User talk:Redrose64

Quick facts

story · music · places

Close

300 years ago, a Bach cantata was born: happy new year! - Thank you cleaning up greetings! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry; I was listening to some Strauss earlier - quite by chance, and not because I watched 2001 twice last week. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

thank you! - inviting you to check out "my" story (fun listen today, musical entertainment full of surprises), music (and memory), and places (pictured by me: the latest uploads) any day! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

20 January is the 100th birthday of David Tudor (see my story) and the 300th birthday of Bach's cantata Meine Seufzer, meine Tränen, BWV 13, if we go by date instead of occasion as he would have thought, so see my story for last Sunday, and celebrate ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:The Faraway Tree editnotice has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The navbox in the body of the article only shows the Berwickshire Railway information.

Can you please add the inforormation to that navbox that will also show the preceding and following stations on the main line of the North British Railway

Heald Green (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Heald Green: Ayton station is a settlement in Canada, and has nothing about railways. It's also a location that I know nothing about. There are also no clues in your editing history. Please provide the exact page name in the form of a Wikilink. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The railway station to which I made reference to was the one in Scotland, situated on the main line of the North British Railway near to Reston. It opened on 22 June 1846 and closed on 8 Feb 1962. Heald Green (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

But what is the exact name of the article? Reston is a disambiguation page. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The name of the Wikipedia article about this railway station in Scotland is Ayton railway station. Heald Green (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

OK,  Done, see here. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi RedRose; Your strong statement on the Trump Talk page today about the RfC I think can be corrected by a simple rewrite into 4 options. Something like this to replace that RfC which is not being received very well:

There appear to be four options for dealing with bulking down the currently overlong and sprawling article for the Trump biography.

Option 1. Full deletion of the "Political practice and rhetoric" subheading as being fully redundant with the sibling Wikipedia articles for Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Trumpism. There appears to be no reason to reduplicated the same material in full on all of these sibling pages at the same time. Fully delete it as it is already being maintained in full on three other Wikipedia sibling articles.

Option 2. A sharp condense and trim of the entire "Political practice and rhetoric" subheading could reduce it down to 10% or 20% of its current size (60Kb) by noting that it is a duplication of material which already exists on the Trump sibling articles for Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Trumpism. No need to reduplicate prose which already is fully maintained in current sibling Wikipedia articles.

Option 3. The prose in that section should be kept without changes to the 345Kb size of the current article, and the article and section should be allowed to continue to expand and grow. Computer memory is cheap and there is no priority which requires editors to absolutely follow WP:TOOBIG and WP:TLDR Wikipedia policy statements.

Option 4. A page split of the "Political practice and rhetoric" section into a standalone Wikipedia article would bring the article down to under 300Kb for the first time over the last five year period as a residual option.

It seems that replacing the current RfC with something like this one would cover all of the options (with your clean-ups added as needed), and take care of the 'bad RfC' comments presently being placed on the Talk page there. It might need sysops to do this since I do not know how to remove someone else's RfC after it is activated and then assert this one as its replacement; even though it seems to address the issue you raise. Can you help out on this. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

For an article like that, a WP:BOLD split would be ultra-controversial, so any split proposals must be discussed. It's just that WP:RFC is the wrong process. Therefore, I didn't close the discussion, instead I merely removed the {{rfc}} tag (which is all that is required to get Legobot to remove the entry from listings like WP:RFC/POL) and left an explanatory comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

With the RfC delisted, then it appears to be the same as the previous discussion on that page titled: "Split "Political practice and rhetoric" to a new article?" The RfC just opened by Space4Time appears to have been filed for the purpose of countervailing that previous discussion for "Split...", but using an RfC template instead of regular 'discussion' to gain what looks like an unfair advantage over the edits of Riposte97. (By unfair, I mean that an RfC announcement attracts many more participants from Wikipedia as a whole, rather than just the occasional visitors to the Trump Talk page alone.) If you could somehow merge these discussions together into one RfC at least somewhat resembling the Option1-to-Option4 version I've presented above, then it would seem to address all of these issues all at once without the need for tracking 4 isolated discussions on the Trump Talk page all at once, which is nearly impossible to do for the average reader of the Trump Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The proper way of publicising a split discussion is to use a suitable template at an appropriate point in the article. Several are available, they include: {{split}}; {{split portions}}; {{section move from}}; and {{split section}}. In this way, the page will be categorised as a split proposal, and various noticeboards will be notified similarly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Its all good I think if Riposte97, the RfC author, were to rewrite that RfC as a straight deletion RfC rather than an article split discussion. In defense of his view, it appears that he states that the subheading under discussion ("Political practice and rhetoric") is a full copy of material that already exists on 3 other Trump sibling articles including Trumpism and others. Can he place a new RfC as a discussion of the deletion or straight archival of that subheading instead of proposing it as a split? It seems that Space4Time is getting a big boost for his recently placed countervailing RfC which is receiving disproportionate attention in comparison to the lack of attention which Riposte97 is getting for his viewpoint, which is still being supported in the other Trump Talk page threads already in progress for several weeks. Can he do a RfC to discuss the full deletion of that section on "Political practice and rhetoric" as redundant to the 3 other full copies of it currently being maintained in sibling Trump articles already on Wikipedia at the same time? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Discuss first: RfC is an instrument of last resort, not something to jump straight into. Make sure that all of WP:RFCST is observed, including the portions concerning WP:RFCBEFORE, WP:RFCNOT and WP:RFCBRIEF. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

