Obviously someone did agree with me as they reinstated the section. Bt I've had enough of the stupidity over this article and will make no further contributions to this or any other British railway articles. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Please indicate where anybody at Talk:British Rail Class 59#Southall agreed with you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not revisiting the arguement, just to apologise for the fit of pique! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Was scrubbing through Category:Wikipedia template-protected pages other than templates and modules and reset some 2014 protection tests you made - if you need them again, feel free to revert! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: This was in connection with some work in collaboration with Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs), who (not being an admin, despite having a fairly full hat-box) couldn't set up these protections themselves. More at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 28#Userpage causing cat pollution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it seems perfectly reasonable, was just doing clean up - feel free to reset however you need, I won't be making another pass on that anytime soon! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit summary on Tees Valley line however as we have discussed previously one of the dab tools I use doesn't show that the link is within the stnlnk template. While I am here could you also look at the other two dab links to South Bank railway station ie Middlesbrough railway station & Redcar Central railway station. Thanks.— Rod ^talk 14:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rodw: Those were redundant, so should simply be removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Redrose64 I am a new user and I wanted to create a redirect Snoochie Shy to BBC Radio 1Xtra as she is a presenter on the show. Could you please thanks Linda Binson (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Try WP:HD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Recently came back across my comments on David Vaughn Wells' talk page concerning Bishopsgate (Low Level) railway station and realized I'd never quite finalized things. I was never able to get a hold of any books, not being from the UK. Would you happen to have a link to anything that would show clear(er) maps and details of both the low level and goods yard stations? The writing on the Subbrit diagrams, unfortunately, are illegible (https://media.subbrit.org.uk/10295/1563201502-bishopsgate-goods-yard-plan.jpg). Perhaps it would be easier to explain some things using existing Google Maps aerials that could be marked up (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shoreditch,+London,+UK/@51.5224327,-0.0771174,58m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x48761ca4fbee1efd:0x799b6c9640d63bfd!8m2!3d51.5229106!4d-0.0777472) to explain how each platform was accessed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately my favoured old mapping service (old-maps.co.uk) no longer works. A bit rum considering that the maps concerned are more than fifty years old, and therefore copyright-free. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: (with apologies to Redrose64 for chatting on your talk page): Have you tried the National Library of Scotland's site? It includes OS map overlays at various scales: for example, [1] Bazza (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7: Thank you. Those are interesting maps, though unfortunately, not even as detailed as the one map floating around on subbrit, which itself isn't clear enough to answer my questions.--Criticalthinker (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Out of genuine curiosity, is it a WP:CRYSTAL problem to explain why certain information is not included in the article? I used that sentence (which was already in the article, but in a different form) as reason for removing the unit numbers that were previously shown, precisely because they were predictions. Otherwise I'm puzzled as to how CRYSTAL justifies your reversion. Thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, how about WP:WEASEL? Phrases like "it is not yet clear whether" are a red flag. Either there's a source that says that it will happen, or there's a source that says that it won't - but whichever it is, you need to show where that opinion (for opinion it is) comes from, per the policy on verifiability. If there are two different reliable sources that make opposite claims, give both - but not in a way that you are making your own interpretation, see WP:WEIGHT --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I see the point there. Cheers. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I pick your brains about Template:Adjacent stations? While trying to disambiguate Marton railway station I found two entries for this (ie Gypsy Lane railway station & James Cook railway station) and I could not work out how to do this. Rather than anoy you by mucking up the template link I thought I would ask for your help.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Dablink list for Stockton station as well?— Rod ^talk 15:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rodw: this should fix it.

Redrose, I just noticed that whoever made the Module didn't remove the old s-line templates. Cards84664 17:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - that has worked for Marton. Could you take a look at Stockton station which has links from Billingham railway station and Thornaby railway station as well?— Rod ^talk 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The characters I put in there are in fiction look up dark railway Wiki look for Stan and Dave besides that I know a lot of people don’t know about the dark railway series and tales of new Wessex it should’ve stayed 2600:1003:B861:52A8:8C1D:8575:EC5E:EDBE (talk) 07:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You refer, I presume, to this revert. Always provide relevant links. Regarding your post above: see WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:SPS and WP:FANCRUFT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for unbolding the question. I won't bold in the future :) Hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend ^u^ A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I will remember to do it differently if I have to stop an RFC in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

Thank you for your work in improving Requests for Comments across the project. I've witnessed many editors shorten their statements or trim non-neutrality as a result of your educating, prodding, and sometimes cajoling, and I am certainty much more of that is happening outside my view. Given that RfCs are a critical part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, I see your efforts as contributing in a major way toward increasing the quality of the encyclopedia and improving the experience of our volunteers. I am inspired! Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 23:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there Redrose64. I'm reaching out to you because you are a very experienced editor and administrator, and you have also commented at WT:MOS#Spacing RfC.

That RfC isn't sitting well with me, because there are a lot of editors supporting a change to the MOS, which will impact the editing style of thousands of editors. And much of the support is out of sympathy to the editor who proposed the RfC, who claims the extra lines make it easier to see.

I searched through a few central talk pages, and have been unable to find even one previous discussion about this, or a single editor who has complained about the lack of lines impeding their vision.

When I looked through the edit history of the editor who proposed this, I also didn't see someone making edits because of a vision issue, and a vision issue was never mentioned in any edit summary. What I saw were edits to Florida city articles made alphabetically, first making cosmetic improvements, and then editing almost exclusively to add line spaces after section headings, sometimes making as many as five edits per minute to the same article, just to add an extra line to each section. The editor had made hundreds of bot-like edits until they reached "M", when I left a message on their talk page asking why they were doing this. They immediately responded by creating the RfC.

The editor has stated that they added all these extra lines so that when they went back in the future to edit the article, it would be easier to see. But their edit history doesn't show this. At Avon Park, Florida, for example, they made this edit to the "notable people" section, during which an extra line was added after the section heading. But when they returned to that article three weeks later, they edited a table in the "geography" section, and didn't add an extra line under the geography heading.

The editor also claimed they started the RfC so their addition of extra lines wouldn't be reverted, but then stated that no editor had ever reverted them.

My real concern is that last month another editor asked them "why do you make so many edits instead of just one?", and "I did mention those bulk edits because it seems like a potential case of editcountitis". The editor who proposed this RfC responded that editing this way "calmed them down" because they have OCD.

I'm not trying to judge or "out" someone, I just see too many things that don't add up, and I don't want to see a policy changed unnecessarily.

