User talk:Useddenim/Archive 6

Evolution at Blaenau Ffestiniog

Hello

Thank you for your intervention on the Festiniog and Blaenau Railway RDT

Festiniog & Blaenau Railway
to Porthmadog Harbour Dolgarregddu Junction Duffws (FR) Diphwys inclines to quarries Glynllifon Street wooden viaduct Tan-y-Manod to Graig Ddu and Manod quarries Tyddyngwyn Festiniog
Key
Ffestiniog Railway Festiniog & Blaenau Rly quarry lines

. As always, the end result looks better than my crude efforts. I certainly agree that the Festiniog railway was a real railway, as was the F&BR. The problem I was addressing and anticipating by using green and blue is that red is associated with standard gauge, at least in the minds of duffers like me. That didn't matter in the F&BR diagram, but it does later in the story, as below.

The tale of Blaenau's passenger railways is unusually convoluted, it was a slate Klondike.

I have built a prototype "timeline" route diagram along the lines of Duckmanton Junction. It will contain a sequence of diagrams building from the initial lone FR station at Dinas through to the present day. I fear it may end up with about 15 mini-diagrams, but I may be able to whittle that down a bit.

The core elements are shown in the extracts below, being the lines at their maximum complexity. If we get them right then doing the simpler versions will be easy.

Could you please take one or two of these snapshots and put them into a final form, BUT PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE not in the modern syntax you have used on the WSMR

West Somerset Mineral Railway
Western Pier Eastern Pier Watchet Harbour West Somerset Railway to Taunton Watchet Watchet (WSR) Engine shed Washford (WSR) Washford West Somerset Railway to Minehead Torre Clitsome Roadwater Loading platform Timwood Tunnel Comberow Colton Mine Inclines Winding houses  B3224  2ft Gauge Tramway Brendon Hill Wooden viaduct Loading platform Raleigh's Cross Mine Carnarvon New Pit Carnarvon Old Pit Burrow Farm Mine Bearland Wood Mine Betsy Mine Incline Luxborough Road Horse whim Baker's Pit Langham Hill Pit Aerial ropeway Gupworthy Old Pit Kennesome Hill Mine Gupworthy New Pit Horse-drawn tramway Gupworthy Unbuilt extensions Joyce's Cleeve Heath Poult

If you rewrite it into that I'll be stumped.

The key objective is to have three colours or formats, one for standard gauge (red) one for FR and one for F&BR. I very much like the use of narrow lines like you introduced me to with the WSMR, but I can't see how to distinguish between FR and F&BR.

I think I've got the railway side of things right, if you can get the diagram side right I can use the building blocks to do the biz.

We're going away for a few days, so I won't be able to deal with any response form you until Monday at the earliest.

Kind regards

Dave

Passengers to Blaenau
April–September 1883 to Llandudno Junction Site of LNWR Temporary Dinas (FR) to Portmadoc Blaenau Festiniog (LNWR) Stesion Fain Dolgarregddu Junction Duffws (F&BR) Duffws (FR) Glynllifon Street to Festiniog 1883–1930 to Llandudno Junction Site of LNWR Temporary Dinas (FR) to Portmadoc Blaenau Festiniog (LNWR) Stesion Fain Blaenau (Joint) File:BSicon dKBHF-La brown.svg Duffws (FR) to Bala Junction 1964–1982 to Llandudno Junction Site of LNWR Temporary Dinas (FR) to Portmadoc Blaenau Festiniog (LNWR) Stesion Fain site of Blaenau (Joint) Duffws (FR) to Trawsfynydd power station 1998–Present to Llandudno Junction Site of LNWR Temporary Dinas (FR) to Porthmadog Blaenau Festiniog (LNWR) Stesion Fain Blaenau Ffestiniog site of Blaenau (Joint) Duffws (FR) to Trawsfynydd power station

