This is an archive of past discussions with User:Redrose64. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi Redrose, when the article was moved back, we lost your semi-protection of the talk page. Would you mind restoring it? You had added it until September 2, though an extension would be good too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

When a page is moved, the prots automatically move with it; and this happened here, so the semi-prot on the talk page is still in effect. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. There's a peculiarity with the logging for pages: when you move a page, the prot settings move but the log entries don't. More understandably, when you delete a page, the log entries for that page are not deleted, otherwise there would be no place to log the deletion.

I didn't protect the page that used to be at Talk:Chelsea Manning but is now at Talk:Bradley Manning; what I protected was the redirect that used to be at Talk:Bradley Manning (log entry) but has now been deleted to make way for the move.

However, the prot that was set on Talk:Chelsea Manning would have moved to Talk:Bradley Manning; the reason that it did not is because it had already expired - just over a day earlier than the move. I think you need to transfer your request to Guerillero (talk · contribs) who imposed the 7-day semi-prot at 01:25, 23 August 2013, see Talk:Bradley Manning/Archive 5#Semied. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:If there is a need for a longer period of semi-protection, any admin can use their mop. That being said, there needs to be a need for the protection not just a want. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've posted a request at RfPP, in case either of you would be willing to look at it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

we left a message on the other page, leaving one here in case. so when is the page going to be open to edits? our edits are completely reasonable and factual. the edit war was because user jerry pepsi decided he owned the page and kept maliciously undoing all of our edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

To find out when a page protection will expire, you should look at the logs for the page. These are linked near the top of the page history. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose! A tip for your sig: #ffeeee can be shortened to #fee for the same color. Cheers! -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what the books say; but IIRC some versions of Internet Explorer don't fully recognise the three-digit form. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet another flaw of Internet Explorer. :P -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello R. I hope that you are well and that you had a nice summer. I saw your edit on the Susan Foreman article and I wanted to let you know that I had missed the discussion last spring about the situation. I was only trying to make the entry fit with what we see onscreen rather than tie it into the shows past. If you want to remove the item based on the previous consensus please feel free to do so. My apologies for not checking into things more thoroughly. On the other hand it did give me a reason to stop by and say hello. A little over three months to the big celebration! Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 03:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see also Talk:Susan Foreman#"Name of the Doctor" appearance? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Redrose, can you update the geonotice with the latest Leeds (5 Oct), London (13 Oct) and possibly Manchester (19 Oct) meetups please? The notice looks a bit sparse with just two places at present. Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Leeds - will do, since it's all-new (like Newcastle 1). There have been complaints about geonotices being up for too long, and I've only recently taken London 73 off... I was going to wait until this weekend before adding London 74, when it will be four weeks in advance. As regards Manchester, it's currently more than five weeks away. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

		The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
		Thank you for being an awesome talk page stalker on both my talk page and my bot's. Most of the time your answers are better than what I would have responded with :) Legoktm (talk) 02:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, please may I enlist your help? I've recently added more to my growing article on Beighton Junction and keep getting the error "504 Gateway Time-out" with the additions not saved. I have edited other, shorter, articles and they have saved normally. Am I hitting some size limit? If I am, please suggest ways to address this. I still have a fair amount to write, notably re the modern scene, so trimming and tweaking won't really achieve the necessary savings. Could I, for example, make some constituent sections into complete articles then refer to them? With thanks in advance, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it has got quite big: and I do think that some trimming is in order. For a start, although the lead section has just one sentence, the following two sections are essentially lead material and should be combined with it - after trimming. The section Beighton Junction#Scope seems to be based on a combination of original research and personal opinion; the paragraph

This article treats these junctions as the lynch pin of a complex interweaving triangular network of lines, stretching over two miles from Killamarsh in the south to Beighton station in the north west and to Waleswood in the north east. That triangle as a whole is addressed by the accompanying Route Diagram "Beighton Junction".

reads like something out of an academic research paper, something that Wikipedia is not. The two large RDTs {{Beighton Junction detail}} and {{Beighton Junction}} might perhaps be better as images; like those at Metropolitan Railway.

There is a lot of tangential information which may be better included elsewhere - for example, the section Beighton Junction#The Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway contains much that is not actually about the junction, but is about other aspects of the LD&ECR, which might be better described on the LD&ECR article.

Several sections contain bulleted lists: are all of these necessary? Most of the section Beighton Junction#The Great Central Railway comprises bullet points, all of which could be rewritten as prose.

In Beighton Junction#Lines and Junctions there is:

Readers may see these stencilled or labelled on structures such as bridges, e.g. "BAC3/25" uniquely identifies a bridge in Clowne, Derbyshire, as being bridge number 25 on line "BAC3". The data behind this coding structure is authoritative, detailed and informative. It is also used within the railway industry. The reader can freely access the database and use the codes to see associated detail.

which just doesn't seem right at all. Apart from the editorialising, we don't direct "the reader" - we present verifiable facts.

You should read up on the Manual of Style, and perhaps put a note at WT:RAIL, also WT:GOCE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for going to this trouble. There is much to mull here, but I found reading original research very dispiriting, I had seen writing in Wikipedia as a way of adding something to the world, not merely regurgitating. Ho hum. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No original research is one of the core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability. I'm surprised that you've not come across it before. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For your help on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Very helpful! Igottheconch (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

thank you again for your help on VPT! Your the greatest! Igottheconch (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

very annoying how long they are. Igottheconch (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen longer Talk Pages! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's set up for automatic archiving (this was the last archive action), but MiszaBot III (talk · contribs) is currently down. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Articles overusing colours, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not for anything, Redrose64, but regarding this edit, the initialism Rcat should only be used in mainspace, and since the {{R from template shortcut}} was used to tag {{Cn-span}}, isn't it correct to tag that redirect as a template shortcut to {{Citation needed span}}? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Where did I use Rcat? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, when you partially reverted Jpaest's edit to {{Cn-span}}, you left the {{R from initialism}} Rcat and removed the other two Rcats. One of those was non-existent, and the other was {{R from template shortcut}}. The initialism Rcat is only used on mainspace-article redirects, and when a redirect in any namespace targets a template page, then the template shortcut Rcat should apply, isn't that so? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64, you so kindly pointed out to me when I was a newbie that I had neglected to post notices on creator's Talk Pages about articles I had tagged with AfD...not only that but you walked me through the process, telling me which templates to use, for which I'm very grateful.

There is an ongoing conversation on the CfD Talk Page about the necessity (or not) of notifying the creators of categories that are being proposed for deletion, renaming or merging, along with notifying the relevant WikiProject.

As background, I did a spot-check last week and found notices had been posted on creators' Talk Pages about half of the time, ignoring instances of when creators were now inactive, that is, haven't been editing in the past year. Right now, notifications are optional, not required, and guidelines for them are buried on the instruction page for posting CfD.

I have my own viewpoint on this issue but I'd welcome you to weigh in, pro or con, on this discussion if you have a moment today. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed an edit of yours which eliminated a blank line I had added (per WP:REFACTOR), with the edit summary mentioning a non-applicable guideline (WP:LISTGAP).

