manually. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 23:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think I can have the bot do that, seems fairly straightforward to implement. Now, I'm not trying to put anyone out of work here, it's just that there's a million gnomy things to do that require humans, ya know? =P I've started with development and will let you know when I file a BRFA. Going to write a note at Category talk:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates about this as well. Thanks to you both for your help and the opportunity for me to further assist the community with my bot efforts. Cheers — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64. Thanks for this edit. If you compare the google map satellite images, you'll see you've moved the location further away from the station building. I don't actually care but in this particular case the edit reduces accuracy as a result of reducing the precision. At least the new position is closer than it was before I made the previous edit so all is not lost. Best wishes --Northernhenge (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is normal to give railway station coordinates to 4 places of decimals, which is an accuracy of about 10 metres (see WP:OPCOORD) - consider that platforms are rarely less than 50 metres long. It's also normal to give their grid references to six figures (eight characters in all), which although an accuracy of 100 metres, is the same precision as used by such websites as Geograph and Disused Stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This, from the M.E.N., would seem to give quite a good summary of where things are at:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ordsall-chord-route-better-engineer-10108422

I don't have time to edit it in, but I think a few sentences and a link would be a useful addition to the article. Jheald (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Also High Court decision Jheald (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What are these magic words for? VE likes to add them to the end of pages, such as Anye Elite or Ammunition. Bgwhite (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: I guess you mean this edit and this one (I reverted both). See H:MW#Behavior switches. Neither is useful: articles are indexed by default so __INDEX__ is redundant; and articles are not discussion pages, so shouldn't have a "new section" tab. I don't get involved with VE; indeed, I refuse to use it - have you informed WP:VEF? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what NEWSECTIONLINK did. Yea, I get to add yet another phabricator ticket that will be ignored. There are ~40 articles with NEWSECTIONLINK in the last dump. Content Transcrapulator is worse than VE, but isn't used as much. You are lucky, I get to cleanup up all the crap VE leaves behind. The latest is when a quote is left off a ref name (ie <ref name="ref>), VE craps out. They are not going to fix it in VE, but instead they want CheckWiki to look for it so us peons can fix it. Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:VEF is in Wikipedia, it's not a phab: page. If you don't want to post there, you could complain to Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk · contribs) directly. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Posted at T118796. Whatamidoing (WMF) is aware of my frustrations and I've already vented to them about tickets being ignored. I'm now wasting ~2 hours a day just fixing VE issues and getting burnt out. Bgwhite (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Do you have any evidence, like own experience or claims from the editors, that VE does this on its own? If you edit with VE [1] then the top right has a page options icon with three horizontal lines. "Advanced settings" on that menu has "Let this page be indexed by search engines" and "Show a tab on this page to add a new section". Enabling these will make exactly the edit in the above diffs, placing the magic words at the bottom of the page. The meny has a third option "Enable display title" which will add {{DISPLAYTITLE:label}} at the top like this one if the user enters "label" in a box. I suspect it's just users not knowing what they do, like all the empty <ref></ref> new users make with the source editor button below the edit box. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Why does VE even allow one to do this in articles? Neither of these options need to be set in articles. That is a bug, not a feature. If users are adding <ref></ref>, why is VE letting them do that? Egads, this is going to be another "need to educate the user" issue that Whatamidoing (WMF) said for VE adding a ton of <span lang=> tags everywhere and you said about the ref tags. I thought VE was designed for new users in mind in which they didn't have to take a course to use VE. Bgwhite (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Empty <ref></ref> are not added with VE but with the normal source editor. It could be confusing if VE options depend on the properties of the namespace the page is currently in. It could for example be a draft with plans to move to another namespace, or a test of VE features, or editors could be preparing for a planned change of properties in the namespace. I'm not a VE developer or user. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

There will always be people who play "what does this button do?" The thing to do is to ensure that the easily-pressed buttons are those that have a commonplace useful purpose. Adding __NEWSECTIONLINK__ is only useful on pages outside talk spaces where discussion is normal, like the Village Pumps (where it's already present); and adding __INDEX__ is almost never necessary. Those people who need to add or remove __NEWSECTIONLINK__ and __INDEX__ will almost certainly be people with plenty of experience, people who simply do not need VE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bgwhite: Hopefully you're not refering to my request to see if this could be added to CheckWiki. Looking again at my request, I see I didn't specify that I suggested CheckWiki in the hopes that it could be run by a bot instead of us humans. I fixed over 400 of the errors manually, but I'm sure there are more. Just want to be sure we're all good - don't want you sending your mother-in-law after me.  :-) GoingBatty (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty You aren't the only one to make the request this past week. When it rains it pours. I'm upset that they aren't fixing it in VE, not that anybody requested it. Why should we have to fix it? You are safe from my mother-in-law, for now. Bgwhite (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Safe because she's at MY HOUSE! Call her off, Bgwhite! (p.s. To Rose, sorry for all of this drama on your talk page. I'm off now.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Despite Bgwhite's assertion that "they are not going to fix it", the devs have already changed Parsoid to deal with the the invalid wikitext. He is technically correct, though, as the changes were to Parsoid, not to VisualEditor. The invalid wikitext should still get cleaned up anyway, because there are no guarantees that the wikitext parser will always produce the same behavior for this invalid wikitext. There are other approaches to solving this problem, if you'd rather, such as expanding BracketBot to inform people when they've left unbalanced quotation marks in the wikitext editor, or adding an edit filter that warns users before letting them save the page.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ and __INDEX__ are being added by individual users. It might be possible to disable those in the mainspace on the Wikipedias. They shouldn't be disabled at all wikis (e.g., because some wikis actually use the mainspace for discussions). I'll ask around about it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF) The bug report for the two magicwords was declined I don't have a clue why. I had high hopes for bracketbot, but the amount of broken brackets has only risen. Bgwhite (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bgwhite, I am happy to report that I was able to get a clear answer. (Whether we'll agree with the answer is a separate issue.  ;-) The ability to add or remove __NEWSECTIONLINK__ and __INDEX__ in the mainspace exists for two main reasons:

1. Because some Wikipedias allegedly use the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ on articles.
2. Because if they remove these items from the menu, then it won't be possible to remove these codes from articles when using the visual editor. There's no way for the editing tools to stop someone from typing those codes in the wikitext editor; therefore, the devs believe that it is important to have a way for someone to clean up those codes from inside the visual editor.