No need to intrude here, but this RDT looks really good. Would you mind publishing it @Useddenim:? (Also, I'm curious, what is the TEMP N? I've never heard of that before and I know a fair bit about the Ffestiniog area?) Nathan A RF (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nathan, Thank you for your encouragement. I certainly hope no-one publishes this yet, this is a fragment of what will be the end product which I have shared with Useddenim because of his proven expertise in RDT design. The TEMP N is another reason why this isn't anywhere near ready, I've just put that as a "holding name" until I find out what the LNWR called their short-lived temporary station at the southern mouth of Blaenau Tunnel. I think they probably just called it Blaenau Ffestiniog, but I'm still looking. When Useddenim solves the problem of three colours/styles for me I'll be able to get cracking. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I have seen that in my Ffestiniog Railway Traveller's Guides, but it has no name other than the old Ffestiniog Railway next to it having the words "Old F.R. Terminus". Some other book may reveal all. Nathan A RF (talk) 00:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I need to create/upload some (currently) nonexistent icons, but I've changed the diagram to use  (ochre) for the Festiniog and Blaenau Railway,  (saffron) for the Festiniog Railway, and  (brown) for the GWR line. Of course, if you don't care for those colour choices, there's the whole pallete at Commons:Category:Icons for railway descriptions/other colors. Useddenim (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, as usual, thank you. I'll wait until you've updated the icons then crack on. I'm not sure about brown for the GWR, I'll do a page in conventional red and a version in brown and compare. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The needed icons have now been uploaded. The choice of brown came from those old Triang-Hornby GWR coaches. (I assume I'm not the only one who’s old enough to remember them.) Useddenim (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Good heavens, I'm not questioning the plausibility, brown is impeccably GWR, I just wonder whether it will confuse rather than clarify. What's more, technically, the std gauge line from the south wasn't GWR until 1910, as I'm sure someone would eventually pick up on. Nevertheless, it's a smashing idea. Thank you for all you've done, here and elsewhere. Over the next few days I'll get cracking on the finished product. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2016‎

@DavidAHull: You expressed some trepidation concerning diagrammes created with {{Routemap}}. The syntax may look daunting at first, but in actuality it’s simpler than that for {{BS-map}} since there’s no need to count columns or overlays! If you take a quick look at Wikipedia:Route diagram template#Differences between {{BS-map}} and {{Routemap}} you’ll see it all laid out in a simple table. Useddenim (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go after I've done the Passengers to Blaenau one. Thanks, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm stuck I'm afraid. I was going great guns until I got to the 1939-1960 period when the Festiniog was closed to all passenger traffic. The following pictograms fail if I precede them with ex or simply e - KRWl saffron, KRW+r saffron and BHF-R saffron. All other saffrons work happily with and without ex, so I'm baffled and don't know how to move forward. Please can you get me out of jail? Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 06:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

‘Missing’ colo(u)red icons

@DavidAHull: You can actually create any of the icons you need yourself, using a simple text editor such as Microsoft Notepad in Windows or TextEdit on a Mac.

1. Download a copy of an icon that is similar to the one you want.
2. Select and Open with… the editor of your choice.
3. Change the colour name and hex triplet (the six-character code preceded by the # symbol) to the desired values (selected from Commons:Category:Icons for railway descriptions/other colors).
4. Save as… with the new filename.

For example, to create  (exKRWl saffron) from  (KRWl saffron):

The code for KRWl saffron is
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" height="500" width="500">
<title>KRWl saffron</title>
<path d="M 250,0 C 250,250 750,250 750,500" stroke="#ffab2e" stroke-width="100" fill="none" />
</svg>

Simply change the highlighted text to ffc969, add ex preceding KRW in the title, then save and upload.