I sincerely apologize for any irritation caused by my edit. No offense was intended. Since it is just a talk page, editing seems easier when it's easy to see the start of each comment. If a true list had been in place, that would not have been okay for me to do. I only did it to make sure your comment would be noticed when in the editing mode. I sometimes miss editor's comments while editing because they are in one bunch of lines connected with other editor's comments. Adding a line just makes it easier for me and doesn't change the appearance of the page. Again, my apologies. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In view mode, the presence of a blank line does change the appearance for sighted people, albeit very slightly (depending upon browser, the difference may be so slight as to be undetectable); but for people using screen-reader software, the difference is great. WP:LISTGAP mentions "items in a definition list (a list made with leading semicolons and colons)", and threaded discussions on talk pages are lists made with leading colons, although there are no semicolons. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This is a new concept to me. I've never seen talk pages as being governed by such a rule (which I didn't even know existed), and I doubt very many others do either. Apparently it would apply to lists in articles, since the MoS does apply to them. It doesn't seem to make much difference to ordinary readers, but then I don't use screen-reader software....yet! Is the difference a serious problem for them? As it is, I find it easy to miss the start of comments, unless there is a blank line, or a space after the colons, as in my comment here. That makes it much easier to see the start of a new line. For years I have added spaces to (sometimes large) talk pages where I was commenting and no one has ever said anything to me! This is a first. I'm learning something new everyday! Whatever the case here, it's a matter of no consequence to me. I just wanted to make sure you understood I meant no offense. Thanks again. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Redrose,

I added a topographic map to Mount Tarn with the {{Annotated image}} template whithhin the {{Infobox mountain}}. Do you know how to get rid of the error messages?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 15:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fixed. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was part way through deciding on the following:

| map               = Chile
| map_caption       = Location in Chile
| map_size          = 150
| label             = Mount Tarn
| label_position    = right
| lat_d  = 53 | lat_m  = 47 | lat_s  = 07 | lat_NS  = S
| long_d = 71 | long_m = 01 | long_s = 25 | long_EW = W
| region            = CL-S

The thing is, the |map= parameter is for an image name, and nothing else. If you try to put a template like {{superimpose}} in there, you get all sorts of trouble. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Jack and RR. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just want to thank you again for this notification, which ended in no consensus to delete. And I deeply apologize for being just a bit too nosy awhile back. Hope you can forgive. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

1) that is the standard format we use for these boxes, see {{s-start}}; 2) I'm not going to "discuss before making such changes"; if you don't like it, you can just revert like you did. — Lfdder (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

And wrt this: somebody's now made a change on live that's not been challenged; somebody else who might elect to use the sandbox w/out noticing it's out-of-date will inadvertently undo the changes that've been made on live. There's an upside and a downside to this sort of thing and badgering people about trivialities gets annoying. — Lfdder (talk) 10:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you were given an incomplete draft with which to create Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Some !voters suggested adding WP:VPM to the list, and I had planned to add it to the editnotice before submitting it for creation, but the editor who closed the discussion immediately enacted the proposal and submitted the editnotice for creation before I had a chance to add it. I've specified the necessary addition in an edit request on the template talkpage; sorry for the extra bother.

Mysterious Whisper (public) 19:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ʍw 22:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Except that the article title is not the same as the article source. So, is the article about the organism in the reference, or is it about the organism in the title. What criterion for deletion do I use with an article so bad as to be without meaning that is now being copied everywhere by Wikipedia mirrors as an article about an organism that doesn't appear to exist outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors? If it's not nonsense, what is it? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

To use any of the CSD criteria, you need to find one that applies without question. WP:CSD#G1 is for patent nonsense, described as

Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history. This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, implausible theories, vandalism and hoaxes, fictional material, coherent non-English material, and poorly translated material. This excludes the sandbox and pages in the user namespace. In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply.

At the time that I declined the speedy, the article text consisted of a single four-word phrase (one word of which was a link to an good article created over ten years ago), which although not a complete sentence, is still valid English. In addition, there was a taxobox, a reference, and a valid existing category, all of which suggested to me that the article was not "patent nonsense" (there were also some cleanup banners and a stub tag, but they didn't count towards my judgement against CSD G1). CSD is not for fixing spelling errors. If the article title is spelled incorrectly, you can put it right. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The reference was not to the taxon of the title of the article, though. I am no expert on Bryozoan, and, in marine species there are numerous species with very close spellings, differentiated by a single letter. How much effort should I make to correct an error when the supposed expert, User:Smith609, wasn't able to correct it? If I moved it, I would have had to do a search to make sure of what name Smith609 meant by the article. I asked him to clean it up. He couldn't. Meanwhile, the incorrect spelling, if that is what it is, has been copied by hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors. This type of mistake needs fixed. Since I could find no one to fix it, and did not myself feel capable, deleting it was better than allowing this nonsense to be copied to any more Wikipedia mirrors or accessed by any more readers of the encyclopedia. Articles like this shouldn't be created in the first place, much less be allowed to sit on Wikipedia. I just corrected a plant spelling error that has been sitting on Wikipedia for years. This has resulted in thousands of mirrors taking this nonsense from Wikipedia. Now you can search google, and, courtesy of Wikipedia, find the real plant family and the Wikipedia-invented plant family. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

As you may have noticed I've been doing a lot of work on this article, and want to nominate it for GA. I was wondering if you'd like to add anything to it before I do. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you mark these as links to Traction_maintenance_depot page ? And also any other mnemonics which may be unfamiliar ? Like GWR, LMS, etc. 86.128.235.140 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

There are a great many acronyms, and although there are a lot that are related to railways, these form a small proportion of the whole. Thus, it is not always feasible for there to be a direct link - LNER is a good example where it is possible. Instead, most acronyms go to what we call a disambiguation page - GWR, SR, LMS, BR and TMD are all cases in point. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen on the LvMI talk page that your working towards a conciseness that reflects Wikipedia's standards relating to non-partisan information that reads to the standard of a encyclopedia and from which reaches a community consciousness. I would like to thank you for you work these past years and reach out for advice.

I would like to help improve the article in question but there seems to be two or three individuals pushing ideological beliefs into the article for the past few months. Would you have any advice on how to proceed with edits (several of the aforementioned people have already claimed they are going to roll back all changes in a few days - propagating a edit war?) There doesn't seem to be any willingness to compromise on the talk page from these individuals and it seems that they usually just wait for other people to 'give up and leave' before reinstating a article loaded with ideological bent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookishOwl (talk • contribs) 04:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

All I ever did there was this edit, where I declined to favour one side over the other. That edit does not mean that I am "working towards a conciseness that reflects Wikipedia's standards relating to non-partisan information that reads to the standard of a encyclopedia and from which reaches a community consciousness". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, with regards to [1]. So I had created that page as a test to get TemplateData to work with redirects in the VE template dialogue, as per Wikipedia:VE/F#Template_parameters.2C_alternative_names. Is it true that TemplateData does not belong on redirects? Because that is the sort of answer for which I am waiting at the Feedback page. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Answered on original thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm getting a "Script error" message on my Infobox here. Can you please take a quick look? Secondly, the image doesn't seem to work; both errors may be conected. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Both problems are primarily because cy:Modiwl:InfoboxImage doesn't exist. It's not a typo for a different module name, since Wicipedia Cymraeg has only one module that has been set up so far: cy:Modiwl:String. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

