Hello, Redrose64! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 | Talk 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this offensive? Alternatively, was the person caricatured offensive? You decide@Cwater1: Then you need to take it up with Mr.Z-man (talk·contribs) - I do not (indeed cannot) maintain other people's scripts. Indeed, what some people find "offensive", may not be thought as such by others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. I don't consider that picture offensive. Sorry for bugging you in the beginning and now. Everyone has different opinions. My opinion is that looks interesting. Hope you have a great day/night and I wish you happy editing. I do enjoy Wikipedia. Nothing is stopping me from enjoying it. Cwater1 (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an automated function in WP:SDHELPER, primarily for groups of years (e.g. 1890–1942) that might reasonably be in biographical descriptions. I did not intend that to trigger and am not sure how to bypass it for specialty cases like short descriptions of locomotives. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Where did you get 4–4-2T (with one en-dash and one hyphen) from? It certainly does not occur in the article; however, 4-4-2T (with two hyphens) does, in the infobox and also the first sentence (to name just two places) - you could have copied one of those. Please note that the use of automated scripts does not absolve you of the responsibility for ensuring that your edit was correct. Whilst WP:PREVIEW is not much use for shortdescs, you can still use the Show changes feature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I typed "4-4-2" originally. There is text handling code that turns it into "4–4-2"—and that happens after you hit Submit, so that the end user has no final control over this (there's not even an option to force showing the preview). Searching DATEREPLACEMENT in MediaWiki:Gadget-Shortdesc-helper.js will show you the code in question. I'm going to put a note pointing here from Wikipedia talk:Shortdesc helper as well. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sammi Brie: You did it again, here. If a script is buggy, which this one clearly is, report the problem to the script maintainers but more importantly, review every edit that you make to ensure that it is valid. If you cannot even do that, stop using the script until it is fixed. Don't continue to leave a mess for other people to find. We should not have to clean up after your bad edits, script or no script. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to mitigate the issue by initially adding slashes to escape. My mistake, and what I had intended to do but didn't, was edit manually instead of using the helper. My apologies. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request for advice - user not using citation templates[edit]
Hi Redrose,
I’ve been noticing over the last month or so that one specific IP user has been adding info to articles with citations that either consist of nothing but a bare URL, or a bare URL with a very short “summary” title, which then doesn’t allow tools such as ReFill to operate. I’ve left numerous notes on their talk page, but they haven’t responded to any… is this something I should take further or is there nothing that can really be done?
@Danners430: It's not a crime. If the URL leads directly to a page that supports the material that was added, then WP:V is being observed and we can't complain about that. For newly-added refs, WP:CITEVAR is a useful guideline, but not an enforceable policy. If the IP was altering existing templated refs to bare URLs, that would be a different matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense - just annoying that it's creating work for other editors to tidy up the refs they're adding Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Redrose64,
You sent me a message drawing my attention to the wikipedia guidelines. I have just joined. I see that you edited out my contribution to the page relating to the Upwell to Wisbech Tramline memento project. Not quite sure why. I thought that as the page was to enlighten enthusiasts about the tramline that reference to this project for documenting and recording the history of the line on site would be of interest. The connection seemed appropriate. However if I have been mistaken in this respect or not followed protocol I apologise. No disrespect was intended. I do think that as the page appeared to be considered low importance that whatever can be added to encourage greater interest would be worthwhile. I am a supporter of the project and do what I can to assist educating people about the history of the Tram Line and its importance locally.If you have any suggestions for improving and elevating interest and awareness please share. I want to help. Cameron Spade (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. LizRead!Talk! 23:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I apologize for breaking the RfC that happened earlier; that wasn't my intention. I just didn't know how to get the description to show up without resetting the RfC, which later turned out to be a mistake, my bad.