You’ll know if you’ve done everything correctly when the icon appears above the code where right now is just its name. I leave  (exKRW+r saffron) as an exercise for the reader. Useddenim (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you appreciate that it took longer for me to write these instructions for you than it would have for me to actually create the icons…

I do indeed appreciate the trouble you've taken, thank you once more. After chipping away rust I realised you'd patiently shown me this technique before, in connection with Cumbrian diagrams. Having not used it since I couldn't even begin, then it all came back to me. Thanks to you I'm firing on all cylinders once more. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Canada Line diagram

About this change... I thought your objection was to me removing the roughed-in stations, not the B-Line indicators for service that doesn't exist yet. But your edit put back the B-Line indicators yet left out the potential future stations. So I'm confused. 😀 Joeyconnick (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, yes and no. B-99 should have been out and B-95 at Broadway (now restored, per your edit). And it was about the roughed-in stations. Are we on the same page now? Useddenim (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No, we're not... At Broadway, the B-Line is the 99, not the 95. The 95 doesn't exist, as yet. Also, there's no current B-Line at Bridgeport. I'll fix that. Guess we don't have consensus on whether to include the future stations or not. Joeyconnick (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK; I think I was looking at the wrong comparison between my and your edits at Waterfront & Broadway. And I didn't realized that "regional buses" was a future service. Useddenim (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Joeyconnick (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Richly deserved. Well done, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Template :Banff, Macduff and Turriff Junction Railway RDT

Both steamybrian2, then I, have attempted to show the former terminal station of Banff & Macduff on a short stub line away from the main line, as the final line section was taken on a different alignment. I note that no-one as yet had responded to the request by steamybrian2 for the editors to make this so, and I too have not been able to achieve any more than he did in that respect.

I note that Banff and Macduff is the only station on the template in red, so no-one has yet written an article on that former terminal station.

Therefore, can you oblige both of us in this matter, by entering the correct computer code to show matters as it should be.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Redrose64 already did. A couple of pointers, however:

• A link to the RDT in question would be helpful, so I don't have to go hunting for it;
• A query in the edit won't be seen by anyone unless the page is on their watchlist. A better place to make a request like this would be Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. Redrose64 only stepped in because he's a WP:talk page stalker. Useddenim (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Passenger lines in NE Lincs

We meet again!

Thank you for your work on {{Passenger Lines of North East Lincolnshire}}. You have made one change which I believe to be a mistake, two where the old version was nearer a map than your revision and one where I've become confused.

1. You have changed New Holland Town from disused to used. It closed when the pier and ferry closed and has since been demolished. I believe it should be represented in the same way as Killingholme, ie closed station on a track with residual freight use.

2. You have shortened the line to Immingham (Eastern Jetty). I had it sticking out because it did stick out into the Humber, by well more than a train length (the trackless jetty still does.) As revised it looks as if the Eastern Jetty station stood between the two Immingham Dock stations, which it didn't; they faced each other over the dock's entrance locks.

3. You have moved the Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway up so that Kingsway station stands next to Cleethorpes. Sadly, Kingsway is at least a third of a mile south, hence my original representation.

4. Finally, an amazingly basic question, what does it mean when a line is represented as "open"? I've taken it here and elsewhere that a line closed to normal passenger use (specials may run, but no "normal" passenger services) but still open for freight shows as STR etc with stations shown as exHST etc, whereas lines closed completely would be exSTR etc throughout. Is that right?

On the design front, my amateur efforts here and on Passenger lines to Blaenau sought to put all text down the right only, emulating your brilliant work on the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway route diagram three years or so ago. Is it a case of horses for courses? Some diagrams text to one side, others text both sides?

Thank you once again for all you do. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Nos. 1 through 3 fixed per your comments. Sometimes a typo creeps in; sometimes things look "better" from a design point but are less accurate (balancing the need for clarity in a diagram vs accuracy of a map—which is why I removed the kink at Pyewipe).
You are correct with respect to Nº 4 (although I think you meant  (eHST) rather than  (exHST).) As far as text on one or both sides, it's a case of what works best, but when there are long stretches of parallel lines, double usually saves space and eliminated a lot of blank white areas. Useddenim (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, I did indeed mean eHST, not exHST. I see I put a typo in which has survived both of our efforts, I'll correct it in the public version. Cheers, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

As you've seen, I've gone public with the Template:Passengers to Blaenau route diagram. I'm very pleased with it, thank you for your generous help. It uses a lot of resources, I can see it filling the B Ff Central article I'm working on. Is there any way to make it more economic without losing detail? A second question - if I tweak a diagram which is already attached to x stations (eg Bala and Festiniog Railway) is there a way to "flush" it through all x, without having to laboriously go to each one, edit and save?

