Jump to content

User talk:JacobTheRox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 3 hours ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic October 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase

A belated welcome!

[edit]
The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, JacobTheRox! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Books & Bytes – Issue 76

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 76, July–August 2026
  • New partnership: The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • New Partnership Manager joins the team
  • Spotlight: TWL page on Meta
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 11:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2026 Newsletter

[edit]
The Space-Time Telegraph
Volume IV, Issue II — September 2026
Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who

Don't blink, don't even blink... Blink, and you'll miss the new edition of the newsletter

Hello Whopedians (see what I did there?)! We're here again with the latest issue of the Space-Time Telegraph, where we have all the latest information on your favorite niche corner of Wikipedia, and wider happenings across the franchise. Dig in and enjoy!

I like Quality Articles. Quality Articles are good.

Since the publication of the last newsletter, several updates to quality content have occurred. Fifteenth Doctor has been promoted to GA status, and subsequently the Fifteenth Doctor Good Topic has been promoted, indicating that all major articles associated with the incarnation have been improved to GA status! Congratulations to all who have helped with this massive milestone.
The former FAs Dalek and Douglas Adams have been improved to GA, and Doctor actors Tom Baker and Christopher Eccleston have also been promoted. Two Classic serials, The Celestial Toymaker and The Ice Warriors, have been improved, as has spin-off series Tales of the TARDIS. Finally, shoutout to The Invasion (Doctor Who)'s promotion, nominated by new nominater XCBRO172, as well as Christopher H. Bidmead, which has been the second promoted article by Lbal.
At present, we are currently at 28 total Good Articles promoted this year, and hopefully if we keep up the pace this will be our second most productive year on record (Beating 2012's 36, though still a fair bit behind the over 50 articles from 2025). That said, on top of those new promotions, there are numerous nominations currently in the queue, and several articles and Good Topic projects currently in the works, so make sure to keep improving and reviewing articles for the project! Every step counts to improving our coverage of this show. Congratulations to all who have improved content in the past few months!

It's the End of the World Doctor Who as We Know It
(and I (Do Not) Feel Fine)

In June, the BBC officially announced that the previously publicized 2026 Doctor Who Christmas special, was no more. The news was accompanied by a plethora of other information, most notably that showrunner Russell T Davies and producer Bad Wolf would be departing the programme, thereby allowing the BBC to issue an Invitation to tender.
Davies revealed that the special was merely a ruse to satisfy audiences as the future of it was unknown, stating that no script was ever written and no performers approached. This does however, conflict with reports from composer Murray Gold, who suggested that Davies had authored multiple versions of a script.
Since this announcement, many rumors have arisen suggesting that several studios/networks are interested in taking the reigns of Who. Among these, are longtime producer of the show BBC Studios, HBO/HBO Max, Amazon/Prime Video, World Productions, and Electric Entertainment. Netflix, meanwhile, has taken its hat out of the ring, with an executive stating they believe Doctor Who's belongs with the Beeb.
While these rumors will likely only continue to grow, the tender invitation has only recently been formally published, so it remains to be seen what, if any, future the series has. If Who does find a new production partner, no cast or crew is currently signed onto the series. The rumor mill is also running wild on who the next showrunner should be, with names such as Pete McTighe, Jack Thorne, Mark Gatiss, and many others, all being mentioned.
Once the above is all resolved, sorted, and tucked away nicely, the biggest question of course, becomes what do you do with that cliffhanger...

Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network


Their songs have ended... but their stories never end 🌹

Since the previous issue was published, a number of people related to the Whoniverse have sadly passed away and some who passed away before the previous issue only had their deaths announced recently:
2010
2016
2020

Their songs have ended... but their stories never end 🌹 (continued)

2023
2025
2026
Unknown year


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) 01:39, 24 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

October 2026 Administrator Elections – Schedule

[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Digswell Viaduct

[edit]