I asked for help in the now ongoing Teahouse about it. I will look forward to additional help regarding RfCs in the future, thank you. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PHShanghai: See WP:RFCST, where it says If you amend the RfC statement (including the addition of another RfC category), Legobot will copy the amended version to the RfC listings the next time that it runs. Normally, it runs at one minute past each hour. I have also posted at Wikipedia:Teahouse#RfC sentence bug. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for sorting out the references on the LSWR G16 class and LSWR H16 class pages - I have now read Wikipedia:CITEVAR and realise that I was wrong to alter the format. Whilst learning how to edit, I have realised how many articles are really weak in the citation / reference area, so whenever I'm reading something that I think could be a useful source, I'm trying to add it to the relevant article. However, I'm also learning that there seem to be almost as many different ways of citing references as there are articles! In this case, I was struggling to work out how to add a new one without breaking the existing ones, so I ended up changing the format of all (but was careful to leave the list intact). Cheers, ~~~~ Mwsmith20 (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article featuring the interview stated that one of Tyseley's engines is possibly going to be oil converted. There may be other great western engines preserved but no heritage railways are looking at having any of their great western locos converted to oil firing, Tyseley is a train operating company and Michael Whitehouse did say one of their mainline engines is possibly going to be converted so it narrows it down to either: 5043, 5080, 7029 or 4965. It doesn't say which one it will be but it does state that it will be a Tyseley resident & would be cheaper to do than overhauling Kolhapur.
Your use of the word "possibly" (twice) is what we call a red flag; you're deep into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Unless the source explicitly states that 4965 (for example) has been selected for conversion, it doesn't belong on the article GWR 4900 Class 4965 Rood Ashton Hall. Similarly, unless the source explicitly states that a Castle (for example) definitely will be converted, it doesn't belong on the article GWR 4073 Class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You reformatted the notes on this article. I have been doing work on the table to reduce its width and improve its conformance with policy, but had balked at doing the notes until this weekend. You've beaten me to it! Thanks. Bazza (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bazza 7: There were three different, incompatible, systems all going on at once. (i) use <ref>...</ref> to drop the note among the references - easiest, but not ideal where there are more than one or two; (ii) {{ref label}}/{{note label}} - not only is it complicated to implement, this was deprecated way back in 2006; (iii) {{notetag}}/{{notefoot}} - used similarly to {{efn}}/{{notelist}}, but the superscript markers look like this:[note 1] although the matching entries in the note list are plain numbers; this can also be confusing since they look like entries in the ref list. The advantage of {{efn}}/{{notelist}} over the third one is that the superscript markers look like this:[a] and the matching entries in the note list are the same letters. It's also narrower, if table width is your concern. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Klbrain: I often see people setting an explicit value for |class= when there really is no need, because the template (and more recently, the module) will autodetect several of the values, including redirect. It's normally only necessary for actual articles and featured content. See also User talk:Enterprisey#Removing class=redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just wanted to point out that you hid the edit summary and username of a recent edit to WP:WPDAB but the username in question is still visible in your edit summary of the reversion! The username seems relatively innocuous on its own, but of course I can't see the content of their edit. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wanted the contribs link to remain so that I could check for further similar activity. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I just thought it was worth a heads-up in case you'd overlooked the edit summary. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding this, I think the anon may be right. The template's code is <div style="clear:{{{1|both}}};"></div>, and div is a block element, and there is no Template:Clear/styles.css that could be applying something like display:inline. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @SMcCandlish: It's nothing to do with the emitted HTML, it's whether VisualEditor makes the saved Wikicode look like this:
{{clear|right}}
or like this
{{clear|right
}}
I think that the former (inline) is preferable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Okay. Well, that's very confusing, and would be better done as "horizontal" and "vertical" since "inline" and "block" already mean something else in this kind of context. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't involved in any of the decisions that went into either the VisualEditor or TemplateData extensions. I merely have to clean up after people (mis)use them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, VE is still a mess after all these years, and TemplateData code still lives on unprotected /doc pages even though it is programming code that governs how VE interacts with templates. In a somewhat poor analogy with the HTML terms, inline means "all of the parameters go on one line with no line breaks" and "block" means "each parameter goes on its own line". But the terms as used in VE's TemplateData have nothing to do with how the template is rendered. As I said, a mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I pick your brains again in relation to station/rail templates and Hayato Station. There are several articles which link to the dab page (shown here) but I can't work out how to link to the appropriate station. Any help appreciated.— Rodtalk 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to keep the {{stn}} template then do {{stn|Hayato|S|Kagoshima}} → HayatoGonnym (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How were the listings damaged? This looked fine to me. ―Mandruss☎ 20:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It didn't in this case, but could have done if another RfC also has refs. This is why the footer for the RfC listings has its own reflist. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All where all of the refs are gathered together at the bottom, instead of cluttering up the statements. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for changing the cite types on Mélusine (album) as I tried to several times, but QuietHere is actively opposed to such changes on any articles they've created. They've even set about putting Template:Bots with citation bot specifically denied on several of them. I've opened at least two threads on their talk page about it (one yesterday), and they've proven they will not budge on the matter because "it doesn't change how it renders". I don't know why they're so set on using cite news that they will go to the extent of changing any citation added to articles they've created and actively undoing edits that change the type of cite, but it definitely is silly and pedantic personal preference. Ss112 03:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Mojo's 75 Best Albums of 2023". Mojo. November 9, 2023.