Kind regards

DaveDavidAHull (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The solution you may be looking for is to collapse it by default. Let me know if that's not what you had in mind.
When a diagram—or in fact, any template—is updated, the new version is automatically used throughout Wikipedia. The problem is, is that your browser keeps a cached copy on your own computer, which isn't always updated immediately. The solution to this is to purge your browser's cache, but this can result in losing your browser history, etc. Useddenim (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This depends upon the browser; more info at WP:BYPASS. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Useddenim. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

TfL Rail colour

(Template:LCR color and Template:LCR color/doc)

Hi, regarding your revert to my edit in the template doc, please note that I added the TfL colour to the template almost simultaneously, and so the doc should be useful. But please let me know if my change actually broke something. — Peterwhy 00:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. I have re-reverted. For some reason the change to the template didn't show up in my watch list. Useddenim (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Template :Rhymney Railway RDT

I wish to ask if you can assist in a certain matter of query. On that template, the Senghenydd branch line is well shown with the railway stations and also the two collieries. One of the stations, Abertridwr, has a Wikipedia article that can be accessed from the template, which at the foot under "External Links" shows the preceeding station to be that of Windsor Colliery Halt and the following station to be that of Penyrheol.

Whilst the mine of Windsor Colliery itself is mentioned on the template, there seems not to be any mention of Windsor Colliery Halt on the template. Was that station on the main branchline or was it situated on the line leading into the colliery itself?

It would be good to see Windsor Colliery Halt eventually shown on the template, once the actual location can be then shown upon it in the correct position. If needs be, can you liaise with those who have knowledge of this area.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please now show my original query on "Template Talk : Rhymney Railway". I was chary about doing so as it seemed that no entries had ever been made upon it, which is the reason why I asked you first.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

LCLC on Passenger Lines in NE Lincs

Hello again

My version of the LCLR route sought to give a nod to the actual route on the ground, which was boomerang shaped. I accept that route maps are route maps, but it seems to me that if geography can be accommodated without penalty, why not? I prefer my original to be honest, my source is https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/532947/405680/10/101320, select the 1975-85 map.

Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 07:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

T Third Street

thanks for converting Template:Bristol railway map, the combined size of the boxes in T Third Street are so large that the page is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. it would be great if you could fix those as well. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende

Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BSicon-h legende during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2/header

Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2/header, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia namespace BS-anleitung templates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/BS-anleitung2/header during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Peterwhy 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Amtk

Hi. Why did you change (diff) Template:Amtk to be a separate template rather than a redirect to Template:Amtrak? The documentation implies that {{Amtk}} is just a shortcut to {{Amtrak}} rather than a different template with different functionality. I noticed this because I was working what links here to New York and we are working to change these to link to New York (state) for disambiguaiton purposes. See Talk:New York for details about the rationale for this. More specifically I was tracking the link from Template:Lake Shore Limited and the trail led me here, to your recent changes, for which I can't tell what the rationale is. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure the parameters would be passed correctly, but if that's wrong then feel free to revert. (But then {{Amtrak}} will need to be changed to a redirect.) Useddenim (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry, now I'm following this better. Redirect vs. call that passes parameters. I see now that my issue is with the underlying Template:Amtrak stations. Templates can be so complicated. Working on them often pushes my brain cells to the limit ;0) wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit fixed my issue. So I suppose something's not right with the parameter passing, but I'll leave that for you to sort out Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclines and summits

Hi - can you explain your insistence on separating the incline and summit symbols at Template:Railway line legend [1]? Either both can be considered track features, or neither of them are. Also, having the summit adjacent to the incline helps to indicate whether the arrows on the incline are pointing up- or down-hill. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

a) a single instance is hardly “insistence”;

b) “summit” can also be a geographical feature; and

c) you could have changed it yourself. Useddenim talk 20:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't once, it was twice [2] [3]. I reverted the first time, per WP:BRD, but rather than discuss, you separated them again, hence my query above. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; didn't even notice the revert — I thought I had just lost track of my changes. Useddenim (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GO Transit map/Richmond Hill