10/10 well done. Never heard of a module before. Must look into it. Thanks for such a quick and efficient answer. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, start off by reading WP:LUA. Then give up and ask WOSlinker (talk · contribs), who wrote Module:InfoboxImage on English Wikipedia. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

for fixing my edit to User talk:217.41.242.146. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 15:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest archiving this? After 100 sections it becomes unwieldy. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see #you should archive your comments. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Instead of blindly undoing changes as you did in this edit, could you actually check what you're undoing? You removed formatting changes and archive.org stored versions of dead links. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:54pm • 04:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Then please do not post WP:HOAXes, as you did here. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That is no justification for blind reversion. Furthermore, I wasn't aware that it was a hoax. So please, stop assuming bad faith. James ^{(T • C)} • 3:59pm • 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you'll read the sources now included in the article, you'll find it was indeed no hoax. Thanks and bye. James ^{(T • C)} • 4:05pm • 05:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The matter was already under discussion at both Talk:Doctor Who#Mirror reporting 100+ episodes just discovered and Talk:Doctor Who missing episodes#UK Mirror reporting more than 100 just found where considerable doubt had been cast upon the Mirror/Sunday People report. Stories like this pop up very few months, and are usually proven false: it's clear that hoaxers abound. The only body who could possibly know the truth is the BBC, who so far have said very little except that a press conference will be held. When a BBC reporter uses phrases like "A number of early episodes of Doctor Who, which were believed to have been permanently lost, have been returned to the BBC" and "speculation that some lost episodes had been located", it's clear that the number recovered is far short of the number that you claimed when you put "106 full-length episodes from the Hartnell and Troughton years were recovered". --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Redrose, it appears I somehow managed to change the level of visibility of the feedback for the article List of Top Gear episodes. [2]. I haven't a clue how I managed to do it, much less how to undo it. Would you mind taking a look and see if it needs to be fixed? Thank you! --Drmargi (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You would probably have done it via a link in the left margin, at or near the bottom of the "toolbox" group, titled "Enable feedback"; such links aren't shown on all pages.

Apparently, it is possible for autoconfirmed users may disable feedback by going into View feedback (also in the left margin) and using a "cogwheel" icon upper right, see mw:Article feedback/Version 5/Feature Requirements#Disable feedback from the feedback page. I've never tried that: but admins get a "protect" tab at the page top, which is always visible. Through that, I've switched it off again. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed several had activity right around the time I altered the one I did, so I wasn't sure whether I did something or it was a glitch. I was editing on my iPad at the time, and must have brushed something while scrolling down a page. I appreciate your fixing my unintentional error! --Drmargi (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed the leading spaces because the following text rolled across across the page and over the right side of the screen and just didn't look right.

Something like this: I removed the leading spaces because the following text rolled across across the page and over the right side of the screen and just didn't look right.

I'm not a technical geek, but the layout for the reader doesn't read well because of the text way over there on the right side. Compare with {{Unresolved}}. That template example has some carriage returns and the next lines start at the left margin in the example box. As a result the text stays in the box. (Is this because I'm on a Chrome browser?) Can we add the carriage returns on the other templates and keep the text over on the left? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Having made myself familiar with your reference rv linkspam,

"Linkspam is the name for links added to Wikipedia to advertise a company, website, or organization, or that divert readers to an unrelated destination".

I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of how you reached the conclusion that

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/commercialopportunities/5797.aspx

falls into the category of linkspam.

Firstly tfl.gov.uk is the Transport for London website, and secondly the PDF available on the page explains their current advertising policy, neither the page nor the document constitutes advertising. Be honest, did you even read it?

Wicks Steve (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Wicks Steve. The external link was inappropriate, primarily because we do not allow external links in the body of the article. (See point 2 in Wikipedia:External links.) Whether or not that link would be appropriate in the external links section is another consideration, and I would probably say it wasn't because we have limited space for ELs and that link is not perhaps only tangentially relevant to the topic of the article. Finally, if you are reverted, please do not make the same edit again before establishing consensus for the change. (Otherwise it can be construed as edit warring.) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wicks Steve: In addition to Martin's comments above, the link is less than tangentially related, but not entirely unrelated. The page is titled "Advertising on the network"; it, and the PDF file that it links to ("Transport for London Advertising Policy"), are concerned solely with how to advertise on properties and vehicles within TfL's purview, in the present day. The current policies and practices of TfL have only a slight connection to the activities of an organisation that ceased trading fifty years ago. The article that you added it to is British Transport Commission, a body set up in 1948 and broken up in 1963. You added the link in the form

* '''Advertising:''' [http://www.tfl.gov.uk/businessandpartners/commercialopportunities/5797.aspx British Transport Advertising] sold space on premises and vehicles

The term that you linked it from - British Transport Advertising (BTA) - is the name of an organisation that no longer exists. In 1963, some of its functions (but by no means all) were taken over by the London Transport Board (LTB), and in many ways, TfL can be seen as successor to the LTB - but TfL is by no means the sole successor (or even the primary successor) of BTA. It makes no mention of how such matters were handled in the past, nor does it give any history of advertising on London Transport, nor does it mention historical bodies such as the BTC or BTA.

Furthermore, in contravention of WP:REDDEAL, you removed a number of wikilinks to pages that do not exist but might plausibly be created at some point; checking, I now see that you have done this on a number of other pages, such as Thomas Tilling; Invensys Rail Group; Westinghouse; Siebe plc. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As someone keen to learn, but suffering trial and error, while using the work of others as a template, I am always pleased to accept advice when I fall foul of the rules. For Redrose64 to erroneously conclude that it was "Linkspam" even if it is 50 years out of date, then suggest I "(See point 2 in Wikipedia:External links.)" by way of "a more detailed explanation".

For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement.^[1] If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as Scribd or YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright.
2. Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.

Having studied Point 2, I am not certain how it applies, given that Point 2.1 concerns violation of copyright, and Transport for London being a public authority under the Freedom of Information Act 2000., and that page for the explicit purpose of providing public access to the document explaining their advertising policy, albeit for commercial opportunities, and Point 2.2 concerns sites on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, M:Spam blacklist or MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, which it isn't. or take exception to this one "external" link "in the body of the article" among what must be millions, if the small sample I have seen is a fair representation, and suggest it might take up "limited space".

From the comment left when reverting, I see Redrose64 feels their explanations were helpful, sadly that is not the case. Thankfully a much simpler and valid explanation was provided by (MSGJ), so concise and to the point as to make me feel foolish for making such an obvious howler.

With regard to the other point, "removal of wikilinks to pages that do not exist but might plausibly be created at some point". Policy on dealing with existing red links is something else I was clearly not aware of, and have now learned through trial and error. Since red links normally indicate they are dead links, and given they do produce an error message, and given that it is fairly easy to locate instances of a word to provide wikilinks once a page does exist, and a far less aesthetically pleasing user experience without all the red links giving error messages, maybe it is an understandable thing to get wrong.

Wicks Steve (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Wicks Steve: MSGJ means the first point 2, not the second; it's under the heading Important points to remember.

