User talk:Useddenim/Archive 7

One of my numerous projects is to add the former suburban/commuter rail services in Chicago and one of the ones I've been somewhat working on lately is the Illinois Central West Line. I'd like to add provision for this to template:Metra Electric Line, but I've never fully been able to wrap my head around fractional width icons and how they affect BS columns.

Metra Electric District
Legend
0.00 Millennium Station 0.80 mi 1.29 km Van Buren Street 1.43 mi 2.3 km Museum Campus/11th Street IC West Line to Addison Amtrak to Union Station

What I'm looking to produce is effectively in the routemap at right.

And since I've got your attention, you're much better at drawing .svgs than I am. The rint for the South Shore Line was my best attempt, but it is god awful. What it's supposed look like is... holy crap! File:South Shore Line logo.svg Can we use this for {{rint}}? (If not it needs to look enough like that to get the point across.) Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

METRA template has been updated. The South Shore logo can't be used because it's not public domain, but I'll work something up this evening that's close enough to work at 20px. Useddenim (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost on Belmont: File:South Shore Line logo PD.svg should be good enough: . Useddenim (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) At the scale of an RDT, that image isn't really readable - on my 2015-vintage laptop it comes out as a reddish blob. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Then how about  (South Shore Line)? (Or do the tails need a little more definition?) Useddenim (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my laptop since before getting my bachelors (2009) and this looks fine on it. Definitely works for me! (As a side note looks like the Metra Electric template is missing a "current" corner on the removed connection to the St. Charles Air Line.) Lost on  Belmont ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this crowded, tiny effort is the best you can do, leave them alone. Britmax (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See here. Useddenim (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to hear your two cents on this: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts/archive1, when you have a moment. If enough people say they support this on the page, we'll get another piece of rail-related featured content on Wikipedia. It seems like you need at least three supporters for a list to reach FL status, and two have confirmed their support so far. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the matter on the Template talk ; Brecon and Merthyr Railway, when in response to the query raised by Steramybrian2 you kindly gave four different position options quite some time ago. On 9th June, Steamybrian2 chose the third of these positional options offered and requested that you now amend the RDT accordingly.

I am note sure if you would have seen his response, so I am bringing this to your attention.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Disneyland Railroad article is currently being nominated to become a featured article here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disneyland Railroad/archive1. It has passed specialized reviews for its prose, images, and sources, but it still needs a few people to chime and say they support the nomination on the review page to wrap things up. Your input on that page will be very helpful. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected this template to include West Ruislip as the Acton to Northolt Line runs parallel to the Central line its terminus. I cannot work out how to either terminate the Central line at West Ruislip or show the stub of the unbuilt New Works extension to Denham. Would you know how to do this? Britmax (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has cleaed it up a bit. Thanks anyway. Britmax (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Piccadilly/Metropolitan line near West Ruislip: could you please tweak it to go under the Acton to Northolt and Central lines as that is what it does. Thanks! Britmax (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks again. Britmax (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we list the article as a station, and list the structure as a stop? Cards84664 (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: As noted previously, I thought the articles should be at Xxx stop. Useddenim (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 A
1 2 B
1 2 C