Template:GO Transit map/Richmond Hill has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WMATA station

Template:WMATA station has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

why did you reverting version in user talk

You undid my advise, I wanna ask you for reason. is there anything wrong? --호로조 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Your comments were rude, and could be considered vandalism. I suggest you stop harassing other editors before you are blocked from en:wp. Useddenim (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry... as he said I can't not speech coherently english, my opinion is may misleaded. I do effort to it not to do again next time :) --호로조 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

New York link in Template:Amtrak VIA Maple Leaf

Per consensus in discussion at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links, all links to the state of New York are to be piped through New York (state), to facilitate the repair of ambiguous links to that title. Please see to it that Template:Amtrak VIA Maple Leaf does not generate any direct links to "New York". Cheers! bd2412 T 00:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved now. Thanks! bd2412 T 02:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review the consensus at Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. Please indicate whether you are willing to conform your conduct to the consensus of this community by reverting your edit at Template:NJTransit-Raritan-infobox. If not, let me know, so that I can take such steps as are necessary to cause you to conform with this consensus. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Read your own post from a month ago. Also, your blatant threat will be brought to ANI. “Cheers!” my ass. Useddenim (talk)

You are welcome to do that. We have a community consensus necessary for an important maintenance task. bd2412 T 16:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:RTA Blue and Green Lines

Hi, I'm working on fixing a light rail template used for Blue and Green Lines (Cleveland).

A tricky part of the template was getting the road to split from the route of the Green line.

I noticed you uploaded east  (RP2evRP2s) and west  (RP2wvRP2s), but could you also upload north  (RP2nvRP2s) and south  (RP2svRP2s)?

Cards84664 (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cards84664:  Done. Useddenim (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

A second point to make: I'm not sure how to depict the roads merging along with the blue and green lines either. Cards84664 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as merging lines and roads, I would suggest looking at Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco RDTs for ideas. I will upload the new icons when I have a chance. Useddenim (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another note: it also needs  (fKACCe). Cards84664 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That one's likely to be so infrequently used that I would overlay  (fKBHFe) with  (lACC) (result: ). Useddenim (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Erewash Valley Line

Erewash Valley Line
Ilkeston Town Ilkeston formerly Ilkeston Junction and Cossall Trowell   Ilkeston Town Ilkeston (2017–) Ilkeston Junction and Cossall (1847–1967) Trowell

I noted your clean-up today of this template today and ask the following:-

1. ...I understand the difficulty in showing the symbol of a closed railway station against Ilkeston Junction and Cossall
2. ...The new station of Ilkeston will be due to open in April this year and I have heard that this will be on exactly the same site location as Ilkeston Junction and Cossall, so if that be the case, how will that matter be effected on the template

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I have shown two different possible ways of illustrating this. Personally, I prefer the former. Useddenim (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I am of the same mind as you over using the former. I now have been given an opening date of 2nd April 2017 for the new Ilkeston station, so can I request that you bookmark the proposed template change and introduce it on the line template on that date. ASs ever, I am indebted to you for your thoughtful manner of dealing with this matter

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Misleading post

This edit has the appearance of a violation of WP:SIGFORGE. However, if what you did was to copy from different page a post that was originally made by Dicklyon (talk · contribs), you should have either linked back to it in your edit summary, or used the {{moved from}} template, to make it clear that it really was Dicklyon's comment. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was correcting an oversight on Dicklyon’s part, inasmuch one wouldn’t necessarily expect editors of US railroad pages to look for a proposed American page move at WP:UKT. Caution noted for the future. Useddenim (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

West Rail Line RDT

Most MTR route diagrams use bold to indicate an open BHF; should this be readded? (also, why remove CPICs in favour of BHF-L/R?) Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, because the bold conflicts with the template's automatic emphasis of the target link when it is transcluded onto a page. Secondly, there is the physical impossibility of having a cross-platform interchange between a line on the surface and another in tunnel (Nam Cheong). Useddenim (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: The West Rail Line rises to ground level just before and after the station but is fully enclosed, whereas the Tung Chung Line is at ground level. There are several passageways between platforms 1 and 4, as the platforms are separated by a wall which was cut through after the MTR–KCR merger. I don't think any of the MTR RDTs are currently transcluded onto station pages. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 06:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

So the West Rail Line should actually be shown with  (BHFCC). However, I feel that this is only a partial cross-platform interchange (as opposed to Tiu Keng Leng or Yau Tong, for example) since it only affects platform 1/4. Useddenim (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hung Hom Station is also not a true CPIC station, because the transfer between lines/directions is not always made on the same platform(s) all the time. Useddenim (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: I'll remove the CPICs for this diagram then. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 08:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Waterloo railway station

If you want it that way, can you fix the links in the seven templates too? The Banner talk 19:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be all fixed up, now. Useddenim (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Caledonian Sleeper RDT

You recently reverted an edit to the Caledonian Sleeper RDT template. You claimed that the template was fine as is. It's not. Although it looks fine in Firefox, it's all over the place in Chrome which most people use. The second section of the template displays properly but uses depreciated language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.229.175.46 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Useddenim, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 18:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of GO Transit stations

The article List of GO Transit stations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

These items are already listed on other articles:

• GO train stations are listed on each line article
  • Lakeshore West line
  • Lakeshore East line
  • Milton line
  • Kitchener line
  • Barrie line
  • Richmond Hill line
  • Stouffville line
• GO bus stations are already listed at List of GO Transit bus services#Terminals, stations and carpool/park and ride lots

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Natural R_X 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. The proposed deletion was objected to, and as such, I have escalated this to a listing in articles for deletion; please see the discussion here. Thanks. --Natural R_X 14:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Give up already: this is the third time you've tried to get it removed. Useddenim (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, the previous two times, I believed it would not be contested, but I was wrong. This is the first time we've had a place to discuss this article on its merits with the community. I would appreciate if you could contribute to that discussion instead of telling me to 'give up'. --Natural R_X 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Station

It it stated in the template Station that STN is a shortcut. If it isn't the description should change to reflect that it's "not identical parameters"~. TherasTaneel (talk) 03:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Go back and read the documentation carefully. It states:

(Note the underlined text.) Next time be more careful with your drive-by editing. Useddenim (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless that's what's meant by "as a short form to omit the second parameter.", although listed along with stn later on. TherasTaneel (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "drive-by editing" by definition reckless? Anyway... nice expression, I'll try to remember that, and will read the full documentation in the future, before I redirect anything. As you can see, that's not usually the sort of edits I do. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Carmarthen to Aberystwyth RDT

Carmarthen-Aberystwyth Line
Derry Ormond Newcastle Emlyn Aberaeron branch Pontgoch Lampeter Teifi Valley Railway (narrow gauge) Pencarreg Halt Henllan Llanybydder Pentrecourt Platform Maesycrugiau Llandyssul Bryn Teifi Pencader Junction Pencader
Option 2
Pentrecourt Platform Llandyssul Bryn Teifi Pencader Junction Pencader

May I ask if you can amend the meeting point on the Carmarthen to Aberystwyth main line to the meeting point the branch to Newcastle Emlyn that is shown to now shown to be at the Pencader Junction station. Your expertise in the necessary computer jargon to do this greatly exceeds my mere capacity.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: Is this correct? Useddenim (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your option is the more correct.

Can you now amend the template accordingly.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Having looked again at the Disused Stations website article with its area map, I would say that your "option 2" is the better one to use on the template amendment

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

GO Transit

I started the AfD for List of GO Transit stations because we have it plus a number of other GO Transit related articles; I was concerned about duplicative content. The outcome of that AfD was no consensus; and it suggested deletion was not the appropriate action. But I do not find your edit constructive. I appreciate you believe that content belongs on List of GO Transit stations instead of GO Transit rail services or GO Transit bus services, but that doesn't mean going ahead and cutting-and-pasting the recent expansion work. If you want to have a discussion about where content should lie, I welcome you to open up a broad RfC to discuss the distribution and scope of all articles concerned: GO Transit, List of GO Transit stations, GO Transit rail services, GO Transit bus services, and the line articles (LW, LE, MI, KT, BA, RH, SV). --Natural R_X 22:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• List of GO Transit stations: WP:FORK
• other GO Train articles: WP:OWN.