Hey, hope you don't think I'm treading on your toes! I was perusing some sources for other potential projects. I can ransack my bookshelves to see what else I can find if you're interested in taking it further. There's probably not a lot more detail to find but FAC (if you were interested in that) requires a "thorough and representative survey" of the literature. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Not at all! I borrowed a copy of Welwyn's Railways from a library and I am just working my way through it. Welwyn Garden City railway station and Welwyn North railway station have not been in great condition so they're my main focus but I am adding to other articles as stuff comes up. The book has quite a lot on the viaduct and its design so hopefully there's a bit more architectural detail. The Welwyn North article is also mainly based on Memories of Welwyn, which I might be able to get as well. I also have Wrottesley's GNR, but haven't had the chance to read it yet so I'm not sure what will be in there in relation to the viaduct.
On a separate note, I was thinking of creating a general article about the railways in the area because the general history is quite interesting and it is awkwardly spread across articles. However, I can't quite work out what its scope would be, and it would obviously have to be based on the scope of sources. Railways in Welwyn could be misleading as the civil parish of Welwyn does not include the garden city, but Railways in Welwyn Garden City has the opposite problem and the town didn't exist until 70 years after the railways came. Anything broader (e.g. Railways in Welwyn Hatfield) doesn't work either as it is far too broad. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox(talk|contributions) 19:49, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have a few bits at User:HJ Mitchell/Library#Railways and User:HJ Mitchell/Library#Bridges and civil engineering that might be useful.
Have you thought about something like Great Northern Railway in Hertfordshire or a similar scope? A railway history of Herts has the obvious problem that three main lines pass through it but the history of Watford or St Albans is obviously very different to Welwyn, and of course there's the boundary changes over the years, so restricting the scope to a railway company might make it easier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Great Northern Railway in Hertfordshire would be:
  • Potters Bar to Hitchin (ECML)
  • Hitchin to Royston (Cambridge line)
  • Cuffley to Stevenage (Hertford loop line)
  • Hertford to Welwyn (HLDR)
  • Harpenden to Welwyn (HLDR)
  • St Albans to Hatfield (HLDR)
I don't see any books with this scope, especially as it cuts lots of lines in half somewhat arbitrarily. I was thinking Railways of Hatfield and Welwyn because that is actually covered by books, such as:
  • Hatfield to Hertford : Great Northern Railway branches
  • Welwyn's Railways (which actually covers Hatfield and Hertford a lot as well)
  • Branch lines around Hertford and Hatfield
It's not a very concise title though, and I'm still not really sure what the best option is. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox(talk|contributions) 16:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
(talk page watcher) Just randomly stumbled on this and was thinking that WP:UKRAIL editors should form a library of what books we all have at home 😂 Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I did try to make Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Sources into something better a couple of months ago but got in a bit of a mess and ended up discarding the edit. My next idea was to use an actual library system or create something on toolforge. The problem is that we need a way to categorise books by what interested editors can actually do with it, i.e. with my books it might be:
  • I am happy to send the information on a particular page if it's cited in an article
  • I am happy to send a photograph/scan of a few pages
  • I am happy to confirm if a statement is verified
  • I am happy to provide page numbers for references without
  • I am happy to use the book to work on an article where it might be helpful
And it has to be a system where it is easy for the user to change between these depending, for example, on how busy they are in real life, or if the book is inacessible to them at the moment. And Wikipedia editing has the extra challenge of needing to distinguish between specific editions of a book, because they might have different page numbers or only some editions might verify a statement. It's never easy! (in solidarity), JacobTheRox(talk|contributions) 17:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
Very true... Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0) Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 17:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
The 'Books' table is very useful actually, although it would ordinarily require mentioned editors to, well, use them! Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 17:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

October 2026 Administrator Elections – Call for Candidates

[edit]

The administrator elections process has officially started! Qualified editors are encouraged to find at least one experienced nominator. Self-nominations are also allowed. Please review instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • September 29 – October 5: Nominations phase (we are here)
  • October 8–12: Discussion phase
  • October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed. However, in practice, few candidates succeed without ~10K edits, some content creation, no recent behavioral issues, and a nominator.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
  • The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Your nomination of Eva Umlauf has passed

[edit]

Your good article nomination of the article Eva Umlauf has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jishara -- Jishara (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Signature and contrast

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Femke. I wanted to let you know that your signature does not meet the requirements for signature appearances. As some users have vision problems, signatures are required to have a Body Text to Background contrast of at least 1:4.5. You can use this tool to determine if your signature meets the minimum contrast ratio. If you have any questions, feel free to reply or ask for help at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 21:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I am a dark mode user so didn't notice this. It's pretty difficult to find a blue and pink colour combination that works in both, but I found this and this. I also just noticed the link issue which I've fixed.
Let me know if this looks good instead and I'll change it:
(in solidarity), JacobTheRox(talk|contributions)

Thanks, (in solidarity), JacobTheRox(talk|contributions) 09:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

NPP backlog solutions

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/2026 backlog discussion/RFC workshop. because you participated in an August 2025 NPP discussion on a similar topic Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

October 2026 Administrator Elections – Discussion Phase

[edit]

The discussion phase of the October 2026 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 8–12: Discussion phase (we are here)
  • October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
  • Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Discussion phase.

On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)Reply