Visually, they are identical; but they differ in the citation classes and the COinS metadata. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, that's not always true. Compare these:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000027-QINU`"'<citeid="CITEREFHochman2023"class="citation magazine cs1">Hochman, Steve (March 28, 2023). [https://www.spin.com/2023/03/cecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling/ "Cécile McLorin Salvant's ''Mélusine'' is Imaginative and Thrilling"]. ''[[Spin (magazine)|Spin]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Spin&rft.atitle=C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+M%C3%A9lusine+is+Imaginative+and+Thrilling&rft.date=2023-03-28&rft.aulast=Hochman&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spin.com%2F2023%2F03%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64"class="Z3988"></span>
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000029-QINU`"'<citeid="CITEREFHochman2023"class="citation news cs1">Hochman, Steve (March 28, 2023). [https://www.spin.com/2023/03/cecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling/ "Cécile McLorin Salvant's ''Mélusine'' is Imaginative and Thrilling"]. ''[[Spin (magazine)|Spin]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Spin&rft.atitle=C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+M%C3%A9lusine+is+Imaginative+and+Thrilling&rft.date=2023-03-28&rft.aulast=Hochman&rft.aufirst=Steve&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spin.com%2F2023%2F03%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvants-melusine-is-imaginative-and-thrilling%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64"class="Z3988"></span>
Ignoring the stripmarker identifiers, those two renderings are identical except for the classes listed in the <cite> tag. One has magazine and the other has news. That is not part of the COinS metadata. Because Spin is a magazine (according to our article about it), {{cite magazine}} is the more semantically correct.
It is true that {{cite web}} vs {{cite news}} have different COinS metadata:
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002B-QINU`"'<citeclass="citation web cs1">[https://www.nonesuch.com/journal/cecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16 "Singer/Composer Cécile McLorin Salvant's New Album, ''Mélusine'', Due March 24 on Nonesuch Records"]. ''[[Nonesuch Records]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Nonesuch+Records&rft.atitle=Singer%2FComposer+C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+New+Album%2C+M%C3%A9lusine%2C+Due+March+24+on+Nonesuch+Records&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonesuch.com%2Fjournal%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64"class="Z3988"></span>
'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-0000002D-QINU`"'<citeclass="citation news cs1">[https://www.nonesuch.com/journal/cecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16 "Singer/Composer Cécile McLorin Salvant's New Album, ''Mélusine'', Due March 24 on Nonesuch Records"]. ''[[Nonesuch Records]]''<spanclass="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved <spanclass="nowrap">November 16,</span> 2023</span>.</cite><spantitle="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Nonesuch+Records&rft.atitle=Singer%2FComposer+C%C3%A9cile+McLorin+Salvant%27s+New+Album%2C+M%C3%A9lusine%2C+Due+March+24+on+Nonesuch+Records&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nonesuch.com%2Fjournal%2Fcecile-mclorin-salvant-new-album-melusine-march-24-nonesuch-2023-01-16&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AUser+talk%3ARedrose64"class="Z3988"></span>
Again, ignoring the stripmarker identifiers, and noting the different class attributes (web vs news), these two renderings are identical except for &rft.genre=unknown ({{cite web}}) vs &rft.genre=article ({{cite news}}) in the COinS metadata. Because we can never know the genre of the source identified in a {{cite web}} template, we unconditionally set &rft.genre=unknown in those templates. What Nonesuch calls their 'Journal' looks more like unsigned blog posts than news articles from a 'news' source so it seems to me that {{cite web}} is more correct than {{cite news}}.
Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. You added a notice to the editnotice, so I thought I'd inform you. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
