User talk:Redrose64

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

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

My Talk Archives

Hints: 13 July 2009- Suggestions: 13 July 2009- Responses: 20 July 2009- Thanks: 17 August 2009- Complaints: 26 August 2009- Requests: 18 October 2009- Queries: 6 November 2009- Miscellaneous: 26 March 2010- Admin: 24 August 2010- Unclassified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

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

		WikiDollar
		Thanks for your assistance with template edits, I very much appreciate it. Please accept this WikiDollar as a token of my appreciation, redeemable at your nearest Wiki-Mart (no paid editing disclosure required). Cheers, MediaKyle (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Redrose64! Thanks for picking up on my attempt to request a change to the "Superstition in Africa" template. I'm having some trouble understanding how to make this request, and maybe you can help.

At the bottom of Superstition in Ethiopia there's a template labelled "Superstition in Africa". I think this is a bad name for a template, because the term "superstition" is inherently pejorative. I would suggest instead a name like "Traditional beliefs in Africa". But when I click on the edit link, I am taken to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAfrica_topic&action=edit. That's why a left a message on the talk page there.

How does one go about changing the "Superstition in Africa" template?

Thanks in anticipation for your help! Alarichall (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:Requested move#Shared talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I now see that I need to fill in and paste an adapted version of this code somewhere:

{{subst:requested move |reason=(the reason for the page move goes here). |current1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Resources |new1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing and templates}}

But I'm afraid I don't understand the instructions for where I am supposed to paste that. Would you be able to tell me? (And maybe the instructions themselves can be edited for clarity?) Alarichall (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The usual place is on the talk page of the existing name, but if that is a redirect, you would put it on the talk page of the new name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall: The "Superstition in Africa" template uses the template {{Africa topic}} to automatically link to every article that starts with "Superstition in" and ends with the name of an African country. As you can see, there are only two such articles linked. You would have to get consensus to move each of those two articles to "Traditional beliefs in ..."; after that, it would be easy to change the template code at the bottom of each page to link to "Traditional beliefs in ..." pages. All of that said, the word "superstition" is used in reliable sources to describe the topics covered in those pages, so getting consensus to move those pages may not be easy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for explaining this, @Jonesey95! OK, that makes sense. I'll see about moving those two articles. (Users are already unhappy with the naming of "Superstition in Nigeria" so consensus may not be so hard to build.) Alarichall (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your talk page posts, you may want to note that there are at least 13 articles that use the word "superstition" in their titles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Redrose64. I don't mean to bother you or intrude, but I have a couple of little problems: one is a recurring message that won't get out of the way.

Cite warning: <ref> tag with name academia cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.

The other is a rather confusing problem that even stumps me.

2.^ab Cite error: The named reference academia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I figured I seen your work, or rather, what you did for the Cinderella III: A Twist in Time Soundtrack section of the I Still Believe (Hayden Panettiere song) draft article on Wednesday, May 21st, 2025, at 07:15 A.M. so I figured you could help me by doing what you did for the Cinderella III: A Twist in Time Soundtrack section. 2601:401:4300:3720:A061:8694:102F:D61B (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, you added two instances of <ref name="academia" /> but there is no matching <ref name="academia">...</ref> that they can relate to. Please see my post of 07:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC) at Help talk:Cite errors. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page British Rail Class 455, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked this against various style guides, and it appears i have been, for decades, using these incorrectly. There are hundreds of similar lists where I've confidently replaced commas with this stylistic error.

If might be easier to edit the style guide to allow this specific usage, and designate the change with a pithy reference to my mistakes.

noted. Augmented Seventh🎱 17:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augmented Seventh: It's a long-standing convention, that goes back to at least 14 June 2007. There was certainly much discussion about it at the time: see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dashes#Proposed expanded version of advice on hyphens and dashes in MoS - that section and all those following it; also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 82. In view of that, I'm certainly not going to change it unilaterally; I suggest that you propose an amendment at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to inform.

Valuable information.