That said, it might be worth considering an edit filter (warn the user that these are inappropriate in mainspace?) to reduce the likelihood of someone using them, regardless of the editing environment. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To reiterate my comment of 11:30, 17 November 2015: the people who actually understand the purposes of __NEWSECTIONLINK__ and __INDEX__ are the only people who need to add or remove them; and will almost certainly be people who simply do not need VE. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

But they might also be people who would be annoyed to switch editing tools just to do something so simple. There has been significant pressure for VisualEditor to be "feature complete". I doubt that the editors who are demanding that VisualEditor be able to do "everything" are thinking of this sort of thing, but they are still making those demands. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your endless patience and going the extra mile to help a colleague. Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! Hope you like this appreciation message here! Thanks for all the guidance you have provided on wiki all this while. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64, Could you please help me to change the template for the Netherlands Antilles? Or point me in the direction necessary to get this done? The country does not exist anymore for five years now, and the template is seriously outdated. We should change it to reflect Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba, Sint Eustatius) territories, which are the countries and territories to come into existence after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. Let me know what you think. Kind regards, (Subzzee (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

@Subzzee: By making this edit, all you did was alter the documentation, not the template itself. I reverted that edit because the doc should describe what the template actually does, and which parameters are valid.

The normal way of getting a WikiProject banner template changed is first to get consensus from the WikiProject itself, possibly at Template talk:WikiProject Caribbean but as that has only eight watchers (myself included), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean, with 51 watchers, is more likely to produce responses. If there is consensus, then the project banner may be altered; adding more parameters for Curaçao etc. is not in itself difficult, but I would caution against removing support for |Netherlands Antilles= and |Netherlands Antilles-importance= until you can be sure that those are no longer in use.

I would also caution against splitting up an existing work group, particularly one with so few members, since it could mean that some of the new work groups have (essentially) no participants at all, and so are not independently justifiable. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Task forces#Setting up a task force structure. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey there! I've just noticed that there are plenty of discussions not archived here. Since you're so busy, do you mind if I help you to manually archive them? (Sometimes, the bots malfunction or couldn't work where Wikipedia carries out maintenance works so some very old discussions were skipped (to be archived).) Vincent60030 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No. Leave other people's archiving up to them unless they explicitly ask for help. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then. Thanks Vincent60030 (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Firstly I'd like to thank you for your super explanation of ISBN numbers and how to make them a friend. As a result the penny has dropped and I've made use of the searches. I wonder if someone with the requisite brain cells could create a script/progam or whatever such things are called in Wikispeak to take an ISBN and populate a Cite-book in a standard style? The benefits would be wide-ranging.

I have a whole host of questions on a range of topics, but for now I'll start with the following: as you have seen, I've turned my attention to my late mother's area of origin - Immingham. I set forth this evening to start on the Grimsby District Railway and found the article to be clear and precise but poppycock. The contents are perfectly OK, but nothing to do with the title.

I reckon the contents should be put in a new article with the title Great Grimsby Street Tramways and the GDLR article be left empty except for a warning. I can then set about filling it.

What do you think? Dave DavidAHull (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

First, when starting a new topic on a discussion page, use the "New section" tab - don't append your post to an unrelated one, as you did here. See WP:TPG.

There are many tools available for filling in templates like {{cite book}}. I won't recommend one, since I use none of them - I have an off-wiki database that has the details of all my books, and it generates a ready-filled {{cite book}} that I can copypaste.

If you have worked on Grimsby District Railway, why is it a redlink here? That means that the page doesn't exist. What you propose in your last paragraph sounds like a WP:COPYPASTE rename, which is actively discouraged. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The article on the Grimsby District Light Railway is very strange, the contents are perfectly OK, but nothing to do with the title. It's as if the title were Manchester United Football club and the contents were about Old Trafford Cricket Ground.

Could you please have a look at it and suggest or implement a way to enable me to write an article about the GDLR and keep the author's efforts?

With thanks in anticipation

DavidAHull (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Have you brought up your concerns at its talk page, Talk:Grimsby District Light Railway? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to tools to populate correctly set out Cite Book references starting from an ISBN Number? I would not mistake this information for a recommendation.

DavidAHull (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, I use none of them. I know they exist, since I've read about other people using them. That doesn't mean that I know what they're called. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. I was wondering why there were so many football teams were in the "incorrect protection template" category today. Then I saw your edit summary here and everything became clear. Thank goodness because the question was going to be a long winded one and I couldn't figure out how to shorten it. I hope that you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 23:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi R. Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates has a large number of archived talk pages on it today. I did some searching but couldn't find the common factor as to why this happened. I am also wondering why the protection on this page Jat people is showing up on the list. Anything that you can do to fix these will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 15:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: When you come across something like Jat people, where Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates wasn't listed in the hidden cats at the bottom, give it a WP:NULLEDIT and reload the cat page; Jat people should then disappear.