Hi. I would like to ask you why you are reverting my edits on Template:Glenelg Tram concerning the use of road imagery beneath the tram route. I explained my reasons very clearly in my edits, stating that the street routes begin or end at specified stations, not before or after as your edits seem to indicate. I am attempting to represent the route as accurately as possible given the constraints of tools provided, but your edits are not aiding this. If you have a better way for me to represent the route as I am attempting to, I am more than willing to listen. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: @Useddenim: – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 07:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of visibility. Example A clearly shows that stop 1 is not in the roadway, while stop 2. is. Example B has the roadway fading in from the top of the icon, and Example C has a hard start to the road at the stop symbol; neither of these two are as clear. Remember, it's a diagram, not a map. Useddenim (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for Improving Railway map of Mumbai Suburban Railway Networks. Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your copyedit of the Walt Disney World Railroad article. Any extra sets of eyes I can get on that one is critical right now, as I currently have it nominated for featured status here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Walt Disney World Railroad/archive1. It pretty much just needs someone to review its sources and their formatting before it goes into the final phase of the review. I applied the change you made to its station gallery to the station gallery in the Disneyland Railroad article, which is now a featured article and has a very similar format and structure. Also, in regards to the heights for the RDTs on the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article, I have modified the 12-row rule I put in place, to accommodate the changed format of the WDW Monorail RDT. Each template should measure between 11.5 and 12.5 rows, sans the headers. I appreciate that you agree with this idea, which, honestly, I just arbitrarily made up to make everything look uniform and "pretty" in that single article. In regards to the headers, keep in mind that there are several templates with wide headers in addition to the Magic Kingdom Main Street Vehicles RDT, and not all of those can be easily condensed. This is why I believe we should just focus on the height of the templates below the headers. Jackdude101 (Talk) 21:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the WDWRR article's rolling stock table and the notes column, I just remembered that this exact same issue came up during its GA review last December here: Talk:Walt Disney World Railroad/GA1. The table that you see now is the result of the changes made during that review, which it passed. The reviewer was seeing similar things that you are seeing (I am assuming you are editing from a mobile device), but the issue was resolved by adding the style="width:25%;" parameter to the notes column, which ensures that it always takes up 25% of the table space regardless of the screen resolution or device used. Jackdude101 (Talk) 22:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; 19" cinema display. Wanna see a screen-shot? Useddenim (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Jackdude101: I think you're getting awfully close to creating WP:OWNERSHIP issues with respect to this article and WDW templates… Useddenim (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I appear "protective" of this stuff, I apologize. The fact that I re-wrote the entire WDWRR article from scratch last year and the fact that it is very close to reaching FA status right now probably contributes to that. It sounds like you have a similar monitor to the one I have (screen resolution is 1920x1080, BTW). On my screen, each note in the table has between two and four lines of text, which have less height in their rows than their respective images. Regardless, I made a few changes to the table just now, so take another look and see if anything changed on your end. Jackdude101 (Talk) 23:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a token of good faith, I changed the passing loops for the three Main Street Vehicles RDTs and shortened the header for the Casey Jr. Circus Train RDT. Now, all of the RDTs on the Rail transport in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts article are the same height with the headers included, except for the WDW Monorail RDT (everyone's favorite RDT, apparently). As I mentioned earlier, it's one half of one row shorter than the others due to the -colspan-1 parameter in it. Jackdude101 (Talk) 24:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so very long ago, you kindly made this template much easier to read and I now have four more stations to add on the line running downwards from Treherbert to Pontypridd, but I do not feel able to do this myself, as there are other lines to the right of this line on the template. The stations in question are:-

Pentre Platform.........situated between Treorchy and Ton Pentre

Pandy...................situated between Dinas Rhondda and Porth

Hafod (original site)...situated between Porth and Trehafod

Gyfeillon Platform......situated between Trehafod and Pontypridd (between Pontypridd and the junction shown)

As ever, I am indebted to you.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the editing you did on this template, amazing work! It really looks good now.

Quick question, the template had icons depicting the connections some stations have (funicular and light rail). did you remove these for a reason? Can we replace them?

I really like the work you did so I don't want to go and make any changes without discussing it with you first.

Chocom (talk) 04:53, 25 July 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Chocom: I left the other modes off because I didn't feel they were necessary for a railway network template. On the other hand, they should be included on the individual line diagrams and the {{Tel Aviv suburban railway map}} (when I get around to fixing it). Useddenim (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: OK, then I'll leave it as is. :-) Chocom (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Template:Tubestation 18:21, 27 July 2017

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This is in response to your unfounded and absurd direct accusation of (and conspiracy theorizing about) bad faith, over an article titles dispute that didn't happen to go your way, and in which the other party actually followed standard WP:RM procedure. See also WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NPA policies, and ArbCom's WP:ASPERSIONS warning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're upping the ante with a personal attack? Useddenim (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your help on the Viva Rapid Transit templates I have been working on. I am still a bit of a Wikipedia novice so I am still learning the infobox and routemap syntax and best practices. BLAixx 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Template print-out is correct, but a blank space between each station has suddenly occurred very recently.