Thanks for reading. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Re MOS:TIME, you'll have to tell whoever wrote it in the first place, I was just reverting someone trying to impose the AP/PM format. though, yes, I should have spotted it. cheers Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Please have this kitten that appears to almost be hiding. That is how I feel right now. :)

♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me whether I should have marked it as done=yes when I was declining the close. Thank you for straightening out. Now I know what should have been done in this unusual situation. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The |done=yes parameter means "no further action required". I've explained this several times, both at WT:RFC and on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Oliver mention is properly cited and takes up less than a line. I notice you don't have the same loathing of Tiftield reference above, which is much longer. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Robin S. Taylor: No, it was completely uncited (see my revert). Whether it takes up less than a line is irrelevant: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and WP:V is policy, as is WP:NOR. If you would look at the page history, you will find a large number of attempts - mainly by IPs - to add such trivia which is normally unsourced, or sourced only to an unreliable fansite. Also, what is "Tiftield reference above"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:HeathCon colour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I can see that you have made lots of contributions to the wiki, here's a kitten as a thanks.

Organic Increse45( ͡ಠ ͜ʖ ͡ಠ) (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

	An Azuma For You
	For you TheScottish801 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I looked and looked and looked at what I had written and for the life of me couldn't see what I had done wrong. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

...for catching that, a copy-paste mistake. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. That works out at one edit every 18.25 days. So easy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Red, two railway book citation templates you created, Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-10A and Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-11, are unused. Do you plan on having these used? I know that these are part of a series. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

They're part of a set (listed at Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-11#See also) that myself and others were using. Volume 11 was the last one published, and there will be no more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. But do you intend to add them to articles using the citation outside of template space through these templates for transclusion? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. Not today though, I have other things to do. Have you asked the dozens of other people who might potentially use the template? But remember, WP:There is no deadline, so what harm is it causing? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I note you removed the RFC hat on talk:Hawaii because I used the wrong template. That's fine, but a note on my talk page would have been much more helpful than a deletion with an ambiguous edit summary and no note. I had to dig back through the actual diffs to figure out what happened. In the future, please at least leave an edit summary that explains you removed the RFC hat. agtx 13:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Agtx: I did. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit summary, which I didn't find helpful. A person couldn't read it and understand what the edit was. That would have been fine if you had added a comment in the discussion or dropped a note for me, but neither of those things happened (at least not until several days later). Even just adding "deleted RFC hat" to the edit summary would have been enough to tip me off that I needed to take additional action. All I'm suggesting is that slowing down and adding a little bit more explanation for good faith editors who make procedural mistakes is a good idea. agtx 19:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It's got two links. They're there for a reason: so that I don't have to write it all out longhand. Edit summaries are summaries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit that it is a little disheartening to see a Wikipedia administrator so resistant to what is ultimately a very mild suggestion as to something that could have been done a little differently. An edit summary that contains just two links isn't a summary. It says nothing about what you did in the edit. All I'm suggesting is that you didn't communicate as clearly as you thought you did, which can be difficult to see when you're steeped in these procedures every day (as most of us are not). I'm not saying you had to write the whole thing out longhand. Two words -- "RFC removed" -- would have done it. I've been around long enough that I'm not going to get bitten, but that's the risk I'm addressing. agtx 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the list: "This list includes notable accidents on railways that were later amalgamated with the Great Western Railway." Which I took to include Cambrian Railways, thus making the Abermule train collision a notable entry. There is already one Cornwall Railway accident on the list (Menheniot 2/12/1873). -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 12:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There is already an entry at Cambrian Railways#Accidents, it doesn't need to be in both places. By contrast, the article Cornwall Railway has no section for accidents. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Here you write that "the position of those nbsps was intentional". What do you mean? MOS:PUNCTFOOT says that "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space." (italics preserved), and all other footnotes in WP:MOS follow this rule. Look, for example, at the other footnote in the same sentence that you've "corrected". What is the purpose of inserting extra spaces before a footnote in that single particular case? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Look earlier in the same paragraph.

• a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;   a 22–17 majority vote;  ^[1] but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals

Each of the three examples is followed by a semicolon and a pair of non-breaking spaces. You removed one of these pairs, and moved another to after the ref - but left the first pair alone:

• a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;a 22–17 majority vote;^[2]   but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals

This has left the sentence messy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my intention was only to remove the two NBSPs before the footnote; the other two – between the examples – must remain, of course (my mistake, I don't know how I've removed them without noticing). The result should have been:

• a 51–30 win;   a 12–0 perfect season;   a 22–17 majority vote;^[3] but prefer spelling out when using words instead of numerals: a six-to-two majority decision, not with the awkward six–two;  avoid confusingly reversed order: a 17–22 majority vote^[a]

Do you agree with it? (By the way, it would make more sense to use   instead of     in all such cases, but this needs to be discussed at the MOS talk page.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you set up a geo-notice please as it is on 8 May. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Philafrenzy: It looks like The wub (talk · contribs) did it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There was no need to leave this edit comment: [2] The meaning of the initialism may be clear to you but it is not to everyone. Please consider [3], and especially Avoid incivility. Snide comments, personal remarks about editors, and other aggressive edit summaries are explicit edit-summary "don'ts" of the Wikipedia Civility policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.215.42 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64. Thank you for your comments on my recent RfC. I tried now to make it clearer that the RfC is about shortening the section "Removal of designation", but some editors have already voted on something different (splitting the "History" section). To make things less confusing, would it be ok to open a new RfC with the splitting the "History" section proposal and move the votes about that there? This way each RfC would address what each is about. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Any time I have ever seen a malformed RFC, you are there to make sure it gets corrected. I really appreciate that about you, and it helps ensure the RFC process, in general, runs smoothly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

What kind of effort (social-political or technical) would it take to get these last two banners transitioned over to WPBM? It would help both now (for TemplateStyles) and for the future (when banners are no longer HTML tables) if these could get moved over. Not a big deal for me if the timeline is never, but it does save someone (possibly me) some future grief. Izno (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like how I edited those three pages, so be it, but please, at least, look at what I edited and consider fleshing out those sources yourself. Thanks!
--Xenophore; talk 18:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Xenophore: When you make many changes to an article in a single edit, it can be difficult to pick out the beneficial changes. What I saw was improper use of {{date}} - see its documentation, which states explicitly This template should only be used internally in other templates. I also saw wholesale conversion of the references to WP:LDR without prior discussion, contrary to WP:CITEVAR; and the similarly-undiscussed use of {{r}} and {{refn}}, both of which are not in regular use - they are rarely necessary. Since it is never necessary to use |language=en in cite templates - the documentation states When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation., and it's not a foreign language source, it is doubly unnecessary to use |language=en-gb. You also sorted the categories alphabetically, which goes against this policy discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm still getting the hang of some of this. Xenophore; talk 19:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

How to proceed from here? Earlier you had advised me to not advertise of merge-proposals via a RfC. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Failing to take the RfC route only incentivizes, what might be construed as, heckler's veto. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Of the three WikiProject banners at the top of the page, you have informed two of them (Central Asia and Afghanistan), but apparently not WikiProject Ethnic groups. Regardless, it's been four months with three participants (Otr500 (talk · contribs) being the third), so perhaps the WikiProject members don't care enough to comment. I'm with पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) on this one: there is insufficient support for a merge; but I really don't think that an RfC will help, since it will target a large number of people who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and will be less inclined to comment then the WikiProjects are. My advice would be to let the matter drop - but if you want formal closure, there is WP:CR. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Central Asia etc. are inactive wiki-projects for all practical purposes; I knew from the offset — notwithstanding your well-meaning advice — about the futility of informing them. For my vehement disagreement with Pataliputra, it is indeed true that nobody excluding the two of us seem to bother about the topic-area.