As for the archives (and some others), they were due to this edit by EurovisionNim (talk · contribs) who apparently didn't notice that (a) the page already had a {{pp-move-indef}}; and (b) since the page is transcluded, any prot icon templates must be inside <noinclude>...</noinclude>. Perhaps I should WP:TROUT them for that. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a tiny suspicion that it might be that template but there were a couple others that were on the few pages I looked at. I was in a hurry to go and spend the afternoon with friends who are leaving for Hong Kong on Wednesday so I do thank you for dealing with these. MarnetteD|Talk 22:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is new one R Template:So Fresh albums. I tried placing the "noinclude" template in different places but they did not remove the articles that the navbox is used on from the list. So I will let you take care of what needs to be done. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 18:53, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: This is in relation to this edit - when protected pages (not just templates) might be transcluded, it is imperative that any protection template that is inside them not be transcluded along with the "real" content. So care needs to be taken when protecting a template and adding a prot icon template to it. Generally speaking, if the newly-protected template already has a {{documentation}} or a {{collapsible option}}, that will display any appropriate icon, so leave the newly-protected page alone (this is not the case here). Otherwise, if it does not already have a <noinclude>...</noinclude> section, create one; put the protection icon template inside the <noinclude>...</noinclude> section (which you may have just added). So this is the appropriate fix. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry about that!! I guess I knew this much but haven't gotten into the habit of checking "wrap in noinclude" when protecting templates using Twinkle. I think I could update Twinkle to do this automatically... I will look into it! Aside from being in the template space, is there any other scenario where the script could look for something on the page to reliably know if the protection template should be wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude>? — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-zero transclusion count. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bam, now Twinkle will always default-enable the wrapping of <noinclude>...</noinclude> when applying any kind of protection to pages in the template space. Is it a big deal that it uses its own noinclude tags as opposed to putting it in existing noinclude tags within the page source?

I was also informed about this issue... is that still a problem? I take it there's some Lua magic that show/hides the right padlock based on the current protection? If that is true, it begs the question, is there not someway we could incorporate that Lua magic on all pages? Maybe there's a MediaWiki-namespaced page where we could put that code, not sure. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: If it uses its own noinclude tags, where are they - at the top or at the bottom? Are they added as an extra line?

yes, it is still a problem - hence this revert from just two days ago. But it's not Lua magic - any template which has {{documentation}} will have been displaying the appropriate protection icon since this edit in January 2010, some years before Lua was available ({{documentation}} was converted to Lua in January 2014). Without Lua, it is done by means of the {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:}} parser function, which first became available with MediaWiki 1.15, in 2009. This is how {{collapsible option}} still does it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I can look into making it check for {{documentation}} or {{collapsible option}} and if present, prevent the adding of the protection template. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again R. When you have a moment would you take a look at the two new pages labeled "User:Basalisk/Dashboard" and "User:Keeper76/dashboard" that showed up today. The first one seems to have been indef protected two and a half years ago so it seems odd that it would be on the list at all. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Dashboard pages occasionally pop up, it always means that one of the transcluded pages like {{admin dashboard/aiv}} (remember that transclusions can go deep) has had a prot icon template added outside the noinclude. Again. In this case, WP:NULLEDITs sorted both. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. As they were protected so that only admins could edit them I appreciate your taking care of the necessaries. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. Would you please take a look at the remaining items at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates when you get a chance. In particular the Person article. I tried the null edit and adding in the time but it still is on the list. Maybe this edit summary has something to do with it. The BD2412HC page and the Vigil/Draft article are also baffling me. As ever thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you are --Redrose64 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! MarnetteD|Talk 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a new one that needs your skills. Saúl Álvarez is now on the list. I tried removing that template but a bot put it back. From what I can find the page has been moved several time so that might be part of the problem. I check the redirects but wasn't able to find anything. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 02:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that {{pp-pc1}} is not applicable here? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the bot put that protection back it obviously is applicable. That is why I did not remove it a second time. The article is still showing up in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I was just hoping that you would be able to find out why. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Same remedy as Jat people at #Your expertise is needed. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought that I had tried that but obviously not. Thanks. BTW I finally picked up this book that we discussed several months ago. If you combine it with this one you can pretty much follow the history of every stories fate on tape, film, etc after to its initial broadcast. Paul Smith mentions that the technology which allowed for restoring to colour the Pertwee episodes that only existed in black & white is "staggering." I have to agree. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 14:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to say that it is well researched and interesting. The only flaw I have found is that it doesn't mention the Marco Polo reconstruction that is part of The Beginning boxed set in any detail. MarnetteD|Talk 14:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A new one has started within the last few hours. Article talk pages are starting to show up in the category and the one thing they have in common is this template Template:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar). I tried the null edit and that did not change anything. While it is protected I could not find a page protection template in it to move into the "noinclude" command. As it is used in so many article talk pages I thought I should let you fix whatever needs fixing. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 23:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Tip: look in the hidden cats section of the category box at the bottom of the offending page. If Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates is not listed, it's almost certainly in need of WP:NULLEDIT - doing this fixed all of the talk and category talk pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I did try the nulledit - especially since I had forgotten it on my request for help just before this one. Not sure why it didn't work but I will certainly keep trying it in the future. It was interesting to observe how many new talk pages were showing up on the list each time I went back to check it. It would be up to 20 or 30 by now if you hadn't fixed things. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. Today I noticed that several AFD related pages have shown up on the list. I tried to find an article or template that were common to all of them but was unsuccessful. I'm hoping that you will be able to find what needs fixing. MarnetteD|Talk 14:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