Have a Wikipedia day, Augmented Seventh🎱 18:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you recently reverted multiple additions of short descriptions, including from articles that previously had none. "Class of train rolling stock" is pretty clear, a type of class for a train that is used as rolling stock. If you have better alternatives, please feel free to edit them. Keep in mind that short descriptions are meant to be short and use universally accepted facts (not train lines subject to change), avoid jargon (like Electric multiple unit), and avoid duplicating information that is already in the title (like repeating London Underground) per WP:SDAVOID Treeditor (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) there was a recent discussion on this very topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Danners430 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treeditor: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#More short descriptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you're around. Could you, or whoever sees this first, undelete the revisions from 2002 to 2007 at Marrakesh Agreement for me, per this database query? (The link won't always work because I might reuse it in the future). The page history there doesn't tell the whole story. I've moved some revisions that were in the way to Marrakesh Agreement/temp; if you could delete the latter page too, that'd be great. Thanks! Graham87 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: OK,  Done. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Now that the undeletion is done I see that there was a page merge in the mix, making it more important to keep that history. Graham87 (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your cleanup of overlinking the other day and chuckled at how many policies you cited. For future reference, MOS:GEOLINK precisely covers this exact situation. It's one of my pet peeves too, so I hope this comes in handy next time you do this cleanup as it's easy to just cite one MOS entry instead of three and an explanation. Cheers! Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you want to have a conversation with another editor please could you have it on their talk page, or yours, or one of the noticeboards, or by email, or post, or in a pub, or anywhere that isn't my talk page? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that they left a post that was unreadable, and I did it right after that unreadable post. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had no problem reading it. I get notifications both on-wiki and off (by email) when people post on my talk page. It gets disruptive when they aren't anything to do with me. DuncanHill (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Do you have any idea where I might find a drawing or photo of the type of wheel that caused the Shipton-on-Cherwell train crash? Thanks Bob (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertpedley: I don't know of any diagrams, but Colonel Yolland's report has a description on page 5, column 2, paragraph beginning "The tyre which broke on this occasion". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion! Unfortunately they didn't scan the illustrations in that report. I'll see if the Bod has an original. Bob (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't get anywhere at the Bod. However Yolland's report says that it was a Mansell wheel with an obsolete form of tyre fixing. I've reworded the page to make this clear. Bob (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertpedley: I have been looking at your edit; and I am afraid that you have made an error here. The faulty wheel was definitely not a Mansell wheel. First, it was all-iron, where a Mansell wheel makes use of wooden blocks between the wheel boss and the rim (sixteen are shown in this diagram). Second, the faulty tyre was secured to the wheel centre by means of four countersunk rivets fitted through holes drilled radially through the tyre; a Mansell wheel uses nuts and bolts passing from one side of the wheel to the other, one bolt per segment - at no point is the tyre itself drilled. In Col. Yolland's report, pages 4-5 describe the faulty tyre and pages 7-10 describe various means of fastening the tyre to the rim. Indeed, page 8 makes it clear that the faulty wheel was not a Mansell wheel. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I shall revert the edits. Thanks! Bob (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim the description "Bristol KG5 ECW" is meaningless but that is how a large number of British bus pictures are captioned. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The chassis is a Bristol K5G. The bodywork is by ECW. These are two separate pieces of information. Pushing them together makes it seem like ECW is some variant on the basic K5G, like VW Golf GTi. Also, examples please for your statement "that is how a large number of British bus pictures are captioned". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be cheeky :-), quite a few here Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rose. I am here to explain my use of capital letters. Occasionally, if I ask for clarification within the bare code of a page, such as today when I added a Clarify template, my block letters are not intended as rudeness or shouting, rather, I deliberately deploy capitals for legibility within the visual busyness of bare article code, which ordinary article readers do not see. Indeed, the legibility I provide using capitals is intended as ergonomic helpfulness.

Of course, I understand another reading is possible (shouting) but that is not what I am, in fact, doing. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." As I say, sometimes capital letters are just big letters – to help other editors to find and see among all the article code what kind of clarification is being requested. Cheers. Spideog (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#shouting. It applies to non-talk pages too. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I went to some effort to explain that it wasn't shouting, and concluded clearly that "sometimes capital letters are just big letters". I thought that clarification couldn't be clearer. It was, as I said, for ergonomic clarity. As someone with professional experience in ergonomics and documentation, I have form in this area.

The link you provided above is for Talk pages but I did not use capitals in a Talk page. Also, that guideline says capitals are "rarely appropriate" – it says rarely, not never.

