User talk:Useddenim/Archive 4

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Delhi Airport Metro Express may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |7||style="text-align:center;"|[[Bijwasan]] ([[Delhi]]-[[Haryana]] border)]]<ref name="hindustantimes">[http://www.indianexpress.com/news/igi-metro-to-touch-gurgaon-at-iffco-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're giving new colors to the various line templates for the New York City Subway lines. Nice job. I would've chosen brown for the BMT Jamaica Line, but maybe that's just me. I almost did this to the BMT Sea Beach Line, and one other, but they didn't turn out right. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The pattern I’m following is black if it’s shared, otherwise the appropriate service color. Useddenim (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because it's shared with the M train. I get it. I see you've got orange for the BMT Myrtle Avenue Line too. Looking forward to your other changes. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you did it for Template:PATH line map too. Why am I not surprised? For the record, I'm thinking of making some for about five lines southwest of the New York City Metropolitan Area; specifically the five SEPTA Subway-Surface Trolley Lines. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the arrow from this diagram as I am not sure what it is supposed to show. Would you point out to me what, in your opinion, it does show? As far as I can see it indicates that Washford WSR station is called Kentsford, which is clearly wrong. Britmax (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, apparently an artefact left over from this revision when I created the RDT. Now fixed. Useddenim (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Template:GO Transit map/Richmond Hill is unused and redundant to Template:GO Transit Richmond Hill. Since you created them both I thought you would prefer to deal with this yourself. I notice you are cleaning up the format of the TTC routes and the GO Transit ones are even more inconsistent. Perhaps you could have a look at them when you have some time. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y Useddenim (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Highway has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 05:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are doing to Template:Hull-Scarborough Line

• Why are you adding a navbar - it makes little sense in the infobox

How else do you propose to edit the RDT? Useddenim (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you putting the "inline" field as |inline = - it worked fine before. Does the maintenance page need to be well presented ?

Yes. Æsthetics does count (but standardized formatting is more important). Useddenim (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the page no reader will see well presented (why?)^{see above Useddenim (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)}, and added junk to the page readers will see?[reply]

Are you sure about this? Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, yes. Useddenim (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A navbar is hardly ‘junk‘, but since it seems to offend you so much, I’ve changed it to a simple ‘V•T•E‘. Useddenim (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do prefer the shorter form.

Also sorry. [1] - you should have got this message too. Excuse - I was tired. Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to thank you for the work you are doing to rail templates. It is appreciated.

I don't know if you do requests or if this is possible but the "triangle junction" you added to Template:Hull and Holderness Railway had a station on the far side (it would be left upper on the route map, it's within the "triangle")