These are all built up from transclusions, ultimately of pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Matton (3rd nomination). These AfD pages are sometimes protected, so you need to identify the protected one, and <noinclude>...</noinclude> the prot icon template, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions showed up on the list yesterday. I tried a null edit. I also looked at the templates used on the page. Next I checked the discussions added yesterday in case one of them was causing the problem but came up empty. It is probably something simple but if you could take a look when you have a moment it will be appreciated. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This fixes it. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As ever many thanks. I'll remember that the search may need to go back more than just one day. MarnetteD|Talk 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This one was protected due to socking. XFD discussions typically run for at least seven days, so if the socks arrive after two or three days, it might not be straight away that a prot is applied. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup explanation. There are several items in the list now and as I search through them there may be two unrelated templates that I cannot find. The first is this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 31 which is like the one you fixed but it hasn't had a protection applied. I think this is why there are three deletion sorting projects in the "W" section. Then there are two Biosthmors user pages and one Draecko/Desk page. All three of them have an edit like this where a category was added but no protection has been applied. I know the link is already on your talk page but I will add it again Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates so you don't have to scroll up to find it. Thanks ahead of time. MarnetteD|Talk 04:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ack - I checked one more time before heading off to sleep and a dozen new pages, all related to AFD, have shown up so you may find a page full when you get to this. I hope that it isn't too difficult to track down. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Unlike most of the other XFD pages, the daily AFD pages are themselves built up from transclusions - one per article, so it's highly unlikely that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 31 was itself protected, but one of the specific AfD pages.

When you get a bunch of pages showing up together that are vaguely related (in this case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 31, User:Biosthmors/Bugs, User:Biosthmors/Things, User:Draeco/Desk, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America), look for something in common - a transclusion that they all share. The transclusion list is shown at the very bottom when editing the whole page (not when section editing), below the Save page etc. buttons, in the collapsible section "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page". Compare these lists, see if there's one page that is listed on all of them.

Remember that our original problem was with a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/... daily page, so in this case we're looking for a specific AfD, so needn't check the other transcluded pages for commonality. There are only two AfDs transcluded on all of them: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boxer Wachler (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Harlan, and only the first of these has a prot icon template, so the fix is to do this. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the "dozen new pages, all related to AFD", they were fixed with this edit. Somewhat easier, as one of the pages listed at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates was Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Egypt, which has only two transcluded AfDs so a first guess from those was bound to have a 50% chance. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to clue me in on all of the things to look for. I know that I have seen the transclusion list before but I had no idea what it was for. Your info will help to track down these items in the future. Only a couple more weeks to go until the Rugby World Cup. Exciting times! MarnetteD|Talk 13:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello again R. A batch of "convert" templates showed up on the list today. As I checked through the transclusions it looks like they all share the same ones and those are all protected so that only admins can edit them. If you can fix this when you have a moment that will be most appreciated. Nest regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow is on the list as well. Looks like it needs a null edit but as it has been fully protected I cannot perform that. Thanks MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the convert templates were protected. They were showing in the cat because WOSlinker (talk · contribs) had unprotected them but had not removed the {{pp-template}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Paul Barlow was showing because Yunshui (talk · contribs) had altered the protection expiry from 19:19, 14 August 2015 to indef, but had not amended the {{pp-protected}} to suit. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of them. MarnetteD|Talk 02:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Didn't there used to be a bot that would take care of the protection templates? -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Yes, see #Removing protection icons above. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. The Homo naledi article showed up in the category today. As it is fully protected I can't edit it to fix things so if you could take care of it that will be much appreciated. I hope you are enjoying both the rugby and the new episodes of Dr Who. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Tony Kornheiser is fully protected so I can't edit it to get it off the list. I thought the CGI recreation of Ray Cusick's Dalek City model was well done. Cheers and have a great week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one did need admin rights to fix. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

When you get a chance please check on Foreign Affairs. I tried the null edit and a couple other things but none of them worked. I am guessing that it has something to do with one protection being applied and then changed a few hours later as can be seen here. As ever thanks for your time and help. MarnetteD|Talk 13:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The {{pp-move}} template is for pages with full move protection; but at 18:14, 12 October 2015 Samir (talk · contribs) reduced the full move protection to semi. This action is pointless, since users need to be confirmed in order to move pages, so I reduced it all the way to unprot and also removed the {{pp-move}} --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

That is good to know. Thanks for taking care of things. MarnetteD|Talk 19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here Talk:List of billionaires (2004)/attribution is another one that is fully protected R. It looks like the edit history of a deleted article was copied to the talk page and I don't think I've ever seen that before. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the problem. It's a page that was deleted and restored: deletion removes all protections, but a restored page has no protection of any kind regardless of any prots it may have had at the time of deletion. This particular page had been fully protected, and correctly bore a {{pp-protected}} - in that state it was deleted at 21:00, 29 November 2011 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Graham87 (talk · contribs) restored the page as it previously stood at 12:23, 19 October 2015, and later restored the previous protection level, at 13:48, 19 October 2015. If a page has a protection icon template and the protection is changed, an edit of some sort - even a null edit - is normally necessary for the protection icon template to emit the correct categories. This I have done. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I can't edit these pages that are fully protected so I always appreciate you taking care of what needs to be done. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

As I type this two "Arbitration requests..." reports have shown up in the cat. I tried null edits and then I tracked this item that was created today Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notice. I tried a null edit on it and then tried adding the noinclude but neither of those worked. The two items do have this template Template:Casenav in common but it's protection hasn't been changed since last November. Your help in figuring this out will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 03:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but you added the wrong tags, fixed. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I don't remember ever seeing (er "paying attention to" is probably a better term) that one before. At least now I know about it. Thanks for cleaning up my mess on aisle two. MarnetteD|Talk 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello again R. This redirect was fully protected long ago but it showed up on the list today. I can't apply a null edit - or anything else if it needs more than that. Thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I just found this redirect on the list as well. If this is part of the work that you and Paine Ellsworth are performing then please disregard these messages. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD – actually any redirects that appear now will be the result of deployment of the improvements to the R protection templates. I have submitted edit requests on the talk pages of the targets of the two that are in there now. Pleasant pathways, Painius  00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Paine Ellsworth. I know R won't see this for several hours. Should I let you and/or R know about these if any more pop up? MarnetteD|Talk 00:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MarnetteD! I shall continue to monitor the category for any redirects that appear and either edit them or make edit requests as needed.  Paine  00:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good Paine. Best and spookiest wishes for a fun Halloween to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 00:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My favorite holiday!  Paine 