RfCs are meant to attract people who have little or no knowledge of the subject area - do you offer any opposition if I convert the discussion to a RfC? Obviously, if the RfC fails to bring closure, I will let the proposal drop. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, I do think that a RfC will help - see the participation rate at this merge request. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Seven people. That's you, me, पाटलिपुत्र and four others: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs), ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs), Austronesier (talk · contribs) and Ytpks896 (talk · contribs). Not exactly a great deal, and you closed it, despite being heavily involved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You can have my closure challenged at WP:AN. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: No need to be bellicose, I think User:Redrose64 is just trying to give you some good advice. It is simply not good practice to close a proposal by yourself when you are so directly involved. I don't think anybody would take you to WP:AN for this, except is this was repeated behaviour, oblivious of warnings, and if this became disruptive. Let's work together, and let's try to follow the rules. We're just a bunch of volunteers trying to do the right thing, no need for drama. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Redrose64, respectfully, I think it should be the other way around. Consider a page-creation as a bold edit, and a merge as a revert. The WP:ONUS is on the page-creator to convince the other editors of the need for a separate page. If not, the WP:STATUSQUO should be a merged page.

See the comments I and others have made at WT:INDIA. पाटलिपुत्र (talk · contribs) is a compulsive page-creator. He is not alone, of course. But these new pages that nobody cares about, and nobody bothers to comment on, represent an unnecessary overhead we can do without. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Rulers (here, kings) for whom there is a decent amount of information generally deserve their own page on Wikipedia. There is little sense in merging the page of a political entity with the pages of its individual rulers: the article on the political entity will focus on generalities (geography, historical events, art, dynastic order etc...), while individual pages can focus on the known specifics of each ruler (life, known documents, coinage, various academic theories etc...). Further, having an individual page for a given ruler facilitates navigation: redirects to sub-segments of a large article never work in the long term as they keep getting broken with the slightest change in the spelling of the target subtitle. As to the "compulsive page-creator" jibe, this might be a bit of an overstatement: in average I have only created about one article a week on Wikipedia. This is a fairly healthy amount for a content creator, not a world apart from your own average. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:GOODFAITH and tell me where it says we can't make duplicates of the same message for birthdays, first edit days, etc, thanks a lot, as 86.173.215.42 said, avoid snide comments. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 17:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@DinosaurTrexXX33: The message that you sent and the two that Idoghor Melody (talk · contribs) sent were identical (apart from the signatures) to one previously sent by Interstatefive (talk · contribs). They included the text "On behalf of the Birthday Committee", which means that each of you was acting for the group: only one of the three of you should have posted in that capacity. Do you have a checklist to record who has been messaged? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64::I understand your point but I don't see where it says that on WP:BIRTHDAYS. If I am wrong, please message me back. Regards, Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 18:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64: a part of Wikipedia:BDC states that “More than one person from the committee may send messages to the same person and belated greetings are ok too.” and this contradicts your opinion. Thank you. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the talk page help. You're absolutely right that these birthday messages are borderline spam.

Can we please block this kid for a year or two? Surely this user page is enough to say they're not ready to contribute constructively to a free encyclopedia. And a quick scan of their contributions indicates that they have very little interest in editing articles or otherwise improving the project. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I am a child, and I am not fully matured yet, and even if I am not, I still try to help out Wikipedia. Please review WP:GOOD FAITH as I wasn't trying to do anything wrong (but I did do a few things wrong, so I can take the blame for that), and I might have been on this site for 2 years, but I still do not know my way around, I leave it to the users to help me. Dinosaur TrexXX33 (chat?) 11:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've received an e-mail from blocked editor Djm-leighpark concerning Draft:John Melling (locomotive engineer). New editor RedrO ehT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has added the image to the draft. Djm is concerned that there may be allegations of socking, which he denies, and is concerned that there may be an attempt to get him globally locked as the "Red" part of the new editors user name is also part of an alternative user name of his.

Not sure what we can do about the concerns raised, other than keeping an eye on AN or ANI. The new user's name may be of concern as a possible imitator or yourself, although it is "The Order" spelled backwards. A possible indicator of someone intent on mischief. Or it could be entirely innocent.

The draft article itself is fully referenced, and covers a locomotive engineer active in the 1830s. As editors in good standing, there is nothing stopping us moving the draft to mainspace, is there? Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I had not previously heard of the subject of the article. He's not mnentioned by Baxter or John Marshall. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had a search of contemporary local newspapers, nothing turned up except one item re the improvements to steam locomotives. Plenty of other John Mellings's who were petty criminals, but nothing on the engineer. I'm minded to move the draft to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are providing personal advice to a user, you may wish to use talk pages instead of using edit summaries as a personalised messaging system. In today's Wikipedia climate with admins walking on eggs, saying things on Wikipedia that might not fully comply with convention could be construed by some editors as a lack of AGF or even back-door criticism. Some editors might simply tacitly retire. Newbies might even complain vociferously, or other governance obsessives might even complain on their behalf. Been there, done that, got my admin T-shirt stripped off my back 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, thanks nevertheless for the heads up. That said, as semi-retired I do not expect to be launching many RfC in the near future if I can possibly avoid it. My sensibilities are these days are very much on edge, hence my withdrawal from most things on WP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I pick your brains again please? I can't get my head around the syntax for Template:Adjacent stations on Shenzhen Metro (system=SZM). On several articles (ie Shangfen station, Shangtang station & Shenzhen North station) the template is used in the info box & should point to Hongshan station (Shenzhen Metro) but currently go to the dab page Hongshan station. I've tried every combination of parameters that I can think of but none seem to work. Any help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 08:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have never used it. I think that I spoke out against it right from the start, on the grounds that it was difficult to use unless properly set up and documented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I wrote documentation for disambiguating stations at Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Feedback is always appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have often found it difficult and it is a frequent issue identified (among other railway related ones) at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links.— Rod ^talk 20:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I wrote that detailed explainer in response to feedback from someone who works on page disambiguation. Is it helpful? Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