There's a map here NLS (left of the football ground) if you can. If not, no problem. Thanks again.Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and  Done. You, however, will have to add the station name. Useddenim (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, at Template:Great Northern and Great Eastern Joint Railway RDT you've used a row {{BS6-2||||KRWgl+lo|KRWgr+ru||||}} but both  (KRWgl+lo) and  (KRWgr+ru) are redlinks. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typo; now fixed. Should have been  (KRWgol) and  (KRWgo+r). Useddenim (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you think that putting all the features in one long list is an improvement, you have left a misleading edit summary (which empty columns did you remove)? I do not see how the new version is better. Britmax (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting there. You have two Ardrossan Towns: the lower one could be replaced to avoid using the double label opposite. Britmax (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. I think we can both agree that this version is superior to either of the previous ones. (I'm not happy with the small white space before each of the Pier stations, but fixing it is probably more work than it’s worth.) Useddenim (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is better. As for the gaps, well I'm sure you'll keep your eye out for a solution here as you move around doing other things. Britmax (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useddenim. FYI, I withdrew the TfD nomination for Template:Istanbul Metro lines (which you commented on) to include it as part of a larger nomination at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 August 25#Unused train/tram templates. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit has introduced an error at Bearley Jcn. There is a disused chord missing. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, it's just not clearly visible. Let me try and find a better icon. Useddenim (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you did a great job with this one. I've just made it clunkier adding the odd routings at Wilmington Junction (it connected south of Wilmington Junction from 1836-1848, paralleled the Haverhill Line to Wilmington Junction for a while, and now parallels it and connects at Wilmington Junction). Some maps also indicate a connection that would allow northbound Haverhill trains to turn west on the Salem & Lowell, but I'm not sure if that's true or not. If you're capable of making my edit less clunky while maintaining the proper indications of routes, I would be grateful. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be OK now. Useddenim (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this discussion. YLSS (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get that I'm not your favorite editor. However, the fact remains that you can't just edit my comments to remove my opposition to a proposal as you did in this edit. Additionally, changes to protected pages require a level of consensus to implement. The weakest form of consensus is that where no one speaks on a proposal (consent of the silent), but when people do speak on both sides, you need more input and often need to provide reasons to convince or negate opposers. Given the situation, it is inappropriate at this time to reactivate the edit request, because there is no consensus to make any change yet. There may be consensus to do so in the near future, and the edit request can be reactivated then. Imzadi 1979 → 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal at Template:Buffalo Metro Rail will not stop. Also removed references from many related articles. I've got to the point that if nobody else cares, why should I. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to check all his edits over the weekend, but did notice (and reverted) his deletion of references at Buffalo Metro Rail. Should I just WP:rollback all his edits and request an IP block? Useddenim (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know. The overwhelming number of edits, in articles that I only have a passing interest, makes it hard to know whether they are edits by an inexperienced editor or a vandal. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a large number of reference deletions in an article justifies the use of rollback. But, as you pointed out, a lot of the others are minor stuff. However, from what I have looked at, I don't think we'd be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Useddenim (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about these procedures and let others deal with intransigent editors like this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the amount of changes that the person editing has done. Personally, I think the articles have gotten too big, too detailed, and "almost" out of hand. I wouldn't even know where to start with reverts, just because some of them can be contested because they're so close to the line. Personally, I've refrained from much of the editing, except for simple spelling errors. Not worth it to get into an editing war that I could be to blame for. Cheers. --Allamericanbear (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that the consensus is to “let it be” except when the changes are too blatant. Useddenim (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"WTH" is up with Buffalo Metro Rail? Check it out now. The person is editing about every few minutes, and mistakes remain with each update. I don't even know where to start to revert. In addition, the talk page has been "updated" with no comments. --Allamericanbear (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up on wikipedia, as well as this person. If you want to see me doing editing work, check me out on CPTDB's wiki. I go by the nickname map.man. Cheers. --Allamericanbear (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why create Template:1TPX color when we already have Template:FTPX colour? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't know it existed. I'll nominate {{1TPX color}} for deletion. Useddenim (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother taking it to TfD - WP:CSD#G7 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any thoughts about 86.3.154.114 (talk · contribs) and his edits? Useddenim (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I (and others) reverted or rolled back a lot of them as disruption bordering on wilful damage - changing valid blue links to red links, changing non-ambiguous links like DMU / EMU to dabpage links like DMU / EMU and in a few cases, DVT to DVT which is totally unrelated. Unless the train gets to a high altitude, of course. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the redirect that you created, Skellingthorpe (GNR) railway station is misleading. It links to an article about the village; and in that, the only station that is mentioned is Skellingthorpe railway station which is a different station on a different route - Lincoln-Tuxford, not Lincoln-Gainsborough. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. The redirect was create as a placeholder against a future article (if it ever gets written). However, I didn't realize that I was looking at the wrong Skellingthorpe station. Useddenim (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've declined your speedy because the target does exist. It works for me, anyway... Peridon (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen the above post (you don't see these things when using the 'add' button...). I've now deleted it G7 (one editor who has requested). Peridon (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give up... I am unable to fix the links to disambiguation pages in Template:Pittsburgh Light Rail that you created with the disambig page Blue Line (Pittsburgh). Much to my confusion it looks that you need three options: the unsplit line and the two branches.