Tonight I found two "Portal animation" items and a list in AussieLegend's works space in the category. The one thing they had in common was copies from The Simpsons articles on the page. I did some digging and couldn't find a protection template that would cause this problem. As I worked on other pages that were in the incorrect PP cat this essay Wikipedia:Fancruft was also listed but its last protection was almost a decade ago. I then found a big red warning message near the bottom of the page that mentions The Simpsons. Is this red warning connected to the other pages being on the list somehow? Pinging Paine as well in hopes that either or both of you can figure out what is going on. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It concerns {{The Simpsons episode count}}, attempts to orphan that and hence give an excuse to delete it, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 October 24#Template:The Simpsons episode count. In my view, transcluding an entire article (The Simpsons) by means of the markup {{:The Simpsons}} just to extract one figure is hugely inefficient. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks R. I am glad that you were able to track down what was happening. MarnetteD|Talk 16:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello R. Talk:Mercedes-Benz Stadium/Archive 1 is now in the cat. As it has been fully protected so can't perform any edits to fix the situation. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I set the |expiry= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Does this content truly meet RD2? It is in logs and edit histories all throughout Wikipedia. WP:RTV doesn't grant a right to never be mentioned again, and includes "Note that signatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages and project discussion pages) will not be changed". BLP is not usually applied to editors. Prodego ^talk 03:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's one thing to do detective work in order to work out who it was. It's quite another to actually say who it was. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Defintitely agree with removing the comment for that reason. Does it meet RD2 and does rev deleting it make it any less visible? That information is already in many archives, logs, and page histories, including ones that are a lot easier to find than WP:VPT Prodego ^talk 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reversion mentioned a recent agreement on the name. I see nothing in the talk page about it. Where is the agreement mentioned please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The convention is Xxx (disambiguation) railway station. See WP:Naming conventions (UK stations) and its' talk page. Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

We've had several discussions in recent years, mostly on the talk pages of individual stations; Lamberhurst (talk · contribs) and Thryduulf (talk · contribs) may recall which ones. These discussions always ended up with the name remaining as (or becoming) like "Foo (Barshire) railway station". Also, check out the way that templates like {{stnlnk}} are written. For example, {{stnlnk|Sutton|Dublin}} gives Sutton - which is equivalent to [[Sutton (Dublin) railway station|Sutton]] --Redrose64 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Seaford (Sussex) railway station, talk:Whitchurch (Shropshire) railway station and talk:Newport (Shropshire) railway station for examples and links. The reason "Town (County) railway station" is used is because the common name is ambiguous so we use the unambiguous official name as a natural disambiguation. Network Rail (and predecessors) use this format for the official name, if they used "Town railway station, County" then we'd use that instead.

The difference here is that this is not a UK station and so the official name might be different - I don't know of enough about stations in Ireland to say. I am unable to find any documented naming conventions for Irish stations (only UK and Poland, plus repeated extensive discussions about the USA). Thryduulf (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As my friendly local wikiproject trains expert, perhaps you can explain something? I'm curious to know why wp has two template systems - 'rail line' and 's-line' - doing essentially the same job. I observe (e.g., at Milton Keynes Central railway station#Service summary) that template:rail line involves rather a lot of hand built parameters (see the present WCML services at MKC) whereas template:s-line (as used for proposed Crossrail at MKC) seems a lot neater and promotes consistency (since so much of it is 'canned' in the template). I can see that there is a problem on a few lines that don't have recognised names (Bournemouth - Oxford - Newcastle or Manchester, for example) - but surely the exceptions should be handled as just that - exceptions, leaving the most frequently encountered cases to be handled by a 'most cases' ready-to-wear template? What have I missed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The {{rail line}} template has no subtemplates, it depends upon nothing else; if you feed it duff values there is little visible breakage. Conversely, {{s-line}} requires the construction of a whole heap of subtemplates, and it is very sensitive to duff input. The purpose of (and indeed the requirement for) these subtemplates is not always clear. When adding a new routebox, I always use {{rail line}} as it's predictable, and easy to test merely by previewing. If it looks wrong, you don't start wondering "is the problem with the way I used it, or the way that it interacts with the subtemplates? Code like

{{s-line|system=LCR|line=LCR|branch=Milton Keynes|next=Bletchley}}

looks quite compact, but it uses no fewer than seven subtemplates: {{LCR color}} {{LCR lines}} {{LCR lines/branches}} {{LCR stations}} {{LCR style}} {{S-line/LCR right/LCR}} {{S-line/side cell}} - of these, the first six are specific to Crossrail; and if {{s-line}} had specified |previous=, {{S-line/LCR left/LCR}} would also be necessary. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, yes, that makes sense. I notice that a lot of Italian stations have unresolved parameters (=> ugly display) - see for example Milano Centrale railway station#Service summary - not a great advertisement for s-line! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There was no need to remove the times of availability of the Pullman dining service, since you have no idea about GWR and are just on here to gain points maybe next time you should keep you fat nose out of things and try another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devonexpressbus (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you know of what I know? The point is, specific train times are simply not encyclopedic. If people need that information, they go to the TOC's own website, which will at least be up to date - the TOC has the responsibility of keeping it up to date, so they do so. We do not. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yet another idiot on here who likes to fiddle around with peoples content and try to get some sort of points from it. Get a life you stupid fuck, and stop interfering. Devonexpressbus (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Devonexpressbus: I have just formally served you with a {{uw-3rr}}. You may also consider yourself served with a {{uw-npa4im}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