My edit there did what you suggested with the templates, but now Space4Time is switching the Talk page links to other threads there different than the one which Riposte97 started; is he supposed to do this? On behalf of Riposte97, he did follow your advice for opening Talk page discussion before trying to start his RfC, but his process was disrupted when Space4Time decided to open his own countervailing RfC for his own purposes. Now Riposte97's comments are left scattered over different threads on the Trump Talk page, and Space4Time seems to be fragmenting the links for his own purposes. Can you repair this since both Riposte97 and Bill Williams have spent a good deal of time to make their case and they have been supported by multiple editors. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I am from supaul . And u make a category (Category: Railway stations in supaul district) and (Category: Railway stations in Samastipur district) in which u added supaul railway station in Samastipur but it should be in supaul please fix it please Tejas101099993 (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tejas101099993: I created Category:Railway stations in Supaul district way back in March 2017, along with a bunch of others, but not Category:Railway stations in Samastipur district - that already existed at the time, being created in September 2015 by Nocowardsoulismine (talk · contribs). I have never edited that category. Of the seven articles presently in it, I have only edited three - Khudiram Bose Pusa railway station, Mohiuddinnagar railway station and Shahpur Patori railway station; I edited each of them once, in order to replace {{India-railstation-stub}} with {{Bihar-railstation-stub}} (example). None of those edits would have put the articles into Category:Railway stations in Samastipur district. I have certainly never edited Supaul railway station which was added to the category in September 2025 with this edit by Dl2000 (talk · contribs). Why are you blaming me? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tejas101099993: I fixed the categories by making appropriate changes to Supaul railway station. Agreed, the station should have been in the Supaul district category, while Samastipur is a railway division, not a district. Hope these changes help. See Wikipedia:Categorization for full details on how categories work in WP. Dl2000 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@redrose64 i am not blaming you i am just saying to fix it. Thanks for fixing it Tejas101099993 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

can u improve it? Tejas101099993 (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tejas101099993: Regarding your phrase i am just saying to fix it - that reads like a direct order. Wikipedia does not work that way. In any case, did you read the comment by Dl2000 above, and have you inspected either Supaul railway station, Category:Railway stations in Supaul district or Category:Railway stations in Samastipur district at any point since that post was made? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

sorry, My English isn't too much good Tejas101099993 (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, how does MOS:SPECIFICLINK apply at ? The guideline doesn't say anything about piping as far as I can see. Robby.is.on (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, further down the same page: MOS:LINKINNAME and also tangentially MOS:NOPIPE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how those apply, either, I'm afraid. In our case, the ", Edinburgh" bit is not part of the name of the place but for disambiguation. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: also MOS:GEOLINK. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, it says nothing against piping the way I did it. What GEOLINK doesn't allow is if I had linked "Edinburgh". Robby.is.on (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Template:Airports in the Middle East has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. TimeEngineer (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@TimeEngineer: You're only supposed to notify the creator and the major contributors. This is not a major contribution. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I changed Maria Brontë to redirect to the notable mother of the Brontë sisters, but I see that you reverted the change, pointing at a deletion discussion for her child. This doesn't make sense to me. The AfD determined that the child isn't notable, but we do have a page for her mother, who had the same name. Are you arguing that the non-notable child is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name Maria Brontë? pburka (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@Pburka: The AfD for Maria Brontë was closed as redirect to Brontë family#Children; this was done by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) at 12:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC). I'm not claiming she's notable. I'm saying that for almost fifteen years (i.e. since the creation of the page at 13:44, 25 September 2010 until the AfD was closed), the page Maria BrontëMaria Brontë was about the eldest child of Patrick Brontë, and not about his wife. I'm also saying that it's not acceptable to repurpose that page name without discussion, even if the mother is more notable than the daughter. If you disagree with that outcome, you have three options: (i) file a WP:DRV; (ii) file a WP:RFD; (iii) leave it be. If you choose (ii), you will need to also file a RfD for Maria BronteMaria Bronte, otherwise we will have two redirects (differing only in a diaresis) with different targets. What you cannot do is unilaterally alter the outcome of the AfD without discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course I can act unilaterally! That's what WP:BOLD demands. Now that it's been opposed, I'm discussing it. DRV doesn't make sense, but I'll happily take it to RFD. pburka (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 17#Maria Brontë. Thanks for pointing out the AfD. pburka (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - what guidance says not to archive the closed requests? Katzrockso (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso: If you open up any section, such as the Requested moves section, it says "*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself! Let a bot do it. Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***". Also, you sent the thread to archive 37, whilst the current one is archive 42. In general, OneClickArchiver (which is buggy) must not be used on any page set up for automatic archiving by bot. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see that notice anywhere, but thanks for letting me know. Katzrockso (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Did you click the "[edit]" link for the Requested moves section? You will see this:

== Requested moves ==
<!--
Please place entries ordered by the date the proposal was initiated (oldest at top)

Please ensure you add the {{initiated|*date here*|type=rm|done=}} template when placing a request here

*** PLEASE don't archive old discussions yourself!  Let a bot do it.  Archiving the done close requests triggers the bot to do other essential things. ***
Place new requests below this line using a level 3 heading -->

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this: I have no idea how that happened. Since I'm the third editor to introduce the exact words at the same location, I wonder if there's a bug somewhere. I had a quick look at that sentence (including the signature) and I don't see anything obvious. M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@M.Bitton: I don't understand why it happened either, which is why I sent it to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Rogue nowiki tags repeatedly added where they are unnecessary.

I have removed the less-than and greater-than from your section heading: please don't use a <nowiki> without closing it, especially not in a section heading - it will cause this page to become corrupt the next time that somebody adds a <nowiki>...</nowiki> pair later on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

For the bot to archive, the template needs updating doesn't it? It's not showing as done as is only =y, not =yes. So it's needs to incorrectly appear as "done" in order to archive. You happy to sort out? CNC (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Fixed, but I don't see why you were unable to do that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I was able to incorrectly update as done, but chose not to. CNC (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

If you want to add a note that the request was not done and is not going to be done, use a template like {{not done}}, {{partially done}} etc. The |done=yes does two things: first, it alters the coloured "Initiated" text to black "Done"; second, it signals that the request requires no further action and may be archived. Archiving occurs when ClueBot III next passes by, which is rarely immediate. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Right, sorry it's just my objection inability to mark something as done when it's not. It's more of an issue with the template that was recently changed more than anything I guess. CNC (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

i saw you got rid of the rfc thing I made because I didnt make it right do you know how to make it sorry. AlbanyParkChicago (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@AlbanyParkChicago: I have already directed you to WP:RFCST, also please write in normal English, not in txtspk. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

oh im sorry I didnt know. AlbanyParkChicago (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

is a consequence of WP:BANREVERTs. You may wish to review the block log and/or user page of the editor being reverted next time. Izno (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

You may wish to note the block in your edit summary next time that you make a second revert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Standard rollback does not allow for edit summaries, and any other avenue of reverting will take some extensive time given that this user makes a hundred or more edits before being caught, sometimes in the span of mere hours. I have other things to do with my life, even if it means I need to let another editor know what's going on with a talk page note. Izno (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback? That allows for custom edit summaries, see for example these edits. I should perhaps have included a link to the WP:ANI thread, but that didn't exist at the time that I began preparing for a mass rollback. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring to your attention that I had added the link as a newcomer's task and the link was suggested by whatever program or WP thingy suggests it and it was not a link to an incorrect article.

I am now in two minds about the newcomer task related to links even when the suggest link is clearly nor wrong or inaccurate. I think some clarity could benefit us both. Yardahallen (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Yardahallen: My edit was to delink Holdenhurst in the phrase to the east side of Holdenhurst Road in Bournemouth, but whilst the article Holdenhurst exists, it's not relevant here - it doesn't help readers to understand the location of the railway. See WP:CONTEXT, the part about "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that help readers understand the article more fully". In the context of the phrase to the east side of Holdenhurst Road in Bournemouth, "Holdenhurst" goes with the word "Road" that follows it; a valid link would have been "to the east side of Holdenhurst Road in Bournemouth", but that article does not exist and isn't likely to be created. So it's best to leave it unlinked.

As for the newcomer tasks, particularly add links, in the past I have come across many cases where the link added was unhelpful or even just plain wrong. Please note that scripts are not 100% guaranteed correct, and as with any other edit, should be checked for validity before saving. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)