Has there been any internal Wikipedia matter of website improvement that has caused this to appear. I noticed it today when printing out the Bury to Holcombe Brook page, that has the line template included as an integral part of that page.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know. It might also possibly be related to the spaces that have appeared between rows in templates such as this one. Nonetheless, this is a question that should be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), not here. Useddenim (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Xenophon Philosopher: I have made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Common.css which should fix the problem. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 04:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:London, Tilbury and Southend 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. Jc86035 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Resort Line 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. Izno (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useddenim,

I've been trying to get a railbox going for the Réseau électrique métropolitain rapid transit network in Montreal. There are 27 stations, and 12 of them are from the existing Deux-Montagnes line.

Here's the map where you can find the official color: https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/default/files/map_static/carte-rem_27-06-2017_en.png

Let me know what you think! I would be glad to help. Mtlfiredude (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

moved to Template talk:DLR RDT 00:36, 8 September 2017‎

Your recent edit of the DLR RDT removed some blank lines. You called them redundant, but Uzdzislaw proposed (and I eventually agreed after a big discussion) that clarity is as important as brevity, and that in this case the uSTRs make clearer which line a particular set of labels belonged to. Being bold is great but a look at the Talk page can sometimes give clues as why something strange has been done. I've restored the spaces (retaining a subsequent bot edit) but more discussion at Template_talk:DLR_RDT is welcome if you disagree. Bazza (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In regards to your continued reversion of my edits to Template:Glenelg Tram, I just like to explain why I am removing parts. These templates are not intended to be overly complicated, rather a simplified summary of the transport route. Hence, it does not need much more than the stops, major river crossings, and rail junctions. The routemap templates used for tram routes in Melbourne are a good example of this; they do not include shading over stops location within the CBD. Also, Glenelg is not an "urban area", anything within Adelaide but outside of the CBD is part of the suburbs.

Finer details on the areas that the route passes through can be found in the route's respective article. If we add too much information, the template will become too cluttered.

I hope that we can avoid an WP:EDITWAR and come to an understanding. Please note that I have restored smaller edits that do not relate to the shading, I have kept that until we can discuss it further. Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 01:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Mitchell 98: I have been reverting your edits because of your continued insistence on using non-standard formatting (italics are for connecting lines and destinations; small text is for secondary features), the space-wasting deprecated template {{RoutemapRoute}}, and contradictory edit summaries. Also, let me point out that you added the “Adelaide city centre ↓” notation on 5 July; the shading is merely a neater way to show it. Furthermore, with 87 rows and three collapsible sections, the first Melbourne tram diagram I looked at is hardly “a simplified summary of the transport route”. (BTW, I was using “urban” as synonymous to “built-up”, which Glenelg was very much so when we honeymooned in Australia 25 years ago.) Useddenim (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that italics were so frowned upon, I had been operating under the assumption that it was the norm due to the seeing it in use on other older templates, this has now been corrected on the Glenelg template, thank you for notifying me of this. As for {{RoutemapRoute}}, this template is used frequently on the routemaps for Melbourne tram routes and I believed it would be a valuable addition to the Glenelg tram template to clearly highlight the difference between landmarks and alternate routes/modes.

As for examples of the Melbourne routes, discounting the obsolete BS-map template formats in use, I would recommend viewing Melbourne tram route 30 as a more comparable example; the Melbourne tram routes are far more extensive than those of Adelaide and it's only natural that their templates would be longer and include collapsible sections for less important areas. I have only been using the Melbourne templates as a rough design guide.

Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 03:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away for some time of late, firstly on a long holiday in Cornwall, then immediately on our return, having a laparotomy operation. I am not sure whether or not it is my printer software has suddenly developed a glitch or the fact that Wikipedia have moved to a sanserif typeface from a serif one, when I attempt to print out a hard copy of a template such as that of the Template : Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway RDT.