on the bottom of albert's page it says he won the NL 2015 all star that is not correct it was the AL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.10.134.170 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What does that have to do with me? Please point out article errors on the talk page for that article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Are your by any chance patrolling my contributions and reverting anything you don't like, no matter if the article has any interest to you or not?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 17:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I have an extensive watchlist, built up over several years. Most of the pages that you have edited were already on my watchlist; but remember that you first came to my attention because of your persistent removal of red links. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but what makes you think you can add a page to your watchlist only because I edited it. And by the way, I have extensive knowledge about The King's School, Worcester, which I presume you don't have. Infact, do you know anything about the school right now?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 18:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that I can't add a page to my watchlist? What do you know of what I know? You might think that having "extensive knowledge" about the school somehow gives you more rights than somebody else. It doesn't, see WP:OWN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

But your only adding it to your watchlist because I edited it, and you didn't like my edit. I'm not saying your not allowed to make up your own watchlist, but I'm not happy with the circumstances over why you added the page to your watchlist. Why do you want to look over me like this? And, by the way, I have seen WP:OWN before, and I believe what it says should happen, and I abide by it. I do not think anyone has more rights to page than anyone else, unless it's their user page. I'm not happy with you just looking over me like a hawk.Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 20:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WHEN HAVE I EVER ABUSED YOU?!!!Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 20:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

At User talk:Theoosmond. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Could I have a more specific answer, ie copy and paste the abusive message, please.Theoosmond (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

By claiming that I'd never seen a silent film (and by extension, implying that I wasn't qualified to write about actors or decide which should be linked), you were insulting my intelligence. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am sincerely sorry for the ditress I have caused. However, I thought your had misread my question, and I couldn't not find out what 'Golden Silents' was at the time. Again, my sincerest apoligies.Theoosmond (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC) And also, I did not mean to imply you were unqualified to talk about actors. If anyone has any knowledge that isn't on the Wikipedia page, they are welcome to put it in, no matter if it is just a bit of trivia. I knew that at the time.Theoosmond (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

From Template talk:Infobox Doctor Who episode: @MarnetteD: It did not work because it was malformed... the edit has to be correct first time in order for a notification to work, you can't go back and fix it later. Similarly, your edit won't have notified Theoosmond because you had one pipe too many. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC). What did you mean by 'one pipe too many' in this edit?Theoosmond (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Look at MarnetteD's edit. It begins :Hello {{u||Theoosmond}}. Here, the {{u}} template has been given two pipe characters, instead of a single one. This meant that the first parameter of the template was blank, and that parameter is necessary to make a user page link, and it is that link that triggers a notification, and so the notification failed. The next edit (by Edokter) removed that extra pipe, but that in itself would not be sufficient to trigger the failed notification. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In the {{tq}} template, will notification templates alert any editors to the page which the {{tq}} is on?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If a clickable link to a user page is added in the same edit that a signature is added, then a notification should be sent. It doesn't matter what that clickable link is enclosed in. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so did I accidently alert ManetteB?Theoosmond(talk)(warn) 22:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Your continued lurking on my talk page is unnecessary, unproductive, and immature. I have done nothing but edit in good faith and admit my mistakes; I've certainly done nothing to deserve your insults. If you can't find something productive do say, say nothing. —swpb^T 16:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You mean this post from three days ago? That's not unproductive or immature - it's me cleaning up your mess. If you admit your mistakes, you would have fixed it yourself, straight away. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64,

Thanks for reverting all the railway changes. Just for context, there was a page called Salisbury railway station (England), which Salisbury railway station was moved to. However, this move was reverted today by another user. Sorry for all the trouble in having to change all those links back.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you have a look at the recent addition to Wolverton, please? Maybe I'm just being excessively picky but they don't seem to me to be useful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Though based on the thanks you get [above], I can understand if you'd rather not! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know why Template:Cite comic does not support |isbn=? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No. But then, I've never been involved with that template, and don't recall ever using it - possibly because I don't consider comics to be WP:RS. Maybe it's omitted because comics are normally periodicals, so would have an ISSN - but then, the template doesn't have a |issn= param either. Some comic collections have an ISBN:

• Crumb, R. (May 2003) [1987]. Groth, Gary; Fiore, Robert (eds.). The Complete Crumb Comics, Volume 1: The Early Years of Bitter Struggle (3rd ed.). Seattle, Washington: Fantagraphics Books. ISBN 0-930193-42-3.

but I would use {{cite book}} for those. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The documentation and the talk page recommend using |id= for ISBNs. It links nicely. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Jonesey95 I know. But this is an inconsistency between various citation templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It should not come as a surprise to you, a veteran WP editor, that there are inconsistencies among templates. Resolving inconsistencies among citation templates, of which there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, is a big project. Most of the action is happening at Help talk:Citation Style 1. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That page has 53 threads - and it only goes back one month. I stopped watching it some months ago, when it became clear that Trappist the monk was dominating proceedings. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full sizeRedrose64 as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

.

Pick and choose according to taste: Have a Wassailing Winter Solstice (Gwasaela Heuldro'r Gaeaf), Merry Christmas (Nadolig Llawen), Grey Mare (Mari Lwyd) walkabout, or Happy New Year (Blwyddyn Newydd Dda).