Red links are not errors, and are not necessarily dead links. They are links to pages that do not exist on Wikipedia: there are several reasons for this, covered at WP:REDDEAL. The more common reasons are: typos - which are fixable by editing the link; pages not yet created - fixable by creating the page; and deleted pages - fixable, either by pointing the link to a more suitable target, or if there truly isn't a suitable target, the link may then be removed. Only in this last case may redlinks be considered to be truly dead links. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion, I will certainly do my best to pay closer attention when adding references etc, and I will in future move external links in the body of an article to the "External links" section at the end of an article, although I do not know what is meant by "...article and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable". Being an experienced wiki user I am sure you are not concerned in the slightest when presented with the opportunity to create a new page, but I know many less experienced users who think they have messed up, and still do.

Wicks Steve (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all infoboxes have the facility to accommodate an external link; but many do, primarily those infoboxes intended for organisations. For example, in British Museum, we find at the bottom of the infobox, the row

Website Official website

This page has {{Infobox Museum}}, and inside that, there is the parameter |website=[http://www.britishmuseum.org/ Official website] For those infoboxes that do provide a website parameter, it's usually intended for the official website of the subject of the article.

At User:Redrose64#Done you will find a list of around 120 article pages that I have created; and almost all of them was created after clicking a redlink - there were perhaps no more than ten where there was no pre-existing redlink to that page. Creating a page isn't difficult: see WP:YFA. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. When not getting sidetracked, I am editing an lot of English school entries, each having almost the same at the bottom of the infobox
| free_3 =
| website = http://www.schoolyschool.co.uk
| website_name = School homepage
}}

Although, in these instances, the one in the "External links" section seems redundant.

Wicks Steve (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It does deem redundant, yes; but see WP:ELOFFICIAL, which states "Official websites may be included in some infoboxes, and by convention are listed first in the External links section." which to me doesn't actually prohibit an official website being given in both places. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and just to blow my own trumpet, at the foot of (my talk page) is the first submitted Article I have had approved and created. YAY, go me.

Wicks Steve (talk) 20:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding deleted pages: this edit was a valid removal of a redlink, because Norwich Film Festival was deleted following this discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Redrose64... I've noticed recently that some contributors have a slightly different edit summary. Instead of an (undo) link at the end, they show a (thank) link. I thanked one editor, Bumm13, but there is no joy in the explanation. Whassup? Do you have any knowledge of this? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See Wikipedia:Notifications/Thanks. Legoktm (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "thanks" feature was introduced some months ago (the earliest log entries are from 30 May 2013) but in the last few days the position of the "thank" link was altered, as was the means for suppressing it. Previously, it wasn't shown if you had "Exclude me from feature experiments" enabled at Preferences → Appearance; but that setting disappeared some time between 10 October (when I last noted it) and 12 October (when Steven Walling admitted that it had been removed). There has been discussion at WP:VPT#Getting rid of "thank". --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you both for that! I don't know about this. As this thing grows bigger and bigger, I envision either getting dozens of "thanks" for all my great edits  ;^d  while I'm trying to concentrate during the editorial day, or not getting any thank notifs, which would be so depressing (to some editors, perhaps). Just thinking "aloud", here. I just don't know about this. Think I'd rather suppress it and keep to the talk pages. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who can actually make the changes, but where there are multiple references to the same book, it is only possible to cite specific page numbers, unless I am wrong. Someone added to an article and used Kindle numbers.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Use the |loc= parameter, as in {{sfn|Smith|2013|loc=1234}} --Redrose64 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do it tomorrow.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence in spotting that my addition of his/her death date was "unsourced". If you feel the date/place is wrong it would have been nicer to have asked me - after all I have a username and profile and am not a troll hiding behind an IP code. If all "unsourced" but correct data were removed wikipedia would be very slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardencitizen (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

We have certain core policies, the most important of which are verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. All article content must satisfy those; articles about living persons - or persons whose death is either recent or unconfirmed - must additionally satisfy the policy on biographies of living persons. Claiming that somebody is dead, without providing a reliable reference for that, fails both the first and last of these four; if it is knowledge personal to yourself, it also falls under "original research". That is why your edits were unacceptable. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I want to let people know I don't respond on my talk page, but haven't found how to do that.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC) — Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

When you are editing your own talk page, you will have a notice like this. Just below that, and at the right-hand side, you should notice that there is a link Page notice. Go into that, edit it, and add a {{usertalkback}} template. This takes several parameters: I have used |you=watched |icon=attn |hidenew=yes |me=watched but you're probably mainly interested in |you= and |me= --Redrose64 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

What I don't know is how to change "me" so I will tell people I will respond on their talk page.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Found it. I needed to click on that blue link.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64, thank you for what you did with the {{R from move}} issue! And now I wonder if you could counsel me on my idea also expressed in that Rfc. Wikipedia is supposed to be a voluntary, fun thing to do, but what sometimes "keeps me up at night" is the fact that I can go through several hundred redirects, checking and catting as I go, and when I'm finished with a given group, what do I have? All it takes is one contributor to create one redirect shortcut and there it may sit, uncategorized, for who knows how long before I or another editor finds the new naked shortcut and cats it. The idea I had is similar to the autocatting of redirects left from moves. I figure that if there is a way for the software to sense the creation of a redirect from a move, then there might be a way to sense the creation of a redirect by a user. If that is so, then the brand new redirect could be autotagged with {{R from recent creation}} or similar, and sorted into Category:Redirects recently created or similar. Then editors could monitor that category to check new redirects for correct categorization. Do you think any of this is feasible? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Redirects that are not created by moving a page are no different from other page creations. Unlike page moves, there's no page creation log; but we do have Special:NewPages and Special:NewPagesFeed (aka Page Curation), both of which can be filtered to include or exclude redirects; but I don't think that either will list redirs only. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then. Thank you for that. I'll continue looking for the old ones for now. Found a redirect from move the other day that had been created in 2002. That's one of the oldest I've found and I often come across redirects from moves that are several years old. Maybe there will come a time when Page Curation will be able to yield new "redirects only" that are uncategorized. I'll remain hopeful. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64, have you ever tackled this one? I had not realized it until now, but several metadata links are entirely screwed up. Shouldn't Wikipedia have the power to edit the metadata? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 14:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied at File talk:Torre dei Becci, June 2013.jpg#Metadata. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted my changes to List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases for the reason that "the 6th Series wasn't broadcast until 2011, so the DVD can't have been released in 2007". I was fixing broken reference names, and the fact that the British Video Association reference just repeated the BBC url. Those references were to items in the tables for the 3rd and 4th releases. If you don't object, I'm going to put the changes back. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please examine your edit again. On the row concerning Doctor Who: The Complete Sixth Series, you removed the date 22 November 2011 and replaced it with 6 August 2007, 5 September 2007 and 6 November 2007 which were not just impossible, they also broke the table layout. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find a source! But was that date of his appointment, or the date of him taking up the position, or what? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I put "24 August 1816 to 18 August 1837 is 20 years 359 days" in the edit summary, not the article text, because that's my WP:OR calculation. But see Daniel Gooch, ref. 2 - the book is

• MacDermot, E.T. (1927). History of the Great Western Railway, vol. I: 1833-1863. Paddington: Great Western Railway. p. 51.

