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 Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Jza84 |  Talk  13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

Reliable sourcesEdit

Did my post got caught in a cross-fire? My source was a peer-reviewed nature paper about the perceived reliability of sources. Recently published on mar 20. It was absolutely relevant to the guideline page. Could you reconsider your revert please? I do, of course, agree about your first revert, it had no place in that talk page. [1] Iluvalar (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iluvalar: Sorry, I left a redlink in the edit summary, it read "... improve the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, you should ..." but should have read "... improve the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page, you should ...".
Anyway, your edit appears to be suggesting a source for some information for adding to an article (the identity of which is unclear), and that is not what the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page is for.
There is a box near the top of the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page beginning "Discuss sources on the reliable sources noticeboard". The next box down begins with the text "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources page." The next box is headed "Frequently asked questions". It seems that you failed to notice those boxes.
To clarify: the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources page exists for the discussion of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page. It is not for discussing the reliability of individual sources (use WP:RSN for that), nor for whether a source is appropriate for a given article (raise the matter at the talk page for that specific article). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of rail accidents entries & criteriaEdit

Hello, I have noticed that you frequently clean up edits on the List of rail accidents (2020–present) page, often due to the entries not involving deaths/injuries or the spillage of hazmats. I fully support your moderation, but was wondering if I should mention these criteria at the top of the page. It clearly mentions that pedestrian accidents are not listed, but says nothing about injuries or hazmats. I look forward to hearing your input. Thanks, Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need some sort of control, otherwise these pages degenerate into lengthly lists of minor occurrences. There's one person (who uses various IP addresses) who frequently adds an entry concluding "no deaths or injuries reported". One inclusion criterion which should definitely be enforced is that of verifiability - the list entry must have either a direct source, or a link to an article (or article section) which describes the accident with sources.This one clearly fails the first, and there is no mention at either Sweden or Hisingen, so it also fails the second. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have written a sentence at the top of the page further explaining the criteria for entries. It is currently hidden as I thought it would be better for you to review or possibly tweak the wording at your discretion, as you clearly know your way around the site better than I do. Thank you for your time! --Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unsigned RfcEdit

Thank you for this edit. I asked the editor multiple times on their talk page and in the RfC itself to please sign it because I didn't want it to become a dramaboard issue, but they wouldn't do it. Stoarm (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding this edit, the editor simply copied and pasted the problematic template from the other RfC. Stoarm (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stoarm: Ah crap, I completely missed this edit, and I reset the wrong rfcid, which means that Legobot's tables probably now include a pair of crossed links. I don't want to revert and re-do, it might make the problem worse. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/April Fools' Day 2023Edit

Why did you close the TfD nomination there as "disruptive" when it is done at a page clearly demarcated for April Fools? Not·Really·Soroka 21:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:R4F Jokes that affect articles, including files, categories and templates that are used in the article namespace, will be treated as vandalism. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although R4F does say that, that section of the rules reference jocular edits that affect templates (for example), not jocular edits about templates. Not·Really·Soroka 00:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion you may be interested inEdit

Hi Redrose64, there is currently a discussion ongoing at the Reliable Sources noticeboard regarding the validity of WNXX as a source in UK Rail articles that you may be interested in. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Danners430: I've never heard of it, and if it's paywalled I don't want to pay for the privilege of assessing their reliability. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuneham railway bridgeEdit

The Nuneham railway bridge is in your area, isn't it? Any chance of some photos of the damaged piers / railway across the bridge showing the dipping to add to the article? Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mjroots: I was crossing that bridge twice on alternate Tuesdays, plus twice on the third Sunday of the month. Over the last few months I have noticed a temporary speed restriction, which (I think) started off at 50 mph, was reduced to 20 mph, finally 5 mph in the days before the bridge closed. Also, an engineering team started working on the offending abutment about a month ago. But road access to the bridge is difficult (OS 1:25000 map), plus I don't drive - I'd need to take a bus, but the nearest bus stops (routes 33, 35, 41, 45) are each about 2 miles away from the bridge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears there will be plenty of time to get some photos. I've not heard of the Thames being closed to navigation, so access by boat could be an option. Are there boat trips in the area? Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are certainly boats for hire in Abingdon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  Thank you for fixing the substitution on the railway accident page. Best wishes, ~ El D. (talk to me) 22:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flint railway station nameboardsEdit

