User talk:Redrose64

★Trekker (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Coming from Graham87's talk: thank you what you told him! My first Christmas story is about Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91, 300 years today, and its song, 500 years old. Enjoy the season! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Following your reversion of Naleork's future TOC stuff I thought you might have an opinion on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Too_soon_/_WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Redrose64 conduct at VPT. Thank you. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Are you doing okay? In this diff it appears you were baited (and you bit down). And kept escalating it. With a longtime wikipedian. Not your best moment, but nothing actionable. I don't know all the backstory, but it looks like for just a second, you got defensive. Don't feel bad, and don't feel alone. Lately I have felt the pace upped somewhat, in my case by ai stuff. By your self-post it appeared you were looking for feedback. I think it was trolling, but you didn't have to own it. They hadn't provided diffs or mentioned anyone, so their complaint was not an issue at all. So I'm asking in a friendly way: how ya doin? BusterD (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for asking. It's frustration. Advice was requested, which I gave; and was shot down for doing so. See also User talk:Liz#Reporting myself - why. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Liz's talk page was where I saw it first. There's a lot going upon right now and 2025 will be much weirder. Hang in there. Both of you are adults, so no harm done. BusterD (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs) is now criticising me at VPT for fixing the problem, and is also claiming that I reverted some edit or other. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Just decide how much you're going to let it bother you. That's all I can add. BusterD (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, can you move this back to List of jazz standards? I've moved the big list to me mainspace for personal use. I think it's clearer to just have a simple list of blue linked entries. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Dr. Blofeld: It's ten months since the move took place . In the meantime, the redirect has become a set index. What should be done with List of jazz standards? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I created the index.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps it's best to keep it as List of jazz tunes, given that many are minor standards. Then entries can gradually be added once the articles are started. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for that, I did wonder when I saw it go by. I'll flag it as a false positive at AWB. John (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for fixing that. That's my fault for not noticing and updating the name in the template. Sorry about that. SteeledDock541 (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the IP hopping editor adding invalid parameters to locomotive articles. The thread is IP hopper repeatedly adding unsourced and incorrect information to UK Rail articles. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello,

I have been on Wikipedia for over a year and have more than enough edits to be autoconfirmed. However, I do not have the permission for some reason. I have "extended confirmed users" and "pending changes reviewers," but not autoconfirmed, so I cannot move pages. I was trying to change the title of a category I created ("Category:Negro League Baseball players from Puerto Rico"); I wanted to make "League" and "Baseball" lowercase to conform with the format of their parent category, "Negro league baseball players." However, when I went to move it, I could not find the move button and did some research, leading me to realize that I do not have the "autoconfirmed" status.

There is not a way to request that status, which is why I am contacting you. Either I am not able to find the move button, or my "autoconfirmed" status got taken away for some reason. Thank you for your time! BittersweetParadox (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@BittersweetParadox: First, you do have autoconfirmed - you couldn't have got extended-confirmed without it. I also don't think that it's possible to lose autoconfirmed, even if you're not extended-confirmed. But see Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category - even with extended-confirmed, you can't move categories. This is because moving a category page is much more complicated than moving other pages; instead, you should file a rename request at WP:CFDS where experienced users will check that the move is in order, perform the move, and also all of the ancillary cleanup that is required. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Happy new year 2025! Today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for adding a solid source to Annesley South Junction Halt railway station. You may or may not be aware of the context: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Me (DragonofBatley). Your expertise, and your bookshelf, could be very helpful in upgrading some of the articles under consideration. Pam D 10:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As the book isn't being cited, I'm a bit puzzled as to why you think the {{cite book}} template is appropriate? A link for the book is here. Would you prefer this? KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The template helps to format it, it doesn't imply that the book is being cited as a reference. But the URL does not yield the text of the book - it is the publisher's web page about the book, and gives virtually no information about the station, other than the fact that it is the subject of two photographs in the book. We don't need the WorldCat link if the |isbn= is supplied. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Maybe I'm tired, but as far as I can see neither url gives any information about the station. If you have the book and it provides coverage of the station, can't we just use it as a source, and include whatever content it has? It's not as if the article as it stands is cite-heavy. KJP1 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't have the book. Perhaps PamD (talk · contribs) does, as they added the mention in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I only found the publishers' website, with its table of contents which helps verify the halt's existence and name, and added it as Further Reading because that seemed a good place for an RS I can't access but where the info I can access shows that it has a couple of pages about (or pages of photos of) it. Pam D 23:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, I misread it: a couple of photos, not pages. But still evidence of station name, which was thin on the ground when I added it. I think the other two sites are External links, rather than FR. And yes using the cite book template when not citing is common eg in lists of an author's work: it formats it consistently, and links the isbn. Pam D 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No worries. I will leave as is. If I get really obsessed I shall buy it online, pay the exorbitant shipping costs, and cite it myself! It’s one of the many odd quirks of Wikipedia - my grandfather was born in Annesley and likely travelled on that very line. KJP1 (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for getting the 1991 Series changed to the original Radio 5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.44.232 (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A tag has been placed on Category:1852 events by country indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗ plicit 00:47, 23 January 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 January 30 § 7th century mass cleanup on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Beland (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I made a contribution regarding the death of my grandfather on the 9th December 1970 at the Chivers Level Crossing.

His death certificated states: Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. I can provide a copy of the death certificate.

See the accident report: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DoT_Chivers1976.pdf this crash was almost identical. On page 4 paragraph 5 it mentions the his death on the 9th of December 1970.

See: https://www.eastanglianrailwayarchive.co.uk/Railways/Ely-to-Norwich/i-2QFmqfB

I have had feedback from: https://www.railwayaccidents.port.ac.uk/sorry-no-registration-allowed/

See: https://www.railcar.co.uk/topic/accidents/1970s

Also read the the 1970 Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Health and Safety Report – see paragraph 123. I can provide a copy.

See: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=460 follow link to the PDF report.

I think that is sufficient evidence for you to see my grandfather was killed there. I am not sure what "Source" you read but you unfortunately missed the part about my grandfather the train driver being killed there on the 9th of December.

Look forward to hearing from you. Please don't delete again.

Kind regards. Isimmons1 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Isimmons1: You refer, presumably, to this revert . This is now the fourth time that you have added that content. Your edit summary reads redrose has not check his facts. I will message redrose with the fact as I had to with another person who deleted my contribution regarding the death of my grandfather. I think his family and friends know more about this. it was more than merely a "car accident". This accident was identical to one in 1976 same location. See that report. top of page 4 paragraph 5.

Can we forget, for the moment, your claim that your grandfather was killed there. The content that you wish to include reads:

• Chivers Occupation level crossing, Cambridgeshire: Passenger train collided with lorry on unmanned level crossing

It was agreed, some years ago, that level crossing collisions were simply not worth writing about, unless they were major accidents such as Hixon (1968) or Ufton Nervet (2004). Many level crossing accidents are the fault of the road user, and there are several each year. Why is this incident at Chivers occupation crossing at all significant? The fact that there is no entry for it in The Railways Archive for 1970 could be because of several reasons, but two that immediately spring to mind are (i) no report was published; or (ii) a report was published, but The Railways Archive do not consider it to be significant enough to prioritise over other, more serious, accidents. You will see from the link that I have provided that they don't ignore level crossing accidents entirely - but Low Fields Farm (October 1970) was an error by railway staff, and Upper Denton (December 1970) was due to the design of the crossing. The report on Chivers occupation crossing (1976) blames the road driver, and in mentioning the 1970 accident, remarking that the two occurrences were very similar.

Whether the driver who was killed was your grandfather or not should have no bearing on including the content, because Wikipedia is not a ... memorial site. Your possession of a death certificate is inadmissible, per the policy on verifiability. Even if the death cert were allowed, the statement Died of multiple Injuries as a result of the train which "he was driving" accidently running into the trailer of an articulated lorry there on that day. does not give the location. This seems to me that you are putting two different sources together to draw a separate conclusion, which is inadmissible per the policy on synthesis of published material. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And once again you have miss read the 1976 report which said the driver was killed in 1970. It is totally irrelevant that he was my grandfather, first thing we do agree on. However, you can't include the 1976 accident if you don't include the 1970 accident as the were both almost exactly the same. I have written to the Railway Archive along with many other people and sites, all have taken time to reply to me accept for Railway Archives. I have no understanding of why they have not even taken the time to send me a polite reply but they have not. Maybe you could ask them for me ? Isimmons1 (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Redrose64, and thank you for pinging me regarding {{WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe}}! I add WikiProjects using Rater and AFCH, neither of which show edit previews. This appears to be an issue with AFCH acceptance, where I am seeing this project listed as a possibility. I'll bring up the concern there.

Thanks again for pinging me with this issue! I hadn't seen your previous edit. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, Regarding Talk:Alan Turing, what you did produced visible text {{rfc|bio|sci}}. I've never seen anything like that on a closed RfC before (or maybe I didn't look carefully enough). Perhaps that should be removed altogether? Zero ^talk 02:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Zero0000: Please see WP:RFCEND, which states:

To end an RfC manually, remove the {{rfc}} tag from the talk page. Legobot will remove the discussion from the central lists on its next run. ... If you are also closing the discussion, you should do this in the same edit. As an alternative to removing the {{rfc}} tag, you may use one of the template-linking templates such as {{tlx }} to disable it, as in {{tlx|rfc|bio|rfcid=fedcba9}}. Do not enclose the {{rfc}} tag in <nowiki>...</nowiki> or <syntaxhighlight>...</syntaxhighlight> tags, nor place it in HTML comment markers <!--...--> since Legobot will ignore these and treat the RfC as if it is still open – and may also corrupt the RfC listing pages.

This is exactly what happened here - although you didn't touch Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, its entry at WP:RFC/ECON became corrupted. My edit caused it to be restored .

But speaking personally - this is not in WP:RFC - I would say that if the RfC is being suspended (or closed temporarily), use the {{tlx}} method; if it's being closed permanently, remove the {{rfc}} tag entirely. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the detailed reply and your help. Cheers. Zero ^talk 23:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:One Direction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If Thames Travel have been operating the service to Wallingford since last year there must be a record of the change that can be quoted. I did point out that Google Maps still thinks it is OBC. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't trust Google Maps. They're not a bus operator, so are under no obligation to ensure that bus information is up to date.

Two or three times a year, when there are timetable changes on several routes all at once, Oxford and Thames Travel jointly produce a Service Changes web page; the most recent one mentioning the X40 route is Service Changes from 14th April 2024, but these pages don't always indicate a change of operator.

Have a look at Buses in and around Oxford - the last line of each box shows the operator, and about three-fifths of the way down is the entry for

River Rapids X40, River Rapids 40C, River Rapids NX40
Oxford City Centre to Central Reading
via Iffley Road, Berinsfield, Shillingford, Benson, Wallingford, Woodcote & Caversham
Thames Travel

Note that it says "Thames Travel", not "Oxford Bus Company".

On a more technical level, the current X40 timetable is at https://passenger-line-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/oxfordbus/THTR/X40-timetable-20240414-44ad4fa7.pdf - in that URL, THTR denotes Thames Travel (Oxford would be OXBC as in https://passenger-line-assets.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/oxfordbus/OXBC/X1-timetable-20240901-173a237c.pdf) and 20240414 is the effective date in CCYYMMDD format. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Any of those the original editor could have used as a reference, instead they just assumed everybody woud believe it because they said so. I may be wrong but I thought that was the antithesis of everything WP stood for. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is also Buses in and around Wallingford - all four entries show Thames Travel as the operator. From this we may conclude that Oxford don't serve Wallingford. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And your point is? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That removing Wallingford from the list of places served by Oxford was a valid removal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So we can change what we like without providing evidence, fine, glad we got that sorted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Might I remind you of WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So, by restoring the mention of Wallingford as a place served by Oxford BC, it's up to you to supply a source for that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for taking the time to explain what was happening to me on this article. It was driving me nuts and I thought I had accidently ruined the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for your repair my RfC. I was experimenting with syntax because the text of the RfC was not populating on the notice page -- it was just showing the title. Would be interested in learning what it was that I did wrong. Thx. Johnadams11 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Johnadams11: It's simply that this edit lacked a signature (which is optional) and a timestamp (which is mandatory, see WP:RFCST item 6). My first edit, at 23:02 (UTC), added that missing timestamp (and also a copy of your usual signature), but since Legobot only runs once an hour, WP:RFC/HIST and WP:RFC/POL were not updated until 00:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you. I has spent so much time properly formatting the RfC that I neglected the signature! Thanks again! Johnadams11 (talk) 14:31, 15 February 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 February 16 § Category:July 1852 in the United Kingdom on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#We_want_to_buy_you_books.©Geni (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, what would have to be done to get the Flying Scotsman article to featured article status? I’m ThatTrainGuy1945 (signed out right now) and I saw that you dabble in the British railway system. 66.206.125.114 (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Category:Heritage railway stations in Bedfordshire has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. RanDom 404 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I have reverted your reversion of my edit of this article. The first steam information I added to the timeline was coppied from further up the article, which also had a reference. I did not think it necessary to add the reference a second time but have now duplicated the reference in my reversion just to make it clear. Please be more careful withyour reversion of other people's edits. If you had taken time to inspect the article before your kneejerk removal of my edit, you would have seen the text further up the article and could have simply added the duplicate reference, if that was your only gripe with it. Lkingscott (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

First, it was your WP:BURDEN, not mine. Second, the content that you added had all the appearance of blogging; and Wikipedia is not a blog. Articles about preserved railway locomotives seem to attract blogging, possibly from one of the people working on the project, eager to publicise the next "milestone". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

hi Redrose64, I was the one who added those Category:1950s in Irish music]] etc. It's my first time attempting to make categories. I didn't know I'd done it wrong. How do I go about doing it correctly? There are already categories for the decades 1960s-2020s in Irish music so I don't get the problem. Why did you describe the ones I added 1870s-1950s as "pointless self-cat"s? Ridiculopathy (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Ridiculopathy: They were showing up in Wikipedia:Database reports/Self-categorized categories (and will remain there until next Tuesday when the report next runs). To fix them, I looked at other similar categories - such as Category:1970s in Irish music - and copied the code in there. Basically: we don't create category loops, and a self-categorized category is the smallest kind of loop. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Redrose64, thanks for the explanation. Oh so you fixed them rather than deleted them. Thanks. I had thought you had deleted them outright or something. I really do not understand how Categories work on here yet. I guess I'll go and educate myself. By the way, yesterday I made some Self-categorized categories for 'Category:1960s in Irish comedy' all the way up to 'Category:2020s in Irish comedy', so i guess these will show up in the next report. It was the only way I knew how to make a category red-link go blue. Ridiculopathy (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They almost certainly will. All categories must be placed in one or more approriate parent categories, but a category cannot be its own parent, see WP:PARENTCAT. Also, Template:Decade in nationality comedy category doesn't exist, so {{Decade in nationality comedy category}} displays a redlink instead of something meaningful. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you know how I go about creating the template Template:Decade in nationality comedy category? One would assume if there's such a template for music it would be no problem to have one for comedy. Or do I have to float it by the community first. Ridiculopathy (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Template:Decade in nationality music category looks rather complicated, I wouldn't want to replicate that for comedy. It was created by BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs), but they're serving an indefinite block so cannot be asked for advice.

But a more fundamental question might be: why do you need categories for decades in Irish comedy? Do we have categories for decades in comedy that could do with splitting down by country? Or do we have categories for decades in Ireland that could do with splitting down by topic? Or even categories for Irish comedy that could usefully be split by decade? In short: can you justify a set of categories, each of which is a three-way intersection, in a manner that would survive a WP:CFD nomination? Please see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, RedRose64, I'd like to talk about https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1272040047 this issue with the Victoria tram stop section of Manchester Victoria rail station's article. It's only a minor issue on what line(s) Victoria tram stop is on, but I really want to know what the problem is. I thought it be better to talk about this on a talk page instead of reverting each other's edits.

The lines that a tram stop is on is not exactly defined, but I have edited and reviewed every tram stop page related to Metrolink and used a common rule across all 99 articles: that the separate tram "lines" are defined by how they opened physically, and by line references across the network.

The different tram routes are different from the tram lines, and I'm certain that this is where the confusion lies.

You say that "trams to Rochdale bypass Victoria", and I agree. I don't agree that this means Victoria is on the Rochdale Line. The tram route from East Didsbury - Rochdale Town Centre operates through Victoria, yes, but the physical tram stop does not lie on the Rochdale Line's tracks. The Rochdale Line's tracks begin at Irk Valley Junction, like I said previously.

You also mentioned that I was implying that the line has no stops west of Monsall, and you'd be right. Again, the physical Rochdale Line tracks are at Monsall, but not Victoria. You also mentioned that this way would mean it's isolated from the rest of the network. I'm not saying that the Rochdale Line begins at Monsall, I'm saying it ends at Irk Valley Junction with the Bury Line. It would seem isolated if we were just talking about the stations, but I'm talking about the entire network, including the track.

You would be correct in saying the final stop for Rochdale-bound trams before getting onto the physical tracks would be Victoria, but this doesn't mean that the physical line begins there.

That's a long explanation, but I hope it makes sense, and I'd like if we could come to an agreement. Eccentral8688 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Eccentral8688: I'm not claiming that trams to Rochdale bypass Victoria. My edit summary, in full, was so trams to Rochdale somehow bypass Victoria, then? It's a question, asking how trams from the centre of Manchester can reach the Rochdale line without stopping at Victoria. There are no other routes out of the city centre; they must run via Victoria. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There is no way for trams from the centre of Manchester to reach the Rochdale Line without stopping at Victoria. That doesn't mean it's on the Rochdale Line's tracks, though Eccentral8688 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's my first time initiating a closure request, and I thought "initiated" refers to when the closure request is initiated, but I now know it's when the RfC was initiated. Thanks again for politely instructing me in the edit summary. Left guide (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Left guide: Yes, if you think about it, there is no need to separately indicate when the closure request is initiated, because it's in the signature that you left when posting the request. This does confuse some people. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]