In any event, I fixed it: [4]. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what detailed explainer you are referring to - but thanks for fixing this example.— Rod ^talk 21:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Further up in the thread: Module:Adjacent stations#Disambiguating stations. Mackensen (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:NET colour has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out that list at VPP[5]. I'd say "what was I thinking?" but I clearly wasn't. NebY (talk) 19:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I’ve recently been changing the status of class 26 loco 26040 to ‘engine running, traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22’ which is accurate. Can we please stop changing it back to ‘undergoing repair’ when this doesn’t provide an accurate reflection of the current position. Ftzi (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ftzi: You refer, I presume, to edits like this (where you added Engine running & traction achieved by I.Fitzpatrick 15/6/22), this (Traction achieved & ran for the first time on a heritage railway 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.) and this (Traction achieved 15/6/22 by I.Fitzpatrick.). I think that it means that on 15 June 2022 (and regarding 15/6/22, please see the guideline on writing dates) somebody called I.Fitzpatrick started the engine. This information is of an unencyclopedic (some might say insignificant) nature, and it has all the appearance of blogging. Please observe the policy on verifiability: personal knowledge is only acceptable if already published in reliable third-party sources. I don't know who I.Fitzpatrick is, but I expect that they are alive, in which case the policy on living persons applies also. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

thank you for contributions. I think you made a mistake on the edit I made. I did not make it in a non-neutral point of view. I made it in a factual point view. thank for your services, please message me if you have any questions. Mallie22 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I did. I suggest that you read the pages linked from the posts that I have left. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Here, your es suggests I'm not "respecting" ie erroneously trespassing. I find that a needless personalisation (or reproach), leaving the GF sphere. BTW, the edit is trivial. (And while I looked at it once more: probably the blue link is not in place).

Anyway, I'll consider it a minor style habit issue. DePiep (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Changing a single consistent list to a set of three lists that are mutually inconsistent causes accessibility issues. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I know, but it was the "respect" part, as described. For example, just linking the MOS in the es would have done: when following I'd learn, when not folllowing -- editor can't be helped. -DePiep (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Why the hell did you change my refering to 60009 as ,,she,, to ,,it,, on her page? Don't you know that locomotives are symbolically refer to as ,,females,,? SilverFox60017 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page lurker here) Wikipedia generally refers to all machinery using 'it' and 'they' pronouns, not feminine or masculine pronouns. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@SilverFox60017: Per my edit summary, this is covered by MOS:GNL. In short: the only inanimate objects for which gendered pronouns may be used are ships (and even that is debatable). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Redrose64 That's not true. Both rail workers and enthusiasts refer to locomotives as females. My English teacher (who came from Britain) confirmed that. SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

What these people do is their own business. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style, generally accepted by the community: this is not the place to argue that it should be violated. If you want the Wikipedia Manual of Style to be altered, propose it at WT:MOS but you will need to make a very strong case, and be prepared to counter the many points against your proposal that inevitably will be presented. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@XtraJovial Wait, users here refer to a single machine as they?! I can't believe they push this gender nonsense even on inanimate objects? SilverFox60017 (talk) 12:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You're trying too hard to be offended - he clearly meant "it" (singular) and "they" (plural). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@SilverFox60017: whilst historically machines have been referred to in the feminine (We may also note that the miller, as the sailor when referring to his ship, speaks of his mill as being of the feminine gender : "Ah! She's been a fine old mill in her time." The practice of using the feminine pronoun for ships is immemorial ; it may have arisen, I am told, from the resemblance of a ship in full sail to a graceful woman. - Coles Finch, William (1933). Watermills and Windmills. p. 62.), here on Wikipedia they are generally referred to in the neuter with the noted exception of ships, where it is the article creator's choice of which to use. I suggest that you accept there is WP:CONSENSUS on this issue otherwise you are likely to find yourself blocked. Mjroots (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Redrose. Would you be willing to undelete the above article and move it to my userspace? The person who wrote it is a friend of mine, and I figured that I might be able to help them, even 16 years after deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it was not deleted following a WP:PROD but as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music4Uonline, I can't do this unilaterally - I would be in breach of WP:ADMINACCT and it would be deleted again as a WP:CSD#G4. You would need to file a WP:DRV. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for pointing me in the right direction. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Could you add something to explain what param 'at' is and what it's used for? Is it the English word "at", meaning location, or an abbreviation of something? Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Cite journal#csdoc_at. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi RedRose, Regarding this edit you made, removing the RFC tag and summing it up by saying "This is a WP:SPLIT matter, not an RfC matter".

I am quite confused by this edit. Turning Point Action already has an article. It was split out prior to the RFC. The contested Turning Point Action content inside has been argued in the talk page section several times as to whether or not it belongs on the TPUSA page. There isn't any consensus being reached by a normal discussion, the consensus is always divided (As you can go see right now there is no clear consensus, its half for & half against). That is why I made the RFC, to get outside editors opinions if content not related to the source article should remain.

How would a WP:Split resolve this issue? MaximusEditor (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Where was the split discussed? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why the Split discussion is relevant; The Turning Point Action article was ultimately created after previous discussions on Turning Point USA's talk page regarding the very same issue as the RFC. Does TPAction content that doesn't have anything to do with TPUSA belong on TPUSA's article page? So, no this isn't a WP:SPLIT issue, we are well past that. I don't see how we could discuss a split, when the article you want to discuss being split out has already been created. The problem lays with editors not agreeing what belongs on what page. That is what the RFC addressed. So I need you to clarify what to do now, since you removed the RFC. As it stands the RFC that was downgraded to a talk page discussion is 3 support vs 2 oppose. Editors appear to be ignoring the fact that TPAction has its own page and continue to place non-TPUSA content on the TPUSA page under the TPAction section. Can you please advise on what action to take to get wrongfully published material on a certain page, posted on the page it belongs on? MaximusEditor (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, unless I missed something here MOS:SEEALSO, here MOS:NOTSEEALSO or somewhere else in MOS, I cannot see anything wrong with the See also section in B. Hick and Sons prior to your last 2 edits? Some points could eventually form paragraphs in the main body. Regards Rstory (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Rstory: Regarding this edit: the placement of {{Use dmy dates}} is (debatably) among the top matter or among the bottom matter, it certainly doesn't belong anywhere else and is of zero relevance for "See also". Regarding this edit: there should be no reason to use references for the individual entries in "See also". MOS:SEEALSO says Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. - it says nothing at all about adding references. Those belong in the prose of the linked-to article. If you feel that you need to justify the inclusion by using a ref in addition to the permitted annotation, the connection is probably very tenuous indeed. Consider the entry:

• Dick, Kerr & Co. - Hick Hargreaves condenser for an English Electric turbo generator

there are four links here, there should only need to be one. When I follow each of the last three, I find no mention of Hick at all; and on the Dick, Kerr page, the only mention is in "See also". If Dick, Kerr & Co. used products devised or manufactured by Hick Hargreaves there should at the very least be a passage in one or both of the articles describing them. The reference may go there, as may the links to condenser, English Electric and turbo generator. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry {{Use dmy dates}} was a typo, your correction duly thanked.