and checking that I find 'Brunel was authorised at the end of July to secure the services as "Superintendent of Locomotive Engines" of a youth not yet twenty-one ... named Daniel Gooch. ... Gooch ... entered the Great Western service on the 18th August 1837'. I have also found on pp. 712-3 of the same book 'Daniel Gooch was appointed Locomotive Superintendent of the Great Western and began his duties on 18th August 1837, a few days before his twenty-first birthday, having been born at Bedlington in Northumberland on 24th August 1816.' The first implies that he was not yet 21 at the time of his appointment (it states that he was not yet 21 when Brunel was authorised to appoint him); but the first explicitly states that his appointment was earlier than his 21st birthday. I therefore feel that stating his age as 20, not 21, is correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly correct, as far as I can see. And WP:OR carefully avoided. Very well done! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:GeoTemplate#MapQuest link broken. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64. Could you add this to the geonotice at the relevant time? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Already queued. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I might put it as a separate geonotice though, one which targets a rectangle covering the island of Ireland, rather than the present box which is bounded by 60°N, 9°W, 50°N, 2°E --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This is on 23 Nov. Can you arrange a geonotice if you haven't already? Cheers. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I added it just over two weeks ago with delayed action; it should have automatically gone up two days ago. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I am not seeing it because I am in the wrong place. Could you widen it to take in Scotland and the north of England, or even the whole of the UK, without losing Ireland? I think the NI diaspora is spread fairly widely. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Widened. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your removing the ad reference to nicola bryant. There are exceptions. nicola bryant has a huge global cult following despite her not being a prolific actress. The whole point of the two ad references, one of which was added by me, is that despite herself, she does still appear on television, albeit in another format. I think this information adds clarity to her page. At the end of the day, wikipedia is succinct at encyclopedic references so removing something she has really done which adds value, seems counter productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stufroguk (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to list every appearance; that would be crufty. We should stick to the significant performances: for instance, have these TV ads received any awards? Have they been covered in the press as a critical write-up and not merely as the placement of the actual advert? However, although I have seen guidance on this written down, I can't remember where, so I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Actor's career - roles portrayed. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello I have noted that you've changed the 'Following Station' option on this page when travelling from Liverpool to Central Station. I would like to confirm with you that when travelling from Liverpool the following station would be Hamilton Square, as I changed it to, not Central. Liverpool central would be the preceding station as this map clearly shows: http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Reviews/Resources/Merseyrail%201108.jpg

As it goes: Hamilton Square, James Street, Moorfields, Lime Street, Central, James Street, Hamilton Square... When exiting the loop from Liverpool your next station is Hamilton Square as the train returns to either: New Brighton, West Kirby, Chester or Ellesmere Port.

Thank you & Best Wishes

(If you feel I've made an error or misjudgement please contact me and I will try to rectify my mistake)

All of what I've said above is mentioned in good faith and I believe it to be true.

Best Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacko614 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the sequence of stations on the Liverpool loop. In rail service routeboxes, the headings "Preceding station" and "Following station" are misnomers, since most rail routes are bidirectional, so that in most cases a preceding station for trains running in one direction is also a following station for trains running in the other direction. The essential thing that we show in routeboxes is the adjacent stations on normal services, using one row per service. Hence, since trains travel Central - James Street - Hamilton Square, we need to show both of those stations on the same row of the routebox. This edit placed Hamilton Square on both left and right of the same row, which is clearly wrong since trains do not arrive at James Street having just called at Hamilton Square and then leave again with the next stop also being Hamilton Square. If they arrive at James Street having just called at Hamilton Square, then upon departure, the first stop is Moorfields; and if they depart from James Street with the first stop being Hamilton Square, the last stop before arrival at James Street must have been Central. We therefore need two rows, one with Hamilton Square and Moorfields, the other with Hamilton Square and Central. This is what the previous version did, although it only mentioned Hamilton Square once, by using a double-height cell in the left column. The unidirectional service is denoted by the small text "(to Liverpool)" (below "Moorfields") and "(from Liverpool)" (below "Liverpool Central"). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, well thank you fro your reply and I do understand your point. Thank you for messaging me as to the reason I do appreciate that, so Thank You. I of-course wont edit it back now.

Best Wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacko614 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi RR. If I revert this, am I in danger of 3RR? I have warned the user about adding unsourced material, but they tenaciously keep on adding unverified material. Many thanks. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 16:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can show that your fourth revert falls within one or more of the seven criteria at WP:NOT3RR, then you should be fine. However, criteria 1 & 2 clearly don't apply; I have no reason to suspect a banned user or a sockpuppet, so criterion 3 probably doesn't apply; it's not obvious vandalism but a good-faith attempt to add content, even if badly formatted, so criterion 4 doesn't apply; there's nothing to suggest that the added material is a violation of US law, so criterion 6 probably doesn't apply; so that leaves 5 "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)" and 7 "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)". Some of these people are almost certainly alive, so WP:BLP applies - but are the edits contentious? I would say not.

All in all, I'd say that you shouldn't revert again - instead, start a discussion at Talk:Bank Persatuan, and inform the WikiProjects - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperatives, also the page creator User talk:Skyevo not forgetting the person that you're reverting User talk:Hakim 0606. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, time for some reading and source finding I think. Thank you for your advice.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 18:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but MOS recommendations are not the same thing as diktats and shouldn't be treated as such. The prior {{...}} was a waste of namespace and its replacement is far more obvious and helpful. (And if you're actually trying to patrol WP and 'correct' ellipses until all browsers support their character set, you're welcome. The "what links here" will be an easier way for you to keep track of it and see what pages you need to keep an eye on.) — LlywelynII 10:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: The purpose of {{...}} as it was before your edit was to inform people that they were using a deprecated construct. By hiding that message, you are encouraging people to go against the manual of style. Also, before repurposing any template, you should at least propose it for discussion, and then if the repurposing is agreed, existing usage should be fixed up before the repurposing is proceeded with. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed up existing usages. They were mostly cases where the editor had copied the text directly from French Wikipedia, where fr:Modèle:... is a redirect to fr:Modèle:Section vide ou incomplète ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]). This template is the French equivalent of our Template:Empty section and Template:Expand section and so in several cases it was clear that the editor had assumed that Template:... was the same as fr:Modèle:... ([9], [10], [11], [12]). In only two cases ([13], [14]) did I find that the intention was to show an actual ellipsis, which per MOS:ELLIPSIS should be done using three periods, and not the … character. In one case ([15]) the intention was to demonstrate a pair of double braces with an ellipsis between. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

hi Red You have reversed my edit which had fixed a broken link. There is no article on the Waveney Valley Railway (the company) and there is a link already in the article to the Waveney Valley Line (so in my view it did not need another although I have no strong feelings on this). Was it your intention to link to the Waveney Valley Line article? regards --Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Red links are not errors, and are not necessarily broken links. They are links to pages that do not exist on Wikipedia: there are several reasons for this, covered at WP:REDDEAL. The more common reasons are: typos - which are fixable by editing the link; pages not yet created - fixable by creating the page; and deleted pages - fixable, either by pointing the link to a more suitable target, or if there truly isn't a suitable target, the link may then be removed.