I hope you can straighten out this glitch. Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 09:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did something scary... But I can't guarantee that it looks as it should in all browsers and under all OSs... YLSS (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did not explode in Firefox! The Banner talk 11:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YLSS, you won't win any typographic awards (and it wasn't what I intended), but it works. Useddenim (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I refer you to the actual text matter that refers to the other two names that this railway station carried in its lifetime, where the name that I showed is clearly shown and that station is known by the name that I showed on the template.

Do not forget that it was I who first corrected the omission of that station at the foot of the line diagram on the Penistone Line, so I had only amended my own original entry....not that of any other member

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a link to his page in order to leave him some information on the newly-opened Corwen East station shown on the Ruabon to Barmouth Line template that he has now updated.

Last weekend, the first two of the special celebratory trains run by the Llangollen Railway to this newly-completed station ran at 1100 and 1300 and were only for invited guests, volunteers, members of associated societies and the Chester and Wrexham Rail Users Committee. The third train, which departed at 1510 was the first train available to normal fare-paying passengers and there was a long queue at the booking office. Everyone who travelled on this day received a commemorative ticket and a letter from the Chairman.

May I request the use of your good self to transmit this information on to Britmax

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It’s User talk:Britmax. Useddenim (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your kindly-meant advice and guidance in October 2014. I am now out of hospital and what could well have been a second mini-stroke has been averted during my short stay.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for your recovery, Mr. Sidorczuk. Useddenim (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago. you made a rather specific point that these should NOT be incorporated on the templates. However, I chanced to view the template for the South Staffordshire Line as part of some research that I am making and was astonished to find a whole plethora of such inform contained upon that template.

Can you explain the reason why this should be the case on that particular line, please.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left them in because Pencefn (the original editor) had included them. If you wish to remove them, be my guest and go right ahead. Useddenim (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go back further than the creation of this template for the detail in the routemap. In November 2007, I merely split the template out of the main article South Staffordshire Line (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Staffordshire_Line&offset=&limit=500&action=history). On other templates I have created from scratch I did not add the date detail, this is the preserve of the specific article in question. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 17:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 "Click here to 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. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Useddenim. As you may have known by now, our guy is a sockpuppetteer who managed to carry out this propaganda of calling this specific train line according to his own vision in total disregard of WP:RS as discovered and analysed in Talk:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2#MRT-2 or LRT-2?. I would really appreciate your help in undoing all those damages which only served to confuse our readers, especially those templates he created/renamed to MRT-2. And then there's the mass renaming of Wikipedia Commons image files that need to be reverted as well such as 1 2 3 4 5 6. I hope to start undoing them too. Thanks for your help.--RioHondo (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it just be easier to convince the 12,000,000 people in Manila to start calling it MRT-2? Useddenim (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you can convince the 13 million Londoners to start calling the London Underground the London Metro or London MRT. Please refer to the RS analysis in the article's talk page. We only go by what's in those RS and what people in Manila actually call the train line. This link to its official website is also worth visiting. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, London's got a 120-year head start, so it's gonna be a hard sell… And that RS analysis has got to be one of the hardest-to-read and most tedious arguments that I've ever seen on a talk page. Useddenim (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the O5 was in there twice, and I probably did not fix it correctly. Frietjes (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You reverted my edit. How do we get the {{Yonge-University Line Map}} to appear in the article with a header and a border? Perhaps you could fix that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By omitting |inline = <includeonly>1</includeonly>. Useddenim (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and it probably needs a border. Secondarywaltz (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map, the BMT Brighton Line had a spur to the Sheepshead Bay Race Track between Neck Road (BMT Brighton Line) and Sheepshead Bay (BMT Brighton Line) stations, but when I tried to add that old feature to the line template, it moved the tracks off center. Apparently Wikipedia:Route diagram template doesn't have the proper code for this available, and swiping it from the template for the BMT Jamaica Line didn't do me any good. Do you have an alternative code? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done—correctly, I hope. Useddenim (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had to make some modifications of my own, but it's all good. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Userdenim. I see you have speedily undone my undo of your incorrect edit to Template:Railways around London Paddington station RDT (with an invitation to view the template's talk page). Which part of my comments at Template talk:Railways around London Paddington station RDT Orientation do you disagree with? I have put quite a lot of work into researching the station layout with a reference to [2] which shows the current diagram to be incorrect, but I'd like to know about any parts I may have got wrong. Bazza (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I was thinking that all the lines continued in a (grid) easterly direction. Let me put some more thought into it. Useddenim (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have things pointing off in the correct directions, now. Useddenim (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is yet correct, and you seem to have introduced some turns which do not exist. I am still puzzled about what is wrong with the previous version. Apart from the lack of a 45° turn on the station approach (as I mentioned on the article's talk page), it shows all lines with a good approximation of their orientation relative to each other and their location on the ground (as opposed to on the Tube map from TfL). (I attempted, whilst developing my previous edit, to include the 45° turn, but it would have widened the diagram by at least 50%; and, as this is a schematic picture rather than a true depiction, its omission is not critical. The top of the diagram is numN225, and the bottom numN270.) Bazza (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA icon 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 • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PB icon 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 • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PM icon 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 • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PT icon 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 • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PR icon 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 • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 09:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ÖPNV Innsbruck has been nominated for merging with Template:Rail-interchange. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) Use {{ping|Jc86035}} to reply to me 04:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a very recent reversion to this template on the Hopeman Branch Line section of this railway. I had shown Cummingston station on the Wikipedia line diagram, as it is shown on the RAILSCOT line diagram and also in the sectionalized station and junction information which clearly states... Cummingston was a short-lived single platform station.