May your celebration go with you. Robevans123 (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 15:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)	Pure pun-ishment. [2]

Merry Christmas, RedRose, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64, hi. Just seen your revert on my talk page deletion. I know something's gone wrong (and it will be my fault) but what has gone wrong and why? I created the John Nicholson Poet page in November and submitted it to AfC to be approved. It duly went on the 6th of December, approved by Swistertwister. The issue is that my sandbox page now always redirects to the John Nicholson page. In short, because the John Nicholson page is up and running, I though the best way was to delete if from my sandbox. Obviously not - Help please? Hope your Christmas was good? The joy of all things (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects should not be moved, particularly not those that were created as a result of a previous page move. When you moved the sandbox page, you should have unchecked the box that says "Move associated talk page". Blanking a redirect does not erase its history: it still exists, as shown here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, seen and understood - the awful realisation dawns of how wrong I've gone; how do I fix it (so that the talk page is naturally blank until populated)?The joy of all things (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're drafting in user space, don't create the talk page until after the sandbox has been moved to mainspace. In the case of User talk:The joy of all things/sandbox, I think that WP:CSD#G6 applies. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I will sort it ASAP. Thanks for all this - especially noting that the talk page comes after the move to mainspace, actually makes sense when it has been pointed out to me.The joy of all things (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Just seen that you have sorted the page out - thank you. I'm in your debt. The joy of all things (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The SEML between Dover and Folkestone is closed, and will be so until the end of February or longer. Is it worth amending the two SEML route diagrams to reflect this? Mjroots (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Bring it up at WT:UKRAIL, and suggest that we do the same as we did for the Dawlish closure in 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64,
I have suspicions that User:YellowPotato is emptying categories out of process. I regular CSD C1 categories that are empty and it is typically an odd mix of recently created categories that duplicate existing categories or older categories that just held one article which has been deleted.
But now we have all of these violence in X categories that are suddenly empty like Category:Violence in Chile, Category:Violence in Turkey and Category:Violence in Israel. I think this new editor is responsible and I've left a talk page message but I was hoping for a second opinion. I am also wondering if there are other recently deleted categories that have been emptied out of process. So far, the only way I know to identify these categories is to go through an editor's contributions to see if they have been actively removing a category from articles but one has to have an editor in mind to even start this process. Otherwise, once articles have been removed it's very difficult to go back and refill a category unless one is very familiar with a subject. Thanks for your help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Redrose64, @Liz: I am also interested in this topic. Where can I find wp:Categories emptied out of process? Are the rules different for wp:ADMINs, wp:editors and wp:Newbies? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: The rules should be the same for all. As for categories emptied out of process, I don't know of a page with a title like that, although WP:CFD states in its lead "unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made." Similar phrases are used later on, at WP:CFD#Ready for deletion and of course WP:CFD#Categories possibly emptied out of process; also at {{db-catempty}} - but not at WP:CSD. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I had a couple of questions about your recent updates to User:Chatul/Sandbox/Count key data/notes

1. I've never had a problem using ref=numeric without quotes; is there a reason to expect future problems?
2. Is there anything in the MOS that discourages putting notes at the bottom of a table? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ref names must match. If you are using named refs, and one is <ref name=GA33ú1510ú1 /> but the other is <ref name=GA33-1510-1> that is a clear difference - one uses "ú" where the other uses "-". I tried quotes (which didn't work in this case) because I had assumed that the failure was due to the name= attribute having the same syntax rules as ordinary HTML tag attributes - values (the part after the equals sign) must be quoted unless they consist exclusively of letters A-Z/a-z, numbers 0-9, period "." and hyphen-minus "-". You will notice that I edited that ref twice, the second time did not use quotes.

WP:CITE#How to create the list of citations says to put the list of notes or refs in a section of its own near the bottom, this is expanded upon at WP:CITE#Separating citations from explanatory footnotes. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Sounds like a typo; all of my references to IBM manuals should have imbedded hyphens in the id.
2. Neither WP:CITE#How to create the list of citations nor WP:CITE#Separating citations from explanatory footnotes preclude specialized local lists of explanatory notes. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Redress64, could you help with a problem at Plurality (voting)? An IP editor keeps placing inchoate text in topic, related to plurality, apparently using several IP addresses. See this edit, in particular, which is similar to a previous one. I don't feel that I can tackle this on my own, so I'm hoping that you can help. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem edit has been reverted. The IP editor is still in play. User:HopsonRoad 23:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Redrose64. You might have accidentally deleted a category that I created Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series).

I created for wikipedians who identified themselves as Star Trek Phase II. If that category is in the wrong place, please un-delete and move to the right section. Thank you--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I deleted it under WP:CSD#G2 since it appeared to be a test page. Categories that contain themselves are rarely useful: I know of only two, Category:Hidden categories and Category:Noindexed pages. I have now undeleted it; please ensure that it takes its proper place in the category tree. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

For clarity, I'd support moving all Metrolink stops (other than the mainline interchanges) to ''Foo'' tram stop, not just Pomona. Not only do Metrolink themselves consistently use the term "stop" (the only time "station" appears in any of their material is when talking about mainline railways or bus stations), but every non-Manchester tram article in the UK uses "stop" rather than "station" (Croydon Tramlink, Midland Metro and Nottingham Express Transit have separate articles for each stop, each at the ''Foo'' tram stop name; Blackpool, Edinburgh and Sheffield don't have separate articles for each stop, but consistently use "stop" rather than "station" throughout in the parent articles). I strongly suspect this is a case of nobody wanting the inevitable "how dare you touch our articles" blowback from WP:GM rather than there being any actual reason to use "station", since I don't see how a case could be made for continuing with the existing naming conventions. ‑ Iridescent 14:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, but moving the articles one-by-one (with or without a WP:RM discussion for each) is not the way to do it; we should really have a blanket discussion on the whole group together, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) but more probably on the talk page of a WikiProject, taking care to inform all other WikiProjects that may have a potential interest. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree, but I've no intention of being the one to do the RFC; spending six weeks arguing with the combined masses of WP:GM and WP:UKRAIL, both of whom contain more than their fair share of 'colorful' characters, is not high on my to-do list. If I wanted a talkpage permanently full of semicoherent abuse, I'd have stayed on Arbcom. ‑ Iridescent 15:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I just filed an AN3 report regarding edit warring by Theoosmond. I noticed you'd had some issued with his disruptive editing recently, and thought I'd let you know. --Drmargi (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Can you or DavidCane recommend any good book sources to use for improvement on some of our articles on London mainline stations? As you might be aware, I have a mini-project to get every property square on a British Monopoly board to good article status - so far things are progressing reasonably well, but at some point I'm going to have tackle the stations.