I agree, MOS:SEEALSO says nothing about adding references, which is why when I checked it some time ago, I could find no reason not to add references to support the anotations to ensure the links were evidential. It seems my error in good faith is more related to MOS on references and linking, perhaps the guidance on SEEALSO or NOTSEEALSO could be clarified? The links with refs will if I can find a way, be moved into one or other article(s).Rstory (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

[This reply will sound snarkier than is warranted, but I can't resist.]

Please be considerate; not everyone has the faintest idea what the distinction between WP:CS1 and WP:CS2 is, so you shouldn't blindly revert well-meaning edits and in so doing reintroduce the citation errors which the underinformed prior editor was clumsily attempting to correct. —scs (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Scs: the curious thing about that article is that whilst four references come from the same website (Railways Archive), they all use different templates - {{cite web}}, {{Cite document}}, {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. Each of them links to a PDF of an accident report, these reports are definitely not journals and whilst one has an ISBN, they're not really books in the accepted sense. Although all could be seen as web sources, that's not how they were originally published so perhaps {{cite report}} would be best. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my template parameter typo in WP:ANRFC, I've been away for a while so I'm a bit rusty. Anyways, hope you've had an enjoyable summer and a good rest of the week :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You've previously given some good advice on the above topic.

I would welcome you views about recent edits here: 45 Years

Thank you. Tomintoul (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tomintoul: You asked exactly the same question at User talk:John Maynard Friedman#Advice on WP:BRD, so per WP:MULTI I'll reply there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Redrose64. Did you have any thoughts on the response to your comment I posted on John Maynard? Tomintoul (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've already called WP:MULTI on this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! re this edit, I think that's an AfC issue. Or maybe the script? I'm guessing it offered the suggestion automagically, although I can't work out how/where I could have previewed. Either way, thanks for flagging. Star Mississippi 17:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: It's not in Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json, and hasn't been since this edit six months ago. Therefore it shouldn't have been offered for selection on 17 May 2022. Do you run a local copy of the script? If so, it probably needs updating. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so? Guessing no since I'm not sure what that would entail. File it under gremlins and will check TPs after creation to make sure no others come for a visit. Star Mississippi 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, I think we are now well beyond the point of WP:DENY in regards to this LTA; tagging each new sock seems unnecessary. Unless you are doing it for tracking purposes, which is fine, but maybe we should avoid creating pages for potentially BLP-violating usernames such as this or this. Sro23 (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sro23: I'm building a profile of their typical editing habits. Whilst edits like this are frequent, they have several other MOs. If I can identify patterns, I can spot these in recent changes and confirm by checking back through other (suspected) socks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's fine. However this LTA frequently uses accounts with BLP violations right in the usernames, so maybe for those specific socks we want to avoid tagging, in the spirit of WP:HNE and DENY. Sro23 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64, you've forgotten to remove two starring actors... On the other hand I would not have removed them because it really makes it easier to distinguish the films: recently I'd been watching the Inferno film with Tom Hanks and wanted to know more about the film but the the disambiguation page does not give any hint which of the Infernos could be the one I should read - worst case would be to click on all of the links to find the one you'd like to read about. And IMHO it does not hurt to leave the starring info as it was... ;) --katpatuka (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation page, the general rule for which is that you only have one blue link for each entry, see MOS:DABENTRY. If the director is mentioned, it shouldn't also be necessary to mention who appears in the film (starring or otherwise), see MOS:DABSHORT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:Indian Railways lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after me! Your edit summary[6] was very informative, I wasn't aware that adding multiple RfC at the same time was special as I'd never had to do it before. Thanks again! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I started the section Buffer (rail transport)#Retractable buffers to the article. Peter Horn User talk 18:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You’re a fat prick who spends his whole life deleting peoples content. Joseph1891 (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Derogatory comments like this have no place on Wikipedia. What on earth do you hope to achieve by it? GRALISTAIR (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Presumably this is in relation to this post. I don't think that I have deleted anything that was added by Joseph1891 (talk · contribs); but am willing to be corrected on that point. As to my girth, have you ever met me? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you managed to add a notice about a discussion that looks a lot like you nominated it for speedy delete. What I can't figure out is why user:TheAafi put that notification in the first place, because they didn't tag the actual article. So really bad form there as well biting a newbie. But user:Joseph1891 needs to remove and apologize for this talk page message no matter what. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 17:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vanisaac: if I remember right, I tagged the page because it contained a single blue link and it was subsequently A3'ed by @Bbb23. It was then recreated in its current form. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vanisaac: They did in fact tag the article, in this edit (which you can't see if you're not an admin), following which the page contained only these two lines:

{{db-nocontent|help=off}}
[[National League South]]

and as such it was deleted by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), the log is here. Anyway, I don't consider my post to have been bitey, although I do admit that omitting a heading may have been bad form - I did so because it was directly related to the speedy deletion notice. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, that's what was confusing there. The "bitey" comment was about Aafi, but is irrelevant if there actually was a speedy delete hidden from the history. Sounds like a lot of confusion here. Maybe introduce Joseph to {{under construction}} to use in the future. VanIsaac, LLE ^cont_WpWS 19:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Belatedly, I saw your ping here. Sorry about that, thanks for fixing it and for pinging me. Obviously the error was caused by ineptitude rather than malice. Still trying to get my head round WikEd and source editing after a break. Thanks again; I might have continued to make this error had you not pointed it out. (I think WikEd is good for a lot of things, but for conversations, source is better.) John (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

RedRose64,

I’m immensely sorry for harassing you online. I recognise that you are most likely extremely busy and deserve nothing of the sought. I fully understand the ban and will never do any such thing to a fellow editor again. Generally I put lots of time and effort into making pages that I edit, richer, more up to date and interesting for the reader, therefore I’m sure you can understand that it is demoralising when one of your pages gets “deleted”. I’m still very new to Wikipedia in terms of editing, so I’m yet to fully get the hang of things. Again, I sensorily apologise for being the real prick. Keep up the Great Work Joseph1891 Joseph1891 (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph1891: I still cannot find any edits made by you that were deleted by me. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok must have made a mistake, all of that for nothing, shows my stupidity when using this app, again so sorry for wasting your time. Joseph1891 (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize I made a mistake by copying on WP:RSN. X-Editor (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: The |rfcid= parameter uniquely identifies each RfC. It therefore follows that two RfCs must not have the same rfcid. Moreover, Legobot (talk · contribs) uses it as a key to some of its data tables, by means of which it tracks such things as the RfC duration, the categories, and which users have been notified. Therefore, you must let Legobot assign its own value. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! X-Editor (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Help:Wikitext".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, not at the top of my game today. Paradoctor (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