I would like to know of the reason why you have chosen not to believe the information that is clearly shown on the RAILSCOT article. I have spoken to three railway historians who do confirm the existence of Cummingston station.

In order that matters are made correct, I now intend to reinstate Cummingston station on the Wikipedia line diagram.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being hasty with my ‘correction’. All I can say is that I wasn’t paying enough attention when I was fixing the icons. Useddenim (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please fix the duplicate argument errors you introduced with this edit? Normally I fix these errors myself, but this set of templates is so extensive, and so poorly documented, that I doubt I could do it without spending quite silly amounts of time on the task. Plus I'm reluctant to second-guess the intentions of another editor.

The errors occur in three calls of {{jct}}, where the argument |rdt= is set twice (to "y" and "T") in each instance.

Thanks,

--NSH002 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling work on tidying this up. I don't pretend to understand all the icons so to see someone who does give it a through overhaul is great. One question some of the continuing lines are using the CONT arrows and some the LKRWI type dotted lines, do they signify anything different? Nthep (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The  (CONT) arrows show a line that leaves the diagram, whereas the  (LSTR) dotted lines show a line that continues at another point of the diagram (see as an example the two ends of the LNWR line to Stafford). Britmax (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I though we agreed (or at least discussed) using  (LSTR) for contiguous stretches (usually short), and to use  (STR)smth +  (MFADEf) for two widely separated ends. YLSS (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I recall. (Must have been some other Useddenim.) In general, I still prefer  (LSTR), though in multi-coloured diagrams (e.g the {{District Line RDT}}) the FADE seems to work better. Useddenim (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to create the missing icons added in your most recent edit to Template:Pink Line (CTA), or was there some mistake? Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:User talk:Useddenim#k in blue. Useddenim (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But I wonder — Lost on belmont, was that original curve intentional or not? To show that the unused branch was once the main line or something, and that the new connection is more curvy, I dunno... YLSS (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original curve was intentional. At this location, the Douglas branch (now part of the Pink Line) connects with the Congress branch (part of the Blue Line) via a long incline. Although the Congress branch is the "main" line, the incline to the Douglas branch is geometrically the straight path and the "diverging" tracks for the Congress branch curve around (westbound to the north, eastbound to the south) this incline. So I originally laid out the icons to try to illustrate how the current Congress Blue Line runs around the former Douglas Blue Line incline. The track map in the infobox for Racine illustrates this junction. Does it really matter? I suppose not. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So all that work was for nothing? I thought you had drawn it the way you did for a lack of blue k icons. Useddenim (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And uploaded  (d-STR2+r blue) & co.? Well, Lost on belmont, you're the guru of Chicago diagrams, so it's up to you which option is better. I see benefits in both (but usually I try to emphasize such historical intricacies). YLSS (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I prefer the curvy Blue Line, and I see that it has already been restored. I wanted to make a similar arrangement at Template:Blue Line (CTA), but I was too lazy to come up with the appropriate connecting generic road icons to illustrate that the four tracks are all within the highway median.