The London Encyclopedia and the Survey of London are my general first choice of sources for the streets (eg: Fleet Street, Piccadilly, Oxford Street) and indeed they have substantial information about London King's Cross railway station themselves. But I know from experience that London railways have a wide selection of books, and I don't think I'll be able to convincingly write an article meeting the "broad in coverage" part of the GA criteria without consulting them. I have a free pass to the London Transport Museum so if there's anything worth picking up in there, I can have a look when I'm next in the area. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

All four stations on the Monopoly board were LNER stations prior to 1948 (Fenchurch Street had more LMS services than LNER, but it was LNER-owned, having been inherited from the Great Eastern Railway), so try some general histories of the LNER:

• Allen, Cecil J. (1971) [1966]. The London & North Eastern Railway. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0-7110-0250-9.
• Bonavia, Michael R. (1985) [1982]. A History of the LNER: 1. The First Years, 1923-33. London: Guild Publishing/Book Club Associates. CN 4143.
• Hughes, Geoffrey (1987) [1986]. LNER. London: Guild Publishing/Book Club Associates. CN 1455.
• Whitehouse, Patrick; Thomas, David St John (1989). LNER 150: The London and North Eastern Railway - A Century and a Half of Progress. Newton Abbot: David & Charles. ISBN 0-7153-9332-4. 01LN01.

All of these begin with an overview of the major LNER constituents, and IIRC at least one of them describes the London termini. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I'll see what the library can do about getting hold of them. In the meantime, I might see what I can do from the book sources I have anyway, certainly King's Cross seems to be mainly cited to news reports at the moment, which can be okay for odd facts but aren't as reliable as any in-depth history report simply due to the time required to fact check things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

For Marylebone it will be a little more complicated, as to cover it in depth means covering the troubled and tangled histories of the Great Central Railway and Metropolitan Railway. If you're anywhere near Waterloo, I'd strongly recommend visiting the Ian Allan shop across the road; they stock a huge number of hyperspecialised books on railway history which aren't sold anywhere else. They're pricey, but you can visit, jot down ISBNs and then dig on Worldcat to find out where to get hold of them for free. The London Railway Record has almost certainly published detailed histories of each of the four stations in question, also. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Marylebone is the one station out of the four that was very nearly closed, and I'd quite like to find out exactly how much of "very nearly" that was. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Extremely very nearly—I would imagine NWR will revive the plans at some point (probably in conjunction with the rebuilding of Euston). It's on the primest of prime real estate, has very poor connections to other mainline stations and to the London Underground and no connection to either Crossrail, and since the diversionary routes to Euston and Paddington are still fully functional, shutting it would just be a case of flipping a set of points provided there were the platform capacity elsewhere. Chiltern Railways would probably leap at the chance to be diverted to Euston, and thus take on Virgin head-to-head. ‑ Iridescent 18:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If the LTM ever needed to expand or got turfed out of their Covent Garden Flower Market HQ, Marylebone would be an ideal place to set up shop. It's quintessentially British isn't it, meant for grand things but didn't get them, platforms 5&6 were, what, 100 years late, the utterly brilliant 6' and 25' maps now appearing on the National Library of Scotland website dating from c. 1895 have all the mainline termini except Marylebone because it was the last chicken in the shop. Still, at least its architecture is reasonably intact compared to Euston which still attracts wailing and gnashing of teeth 50 years after the event. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention the (finally abandoned) road running into the station so taxis could pick up and drop off passengers at the ticket barriers, and the M&S squeezed into the former ticket office… From all I've seen of the old Euston, I suspect the wailing and gnashing is just knee-jerk antimodernism rather than any great love for it; in every photo, it's clearly a filthy, dingy and cramped shed which makes Manchester Victoria look pleasant and airy. (I wouldn't be at all surprised if at some point in the next few years, the LTM quietly moves their main museum to their Acton site. It's further out but easy enough to get to, has virtually infinitely expandable space without any pesky planning restraints, and flogging the Covent Garden site would make them a fortune.) ‑ Iridescent 19:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I did wonder whether you would pick me up on these issues and I appreciate the point.

In the "last train 1938" I am repeating what was written in the referenced article. I did not want to write this as definite fact as I don't yet know but hope (and surely thats partly the point of wiki) someone might one day come along and state the actual date in a published source. I get the GER Journal each month so thats the most likely place that an answer will crop up although should Middleton Press cover that area then that's another possibility. You may know of others? With regard to the closure yes I am guilty. The source I used for this also speculates and I have tried to apply my experience of railway engineering works to suggest what may have happened. Again I hope that someone will one day be able to confirm which actual date is correct (I suspect closed to traffic on the first date and completely removed on the second) so whilst confusion exists I can think of no better way forward. I will highlight any future occurences as ^{[speculation?]}

Finally where does one find the cite magazine template - is not on the drop down list? Thanks as ever--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Davidvaughanwells: See Template:Cite magazine. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @GoingBatty:--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, want to make sure I am in line with everything else - George the Fifth Class, George the Fifth Class or George the Fifth Class, what is the preferred way? Let me know and I will make the necessary adjustments.81.149.141.199 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The second one --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)