11 years. Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Well Redrose64, I got the information for my slight edit on LB&SCR E2 class from this YouTube video investigating the E2's faults & how to fix them. He noticed that the coal capacity is actually a bit bigger than most 0-6-0 tank engines, and he soon realized that it wasn't the coal capacity's fault: it was the boiler's for consuming coal faster than most engines. You can check out the video here, and if it doesn't count as a reliable source, fair enough, I suppose. I'm just trying to fix the common misconception that's been going on for years that the E2s have a small coal capacity, when it was really just an inadequate boiler. RandomFellow95-1 (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@RandomFellow95-1: Please see WP:RSPYT, WP:SPS, WP:IRS and not least WP:REFBEGIN in conjunction with WP:V. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Would it be possible for you to add a Historical Railways information box to the Wikipedia article, please. Two historical railway companies used this station.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: Ah, but which two? The Rhymney Railway, definitely; but the RCH Junction Diagram of the area shows that three other railways had lines approaching Caerphilly: the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway; the Barry Railway; and the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway. Which of these ran passenger trains into Caerphilly? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The main one was the Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Newport Railway connecting line that met the Brecon and Merthyr Railway at Machen. The first closed station outwards from Caerphilly was Gwernydomen Halt railway station.

The other one that I had in mind was the Rhymney Railway one that you mention above.

I have also added this information onto my Talk Page in case you are watching it

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That would be Gwernydomen Halt railway station then.  Done --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. You have made the article page much more complete.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Re. this: thanks for fixing. It looks like this is a known issue with WP:AFCH. – Joe (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know whether I have correctly or incorrectly cleaned up an RFC mess caused by an enthusiastic editor trying to fix what wasn't broken. There is a dispute about Mary, Queen of Scots. I created a draft RFC. While it was in draft, it was in a subpage of Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/RFC on Number, and I had nowiki around the RFC template, while discussion was in progress. I was planning to move the RFC to the talk page after discussion at DRN was finalized. Then User:GoodDay apparently thought that the nowiki was an error, and removed the nowiki. It appears that GoodDay then noticed that discussion was going on on a subpage rather than on the article talk page, and then asked me a question. When I saw what had been done, I moved the RFC with responses to the article talk page, Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots. Will this work, or have I further confused things? Should I remove the {{rfc}} template from the RFC and insert another RFC template to get a new RFC ID issued by the bot? Thank you for any answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I too am scratching my head. I don't know if I messed up or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: It appears that I have made a mistake. @Robert McClenon:, by all means reverts any changes I've made & restore the apparently 'potential' RFC to its original status. My apologies. GoodDay (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and GoodDay: It was announced to the RfC listings in this edit. The link in there still goes to the draft, because Legobot cannot handle cut-and-paste moves of discussions: once it has assigned an rfcid, that id is permanently associated with the page where the {{rfc}} tag was originally used. This needs fixing, but there are at two ways of going about it - and whatever is decided, one action must be performed either at the same time or before anything else is done: the |rfcid=5C08926 must be removed. This will trigger Legobot to visit both the talk page and its subpage, and sort out anything that is necessary, including updating the RfC listing pages (such as WP:RFC/BIO). After (or alongside) that, your options are:

• If Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox is now intended to be a live ongoing formal WP:RFC, removing the |rfcid=5C08926 is all that is necessary. Legobot will assign a fresh rfcid and sort out its table rows (both for the true location and for the subpage) and revise the RfC listing pages. WP:FRS subscribers may get a new message.
• If it is still being drafted (in either the talk page or its subpage), either {{tlx}} the {{rfc}} tag as in

  {{tlx|rfc|hist|bio}}
  

  or remove it entirely. Do not use <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags or HTML comment tags. Legobot will sort out its table row for the subpage and remove the entries from the RfC listing pages.

In both cases you'll still have two discussions, which shouldn't both be open - one of them needs to be "closed". You can use {{hat|reason=This discussion is closed, Please see Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#RFC on Regnal Number in Infobox}} or similar. Bear in mind that WP:FRS subscribers who were already messaged about the one on the subpage will not have that message removed, and they may still visit the subpage.

You also have the problem that some people (DrKay, GoodDay, Mnair69) have posted comments in one but not the other, such posts will need to be copied over. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Redrose64 - I had intended to be working on a draft, but then when the draft was kicked off, just a little prematurely, I decided that the least disorderly approach would be to let it keep running. It now appears that other editors have cleaned it up so that the RFC is running on the article talk page. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - Okay. I still don't know why you thought that I had made a mistake in the draft, but it is probably just a case of thinking that other editors don't know as much as you do. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose64. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Re. Your recent edits to LNWR Whale Precursor Class :

As a final point, please take notice of the fact that I often revisit what I've written after a few days to see if it can be improved in any way, and I would hope other editors do also. It would be very much appreciated, if (as in this case) it is clear from the edit history that someone is actively editing a particular page, you allow them time to make changes themselves.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC))

P.S. Even if you don't like the my alt text for the image caption, changing the image size slightly and making sure that the caption is factually correct do not create accessibility problems, as you state. Please be not revert edits wholesale where several changes have been made at the same time, as this is discourteous to other editors.

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC))

P.P.S. The problem with not collapsing the table is that in desktop view on a mobile device, it is displayed in a different position compared to desktop view on a computer, leaving a massive gap in the text which looks both terrible and unprofessional (neither of which, I hope you would agree, are desirable qualities).