Also, the problem that I reported some months ago, about blank line spacing appearing between every station on these templates when printed out appears to have returned yet again.

I would welcome your observations on the aforementioned matters.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Xenophon Philosopher: On {{Didcot, Newbury and Southampton Railway}} only the "Download as PDF" link displays for me, not "Printable version". If you're using that, then the weird display is because the developers had to switch to the new PDF generator before it was ready; apparently the old one was literally falling apart. As usual, use {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}} instead of {{BS-table}}. Jc86035 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Thank you for your fine work on the Cawood line diagram, it looks much more professional now.

The only issue your edits have raised is the layout at Church Fenton. Bizarrely, the plans for the unbuilt extension from Cawood stopped short of making a junction with the ex-Y&NM line or even nudging up to Church Fenton station, which was why I represented them as I did, ie "bufferstops in a field".

As you have represented it the extension would seem to make a connection at Ch F station, which ain't right.

Kind regards

Dave DavidAHull (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull:  Fixed, or should the lne end be a little further away from Church Fenton? Useddenim (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Warm thanks. All that is needed is a bufferstop and gap of any size to show the "non-join", so the original and the latest spacing are both fine. I realise this is a route diagram not a map, but Church F is, if anything, slightly south of due west of Cawood, which is why I represented it with a curve in the original; the north-south straight extension does look a bit rum. Similarly the Y&NM through Ch F is pretty close to N-S, hence my original design. At the expense of one vertical line/column could we have the original shape of the Ch F area back please? Cawood and points south and east are elegant and conform to both geography and the thrust of route maps. Well done sir! (By the way, did you see the end result of Blaenau Ffestiniog passenger stations after the great start you gave me?) Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Wonderful, thank you. Over and out for now. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belfast to Bangor 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. Jc86035 (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-anleitung/header2 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) 09:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rail-interchange 3166 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) 14:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - this edit seems to have a mistake where the Marston Vale Line goes off (just south of Milton Keynes). Could you have a look at it please, as I'm not sure what you were trying to do. Thanks. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In recent times, this template has been tidied up, but I have noted an omission. Towards the top of the template there is shown the Mealsgate loop line. Between the two stations of Mealsgate and Baggrow on that loop line, there should be the station of Allhallows Colliery. You can see how this same loop line is shown on the Template : Maryport and Carlisle Railway with that station in the correct position.

I would have edited the template if that was a simple matter, but as you will see, the computer language is quite complicated, so I do not want to spoil the template, so I am making the request to you to add the station to the template.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Drat! I meant to write to you to ask you not to weave your wonders just yet, as I see more to do to get the template up to scratch, in particular how to represent the major re-routing in the Hindlow-Ladmanlow area in the late 19th Century. I'll try to avoid you having to revisit, but can't guarantee I'll succeed.

Thank you for what you've done thus far.

Kind regards

Dave DavidAHull (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I've had a stab at improving the bottom end of the diagram to include the Cromford Canal, but I'm afraid I'm defeated by the new syntax. I'll therefore describe what I would like to achieve and ask you if you would be so kind as to implement it.

1. The siding off to "Cromford Goods" does no work. The associated text merely repeats the text associated with Cromford Wharf, please remove it.
2. The wharves at each end of the line were why the railway was built. I suggest we represent the Cromford wharf by placing a "one-sided" wharf immediately to the right of the goods station which is marked as Cromford Wharf. The wharf you have put at Whaley Bridge is a "two sided" terminus, this is correct, but that at Cromford had railway line and canal hard by each other with a single awning between.
3. The Cromford Canal points north to Cromford and south to Whatstandwell.
4. The blue of the canal will muddle with the blue of the Steeple Grange line, which I suggest would be better in a completely different colour, eg red. I've tried changing it but have been defeated next to Ravenstor.
5. Finally, I suggest we join Ravenstor to the CHPR by a dotted west-to-north curve, as an incline was built but never opened, way back in time.
6. I'll have a further hard think about how, if at all, to represent the major route changes made between Parsley Hay and Ladmanlow a century ago.

I hope this all makes sense.