But I'll leave it at that. I'm not convinced you will let the "shouting" interpretation go, no matter what I say. Spideog (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were two different station sites in this settlement. Was the reason for the second of these two stations anything to do with the line connection of the Midland and Great Northern Joint Railway?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No; see Saxby railway station#History, first paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have now had sight of a very old OS large map with both stations marked upon it since I wrote to you. Do I take it that the small Saxby stations line drawing on the Wikipedia article showing Saxby Goods will be that of the first of those two stations, which goods were handled upon after the opening of the second station?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As our article states, the original station on a stub of the original line continued in use for goods. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my errors in rating the pages! Hi I'm Sailing427, but you can call me Sailing. Look at my profile. (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Evening! Back in early May, you helped out with an image placement problem at Grand Prix de France (figure skating). I now have what appears to be a similar problem at Denis Ten Memorial Challenge, but the solution you implemented at the French article is not working here. The image of Denis Ten should be at the very beginning of the History section, on the left. Any help you can provide would be appreciated! Thank you so much in advance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 219#Help with image placement on article. But I didn't implement anything at the French article - I suggested the use of {{stack begin}}/{{stack end}}, which you used in this edit, but seem to have subsequently removed.

Also, I don't see any similar problem at Denis Ten Memorial Challenge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Denis Ten image should be at the beginning of the History section, but is currently displaying midway through the section, at an elevation just below where the infobox ends. I tried the stack method with the infobox and the quote box, but it just pushed everything else below it.

BTW, I liked the right hand stack of images at the France article, but the people at the Featured List Project did not due to the white space it left. I was sorry to have to convert it to a gallery. Bgsu98 (Talk) 07:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are three floated objects of relevance: (i) the infobox - this is at the top of the lead section, as may be expected; (ii) the image c:File:Denis Ten at the 2016 Trophée de France - Awarding ceremony (cropped).jpg - this is at the top of the history section, as intended; (iii) the {{Quote box}} beginning "One of Denis’s main goals was to develop ..." - this is aligned wity the paragraph beginning "Organized by the Denis Ten Foundation". I see no issues here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reshuffled the quotebox after I messaged you last night; it seems to have fixed the problem. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RedRose, I am requesting you as you were active to please review/check the following reviewed page per AFC history and help if any redirect or removal needed. Capo_Orlando_Prize I had AFCH opened in decline but checked more sources and read more mentions in new tabs just to make sure. The subject does have recognition in sources with good mentions building up basic notability even with many being primary/related sources. When I returned back to the AFCH screen with decline option already clicked, I tapped on submit by error while going back to options. I reverted the error submit and accepted it with notifying submitter about this as well. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 23:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HilssaMansen19: The article does not exist, and neither does Draft:Capo Orlando Prize; there is no evidence that either of them has ever existed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble, it was a typo. Capo D'Orlando Prize it is. HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 11:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong. Mind, I'm not an AfC expert. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry have been busy in the work, no worries, I will find and ask an AFC related admin as well. Thanks mate HilssaMansen19Irien1291S • spreading wiki love ~ Message here; no calls 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for Neutral Review: Repeated AfC Rejection Despite Independent Sources. Polygnotus (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, in an ideal world, we would discourage Cro-Magnon in favour of {{nobr||Cro-Magnon}} to avoid abominations like ... with the arrival of Cro
-Magnon culture.... But right now, I'd rather not bury the discussion under a variety of loosely related topics that might require "MOS creep". If we can get templates to embed good practice, that will be a major step forward. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, most browsers will wrap after the hyphen-minus, not before it. I say "most" because I've not yet come across one that wraps before, but one may exist out there somewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. That hadn't occurred to me though it should have. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

got some pics well rather a lot of pics. Thats what I've uploaded so far.©Geni (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reason is to help others quickly find the term 'interim.' After that, it no longer appeared in the RFC listing. I also revised my statement to make it more neutral. Thank you for noticing it quickly—I know this is my first time conducting such a request. HurricaneEdgar 23:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Thank you for your alert for the reference that I completed today. I was however, slightly disappointed by your sentence ‘fixup mess caused by MatthewDavid41’ presented in a public way on the wiki page. I would have been more than happy to edit the reference which I realise I fell short on. But I really didn’t appreciate your words.