I wouldn't say that "all that work was for nothing." You wanted a live demonstration of how certain "k" icons would work, and those modifications did that admirably. Places I've always wanted k junctions/curves are at Paulina and Washington Junctions in Template:Northwest branch (CTA) and Template:Lake Street Elevated (CTA), but I have yet to work it out so that the close junctions and station didn't look like dung. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done & done. But, Lost on belmont, I’m not sure where “the four tracks … within the highway median” are in the Template:Blue Line (CTA)? Useddenim (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The location in question is at the position on the map labeled "Service now provided by Pink Line." The at this location, the ex-Blue Line should continue straight down and then transition to elevated and. An ehABZql junction of ex-Blue should exist with the current Pink Line. The current Blue should curve around the ex-Blue incline to one side or another (screen-left is probably better) with both the current Blue and ex-blue incline appearing within the median. After passing underneath the elevated Pink line, the Blue Line should curve back and resume "central" position in the map within a vPR2.

I recently uploaded vRP2rg-, vRP2rf-, vRP2lg-, and vRP2lf- to make this happen and had almost finished the design when my browser unexpectedly quit on me and I lost everything. Additionally I had been expanding the map to BS5 to not only accommodate the passage under the Pink Line, but to rectify the subway/elevated curves to more closely match Template:Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway (CTA) (which itself needs work).

Also I see you have already taken some time to do a few modifications to the Blue Line template, however, I-190 doesn't actually curve away from the subway line like 90 and 94 do. Instead the subway line remains within the "median" just underground and the highway loops at the airport as seen here. *Shit-eating-grin* Sorry. Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WRT that junction with Douglas branch, how about like this? YLSS (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little tight, but that's to be expected given the constraints. Its great! Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had received a notification about your reversion of my edits on {{Mitre Line}}, although you then withdrew your decision. Please, next time take a look at the edit before reverting it "automatically". I've been here for over six years and I usually proceed in good faith. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12:: The edit was neither automatic, nor malicious. However, I've found that when an RDT gets out of whack, it's often easiest to fix it by seeing what the editor was trying to do, revert back to the last “good” version, and then apply the edit correctly. Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Useddenim (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Useddenim! I've been impressed with the work that you've done with route maps like {{Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Map}}. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the route maps used with the Istanbul Metro lines – M1, M2, M3, M4, and M6 – when you get the chance sometime (as you're a lot better with this kind of thing than I am!)... I'm pretty sure knowing what you know that you could improve these, as they don't even seem self-consistent from line to line (seemingly using different formats – e.g. M2's map vs. M4's map), and the route map for the M6 line looks particularly like a mess to me... Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Now the articles themselves could use some a good clean-up. {{Istanbul mass transit color}} should also be checked; and your input would be welcomed at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following your changes to the diagram, I can't make head nor tail of it! Can you please change the diagram to show the connection at Robertsbridge between the Hastings Line and Rother Valley Railway as open? Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, still showing the connection as closed, even after purging the page. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you meant? (When I revised the diagram, I kept the same topology as the earlier version.) Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate the edit you made to Template:Line E (BA) adding the ghost stations to the route map. However, the place in which you positioned them is incorrect. The original map of the line in 1955 (with the original trajectory) can be found here. Note that the San Jose station displayed there is not the same station as the current one, despite having the same name. If you feel like adding the ghost stations to the Line A template, that would also be a great addition. I would do these things myself, but when it comes to templates I have a tendency to break things. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment removed because Secondarywaltz can't keep a civil tongue. Useddenim (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