(Edwin of Northumbria (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC))

Hi Redrose64,

After the edits at British Rail Class 35, I'm trying to further understand MOS:TIME for future reference - my understanding after reading the MOS section is that times should use colons instead of periods? I completely agree with the rest of the points made in your edit summary, points which I overlooked initially - note that I don't disagree with the period/colon change, I simply wish to educate myself on this point. Danners430 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I overlooked the period, with my eyesight I need to zoom in to distinguish periods and colons. My main problem is that you altered 3.10pm to 15:10 pm, which fails MOS:TIME by using pm in conjunction with the 24-hour clock, something that I don't need to zoom in to spot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Having just gone back and double checked, aye I missed that I was changing it back to 24 hour time - that’s 100% my bad! Many thanks for the clarification though, I’ll make the tweak just now. Danners430 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary in the Class 707 article, could you please explain where I've got it wrong? I had approached the date parameter as referring to the date of writing or publication, and thus assumed that the cover date of a magazine would be inappropriate there (especially when said date is still in the future). I also don't see anything indicating that including it in issue is incorrect when re-checking the template docs. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The doc says Date of referenced source. Can be full date (day, month, and year) or partial date (month and year, season and year, or year). This has always been understood to mean the cover date, the option of using a partial date reinforces this. There is a separate param |publication-date= for the actual date of publication. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I would have said that the option of using a partial date was there for circumstances where the full date wasn't known, and I note that the docs for |publication-date= say "when different from the date the work was written" so in all truth I'm not very convinced. Fair enough all the same if that's the way it's always been, though it strikes me as something that would – or should – have been included in a guideline or at least some documented consensus by now. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

OK then, we should inform Trappist the monk (talk · contribs), who has written much of the template docs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I've always understood it that way; the purpose of a citation is to locate the source. If a magazine's cover date is "December 2022" then that's how it's filed, even if subscribers received it in November 2022. Mackensen (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't been approaching it from that perspective, so thanks for pointing it out. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

|date= is the publication date. For magazines, that is the date on the magazine's cover. There has been discussion at WT:CS1 about deprecating the simultaneous use of |date= and |publication-date=; it is not necessary for the purposes of a citation, to know when an article was written because that knowledge does not aid the reader in locating a copy of the source.

Further, {{cite magazine}} creates metadata that can be used by those who consume our citations using automated tools. See Template:Cite magazine § COinS. Placing information that is not the issue number in |issue= corrupts that metadata.

Documentation is never perfect. If you can improve the documentation, please do.

Editor Redrose64's edit was correct.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk, thanks very much for clarifying that. I hadn't properly appreciated the perspective of somebody looking to find the source, and I also take your point about the integrity of the COinS metadata.

Thanks as well @Redrose64 for helping me get this worked out. XAM2175 ^(T) 22:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

How do? I'm trying to find a policy/guideline statement: I was sure I'd seen an explicit statement somewhere around here that the use of search results as references is, at the very least, discouraged, but I have searched for that statement to no avail; it seems you think they shouldn't – Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190 § Google search result as a direct source (2015) – and I know you know your way around, so thought you might know where I've seen this statement. I tried WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CS, WP:V etc. and even a few google and site searches, but nothing solid; lots of discussions.The specific use case that got me searching was this edit referencing a Google Ngram Viewer result. Any ideas? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 09:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: I do know that such a guideline did exist, it may have been moved or deleted. But the problem as I see it is that of reproducibility: if I follow that link, would I obtain the same results that you or Npip99 did? If not, it fails the policy on verifiability, because I would not be able to verify that the source supported the claim made in the article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with your reasoning; perhaps this needs to be discussed again with an aim to setting in stone (as I thought it already was) the discouragement of search results as references. Thanks for giving it some thought and a response. I've had this in mind for many years now; maybe I picked up the notion it was policy from a discussion somewhere and my brain just filed it away as policy because it thought it should be? :D Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 12:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1125171635&oldid=1125155775&title=User_talk:Σ&diffmode=source and check your algorithm] something triggered the bot. I didn't post any ridiculous messages. el.ziade (talkallam) 15:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elias Ziade: What would you call these, then? The pages were created because lowercase sigmabot III was doing its job, precisely as you had requested it to do. The bot is explicitly authorised to archive pages by carrying out a cut-and-paste move of content, so serving a {{subst:uw-c&pmove}} notice on the bot operator is ill-advised. Serving that notice no less than 20 times is ridiculous. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I was just as puzzled as you are. I found those edits in my watch and contributions lists, after the fact. I didn't even make those edits, It must have been an automatic notification function I am using that notifies the page creator (sigma) when I tag a page it created for deletion. Plus, I mistook sigma for an actual user and actually wrote ONE message there, thinking that the notices were actually for me. Have a nice evening. el.ziade (talkallam) 16:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for whitelisting "How Steam Locomotives Really Work". I only used {{sfn whitelist}} as there was only three instances of the error, and I had just recently bothered Renata3 with some updates. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

		Happy Christmas
		Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and best wishes for the New Year! Thank you for all you do. Whispyhistory (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

		Season's Greetings
		Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Adoration of the Magi by Luca Signorelli is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if I could ask your advice? I am writing an article on the electrification of the LSWR, and the issue of the correct use of units and abbreviations is in my mind. I wonder if you know where there is an authoritative [not one person's opinion, however strongly held] about how these should be written on Wikipedia. Examples are 25kV ac or is it 25 kV a.c. or 25-kV AC; a 60-foot rail, or is it a 60 feet rail or a 60ft rail or a 60 ft rail? Those are only examples; there are a lot more. Obviously I am aware of SI units, but people in real life (for whom I am writing the article) don't use SI units. My next door neighbour doesn't refer to speed in terms of m/s. Maybe she should, but she doesn't. Afterbrunel (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Afterbrunel: Whether to use SI or not is covered by MOS:UNITS. Whichever you use, you should provide a conversion to the other system; the {{convert}} template may be used for this, and it's often best to feed it with the actual values that your sources use. So, if your source says 60 feet, and the article primarily uses imperial units, you would use {{convert|60|ft|m}} which produces 60 feet (18 m); and if the article primarily uses metric, you would use {{convert|60|ft|m|order=flip}} which produces 18 metres (60 ft).

Whether it's SI or not, there should be a space between value and symbol, and the convert template handles that for you. However, the space is replaced by a hyphen when the value/unit pair is being used as a compound adjective, and so you would add the parameter |adj=on, as in {{convert|60|ft|m|adj=on}} which produces 60-foot (18 m). See MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I particularly like the distinction for two words used as a compound adjective, which many people seem to fail to understand. Afterbrunel (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to add proper examples: (1) the line was laid with rails 60 feet (18 m) long; (2) the line was laid with 60-foot (18 m) rails. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Afterbrunel (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