I have started a discussion on Talk:Flint railway station on the platform signs which seem to only display the stations Welsh language name of Y Fflint in case you are interested and if you can provide any insight. I thought about it after you posted the link to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) in Talk:Aberdyfi but I decided to wait for that discussion to quieten down before raising the topic of Flint station. Tk420 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tk420:   Thank you Answered there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tabs can cause unexpected effects"Edit

Hi Redrose64,

concerning this edit, what unexpected effects are you referring to? I have always used tabs without problems. --Grufo (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Part of it is the expansion when displayed. Some browsers will preserve the tab character, some will convert to a single space, some to a row of spaces. For those preserving the tab, the tab stop positions are undefined - they are browser and operating system dependent, and behaviour can also vary with the font family. The tab is also not easy to enter, most browsers will treat the tab key as an instruction to move to the next focusable object. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is really the first time I hear this. Could provide some concrete examples of browsers that have problems at displaying tab characters? The tab key as instruction to the next focusable object is the standard, but that never applies to the tab character. --Grufo (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been consistently using tabs for indenting wikimedia templates for several years; in absence of a stronger motivation I am going to revert your edit. I find tabs clearer and easier to manage in a text editor – where you can increase and reduce the indentation simply by pressing the tab key. We can imagine to add a |indent= parameter for specifying a custom sequence of characters for the indentation, but I would prefer if there were no named parameters at all in the {{tj}} template (or otherwise it is quite likely that people will get confused with the named parameters to showcase). --Grufo (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nuneham Viaduct opening date.Edit

There is three dates given the web page for it opening and they are 1844, 1856 & 1907 but none of them are 1929 is what the header thinks it is. Also it should be 1844 since that is when it first opened and embankment might be the original ones which would make it 1844. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry about the bold text—I didn’t realize RFC/A was a thing, so I was just holding to make it a bit easier to read the talk page I was working on.—Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Closure requestsEdit

I don't understand - {{Close}} is listed at the top of the page, and that's the one I used? casualdejekyll 16:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Casualdejekyll: Have a look at my two edits. You had used {{Respond|minus|Closed}}, I altered that to {{Close}}. Whilst the visual effect is identical, ClueBot III (talk · contribs) isn't set up to recognise the former. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Telford railway stationEdit

If you can spare a moment, please, would you confirm (or deny!) that I have got Telford railway station and Telford railway station (disambiguation) the right way round? (The latter redirecting to the former.) For some reason, I struggle with this on every occasion so this time I'll make a proper note of it for future reference. TYVM. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Maynard Friedman: Judging by WP:DABNAME and WP:INTDABLINK, yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template helpEdit

Regarding this comment: as I recall, the editor in question asked for help on at least one other talk page, so you may be recalling the multiple threads. isaacl (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stabling point merger into Rail Yard.Edit

I did look at Wikipedia:Merging and it said be bold. So that is what I did, which was to be bold. I only saw that you could be bold after I did it the other way. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is you're trying to be bold without understanding what it is you're doing or Wikipedia policy, and creating lots of cleanup work for other editors in doing so. This is becoming disruptive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@I Like The british Rail Class 483: Once the {{merge to}} and {{merge from}} tags have been added, BOLD is no longer an option. Discussion should take place for at least seven days, so that others may comment. Starting the discussion and then acting upon it just eight hours later without there being any other participants is not BOLD it is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Don't do it again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not know that was the case. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neilson and Neilson ReidEdit