OK I'm over that. How about adding the Eglinton Crosstown line? They're digging real big tunnels. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with adding that line is that its name seems to change every 90 days... Useddenim (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"s-bahn" and "u-bahn" is the value used for all the other Germany S-Bahnen and U-Bahnen in {{Rail-interchange}} (see Template:Rail-interchange/doc/DE), hence my having done it "incorrectly". Or were you perhaps referring to my having placed Berlin underneath Blackpool? A truly horrific mistake, for which I deserve all of your ire. Alakzi (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No; I meant that it should have been seamlessly integrated so rather than only accepting two specific values, any valid parameter for {{BLNMT-icon}} would work for {{rail-interchange|berlin|}} (which it now does). Useddenim (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied the same fix to the Munich icons. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't revert the edits made in Template:Tren de la Costa line or others that I created because they are not included in the infoboxes but in the articles' bodies. That's why I choose to add the collapsible option for them, as can be seen on Tren de la Costa. The infobox shows the geographical map of the line in Greater Buenos Aires and the template shows additional info such as the complete list of stations of each line. Fma12 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't understand the edit summary, but it is poor style to have the template in collapsed mode on its own page. Adding <includeonly></includeonly> around the yes in the line |collapse = <includeonly>yes</includeonly> will cause the template to collapse when transcluded (“included”) onto another page, but be ignored on its own page. Useddenim (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:Template#Noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude for more information. Useddenim (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get the {{South Eastern Main Line}} to default to collapsed? I'm currently writing a simplified template to replace this, as the current diagram will be moved to a separate page, similar to East Coast Main Line diagram, which is linked from the East Coast Main Line article. Mjroots (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, just like it says above, at #Railway templates: |collapse = <includeonly>yes</includeonly>. Useddenim (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useddenim. Please consider a less combative approach to collaborative editing. If I've reverted you offering what is a plausible explanation, it is discourteous to counter-revert me. Alakzi (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your follow up suggestion as to what you thought that had intended to do, in response to the revision so applied by Redrose64 and indeed you were totally correct on that matter. Unfortunately, when I had almost finished my editing, my computer decided to freeze so I was unaware if what I had entered had actually been transmitted.

Can I ask if you can now include the two closed stations of Windsor Bridge, Pendleton and Oldfield Road upon this template, please?

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• See User:Mjroots/South Eastern Main Line Diagram