Kind regards

Dave DavidAHull (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: Here's the cheat sheet for ‘Differences between {{BS-map}} and {{Routemap}}’

See Template:Routemap/doc for an explanation of all the features. It is easier to use, with a little practice, as one doesn't have to keep track of the column and overlay numbers, nor of the interleaving for diagrams with text on both sides of the lines. Useddenim (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Alas this doesn't display correctly on my machine, as if a curly bracket or some such has been omitted. Is it me? Dave DavidAHull (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: It appears that with this edit you inadvertently moved some wikicode (related to the page archiving) near the top of the page that caused problems further down. Everything should display correctly now. Useddenim (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Thank you. I've had a good long go at it and made progress at the bottom end. I've spent an age trying to nuzzle the Cromford Canal wharf up to the railway line, but without success. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Seriously fab, thank you. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was the Hurdlow Incline part of the original route, or on a later diversion? (i.e. Which line should be deviating from straight through?) Useddenim (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: The Hurdlow Incline was earlier, being replaced by the deviation to its right in 1869. There's more to come, considerable amounts further north were replaced by deviations in 1875 and 1892, one of which partially reopened in 1929 to serve a new quarry. We aren't talking of microscopic snippets, but miles of track on wholly new alignments criss-crossing the later alignments. As I see it, they are significant to the route's history and are often badly described in the literature. I would value your suggestions how we could address this without making the whole thing an unholy mess. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: If the changes are that complicated, perhaps the best way to show them would be something similar to {{Duckmanton Junction}}. Useddenim (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Yes, I've thought of that, but I keep reminding myself that this is a route diagram, not a map, so we could represent the sinuous earlier routes which criss-crossed the later line by simple loops similar to the Hurdlow Incline deviation (which is accurate, it wasn't sinuous). We could then give readers a drill-down (magnifying glass) to the relevant fragments represented as snakes criss-crossing the later route. In fact we could not show them at all on the main diagram, only as fragments on a drill-down. We have guests coming today, staying overnight, so I won't be able to do much until tomorrow (Sunday) night. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I've done a quick first stab at a drill-down for the 1875 route simplification between Harpur Hill and Ladmanlow, here- Template:Cromford and High Peak Railway deviations. I've deliberately not made junctions between old an new alignments because there weren't any, the original railway was built to hug contours, so it meandered all over the place, this simplification built a substantial embankment and saved quite a distance. By the way, the 1869 deviation round the Hurdlow Incline didn't end up forming a connected loop either, it replaced the incline which was abandoned, though its line can still be seen in stone walls. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 09:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of old and new alignments has come up elsewhere, and the consensus is that they are shown as junctions and flat crossings, whether or not there was actually a contemporaneous connection. Given that RDTs are a simplification of ‘all that once was and is now’, that's not unreasonable. Having said that, it is only a general guideline, and in cases such as this where fine detail is being shown there is no reason to not ignore it and continue on your present course (which looks just fine, IMHO). I have taken the liberty of making a few minor tweaks to the header and footer code of {{Cromford and High Peak Railway deviations}}, however. Enjoy the weekend. Useddenim (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Thank you once more for your patience, care, skill and civility. I reckon the diagrams are about right now. The only extra thing I would ask you if you would be so kind as to do some time is to render the branch off lower left to Ashbourne in the same style as its counterpart higher up branching off to Buxton and Whaley Bridge. I'm afraid I can't get my head round the code you've used, but I like the result! As you said earlier in this correspondence (and did when you wove your magic on the West Somerset Mineral Railway) the new style does get easier with practice. Now I've got a lot of writing to do on the railway and all the stations and locations, it's all good fun. Kind regards, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Thank you for tidying Fernilee reservoir, I was trying to convey that the trackbed forms the water's eastern edge, but this is a route diagram, not a map! (I'll get there, eventually.) You tweaked the Hindlow deviation recently, smoothing the curves of the original line. On 99% of railways you would be right, but on the original CHPR the curves were like on a train set, so I reckon crude-looking STRr etc would be truer to reality, however, this is a route diagram, not a map! I've added Gotham curve as, er, a straight line. The only icon I can find which would suggest a prodigious curve (at 2.5 chains radius it was by far the sharpest on a standard gauge running line in the UK, so it deserves an article) is WASSER, which is, of course, blue. Can you please suggest or, even better, implement something? Kind regards. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 08:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull:  (vWSLa),  (vWSLe),  (vWSLaq) &  (vWSLeq). Useddenim (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've given it over an hour of my best, but I simply can't fathom why the overlays don't line up. I've closely examined several of the structures you use, notably on the smooth curves where the Ashbourne line goes off, but I can't make head or tail of the c/ etc features. Ho hum. Dave DavidAHull (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: Okay, give me a hint as to what you're trying to do. Also, did I make the Gotham Curve squiggly enough? Useddenim (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or did you want something more like  (bRP2-8r)? Useddenim (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Blimey!