thanks again MatthewDavid41 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 July 5 § Music of Fooland by city on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. NLeeuw (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this relates to Category:Ukrainian music by city. I don't recall creating any others like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me on Casserly’s page. I did not mean to use traveling wrong it just came up underlined red and I clicked it. Is Wikipedias policy on different forms of English to use the form that the person/thing’s country would? Thanks. Howdy69 (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Howdy69: Yes, please see MOS:ENGVAR and its subsection MOS:TIES. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Howdy69 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	wikiflag
	Just the 2 of us... that almost sounds like a date !!. But seriously, has turn-out ever been an issue? issue enough to have to cancel. I am game either way, wait till the next. I am curious about maybe becoming an administrator. Or just to meet my clones, yes i have seen the photos of these fantastic people. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@James Kevin McMahon: It's still five days off. Also, some people sign on the day - or even arrive without signing up. I've never cancelled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please could you leave a message at User talk:Thryduulf with the code (and which page I need to put it on) for your listgap highlighting code. Thanks. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC) Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume III, Issue II — June 2025 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who People assume that a newsletters are a strict progression of stuff happening to author's writing, but, actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of spacey-timey teley-graphy... stuff This is my Space-Time Telegraph Detector: 🕹️ It goes *ding* when there's a new newsletter out Welcome to the second 2025 issue of the Space-Time Telegraph. Apologies that we're a little late, sometimes this newsletter takes us when we need to go instead of when we want to go. In this edition you'll find everything that you need to keep you updated on things going on around the project as well as within the Whoniverse. Am I a good (or featured) man Wikipedia article? Since last Newsletter, many new GAs have been added to the Project. These include every individual episode in Doctor Who series 15 and a number of fictional characters, including Belinda Chandra, the companion of Series 15. A full list of Good promoted content can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Articles with Good Article status. So far, we've promoted 33 GAs this year, and we're on track to beat our previous record of GAs promoted in a year (36 in 2012). In terms of Good Topics, Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and Wikipedia:Good topics/Doctor Who series 14 were both promoted in May. Additionally, with the promotion of Yeti (Doctor Who) to FA status just this past month, the project has gotten its first FA status article in nearly a decade, with the last FA promotion being From The Doctor to my son Thomas in November 2015. Congratulations to all involved with these articles, and keep up the good work! Space-Time Telegraph Materialization Schedule With uncertainty surrounding when production of the parent show will resume, newsletter editors have decided to shift the publication schedule from quarterly to triannually for the time being. This means that the next issue will be published in December, and then every April, August, and December thereafter. When the future of the series is more certain, the schedule may update once more at that time. Their songs have ended... but their stories, never end 🌹 Since the previous issue was published, some people related to Doctor Who have sadly passed away: 29 April - Sue Stapely, 78, director's assistant (The Invasion, The Curse of Peladon) 4 May - Michael Allaby, 91, actor (Ice Soldier and Larn in The Keys of Marinus) 11 May - Michael McStay, 92, actor (Derek Moberley in The Seeds of Doom) 13 May - Sandra Exelby, 82, make-up artist (The Time Warrior) 24 May - Alan Yentob, 78, controller of BBC One (1993–1996) 24 May - Peter David, 68, writer (It's complicated, go on the TARDIS Wiki for details) 30 May - Prentis Hancock, 83, actor (Spearhead from Space, Planet of the Daleks, Planet of Evil, The Ribos Operation, and Big Finish Productions audio story Bernice Summerfield - Private Enemy No. 1) 5 June - Mary Husband, 91, costume designer (Day of the Daleks) 9 June - Pik-Sen Lim, 80, actress (Captain Chin Lee in The Mind of Evil and multiple characters in Big Finish Productions audio stories) 30 June - Kenneth Colley, 87, actor (Cristophe Zarodnix in Big Finish Productions' The Eighth Doctor Adventures audio stories Sisters of the Flame and The Vengeance of Morbius) 4 July - David Killick, 86 or 87, actor (Professor Cornelius Perkins in the Big Finish Productions audio story The Valley of Death) Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network The War Between the Land and the Sea, an upcoming Doctor Who spin-off released its first trailer at the conclusion of series 15. The 5-part mini-series is expected to be broadcast later this year. The BBC has also commissioned an animated Doctor Who spin-off series targeted towards younger audiences. The 52-part programme is set to air in two parts of 26-episodes each between 2027 and 2029. In home media, the fifteenth series will be released on DVD, Blu-ray, and Steelbook in August. The Peter Cushing spin-off films, Dr Who And The Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., were recently colourised and re-released in June/July in 4K, along with new special features. Season 13 will be the next season to receive release in "The Collection" format, featuring remastered episodes and new special features. In print, three new Doctor Who novels, written by Emily Cook, Hannah Fergesen, Kalynn Byron came out in May. Another, authored by Esmie Jikiemi-Pearson is due out in November. Dan Watters and Sami Kivelä are also collaborating on a new series featuring for Titan Coomics. Finally, Pete McTighe and Carole Ann Ford are authoring new shorts to expand on previously unseen stories to be released in August and November in larger collections. Big Finish Productions have released several new Who-related audio dramas, and announced many more set to enter production soon. An audio vinyl release of The Moonbase, of which two episodes are missing, is expected to be out in September. New action figure sets taking on the appearance of Fourteenth Doctor and the Meep became available in June. Mattel also collaborated with the BBC to create Barbie dolls taking on the appearance of the Fifteenth Doctor and Belinda, first making their appearance in May at MCM Comic Con. Doctor Who will also once again have a presence at the 2025 San Diego Comic Con, featuring photo-ops and other new exclusive products. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Spectritus (talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to thank you for cleaning up Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. the anchor must have been accidentally removed while I was using the visual editor. I have now removed the whitespace that that prompted me to make the change.