I'm trying to rewrite the South Eastern Main Line diagram to correct errors at Bricklayer's Arms and New Cross. To do this, I've had to move the diagram half a column to the left. Reached a bit of a problem at Lewisham. You will see the odd bit of code from the original diagram between the new and old line diagrams. If I try to remove that line of code, everything breaks! ) Any ideas on what is going wrong? Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a two-part error:
1. Line 40: {{BS6-2|||vÜSTl|BHF-L|uKBHF-Re|||{{BSsplit|{{convert|6|mi|4|ch|km|2|abbr=on|disp=br}}|align=right}}}}|{{rws|Lewisham}}{{rint|london|dlr}}|||}} code needed to be added (for proper formatting by {{BSsplit}}).
2. Line 44: {{BS6-2|||vÜSTl||dBHF-L|udKBHF-Re|||align=right}} '''{{rws|Lewisham}}''' {{rint|london|dlr}} }} extra code needed to be removed (causing the box around Lewisham). Useddenim (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useddenim, per an RM, RER was renamed to Réseau Express Régional. RER (disambiguation) will move over RER, but first, there are many incoming links that need to be fixed. Template:Rail-interchange/doc/FR/paris links to "RER", but I can't figure out how. Could you tell me how to make it link to Réseau Express Régional, or do it yourself if that's easier? Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What have I stumbled into?? There are also several subpages of {{RER}}, which was deleted. Why weren't these moved or G8'd? And what the heck is {{Rer}}? --BDD (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the link in {{rint}}. The {{RER}} subpages are unrelated to the template that was deleted. {{Rer}} has got something to do with light distance; it's used in star navboxes. Welcome to the template namespace; do despair. Alakzi (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --BDD (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You seem to have a knack for route templates, would you have any interest in making one for B-Line (Hamilton)? The one there now is just an image that is now outdated. --Natural R_X 18:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; see Template:B-Line (Hamilton). Useddenim (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're fantastic, thanks! --Natural R_X 13:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm finally forcing myself to learn the craft, and I'm getting results. If you have any suggestions as I go along and slowly add more detail, let me know. --Natural R_X 18:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please don't use {{speedy}} (as you did in this edit) without giving a valid reason listed at WP:CSD. It's usually easiest to select one of the templates listed on that page, then it will link directly to the criterion that you have chosen. Criteria applicable to redirects are listed at WP:CSD#R, and some of the general criteria are also applicable. The reason that you gave "it is an un-needed/unused redirect" is not shown anywhere. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'll stop. On SeaMonkey, which I use, and probably on Firefox, sometimes, when the {{right}} template is displayed, the text is moved down and there is a space between the two BSicons surrounding the text. It just doesn't look even and when I remove the {{right}} template, the problem is fixed. Puraki (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's likely a problem with the code of {{BS-map}}, and fixing it is beyond my programming skills. Useddenim (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Puraki: This is a similar problem to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Template:Left. Technically speaking, the cause is a floating div which different browsers handle in different ways. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blue Line (Pittsburgh) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Line (Pittsburgh) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted your comments upon my page, but can you be a little more careful in future, as on your reversion of my edit of Portskewett station, you changed the closing date of 1964 (when I was 19 years of age) to that of 1864. Why you did this, I have no idea, but I have had to re-edit the line diagram AGAIN to show the correct closing date of 1964.

Can I suggest that you refer to the Wikipedia article on Portskewett station where the CORRECT closing date of 1964 is clearly shown.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1864 was just a typo. 24.103.137.186 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Friend,

I am a resident of New Delhi and regular user of the Blue Line of Delhi Metro.

The stations I edited were Proposed/under-construction stations and are not working. Moreover, they don't have any wikipedia page right now, so the links are dead. Nonetheless I requested for help in adding a Branch in the Template on the Talk page of the Template.

Therefore, kindly do not reverse my changes, but help me in branching the template, if you can. Thanks.

saurabh loves wiki (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what change you were trying to make other than adding "proposed" to the diagram, but your edit also removed the links to the stations at Noida Sector 15, 16 & 18. Useddenim (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I did 3 major changes. First I added 'proposed' to the proposed/under-construction stations of Noida (There is no operational Metro station before Noida City Centre)DMRC webpage of current network. Secondly, I removed the dead/non-existent wikipedia links for the same proposed/under-construction stations of Noida. Thirdly, I removed the stations places erronously on Noida Line (from Lakshmi Nagar to Vaishali) as that is a branch line.

However, I could not insert Lakshmi Nagar to Vaishali Branch stations, and you and other friends might help in making the branch.

So, kindly revert to my changes. saurabh loves wiki (talk) 06:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The word "proposed" has been added to the stations beyond Noida City Centre.
2. When you unlinked the stations you also removed the links for Noida Sector 15, Noida Sector 16 and Noida Sector 18 (and changed their name in the process, adding a "-" that is not on the official map that you refered me to.
3. Those other station do appear to be correctly placed, unless I am interpreting the map incorrectly, in which case you need to explain more clearly what it should show.

Useddenim (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help over at Template:Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Map again – we've got a (new?) IP who just made a bunch of changes to the route map in a way that undoes your earlier efforts to make the route map "narrow" enough for use in an Infobox. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, there is now some follow-up discussion of this at Template talk:Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Map. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I put in an edit protection request; hopefully that will help. Useddenim (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I'm not sure it will – while we're currently dealing with an IP, it's actually a long-time autoconfirmed editor that just isn't logged in. Semiprotection will only protect against this if this user is logged out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it will set things up for a sock-puppet block. Useddenim (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been viewing the updated Waverley Line template, which appears to have all the Border Union Railway stations on it towards the foot.