Useddenim (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. I don't find your continual attempts to delete content you don't like constructive.

@Natural RX:, you have a big WP:OWN problem. You need to back off, understand that there was no consensus for deletion, and stop trying to cram a gigantic table into what is supposed to be a broad overview article. There doesn't need to be an RFC. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, this is not about owning anything. I made two articles because I believed it was a better way to organize station information and their associated services on Wikipedia. In the process, I proposed deletion of the other list because, again, it was unimproved duplicative content without entertaining a merger. The AfC was no consensus on deletion as an appropriate action, but at least 4/10 editors voted for a merger instead. You're the one that turned around, merely copied and pasted the improvements from another article to that list, and then accused that article of being duplicative. I find that a bit rich, but look, I am trying my best to be civil about this. We don't have to continue this exchange, and we should be able to agree on what this is: a fundamental disagreement of dispersing content over multiple articles, vs consolidating them into fewer articles. I think that is an okay fundamental disagreement to agree on. I have that understanding with other editors. But just know that in holding that disagreement with you, I will continue to maintain that GO Transit rail services and GO Transit bus services are superior to having one combined list. I will maintain them in keeping with that view, and not out of a sense of ownership. And if you continue to push against that, then I see an RfC as a necessary escalation of our disagreement before it erupts into an unchecked edit war. --Natural R_X 13:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Lemme see if I read this right: If I don't stop objecting to your forking content and point-of-view, then you'll escalate this to an RfC until you get your way? The general consensus appears to be—based on the existence of over 300 other List of Xxx stations—that a stand-alone listing page is appropriate and correct. Useddenim (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:NRrws

Template:NRrws has been nominated for merging with Template:Stnlnk. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:NRstn

Template:NRstn has been nominated for merging with Template:Stnlnk. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Taff Vale Railway RDT Template:Rhondda Valley RDT

This is a most difficult RDT for me to try to amend, but as you will see, one line is the Maerdy branch line. However, between Ynyshir and Tylorstown, there is Wattstown Platform, then Pontygwaith Platform, which have been accidentally omitted. Not wishing to make a mess of the template by trying to do this myself, can I ask your usual expertise to come to the fore and cause both of these two missing stations to be entered onto the main Taff Vale Railway line template.

If it is of help to you, there is already an existing seperate template called {{Maerdy Branch}} that does show all the stations on the line in their correct sequential order.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Now all that remains to do is for you to add the chainage. However, in future please include the direct link rather than an (oftentimes incorrect) name. Useddenim (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I note that you struck the name of the Taff Vale Railway in the heading of this query, that you have been so kind as to have acted upon. This leaves me somewhat confused as the Maerdy branch line was both financed and operated by the Taff Vale Railway according to subject matter that I have had brought to my attention.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but Template:Rhondda Valley RDT is the page that needed to be edited. I don't mind helping, but please don't make things more difficult and complicated than necessary. Useddenim (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that I have solved the problem that I first reported to you on the template of the Taff Vale Railway RDT. Both Wattstown Platform and Pontygwaith Halt do actually appear on the template of the Taff Vale Railway. The problem appears that some has incorrectly shown these as being on the line to Aberdare when in fact they are actually situated on the section of that template between Ynyshir and Tylorstown on the Maerdy Branch section.