You mentioned bulleted lists shouldn't contain new lines between the items for accessibility reasons. I was wondering why that is, as I have used newlines extensively in another Wiki and didn't know about any downsides. Thanks. FaviFake (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I now notice you did in fact point to the relevant article within the edit summary. unfortunately I didn't know the Wikipedia mobile app removed links from edit summaries. feel free to remove this message or ignore it. FaviFake (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is someone supposed to know which book authored by Wilson is referred to when the reference states 'Wilson pp. 44' for example? LateFatherKarma (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LateFatherKarma: By including either the other author(s), the year, or both like this, see WP:CITESHORT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reviewed the guidelines you linked initially. I feel you were wrong to revert my edits. Please view repeated citations and citing multiple pages of the same source. The problem is heightened by the fact that there are two books authored by Wilson. Unless you are willing to make an edit that clarifies to readers which book is referred to and provides more to them in terms of references than those that just state Wilson and the page number, I feel very strongly you should undo the revert. I went to the effort of reviewing page edit history, just to be sure which of the books authored by Wilson the unhelpful references of Wilson plus page number referred to and am also trying to avoid the same book listed in the references multiple times, where in most instances the reader cannot even tell which book, which publisher or even which author these unhelpful references refer to. Please can you reconsider what you did.LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than us direct eachother to guidelines, we should be thinking about the fact what I did helped the people reading this, by providing clarity (which of the two books authored by Wilson this referred to), de-cluttered the references from multiple references to the same source and provided a full reference to the source. I cannot see how that is unhelpful, but how the page is now, after you reverting my edit is unhelpful.LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing an article to use {{rp}} without prior consensus is against WP:CITEVAR (including its "Generally considered helpful" and "To be avoided" subsections), as it introduces a different method that was not previously in use. You've only been editing Wikipedia for two weeks, so you probably wouldn't have known about that. My addition of coauthor and year is permitted by the "Generally considered helpful" subsection.

Prior to this edit, there was only one Wilson source, which was the one co-authored with Spick. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are incorrect which is why I did this: Keith, Wilson (1 July 1995). Channel Tunnel Visions, 1850-1945: Dreams and Nightmares (1st ed.). Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 9781852851323. LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that often consensus should be sought, that is why I did not do this where the same style is used for other authors, but with the other authors, this confusion doesn't exist. Is it better readers can be clear on the actual source or for them to be unable to know what author or even book a reference is referring to?LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask you to reconsider what you did.LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can see you appear to be currently editing in a way that will result in the same source being listed multiple times in the references, with it in most instances not showing the book title and a helpful and full reference. Is there a reason for that and how is that helpful? LateFatherKarma (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I would suggest if you disagree with how the sources are listed that you start a discussion on the article talk page so that other editors can add their thoughts. At the moment, this is a classic content dispute - you believe the article should be written one way, and Redrose disagrees. The best course of action is to find out what general consensus is - and the best place for that is the article talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is what this user asked me to do, which I did, before they then began to make further changes, before any consensus was agreed or before contributing to that discussion. LateFatherKarma (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are keeping the existing format, just improving what’s already there. You are changing the format. That’s the main difference. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These "further changes" may be explained as follows:

1. These three edits reinstated some changes that had been made by Ehrenkater (talk · contribs), which had been lost
2. This edit split a coauthor's name into its components, for consistency
3. These two edits addressed the original issue, i.e. which Wilson the refs refer to

It is common practice for a source to be used multiple times, but generally we would provide the full details just once; repeated uses being of a shortened form. If you look at a featured article - such as Value theory, which is today's featured article as I type this - you will often find that many refs give just surnames, year and page, with the full details being given separately. This is why I directed you to WP:CITESHORT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]