I have a query for you to resolve, if you will be so kind. Very near to the end, just above Carlisle, the final two stations are shown as Harker and then Parkhouse Halt.

Looking on the convoluted line system that appears upon the bottom part of the actual Border Union Railway line template, I can see the entry of Harker, but no mention whatsoever of Parkhouse Halt.

Such is the line complexity at the foot of the Border Union Railway line template, I would not dare to attempt to make an entry for Parkhouse Halt and wish to leave that task to someone such as your good self, who is most skilled in such matters.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... but you went ahead and did so anyway. There is no consensus for these edits.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Template:Waverley Line. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Mjroots (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing?—come off it! Let's take a look at the net changes that “There is no consensus for”:

Mjroots’ version	My version	explanation
{{BS3|KRW+l|KRWgr|||}}	{{BS3|STRc2|ABZg3|||}}	smoothed curve
{{BS3|STR|DST|||Millerhill Marshalling Yard}} {{BS3|HST|STR|||{{rws|Shawfair}}|}}	{{BS3|HST+1|STR+c4|||{{rws|Shawfair}}|}} {{BS3|STR|DST|||Millerhill Marshalling Yard}}	reversed order to put Marshalling Yard closer to the town
{{BS3|STR2|exABZg3|||{{BSsplit|Edinburgh, Loanhead|and Roslin Railway|Edinburgh, Loanhead and Roslin Railway}}}} {{BS3|exCONT1|xABZg+4||||{{rmri|LL}} }}	{{BS3|STR2|exABZg3|O2=STRc3|||}} {{BS3|exCONT1|O1=STRc1|xABZg+4|||||{{rmri|LL}} {{BSsplit|Edinburgh, Loanhead|and Roslin Railway|Edinburgh, Loanhead and Roslin Railway}} }}	corrected location and alignment of label
{{BS3||exHST|exSTR||{{rws|Glenesk}} }}	{{BS3||eHST|exSTR||{{rws|Glenesk}} }}	fixed incorrect icon
{{BS3||exSTR|exKHSTe||{{rws|Dalkeith}} }}	{{BS3||STR|exKHSTe||{{rws|Dalkeith}} }}	fixed incorrect icon
{{BS|HST||{{rws|Eskbank and Dalkeith}} }}	{{BS|eHST||{{rws|Eskbank and Dalkeith}} }}	fixed incorrect icon
	{{BS|HST||{{rws|Eskbank}} }}	added omitted (new) station
{{BS3|exCONTgq|exABZrf|||||{{rmri|L}} [[Selkirk and Galashiels Railway]]}}	{{BS3|exCONTgq|eABZgr|||||{{rmri|L}} [[Selkirk and Galashiels Railway]]}}	fixed incorrect icon

Useddenim (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm talking about your revert to this version, which uses the Lua-based system, which has been challenged and there is no consensus for. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a rest. If you'd bothered to check the edit log, you know that the template was immediately changed back to {{BS-map}}. Enough of the Admin-bullying. Useddenim (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I've opened a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#RFC re the use of the new system. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote module:BSto, invoked in {{BSto/sandbox}} and {{BSsplit/sandbox}} and tested in my sandbox. The markup explosion still occurs without {{!}} so the module is merely for little speed boost and reduce template expansion depth. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 13:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK; but I don't know what the point is, as the current templates seem to work fine in {{Routemap}} (as long as one remembers to use {{!}} instead of |). Useddenim (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Burley Bus Lines}} appears to serve no purpose. I don't want to nominate it for deletion, if the only editor (that would be you) could speedy delete it and simplify the process. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about it. I guess that means I now have to write the article. Useddenim (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't seem that important. You probably had better things to do with your time. Do we really need a diagram showing non-notable bus routes for a defunct minor company? Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]