For catching this - appreciate it! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the List of named passenger trains of the United Kingdom. I was 95% certain that a LNWR train would run EUS–GLC, but the mention of Aberdeen reminded me that a few WCML overnights ran via Mossend and Cowlairs into Queen Street before reversing north. It's good to have someone with the right sources around. Certes (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Certes: The LNWR handed its trains over to the Caledonian at Carlisle, and the Caledonian had no running powers into Glasgow Queen Street, which was a North British station (after Grouping, it became LNER, and so remained owned by a rival railway until nationalisation). Besides Glasgow Central, the Caledonian also had Buchanan Street (see red lines here), which (like Central) had access from both south-east and north-east, and from where services to Aberdeen certainly did run. But Allen is clear: the London & North Western scheduled their principal night Scottish service, at 11.50 p.m. from Euston, to reach Glasgow Central at 7.50 a.m.; elsewhere in the chapter, he mentions both of these stations several times, but King's Cross is only mentioned in the context of comparison of the East Coast route's timings, and neither Queen Street nor Buchanan Street are mentioned at all. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ilovejames5. I just wanted to ask you if you can get more sources for NER Class Z, Draft:NER Class 4CC, Draft:LNER Class D47 and Draft:GCR Class 13? I understand you need to find your 1930s issues of The Railway Magazine, so if you need time then that's ok. I just wanted you to help, and if you would that would be grateful. :)Ilovejames5 09:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortuantly, NER Class S1 and NER Class S2 (pages I contributed majorly to) also need more sources. Can you please help me? Ilovejames5:) 09:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion about disambiguating station links in modules and templates you may wish to contribute to.— Rod ^talk 12:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if you might consider removing your response, or at least moving it here? Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Rodw asked me to contribute there. So I did. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I’m Ilovejames5. I just wanted to inform you that while reverting my edits on LNER Class V2, you seem to have forgot to add a good edit summary. The edit summary you add was “rv”. I understand this stands for “remove”, but the summary does not provide enough information about the edit. I assume this edit was made in good faith, but why was the edit summary simply “rv”? Also, I did read the Help:Edit summary page, and it does say to simply say rv for reverts, but you added informative summaries for the other edits, so why does the summary on this edit say rv?Ilovejames5 11:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, the edit you made removed a red link, which Redrose64 may not have noticed. I have changed it back to the version you left it as to remove the red link. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovejames5 and Mattdaviesfsic: Red links are not prohibited. Locomotive names normally link to the person, place or thing that the loco was named after, in this case it was the fast goods service introduced a little earlier by all the major rail companies (it was rather like the Red Star Parcels service twenty-some years later, but for goods not parcels), for which we don't yet have an article. I need to locate my 1930s issues of The Railway Magazine, most of which went missing during a house move earlier this year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, I understand. The problem is why didn’t you put the explanation in the edit summary? Ilovejames5 03:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit was poorly considered. This edit just made it worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular issue of the RM you want to consult? I have access to the digital archive. The OCR isn't fabulous for earlier issues so search can be tricky but it can be good if you know where to look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I meant revertIlovejames5:) 11:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you like my new signature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovejames5 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because you failed to sign. See also WP:NOTFORUM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I forgot XD. Here it is : Ilovejames5🚂:) 07:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ilovejames5🚂:). I just wanted to tell you that I reverted an edit you made to NER Class V, because of consistency reasons. I know you may not be happy, but please do not revert my edit. Sorry! Ilovejames5🚂:) 08:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ilovejames5 - this is very close to WP:OWN behaviour. RedRose can revert your edit if he wishes, with a valid reason: it's not up to you to say that my way is right and that's the end of it. I have no opinion on the mater at hand, however. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I was just saying that I'd prefer consistency Ilovejames5🚂:) 08:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My source (Boddy et al. 1979, p. 90) harv error: no target: CITEREFBoddyBrownFryHennigan1979 (help) says L.N.E.R. Renumbering
When the Thompson scheme was formulated in 1943 it took into account locomotives in stock at 4th July of that year. In class C6 no. 532 had by then been scrapped and the remaining engines then became 2930–48. No. 643 (2930) was condemned during the following month so that when the renumbering scheme was published in December 1943, the numbers were shown as 2931–48. Further withdrawals of class C6 had occurred before the scheme was implemented in 1946. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I understand, just I prefer every article saying 1946 numbering. Ilovejames5🚂:) 07:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, note this was done by the AfC helper script after a perfunctory and often helpful addition of relevant project banners. I wouldn't fathom being rude enough to call volunteering towards expediently tackling a backlog as making "a mess" because you didn't happen to agree with my selection of banners. Perhaps next time a wiser move would imply just gauging the most pertinent banners in your opinion without the added snark. Best, PK650 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@PK650: Your edit summary includes the link AFCH, the linked page includes a box stating Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using the Articles for Creation Helper Script. Therefore, as with all edits, script-assisted or otherwise, you are responsble for what happens when you save the edit. We provide a WP:PREVIEW feature, if you had used it you would have seen that not only does {{WikiProject Genetics}} not exist, but the page already had a {{WikiProject banner shell}} within which your additional banners should have been placed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I won't engage if you fail to see the rude tone of your summary. Happy editing, PK650 (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you actually look at page that you saved ? It was a mess. Once it was pointed out to you, you blamed the tools rather than accept responsibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Judging by the amount of edits you have made, you may be hungry. Have this for lunch! Ilovejames5🚂:) 12:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As part of your campaign to restore removed red links, you added a link to the page 4CC, referring in your edit summary to a section of a guideline which says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link". Which linked article contains that red link? JBW (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@JBW: Please see Special:WhatLinksHere/NER Class 4CC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Former National League (English football) clubs indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad - it's my first time merging an article and I was following the instructions on WP:MERGE Eilidhmax (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It's an old instruction, dating back to October 2015, and I don't think that it was updated when WikiProject banners were amended to autodetect redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like there is a bug in discussion tools (see phab:T251633). Was certainly not intentional :) Jdlrobson (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

(Context: Special:Diff/1136926266) Jdlrobson (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

See Subhas Chandra Bose. The first sentences of the opening paragraph currently read as:-

"Subhas Chandra Bose (/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (listen) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS;[12] 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945[4][5]) was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero among many Indians,[h][i][j] but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism,[16][k][l][m][n] anti-Semitism,[o][p][q][23] and military failure.[r][26][27][s][t]"

Would it be possible to improve it? I want it to be turned into:-

"Subhas Chandra Bose (/ʃʊbˈhɑːs ˈtʃʌndrə ˈboʊs/ (listen) shuub-HAHSS CHUN-drə BOHSS;[12] 23 January 1897 – 18 August 1945[4][5]) was an Indian nationalist whose defiance of British authority in India made him a hero among many Indians, but his wartime alliances with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan left a legacy vexed by authoritarianism, anti-Semitism, and military failure.[Notes]"

Would it be possible to include all references and quotes in a simple "Notes"? If so, can you send me the proper draft? Thanks Editorkamran (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran: The text concerned is a modest 571 bytes of readable text (including the {{IPAc-en}} and that {{respell}}) which is not a problem. But the notes and references boost this to 35,135 bytes which is way over the top. MOS:LEAD says that the lead section should summarise the article body; therefore, anything mentioned in the lead should also be mentioned in the article. Since the prose in the body of the article should be referenced where required by the policy on verifiability, and annotated as necessary, there is rarely any need to also have references in the lead. Also, why are there extensive quotations? If quotations need to be attached to references, that implies that the reference is weak and needs to be justified. I suggest that you make sure that the body is referenced, and then removed the refs and notes from the lead. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)