I emptied the latter because they are the same category88.109.172.145 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's as maybe, but you must not empty a category out of process. If you believe that only one category is necessary, you should take both to WP:CFM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Dinoz1 (chat?) 15:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you, but don't overdo it, guys. Check if you're about to duplicate another message. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello! sorry for the issues with the MOS:GENDERID rfc. I misinterpreted Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Multiple_simultaneous_RfCs_on_one_page—which I thought was using "question" as the basis of distinction (i.e. "add one question with the tag ... then add the next question with the tag"), so I figured I needed 3, since I was presenting 3 questions. If there's a next time I'll know one per thread suffices!--Jerome Frank Disciple 21:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jerome Frank Disciple: You're right, it's not clear. But WP:RFCST says Open a new section at the bottom of the talk page' of the article or project page that you are interested in. and Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag. Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). The first two {{rfc}} had no valid signatures. It's not uncommon to have one RfC asking a multi-part question, or multiple related questions, but there is always one {{rfc}} tag before the statement, and at least one signature after it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Yes, technically each question had a signature—I was following the "multiple RFCS on one page" instructions (which said put a signature after the question so the bot would know when the question ended ... so I did {{rfc}} for the first question with a signature after the first question ... then {{rfc}} for the next question with a signature after the second). But—and I admit I was improvising a bit here—I saw how distracting the multiple signatures looked on WP:RFC/A, so I commented out the signatures (<!-- -->). Sorry if that was the wrong thing to do—was really just trying to think of how the questions would display and not wanting to make it super distracting.--Jerome Frank Disciple 02:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was thinking of adding something like this:
Where two questions overlap in their subject matter, present them in the same RfC, like this:
==RfC on the ship's history==
There are two related questions regarding the history of this ship.
#Should the vessel be described as an ocean liner that was later converted to a troopship, or as a troopship converted from an ocean liner?
#Should the lead photo show the vessel during its initial career as the ocean liner, or during its final career as a troopship?
Other suggestions are welcome. --~~~~
Try to avoid having separate discussions for each question in order to reduce duplication.
I'm not sure of the best place to put it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the multiple RFCs might be a good place! Turn it into a "If X, then Y ... but if Z ... then W" type of instruction. (And technically the section heading does capture both scenarios)--Jerome Frank Disciple 11:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews editsEdit

Hello, could you help me to wikify and simplify my writing in this wikinews article in English?. n:López Obrador announces that he will reinforce the southern border of Mexico after the end of Title 42 in the US. --Jusaset (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jusaset: I don't know why you are asking me. My contributions there total just three edits, all from ten years ago. I see that you have had feedback at n:Talk:López Obrador announces that he will reinforce the southern border of Mexico after the end of Title 42 in the US (which is the proper place) and User talk:Jusaset, also at n:User talk:MathXplore/Archive 1, n:User talk:SVTCobra and n:User talk:Dr vulpes. You have also sent messages to various random users on random projects, most of which have not replied. Please stop sending these messages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wasn't aware of this bug in Rater. Seems like it always brings up the WikiProject templates to where the Vital template is; it didn't do it here for example. I've gone through all my edits from yesterday and fixed the rest. Will avoid Rater for now, or at least double-check it when I use it. DFlhb (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

60009 Union of South AfricaEdit

Hi, Why are you removing my comment regarding the loco having crossed all three Forth Estuary bridges? This is factually correct and is of interest so please tell me why you have removed it possibly twice?

Thank you. Windcutter (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Windcutter: I refer you to the two links in the summary of my edit, specifically WP:V and WP:NOR. These are links to core content policy pages, which you are failing to abide by. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I have gone through both pages and please excuse my ignorance but I fail to understand what I am doing wrong. The locomotive crossed the Queensferry Crossing bridge on its journey to Fife, I have been sent a photograph of it doing so by a friend. Many years ago I added the piece about it passing over the Forth Road Bridge therefore becoming the only steam locomotive to do so, now it has crossed the third bridge. So why is that not relevant and worthy of inclusion? I honestly fail to understand why. Windcutter (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you have carried out original research that is not verifiable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not carry out research, original or otherwise, a friend sent me a photo of the lorry carrying the loco whilst crossing the bridge. Would it help if I uploaded the photo? I live in Fife and have been involved with the loco since 1990 I can verify it happened, it is in the public domain. Windcutter (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From WP:NOR: Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
From WP:V: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.
Do you understand? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I did ask you if a photograph of the event would be acceptable but you did not answer, so I shall ask you again, would a photograph be acceptable verification or not? Windcutter (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Photos can be faked. Here is one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OKAY! What then Redrose64, would I have to do, say, verify, publish elsewhere, for you to allow me to say that the loco crossed the Queensferry Crossing and therefore passed over all three Forth Estuary Bridges? What does it take? Windcutter (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, let me put it this way. You have a photo of 60009 on the Queensferry Crossing bridge in April. That is evidence that the loco was in that place on that date, nothing else. Is it published anywhere? If not, it is inadmissible.
What it certainly is not is evidence that it has used either of the other two bridges, nor that it was the first to use all three. You need a WP:RS explicitly backing up your claim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I take your points and I give up! The towel has been thrown in, life is too short.
Cheers Windcutter (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be ok ...Edit

... with you if I collapsed our side discussion in the RfC with a title “side discussion about RfC venue”? I’m asking at both User talk:Sandbh and User talk:Redrose64 YBG (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Collapsing may not be needed. Since the next response came between Sandbh’s response and our discussion, I simply added a === header to separate the discussion. YBG (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine (for my TPSs, this is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements#RfC on the classification of chemical elements on the periodic table). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anchor linkEdit

Hi. See diff.

That section is linked to from here:

I linked to the Help:Table anchor from the Flagg doc in case the Help:Table section heading changes again. What am I doing wrong? I got info from Template:Anchor. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you view the HTML source for any section heading on any Wikipedia page, you will see that the first tag inside the <h2>...</h2> is a <span id="...">, where the value of the id= is the section heading text (encoded, so that e.g. underscores replace spaces). Inward links to that section work just fine. Not only is adding an additional anchor redundant, it also creates invalid HTML since the value of an id= must be unique within the document. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I copied this to Template talk:Anchor so that more people can participate. And so that the doc page there can be clarified if needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you revert your edit (see diff)? See discussion: Template talk:Anchor#When anchor name duplicates heading name. Stepho-wrs: "If both id's are in the same place then this is not a problem." I can do the reversion if you prefer. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Replied there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Did the Wedglock coupler cease to be LU standard at some point? I was wondering as to how I hadn't encountered the correct spelling before – and how my (admittedly cursory) search hadn't turned up any indication of error – and seems that the word simply doesn't appear in any of our articles on LU's current stock, nor in the master London Underground rolling stock article. XAM2175 (T) 22:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that the incorrect spelling had been present in some form or another in the railway coupling article for a touch over 17 years until you corrected it just now probably didn't help either. I'm glad to have inadvertently helped in fixing this problem. XAM2175 (T) 22:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XAM2175: All the books that I've checked show Wedglock spelled without a second "e". Bruce in
  • Bruce, J. Graeme (1988). "12. The Experimental Streamlined Stock 1935". The London Underground Tube Stock. Shepperton: Ian Allan. pp. 73, 76. ISBN 0-7110-1707-7.
writes that Before the final design of the 1935 tube was settled, a number of equipment and operating experiments had been conducted. ... Two other cars were fitted with Tomlinson couplers which provided automatic coupling mechanically, electrically and pneumatically, these being a modified version of a coupling already in use on American tramway systems for the multiple operation of street cars. and The two-car units were coupled together to form a train by means of a new type of automatic coupler known as the Wedglock – developed from the Tomlinson coupler – which coupled the units together mechanically, electrically and pneumatically. I don't know whether LT engineers did the design work or not. I suspect that they did, as they weren't likely to pay royalties for a third-party device when LT was already extensively using the Ward coupler, which was developed in-house during the early 20th century. LT trialled the Wedglock coupler at the outer ends of each unit of the 1935 Tube Stock, and proving successful, was used for the outer couplers of the 1938 and subsequent Tube stocks, also for the outer couplers of the O, P, R, A, C and D surface stocks. It wasn't used for the Q stock, which had the Ward coupler at both ends of every car, in order to be compatible with older stucks on the District line, and I don't think that it has been used on the S stock, where coupling two units together is rarely done except in emergency. As stock types have evolved, the Wedglock coupler has had periodic updates, mainly concerning increases to the number of electrical connections that are carried through the coupler. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You misunderstand me. I don't doubt that the correct spelling has only one "e" now that you've demonstrated this, but I'm 1) disappointed that the erroneous second "e" persisted here for such a long time, and 2) curious as to how the term – in either form – does not appear at all in our article on London Underground rolling stock, and 3) curious as to how it does not appear in any of our articles on current-day tube or sub-surface stock (but this could be explained by LU having stopped using the coupler before the current stocks were introduced). XAM2175 (T) 12:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as I know, for stock types where it's possible to split a train into two or more units (i.e. everything except the S stock), Wedglock couplers are used at the point where the train can be split. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 14:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Commuter Stations: Cardiff Local Lines run by Arriva Trains WalesEdit

 Template:Commuter Stations: Cardiff Local Lines run by Arriva Trains Wales has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Requesting immediate archiving... --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Talk:5?-Reductase deficiency" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  The redirect Talk:5?-Reductase deficiency has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 8 § Talk:5?-Reductase deficiency until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 16:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]