Can you cause the matter now to be corrected on the Taff Vale Railway RDT, so these two stations do not appear on the line to Aberdare, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you mean on Template:Cardiff to Merthyr? Useddenim (talk) 10:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If one looks, there is the very detailed template called Template:Taff Vale Railway. It is shown as such when looking at the Wikipedia entry for same. The template at the foot says that it was last modified on 20 March 2017 at 12.41. This is the template to which I allude, so I hope this information is of use to you.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem is, that template isn't used anywhere—certainly not on the Taff Vale Railway page! Useddenim (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: The article Taff Vale Railway has two RDTs, one (headed "Cardiff to Merthyr Tydfil") at the top of the "Main Line: Cardiff – Merthyr Tydfil" section; the other (headed "Rhondda Valley") is at the top of the "Rhondda branches" section. At the upper left of each RDT, you will normally see some "[v-t-e]" links, if you click the first one (v), you are taken to the template page for the RDT concerned. In this case we have Template:Cardiff to Merthyr and Template:Rhondda Valley RDT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Grateful thanks for both your observations on the matter that I originally reported. I note that you say that the template (Template : Taff Vale Railway RDT) to which I alluded (and have now subsequently corrected today) isn't used anywhere, which seems a pity as it contains a very large amount of station details for people to overview. Still, I am glad to have put this matter finally to rest

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find out whether a template is in use or not. Go to the template's page, click on "what links here" in the left sidebar, then in the "Filters" box, click the last two of the links so that it reads "Hide transclusions | Show links | Show redirects". If the result is "No pages link to Template:Taff Vale Railway", it's not transcluded anywhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xenophon Philosopher: {{Taff Vale Railway}} has been completely redrawn, hopefully showing the branches in a clearer and somewhat more accurate manner (although the Cardiff area could probably benefit from a bit of tweaking). Useddenim (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template : Talla Railway RDT Template:Talla Railway

I note that you had made a past edit on this line, which is based in southern Scotland. It branched off the line of the Symington, Biggar and Broughton Railway. When I saw the line template, that has two stations shown upon it, there is a most worrying problem, as when you click onto the station said to be that of Crook, you are then taken to a settlement very many miles away in north-east England.

Can you please investigate the veracity of the line template and remove the link to north-east England.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed. Please note that if you do not include the correct link to the page or diagramme in question, I will no longer assist you with your requests. Useddenim (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Srws

A tag has been placed on Template:Srws requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 15:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, T2 is wildly off the mark here. A trout for Anastan, who's not alone here though – using T2 for inappropriately tagging all sorts of templates is a pretty common practice. – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway

Can I ask you if you would advise on the suitability of adding two stations to this line, both of which have their own articles on the Disused Railways website and carry a positional identifier on the hand-drawn line diagrams:-

1) ... Cairney station. Said to have been closed in 1849. Shown as being above Millerhill station.

2) ... Lasswade Road station. Said to have been closed in 1849. Shown as being above Eskbank and Dalkeith station.

Please add them, if you feel historically they are worth adding to the template.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is easy enough to add the stations; as to whether ‘historically they are worth adding’ would probably be better asked of Afterbrunel, who was a major contriubutor to the article. Useddenim (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Useddenim, for the comment. Xenophon Philosopher: I'll have a look at this later today. If these stations were in use, then imho they should be referred to. I don't really like these template diagrams -- I think they are ugly and they put inepxerienced users off, but in view of Useddenim's courtesy, I'll do what I can.

(I prefer geographical maps coupled with a station list with dates, but with these very early railways that is less effective, I admit.)

Quick's list of stations (much more reliable than Butt) agrees Cairney, but doesn't seem to show Lasswade this early.

Thank you both for your interest and courtesy. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean now; the "passengers" section of the article is a bit thin, and so is my map.

I'll definitely enhance this over the next couple of days; please bear with me so that I can do the research properly. PS Lasswade Road is in Quick, apologies. Afterbrunel (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Template has been updated. Useddenim (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		For cleaning up the routemap for Lysekil Line! Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:CTA station

Template:CTA station has been nominated for merging with Template:CTA stations. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Copley Goods

Thanks for the elegant solution here. I thought there would be one but didn't have the time to find it yesterday. Britmax (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:99 B-Line

Template:99 B-Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion

FYI, I've started a discussion on UK station disambiguation here. Your input would be valuable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)