1. Your squiggly is amply squiggly enough, but I reckon  (bRP2-8r) fits the bill even betterer because it leaves the adjacent icons untouched and therefore in proportion and it's just one icon, so even I can implement it. It is, however, not in disused railway red and, shame on me, I can't remember how to set about doing a differently coloured version, despite the practice I gained over Blaenau Ffestiniog.
2. Gotham curve was just a single 80 degree turn with straight lines leading to and from each end, so what I was trying to do with the tightly curved icons was to make a "pregnant lady" with a plain exSTR overlain with a MASK to erase the middle then overlain with "c" shaped one, but whatever I tried the STR and the c wouldn't nuzzle together and I can't get the logic of how or why. I learned all my rudimentary draughtsmanship by unpicking existing templates and by sitting at the foot of a Master (you), but I'm stumped here. I've tried to unpick your Ashbourne line junctions, but am left scratching my head.

I'll be away from computers from tomorrow 10:00 (Weds 10:00 GMT) until Sunday, so please don't misinterpret no reply until then. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: I have reduced Gotham Curve down to what I believe you intended. If it needs to be turned to the opposite side, I will leave that as an exercise for the reader. Useddenim (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another primer: Overlay example Legend v-STR v-STR+4 lCONT4f overlaid onto each other v-STR!~v-STR+4!~lCONT4f but then an extra half-space is needed to line things up v-STR!~v-STR+4!~lCONTf4\d

@Useddenim: What you have created is exactly what I had I mind, thank you. I shall pore over the primer on and after Sunday. One added difficulty I have is that I don't know where to find some of the off-centre icons, such as v-STR, I'm probably looking in the wrong places. Thank you for taking so much trouble. By the way, a cracking new book has come out on the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway, I'm sure the author has looked at our Duckmanton Junction route diagram and article. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: Note that you can also use  (v-ABZg+4) (I uploaded a complete set a while ago) instead of v-STR!~v-STR+4. Jc86035 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Alas, I've hit a problem of quite a different nature. The template showing the revised lines works a treat, but sooner or later I will want to create articles for Hindlow (CHPR) station and Hurdlow Incline, both of which are ONLY on the drill-down template, not on the main CHPR RDT. This means that a reader will look at the line and template and not find them. The only solution I can think of is to incorporate the three sections of diverted line into the overall CHPR RDT. This will be easy to do, but may end up looking a mess. Can you suggest a better way forward? Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: Just add them to the bottom of the main diagram as |map2=, |map3=, etc., and set them to collapsed. Useddenim (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I'll give it a go in due course. Thanks, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: Thank you. Are they included in an accessible catalog? If they are, can you please tell me where it is? Dave DavidAHull (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidAHull: Yes; commons:BSicon/Catalogue/parallel junctions#45° at corners. Jc86035 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: Thank you, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading the Wikipedia article on this line and in the list of stations in the article, it shows an entry for Llanion Halt. The note states it was opened on 1st May 1905 and was closed on 1st October 1908. It was the following station after that of Golden Hill Platform, heading towards the end of the line. However, I note that it does not appear upon the template, so was that was because it was a short-lived station? I was wondering if it should be added to the line template, but would prefer if someone far better that I could do this, noting the matter of the layout of the line template in the required area.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Useddenim. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Ring Railway does noz belong to Moscow Metro. MCC does belong to it. So the link in your /Mms would not link to a station/platform of LRR.

