User talk:Redrose64

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
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
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

dashed lines for listgaps

[edit]

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]

WIkiProject Doctor Who: June 2025 Newsletter

[edit]
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:
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

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]

Thanks for the cleanup

[edit]

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]

Channel Tunnel

[edit]

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]

Question...

[edit]

...regarding the gallery thing on the rfc at Talk:Hamas, is there a reason for that? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC statements should be neutral and brief. Also, a gallery brings undue attention to your RfC at the RfC listings - your RfC is no more important than any of the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro

[edit]

La pagina del draft:EFootball wolrd cup part 16 la que se redigio por que estaba mal escrita ya esta en ingles 2800:320:4218:1700:3052:8477:B13:F125 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: The page of Draft:EFootball World Cup Part 16...the one that was redirected because it was poorly written is already in English. It looks like this user, FWIW, has trouble spelling "Wolrd" so they moved the page from the misspelled title.
This is the English Wikipedia, and I cannot read Spanish, so please write in English. I see that you have already been informed of this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Broder ya puse en ingles osea ya lo escribi en la que me redigio el usuario por que estaba mal escritor el nombre de la pagina fijatw 2800:320:4218:1700:3052:8477:B13:F125 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: Brother, I already put it in English. I already wrote it where the user [1isall] redirected me because the page name was poorly written in English. Take a look. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sammi. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Great Central Railway (heritage railway)

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Great Central Railway (heritage railway), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 23:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of British Rail Class 99 (disambiguation)

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on British Rail Class 99 (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is:

  • a disambiguation page with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" which lists only one extant Wikipedia page (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • a disambiguation page that lists zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: What happened to the dab page that this redir formerly pointed to? Was it deleted? If not, the redirect should be adjusted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Redrose. British Rail Class 99 (locomotive) was moved to the base name and a disambiguation page is not required for the one other entry. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was an RM a few weeks ago to move the (locomotive) page to plain British Rail Class 99 as the primary topic, along with British Rail Class 93 Danners430 tweaks made 07:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Andre

[edit]

I know this is probably way out of what you normally look at, but hear me out. This girl has suddenly become famous and deserves a new article. She is the daughter of Katie Price and Peter Andre and has secured a tv series on ITV, for sure is Netflix bound in the near future. I wouldn't hesitate normally to create this article, however, someone already did, and it just appears as a redirect to Katie Price. I need this deleted, so that when I create the article, I get the credit for it, not some unknown who does not even have an account. Is this possible as you are an administrator? If so let me know, don't delete it just yet, need to get the timing right. thanks Redrose, this sort of thing is where u need buddies. cheers James Kevin McMahon (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@James Kevin McMahon: You refer, presumably, to the redirect Princess AndrePrincess Andre. This was created more than twelve years ago, by Boleyn (talk · contribs) (who most certainly does have an account, and moreover, is far from being "some unknown"), so I'm certainly not going to delete it at the request of anybody except Boleyn herself, unless the processes described at WP:DELETE are followed correctly. Start off by checking the speedy deletion criteria: if any of those unquestionably applies, you should use the relevant tag; if not, take it to WP:RFD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boleyn did not create the article, only the redirect. I will check out the other options you mentioned. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@James Kevin McMahon: Which article did you mean then? You provided no links other than to the two parents. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that I want to spend a day of my time creating an article, and that someone in the distant past gets the article credit for creating a redirect. This is wrong, it needs to be addressed, debated, corrected. There must be avenues where this issue can be discussed, and changed if need be? Not just written off as an 'ah well, thats how it is'. If i am wrong I apologise. Anyway no worries, stay cool. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help if you don't supply the information. I should not be expected to guess. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time sink

[edit]

@Primefac: - @Jonesey95: - @Chrisahn:at what point are things of this nature and this a Wikipedia:TIMESINK. Not understanding their own errors as seen here or here. How do we get them to slow down - or take others advice? Moxy🍁 17:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reverting and posting warnings, with links to diffs, on their talk page. Disruptive, too-fast, mistake-prone editors like this need to have a record built up so that when they are eventually taken to ANI, which seems inevitable in this case, their record will be clear. I have tried to coach this editor, with limited results. The situation gets a little trickier because they delete instead of archiving, so any case made against them will require examining their user talk page history. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On that matter, I see that in the ANI thread they complain about SchroCat deleting threads and blanking talk pages. Pot/kettle? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in Jonesey's camp as well; the edits are almost all piddly bikeshedding nonsense, nothing individually sanctionable but I apparently have a lot of policy pages on my watchlist because they've been showing up almost daily (and often getting reverted). If they don't change soon I expect sanctions. Primefac (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... posting warnings, with links to diffs, on their talk page. [They] need to have a record built up so that when they are eventually taken to ANI ... their record will be clear.

Ooohh, so that's why y'all have started sending me vague formal warnings for incredibly small things like decreasing the indentation of a comment and then threathening to block me for that, or reverting truly random months-old edits to essays and help pages and then writing on my talk page that I have disruptively edited "policy and guideline pages". That makes much more sense.
I'm sure the folks at ANI would be impressed by the horrendous conduct you're "warning" me about. Keep up the good work, this record won't build up by itself!
I'm truly speechless. FaviFake (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be "truly speechless", otherwise you wouldn't have posted here. Also, various people have been posting messages on your talk page for months (example from April); and some users will watchlist a user talk page when they post to it, primarily in order to see if there's a reply. If the next few posts just happen to be warnings from other people, well, then we may have a behaviour issue on the part of the person who is repeateedly being warned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

people have been posting messages on your talk page for months (example from April)

In your own example, Schazjmd, the editor warning me, later said she had misread the diff and thus incorrectly thought I hadn't followed WP:REDACT. Great example of me following policy!
And let's pretend I did actually forget about REDACT and edit my own comment after a reply, then what? I should be reported at ANI because I received my very first warning about something I had never done before? How does this make any sense? The purpose of a warning is to change one's behaviour. And I've always done that, whether you choose to believe it or not.

You can't be "truly speechless", otherwise you wouldn't have posted here.

Stunning observation. I’ll alert the Nobel committee. FaviFake (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: There's also the boomerang. I don't know why they are replying to something 20 days after the fact. I had this written up yesterday and never got it out:
I want to be neutral and assume good faith so I will try my best here to make a well-intended assumption. They have reasonable, advanced knowledge of MediaWiki from their off site moderation of another wiki (they have disclosed this but I don't want to directly link it here as a possible misinterpretation of doxxing someone).
I don't think they realize there's processes and more restrictions to make edits on here than what they are used to. I think their editing can be a net positive but some effort on the user is needed to be mindful of what their edits do altogether. That's not to say they have made progress. They have learned about making samples of the changes they want to do, it's just the disruptive nature needs some tuning. It's a learning process.
But now with their reply above, there's definitely a behavior issue. I don't think they really have acknowledged their errors. They are so worried about whether or not they have received a warning when missing the constructive take on why their edits could be been seen as disruptive. A lot of people have the policies and guidelines pages on their watchlist. – The Grid (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are so worried about whether or not they have received a warning

Oh dear, I can assure you I'm not the one worried about warnings here. They keep being brought up over and over by other people. Warning were even the only diffs provided on my boomerang... How can I explain myself without addressing the main, if not only, "damning evidence" given?

I don't think they really have acknowledged their errors.

That's just false. I have replied to almost every message posted on my talk page. And elsewhere! I actually think I should start ignoring some messages if they are too vague.

I don't know why they are replying to something 20 days after the fact.

Because I came across it something 20 days after the fact.
While I disagree with some of the rest of your message, I at least appreciate the honest attempt to explain your view of my edits. FaviFake (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, it's not long - a matter of five or six weeks - since FaviFake first came to my attention, firstly (IIRC) at Template talk:Preferences and not long after because they started making undiscussed changes to poilcies and guidelines. I'm considering reverting and protecting. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Broader problems with FaviFake's editing Moxy🍁 15:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving on British Rail Class 70

[edit]

I pinged you on 10mmsocket's talk page after I messed up the archiving on the above page... any chance you could take a look? Danners430 tweaks made 15:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m guessing the template broke in the title… lesson learnt! Danners430 tweaks made 06:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Directing new users to essays on the top of policy and guideline pages. Moxy🍁 15:20, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your help with - Research and Analysis Wing

[edit]

@Redrose64 Thanks for your help. Quite co-incidentally I hit upon the same thing, may be a fraction of a second earlier. Because by the time I had fixed it, and went back to village pump (technical), I found the same solution at that page. Needless to say, helpful suggestions by all Wikipedians helped me crack it. Regarding addressing issues, I agree with you. Warm Regards. Neotaruntius (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Colorado Springs, Colorado recent addition undone

[edit]

Hello @Redrose64,

I understand the purpose of undoing the external link in text issue. Can you explain why the information regarding the Laramie formation coal zone was also removed please. SG6600 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

London's Transport Race

[edit]

London's Transport Race

Date: 8 nov • 10:00

Location: Euston Road, London, N1 9AL

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/londons-transport-race-tickets-1591289101539?aff=ebdsshother&utm_share_source=listing_android&sg=ca533c4d1c49c81d3733ce73e5c09056a1e946e54c97adba84cd2bb787b1a522e8bb9de284db19224c432798247c32899b7656a36acf23a4e9e925877c1a701b6da92a0b3cfc0b790044bfbaf5 Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 17:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edit to Parkside Station

[edit]

Hi, it seems you reverted my edit to Parkside railway station (Derbyshire). It was listed as needing an infobox, so I moved what information I had into the infobox. Why was the edit reverted? PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 21:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilDaBirdMan: Because for UK railway stations, we don't put the routebox into the infobox; and that's all that you had put in. The infobox holds things like a photo of the station, the dates of opening and closing, the railway company that first opened it. See for example Butterley railway station, also in Derbyshire. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I’m doing quick copy edits, not spending hours digging up info. For many stations I’ve seen, they have the routebox and an image, and i just configure that.
Sorry if British standards are different. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 21:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template transclusions

[edit]

I've been editing just a while and it was not until yesterday that I became aware of of wide this issue goes. I took it as read that {{angbr}} "just" prefixed and postfixed angle brackets. Hopefully it doesn't affect {{snd}} because I've used it a lot. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And by sheer coincidence, I've just spotted

  • ===Initial years and the Paris Treaty (1948{{Non breaking en dash}}1957)===

at European Union. Not one of mine but I reckon there's a lot of it about. Is that one also a problem? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least three different reasons not to use template transclusions in headings, they've been discussed at WP:VPT at some point. I can't remember them all; I've been following VPT for something like sixteen years. But one of these reasons is that a transcluded template can break inward links to the section. This would indeed be the case for your example. I can't think of a valid use case for {{Non breaking en dash}} - it's supposed to prevent wrapping at the dash, but I don't know of any browsers that will line wrap at that point when a normal unspaced en-dash is used. So for this case I would use 
===Initial years and the Paris Treaty (1948–1957)===
- I make the en-dash by clicking the appropriate link below the edit box. If you have selected either "Insert" or "Wiki markup", the en-dash is the very first clickable symbol, the next one along is the em-dash (more at WP:HTMD). Because of this ease of making dashes, personally I never use the dash templates like {{snd}} or {{Non breaking en dash}}, even in running text. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]