When discussing the construction of a railway line, we would normally link to an article about the railway company itself, which is Waveney Valley Railway. If the topic is actually covered on a different article, in this case Waveney Valley Line, a redirect should be set up, so that the red link becomes blue. But that redirect should not be bypassed with a piped link, because it links to a page that might plausibly be created at some point (WP:NOTBROKEN). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If you watch it is clearly the 6th Doctor in Time of the Rani albeit the role is played by Sylvester McCoy in this episode.So change eveything back on the 6th Doctor edits because the original edits where incorrect POV edits 176.255.36.96 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC).

Since I am not the only one who has opposed that change, this is the wrong venue. Please discuss at Talk:Sixth Doctor. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello R. I just received my copy of this Dr Who 50th Anniversary book. It looks like it will be another good resource for our articles. It also backs up your research regarding the recent requested change at the List of Doctor Who serials. I finally remembered that it was Planet of Giants being reduced to 3 eps that left the production team with an extra episode to use. Don Bodo also missed the fact that "Mission..." was filmed separately from ..Master Plan which is why some of the representatives from the seven planets were played by different actors. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that; now I need to find out if there's a UK edition. Does it help with the section above? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well there is this but there might be a better price out there with a little searching. As to the above I would agree with U-Mos note at this thread Talk:Sixth Doctor#Final Appearance. Syl wore the costume and the horrible (POV on my part) wig but he never portrayed the 6th Dr. The appearance is so brief that I don't know if it merits a mention in the article. Is there a place it could be stuck in as a footnote? I am about 30 pages into the book now and it is a treasure trove of items about the show. MarnetteD | Talk 21:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on this. I am getting used to a new laptop which sometimes does odd things if one is clumsy. Britmax (talk) 09:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64, when you get a chance could you please glance at the {{Talkpage of redirect}} template? I made what I think is an improvement. I just hope against hope that I didn't break something on MediaWiki. I used a template variable inside a magic-word variable to render the talk page of the template variable. It appears to work very well, but I'd like to make certain that it doesn't mess anything else up. Here are the sandbox and testcases pages I used. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, forget about the talk page template; Martin appears to have given it his blessing. I do hope I can somehow entice you to help me with a different problem. I have worked on this and thought about it for a long, long time and have no idea how to deal with it. This involves the {{This is a redirect}} template that I use all the time to categorize redirects. I would like to find a way to be able to use an Rcat's individual parameters inside the This is a redirect template. Since the Rcats in that template are separated by pipes, if I want to tag a redirect with, say, {{R to plural}} and I also want it to populate Cat:Printworthy redirects (instead of the default Cat:Unprintworthy redirects), then I cannot use it within the TiaR template like this {{Redr|from plural|printworthy}}. That only results in the redirect populating both the printworthy and unprintworthy cats. This is true for any Rcat that can be altered in any way by piped parameters, e.g., {{Ralterlang}}.

I have noted that in hatnotes, the {{!}} will substitute for a pipe, such as:

{{About|USE1||PAGE2{{!}}p. 2}}

...which results in:

This page is about USE1. For other uses, see p. 2.

...but I have not been able to figure out how to adapt that utility to the TiaR template. It would be a welcome breakthrough if you could explain to me (1) if there is any way to bring this utility to the This is a redirect template, and (2) precisely how I could do it. Thank you for any illumination you may provide! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I used that technique in hatnotes such as the one on Calvaire (film). --Redrose64 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it works very well in hatnotes, but I can't figure out why it won't work in the {{This is a redirect}} template. That template embeds the Rcats while hatnotes autolink to a page. That seems to make all the difference. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Through experiment, I just determined that autolinks do not necessarily ensure that the pipe template will work. I am unable to get {{!}} to work in {{Category disambiguation}}, which autolinks to category pages. It isn't a simple autolink as in hatnotes, though, because it auto-includes :Category: within and at the very beginning. Of course the html | code does not work either. Clues for you, perhaps? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, scratch all that because I had'nt experimented enough. In Cat:Cross-namespace redirects (which I am slowly but steadily emptying) I included the Cat dab template and used the {{!}} template for both the template space and talk pages; it works just fine. Back to the ol' drawing board. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:26, 9 November 2013 (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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my omission at Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-9B. I believe that I have fixed the code so that it will accept a year other than 1977 or 1991. Please take a look at Template:RCTS-LocosLNER-9B/Sandbox, where I have created some examples. If that code looks like it will work, I'll migrate it to the live template.

Feel free to create additional examples or edit the sandbox in any other way to test my code changes. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Infoworld. Hope it worked out. --Lexein (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope, installed that, restarted PC, fine for about 3 mins then CPU went to 50% and stayed there. If I go to the "Processes" tab, highlight the svchost.exe row that is showing 50 under CPU, and press Delete, I can kill the process, and this restores performance. Some of the subprocesses restart themselves in a fresh instance of svchost.exe but several don't, these are: AudioSrv, Dhcp, dmserver, ERSvc, FastUserSwitchingCompatibility, LanmanServer, lanmanworkstation, Netman, seclogon, SharedAccess, ShellHWDetection, srservice, TrkWks, W32Time, wscsvc, wuauserv, WZCSVC - one of these must be the rogue subprocess, but the others are innocent bystanders, and I can't tell which is which, nor which are necessary to have running. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your approach is a good one. A series of searches will inform as to which are critical. wuauserv is, if my reading is correct, the culprit: the Windows Update process, and can, under Services, be set to Stopped, and Manual Start. Here's a command line way to do it [16]. But to really fix this whole issue, so that updates still work, you may have to roll back to a recent restore point. Gah. Wish I could help further, but my XP machine is in storage. You may find good help at Tom's Hardware forums, or on their IRC channel. This is a widespread issue, so many eyes are on it, and should be able to help you. --Lexein (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey friend, excuse my french & nothing at all personal but: time to shut that sh*t DOWN! are you in a bubble as to what kind of mess is going on? some pages are embarrassingly affected merely by this "discussion"! with all best intentions in mind: learn to walk away from a mistake! i'll be sending this to the nominator as well... Japanglish (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Like I have already tried to explain, the notice is temporary, and will disappear when the TfD discussion is closed - whatever the outcome of that discussion. All templates that are up for TfD will show a notice on the pages where they are transcluded: {{double image}} is no different in that respect. Have a look at, for example, Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden#Foreign honours (because {{HonHeads}} is at TfD): it has several of these notices too. All of this is part of the normal TfD process. If you disagree with the TfD process itself, you should discuss the matter at WT:TFD, and not on one specific discussion, and certainly not here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

...for the edit on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header. I spent a while on my edit before yours, and thought I numbered all of the parameters in the {{Tlxs}} templates; but, sure enough, I missed one. Glad you found it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi R. I just wanted to drop a hello message. I hope that you are enjoying all the celebrations. With the worldwide simulcast of "The Day of the Doctor" it is going to be like we are in one huge living room. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 18:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already got some beer in. Supermarkets sell it at about £2.30 for a 500 millilitres (17.6 imp fl oz; 16.9 US fl oz) bottle, but I know a shop where it's £1.99. Last night, I watched all four episodes of An Unearthly Child on BBC Four, beginning at 22:30 UTC. After that, on the BBC Red Button service, "Night of the Doctor" was on loop so I watched it 3 times. And recorded it on my PVR, which is possible if you know that Red Button is also Freeview channel 301.

Keep an eye on your watchlist: some people are adding tonight's TV schedules. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad you are stocked up!! I noticed that addition on AUC and your reversal of it. The very first episode still amazes me. Now I know I am a total fan but I don't think that all of FX, including CGI, that exist today could improve on what they did back then. I am going to watch it at 10:15am (MST) tomorrow morn to sync up with its original broadcast 50 years ago. That'll be a nice lead into TDotD. We get An Adventure in Space and Time" tonight. I am wondering, if it gets a good reaction, whether they might continue with episodes about Pat and Jon's eras. Gatiss certainly is talented enough to handle if the did want to proceed. MarnetteD | Talk 19:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

An Adventure... was simply amazing. I have been reading and listening to interviews about the events of Hartnell's time as the Dr for over 30 years but this docudrama helped me to understand things in ways I never had before. IMO David Bradley deserves several awards for his performance. BTW Google has a fun tribute to Dr Who as its doodle today. It includes a little game where, if A Dalek "Exterminates" the Doctor he regenerates into the next one. 4 Hours to go Woot Woot. MarnetteD | Talk 15:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

We got it Thursday 21 Nov at 21:00 (UTC). Did you spot William Russell and Carole Ann Ford? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ye s I did. Jean Marsh, Anneke Wills and Peter Purves were in there as well. Great Stuff. MarnetteD | Talk 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed your deleting of "https:" from my Wikipedia URLs and have raised questions about it. No major problem, just a technical wondering. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to learn how to use templates, so I don't have to be so dependent on others, but still don't quite see how everything is organized.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tay Bridge disaster may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• drilled and the tiebars secured by pins filling the holes (rather than bolts)<ref name="HL255"/> (Cochrane had not been surprised that boltholes had been cast conical; moulders were notorious for

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my template questions. Sorry I messed so many things up. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with my attempts to work with templates. I see my error in copying the sandbox version to the main version. I was thinking the paradigm ought to be, that if the sandbox version works, you ought to be able to copy the entire code over. As an admin, I have on occasion picked up a template edit request, by someone who has created a sandbox version, and in those cases, I copied the entire sandbox over.

I'd like to understand what to do next, because I like the concept of being able to copy the entire sandbox. I think you were mentioning that this is why we do test cases, rather than examples in the template itself. Would it work to add the example to a doc subpage? Or should I move the example out of the template and into a separate test cases page?

Somewhere - but I can't find it right now - there's a Help: page, or a Wikipedia: page, or perhaps a Template:.../doc page, which gives advice for admins updating a live template from its sandbox. This page shows that code being copied should be checked for the use of /sandbox which should be removed to ensure that sandboxes are not used in live articles.

Regarding the examples, yes I think that testcases pages should be used. You can create these by going to the bottom of the template's doc box, and clicking the "create" link where it says "and testcases (create) pages". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will try that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if the parameters shown are the only ones you can use. For example i've seen some usages of the template adapting to the parameter "family" and others even though it does not appear on the blank parameter. Pass a Method talk 00:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to ask - I have made small changes to {{infobox person}}, but nothing major. To find out, it's usually best to check through the template's talk page, in this case Template talk:Infobox person (don't forget to check the archived discussions as well), and if there is no discussion there about the parameter, raise a thread there.

Anyway, lots of templates have parameters which are not shown in the copypaste blank template, and that primarily means that the documentation has not been kept in synch with the template. There are various reasons that might occur:

• an old parameter has been deprecated, so has been deliberately removed from the documentation but for legacy reasons has not yet been removed from the template;
• a new parameter has been added to the template, but nobody updated the documentation (didn't know that they had to; knew that they should but either forgot or simply didn't bother; assumed that somebody else would do it);
• two templates have been merged, which had different parameter names - the template still recognises both names for legacy reasons but only one of the names should be used in future

The third one is the most likely: several other infoboxes have been merged into {{infobox person}} over the last few years; and the |family= parameter was brought in with this edit. There may be more information at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 22#Template:Infobox journalist. To be certain you should ask some of the people that were most closely involved (all I did was make one comment that was quickly argued against). This should preferably be on the template talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason i avoided posting at the talk page is because i had a feeling my question would not be answered. My suspicions were confirmed. Next time please avoid intervening when i'm trying to get answers. Its quite annoying. Thanks. Pass a Method talk 11:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but you asked me first (see above). How was I "intervening"? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Redrose64 :). As mentioned on the Wikiproject Hampshire talkpage, we've opened Flow up for community testing. I'd be really grateful if you could hammer on the system (if you haven't already!), let me know any bugs you find, and leave a note at the 'first release' page explaining what you, as a member of Wikiproject Hampshire, would need to see to be okay with it being deployed on that wikiproject's talkpage.

Thanks in advance! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a photo taken this afternoon. There's a handy notice on the departure board letting people know that it's there and that some trains to Cardiff might be booked in there. 217.42.110.34 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it's not the only time the WP:OR issues have occured, so I've made a WP:PENDING request for London Underground A60 and A62 Stock to mitigate the problem (see link). I hope that helps. --Marianian^(talk) 21:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have almost entirely cleaned out Category:CS1 errors: ISSN. Of the seven remaining articles, four refer to invalid ISSNs for Doctor Who magazines. I haven't been able to determine which of the many Doctor Who magazines are intended. Might you be able to lend your expertise in this matter? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Three of them could only be Doctor Who Magazine itself, because that is linked from elsewhere in the refs; the fourth, that used in The Trial of Davros, is a different publication which I've never bought. Have you asked at WT:WHO? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Could you revert the WKSI-FM page back to the previous version, found in the "hat" belowhere? It was reverted by the anon vandal and even I can't edit the page. I didn't know that Fluffernutter protected the page from all edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, never thought about the categories. Never edit before coffee, stupid edits will happen. :) Anywho, yeah, that's the one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think, that to keep things above board, you should please request at Talk:WKSI-FM. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, I was just asking the last admin to edit the page (ie: you), but I don't mind asking on the talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Posted on the talk page here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following your reasoning in this edit. The Wikipedia:Civility page is where conduct policy related to edit summaries is located. Do you think that Help:Edit summary should not have a link to Wikipedia:Civility or do you just disagree with how I worded the cross links? -- Jreferee (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Civility page is where most conduct policy is located, not just that related to edit summaries, which forms one subsection. Civility was already mentioned on the page, under Help:Edit summary#How to summarize, last bullet "Avoid inappropriate summaries". It doesn't need to be in a hatnote: these are pointers for people who landed on the page but who may have been looking for something else; it's unlikely that somebody looking for information on civility would end up at Help:Edit summary by mistake. It also doesn't need to be in the "See also" section as well, since there are many pages that might be linked here: why should Wikipedia:Civility be given priority over the other potential candidates? Far better to link from the actual place that civility is mentioned. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with Jreferee's intention to make sure civility is discussed and linked, but also disagree with the hatnote. So I wikilinked to WP:Civility#Edit summary dos and don'ts and WP:NPA (diff). I was tempted to copy the "Dos and Don'ts" table in, as rather on-the-nose for the WP:Edit summary page. Hm? --Lexein (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Someone (me) typed in "Edit summary" in the search box looking for the conduct policy on edit summaries for a post I was making at the help desk. That brought me to Help:Edit summary, which had no link to the conduct policy on edit summaries, so I added some. As long as someone who lands on the Help:Edit summary page looking for the conduct policy on edit summaries can readily find the conduct policy, I'm happy. (On a different note, I just noticed that the Edit summary redirect history has had significant/interesting activity). -- Jreferee (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Nods). All WP-space help/essays/summaries should link to policy, and civility should be well represented. That redirect is interesting - an uncommon case of an inter-namespace redirect, worked out in 2007. --Lexein (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any other case where there is a redirect from mainspace to Help: space, except for certain cases of WP:ALPHABETSOUP - like H:ILL and H:MW that I often use myself. But a redirect from mainspace to Help: space not beginning H: is so rare that I don't know of any other cases - and in fact, I didn't know about Edit summary until today. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You might want to do Lewisham_rail_crash too, same problem - bit rushed to do it myself ATM. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

OK,  Done, see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are one of the editors involved in the Premier league table template at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Displaying a part of the table. The work is very close to the end and the template now loks like the one currently used at 2013–14 Premier League. I just wanted to see if you could take a look at what I did last night at Template:2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox so that the code looks okay. What I did was that previously there was "Qualified for champions league" on three rows (1,2 and 3) and the same for relegation, so now i wanted it to span over all these rows (as in 2013–14 Premier League) using the rows-parameter in the template used inside our template.

My idea was that when teams 1,2,3 are shown (for the first 3 teams in table) there should be a span over three rows and when the table should show teams 2-6 (for team on pos4) i wanted it to be a span over 2 rows. Hard to explain in writing. I used switches and ifeq for that. The result can be seen at User:Spudgfsh/sandbox. Please take a look at it and comment on the result. Then it is only to decide if we should highlight the team or not and then we should use it. Discussion about that on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Highlighting or bolding.

I would also like to thank you for all the work you have done with this table. Thank you!. QED237 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In August you added baptism to the infobox person template. Byt that logic, should we also add a shahada parameter? Pass a Method talk 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit. Notice the link in the edit summary; the discussion concerned is now archived at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 17#Baptism, so it wasn't as if I did it unilaterally.

It's clear to me that the |baptised= parameter is intended for use where the birth date is unknown; indeed, if you give both |birth_date= and |baptised=, only the former is displayed. In most forms of Christianity, a baptism is performed within months (in some cases within hours) of birth, so it gives a rough guide to age; so when the date of birth is unknown, which is what this parameter is provided for, it is very unlikely that birth will have been anything more than a year earlier.

Shahada can be given at any age (provided that certain conditions are met), and must be the conscious decision of the individual, which excludes the very young; it is therefore no guide to age. It is perhaps closer in meaning to the Confirmation rite of Christianity, which is also a personal decision, unlike baptism, which is often the decision of the parents.

But if you feel that such a parameter is needed, please discuss at Template talk:Infobox person. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you considered that you are a Christmas Tree? -- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

er, what? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Roots in the Cotswolds- an ip in Methodist Central Hall ? Well vicar- I think its time for someone to take you back to the ward. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Some months ago I'd noticed that my IP address - whatever it may be at the time (being dynamic, it changes periodically) - always seems to geolocate to somewhere suspiciously close to the Houses of Parliament, so when making this post I thought that I'd find out exactly where, and just how far off course it was. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Redrose, I have a quick question since you're a senior editor and also worked on some recent edits I made. I fixed a couple citations missing titles yesterday for 'Trimley Railway station', using a method I've seen used on other pages and which seemed quite OK to my eye. Today I see you changed my edits to citations with the 'harv' template added, with which I of course have no problem and appreciate. However, I'm wondering if you could tell me if the 'harv' template is the preferred way to always handle these types of citations on Wikipedia. Or is it just a personal choice? Am enjoying my involvement with Wikipedia and would like to make sure my contributions are being made correctly. I've looked through the help pages, but can't find a satisfactory answer. Thanks! Xenxax (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, you changed a templated ref - one that was using {{cite book}} - to non-templated, which goes against WP:CITEVAR. However, where only author(s) and page(s) (perhaps year also) are given, {{cite book}} is inappropriate, which is why I didn't do a straight revert. Instead, {{harvnb}} is a better template to use for short citations, because it is designed to be provided with 1-4 surnames, a year, and page(s); from these it creates a link to the full citation. The latter should still be in a {{cite book}} but provided with |ref=harv to create the link anchor. Please note that {{harvnb}} is not the same as {{harv}} (although the parameters are identical): {{harv}} is for use in articles that use parenthetical referencing, such as Actuary. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Redrose. Your explanation is very clear and very much appreciated! Thanks for the CITEVAR page too; had missed that section. Very helpful. Xenxax (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you reverted my edit, but the text is still not clear to me. Perhaps you could add a few words to clarify this sentence. Like a subject, would be nice. Does it mean "Entries are checked for etc."? Then perhaps it should say that. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I added "It is" before both instances of "checked". --Redrose64 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Left a comment on this page, because I m not sure you will read it, I will mention it here. Hafspajen (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

For me anyway :-) It feels more like four months than nearly four years since Matt GERONIMOED into our lives. I have to paraphrase David's 10th Dr line and say that "I don't want him to go" - I am looking forward to Peter though. Enjoy Wednesday's episode. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 05:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I've come across another mystery that you might help me solve? I just placed new code in {{R from other capitalisation/sandbox}} that uses the {{Redirect template}} template. This is supposed to place redirects that are not in mainspace into the C:WRONG category. While working with the testcases page, I found that tagging a template-space redirect with any such type of Rcat, like {{R to plural}}, {{R from initialism}}, and so on, does not give you what you expect. Instead, that will populate only Category:All redirect templates. This works like it's supposed to in Help:, Portal:, Wikipedia:, User:, Category: and Talk namespaces, but it does not work as expected in template space. Again, the test pages:

• User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox – this is what it should do in namespaces other than mainspace,
• Template:R from other capitalisation/testcases – instead, this is what it does in template space.

Do you think this is a bug that needs to be reported? or am I missing something? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 06:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I just studied the /doc and talk pages for {{Redirect template}} and I see that I came up against this years ago in a more general fashion. It looks like the mystery lies with this template, and nobody as yet has been able to fix it. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Judging by {{incorrect namespace}}, both the error message and Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace are suppressed when any of the following are true:

• page is in Template space
• subpage name is either /sandbox or /testcases
• page name is Wikipedia:Sandbox

Note also that {{redirect template}} does not process all namespaces: for example, User: space is not mentioned. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't see that {{Incorrect namespace}} special circumstance coming. So for the purposes of the {{Redirect template}} template, it appears that we need to use a template similar to {{Incorrect namespace}} and that will also work in template space on template redirects. Is that wisdom or folly? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 19:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If it is wisdom, then I have code that is ready to go at {{Incorrect namespace/sandbox}}. When that is used in {{Redirect template/sandbox}}, it works well on template redirects. I merely removed the first parser function that excludes template namespace.

If it is folly, then something else is needed to get template redirects to populate C:WRONG. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. Just to be clear, I only used {{Incorrect namespace/sandbox}} for convenience. My intention is not to alter that template, but instead to make a similar template that will not exclude template redirects. Joys! PS left by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 09:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Made a proposal to fix all this at Template talk:Redirect template#Proposal, in case you're interested. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 07:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)