All stations of Template:Moscow_Metro are routed through Template:MOSMETRO stations, so one has a central place to control the links tto the articles. All stations are named for something and may need dab at some point in the future.

Several red links remain in the station template. Could you create some stubs for TIC (Line 11) stations? 85.179.116.10 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Train Master continuously editing without sources. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to Template:Corris Railway RDT. As far as I am aware, there is only one Maespoeth Junction on the Corris. Can you discuss the change on the talk page? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On this template, I wish to add Commercial Street Platform (1904-1912) on the line in-between the two stations of Aberdare Low Level and Mill Street, but such is the convoluted computer layout when looking at the edit view, that I am feared that my effort might spoil matters, so I beg you to use your undoubted expertise in order to facilitate my request.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This template is incorporated into the Wikipedia article on this railway. From what I can see from information from RAILSCOT and indeed, in the body matter of the Wikipedia article on this railway, Gourdon should be AFTER, not BEFORE, Birnie Road Halt. I cannot trace the Wikipedia line template in order to make this correction, so I ask if you can assist, after checking the matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Useddenim. M4 Atatürk Cultural Center ↔ Gazino line opened on 05 January 2017. Can you update route diagram? Thanks a lot.

Lpxl (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (Template:Ankara Metro route diagram). Useddenim (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia article on this railway, there is included a line template. I have been looking at the Wikipedia Template : Bristol railway map which shows a closed station situated on the running line between Pill and Portbury called Portbury Shipyard, but this station is not shown on the line template in the article. I cannot seem to find the article line template to edit.

Can you be so kind as to investigate and to include Portbury Shipyard station on the article line template. This is the one that was closed as long ago as 1923.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I have replied on the template talk page! Thank you, House1090 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for your explanation and clarification in regards to the San Bernardino Line map template. Even though I do no necessarily agree, I realize that those are the rules and I agree that Wikipedia is not an official news source. House1090 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Israel Railways lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pasažieru vilciens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LVL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. What do you think is the best thing to do with Template:RWS/doc, now that the capitalised Template:RWS has been replaced by Stnlnk? Do we need to keep it in place as a historical record, or should it be moved to some other template that needs similar documentation? Thanks, Certes (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Oops, I missed the change that “all pages with titles containing ‘Railway Station’ have been moved”. Useddenim (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norton Bridge station was officially closed on 10th December 2017 and I did notice the RDT in the area has need of line correction, as you will note, so can you please tidy up the RDT for me.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a break on the line template on straight line section in the Norton Bridge area of the RDT. It is this that needs correcting.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the broken rail yesterday. If it's still showing on an article that uses the template, please purge that page to see the latest version. Certes (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that was the case. Thank you for tidying up the RDT.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, ISO 3166/debug, 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 "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 deleted 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. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please) 19:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Please could you look at the section that I've justed added to the Wensleydale Railway Talk page. This is in relation to the current Route Map that I made that you then reverted.

Thanks Zin92 (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/elevated, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, 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/Catalog of pictograms/elevated and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/elevated 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) 12:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: You forgot to move this to Commons with the other cartalogue pages. 64.128.122.130 (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I deliberately didn't list it for Steinsplitter because I assumed that since it had never been added to {{Bsicon}} that it wasn't part of the canonical catalogue and didn't need to be transwikied. In any case, the catalogue pages are supposed to be being separated out into smaller sections anyway (I don't think I have the time to fix and standardize the catalogue templates presently, or to fix up the icon descriptions) so moving this and /embankment would probably be redundant at this point, since all (or almost all) of the icons are already listed in another catalogue page. Jc86035 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When this is downloaded, it looks perfect, but when you try to do so as a PDF as mentioned in the column on the left hand side of the page, a very large number of square icon shapes appear in some parts. I have never experienced such an image before and wonder if you can shed any light on the matter.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Didn't you see the notice: