Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:09, 17 May 2022

Redrose64 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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

My Talk Archives

Hints: 13 July 2009- Suggestions: 13 July 2009- Responses: 20 July 2009- Thanks: 17 August 2009- Complaints: 26 August 2009- Requests: 18 October 2009- Queries: 6 November 2009- Miscellaneous: 26 March 2010- Admin: 24 August 2010- Unclassified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

This page has archives. Sections older than 73 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RfC

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)

Reading–Basingstoke Line

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)

A kitten for you!

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)

Skeptical Inquirer RFC

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)

1400

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: Misplaced Pages 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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HeathCon colour

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)

A kitten for you!

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

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

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

And an unchained melody

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)

'hanks...

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

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

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)

Rail citation templates

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)

Hawaii RFC removal

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Abermule

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  _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  _edits 14:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert in MOS

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;   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;   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; 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

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)

References

1. "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
2. "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.
3. "Hyphens, En Dashes, Em Dashes". www.chicagomanualofstyle.org. Chicago Manual of Style. Retrieved 9 March 2022.

Notes

1. It is not logically possible to have a "12–35 victory", except in a game where a lower score is better. Otherwise, use a construction like Clovis beat Portales, 35–12, or Jameson lost the election, 2345 votes to 6789, to Garcia, with parties, result, and number order in logical agreement.

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

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)

London 180

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)

Thirteenth anniversary on Misplaced Pages!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Redrose64! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 13th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Avoid incivility. Snide comments

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

About my recent RfC

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

WP USRD and MILHIST banners

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)

Attracting participation in a Merge Request

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)