User talk:Lensovet/Archive/2006/Jul

NJT rail template
Good idea on the NJT rail template. There are huge gaps in the listing of NJT stations, and it may be worthwhile to pursue this as part of WP:NJCOTW and ask folks to pick a line or group of stations and fill in the holes. I've worked on the Pascack Valley Line, and we could pick a station or two as a model for others to be created. Theanks again for grabbing this bull by the horns. Alansohn 01:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Got your message on the NJT Rail Line template. In order to use it on those NCS Broad Street stations, I added redirect pages pointing all references to "XXXXX (NJT station)" to "XXXXX (NCS station)". I understand your concern about the confusion this seems to create. That Broad Street line is the only line that I will know to any degree at all. It is the line that I will use regularly when it opens.

The biggest problem is going to be on the stretch of the MNE from Hackettstown to Denville. I'd love it if your template could handle two colors as well as two pdir and ndir station listings.

BTW: I took the liberty of editing all references to future station articles in the Montclair-Boonton Line article to put them into "XXXX (NJT station)" format. --Temlakos 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I like your latest upgrade. I liked it so much that I invented a new template, which I called NJT joint rail line, to handle situations in which the type-of-station for the first, previous, next, or last stations might differ. It allows, for example, a Newark City Subway station to link ahead to a New Jersey Transit station without having to redirect. I also added "metro", "mnrr", and "MNRR" as type tags pointing to Metro-North Railroad stations and categories. This will allow us to complete a set of linked pages all the way up the NJT Main/Metro-North Port Jervis lines and the Pascack Valley Line. --Temlakos 01:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't take an opportunity to thank you for finally getting the NJT rail line template to work properly. By now I've used it to create stubs for all the stations along the Montclair-Boonton line. With that series, I have now added pages for all present and future stations that serve the trackage once owned by the Morris and Essex Railroad. (You might want to check out my article on the Short Hills Station. That station actually has an interesting history...) --Temlakos 20:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What has SPUI done? The NJT rail line template no longer includes New Jersey Transit stations as a category--and I can't begin to read it! And why did he propose deleting the njt-sta template? --Temlakos 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the njt-sta template: Where do I go to vote against its deletion--and can we restore the category-inclusion feature to NJT line, or whatever SPUI moved it to? --Temlakos 22:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

SVG
Sorry - I don't know. The best way might be to use two adjacent lines. --SPUI (T - C) 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Template
NJT line needs fewer parameters to do the same thing. --SPUI (T - C) 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting categories in article templates is generally a bad thing, as it reduces flexibility. If, for instance, we were to make a Category:Morristown Line stations, there would be no way to remove those from the main cat. There is also no way to give sortkeys - for instance making New York Penn Station show up under N. It is simpler to use the existing category system. --SPUI (T - C) 06:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I already added cats to every article - no need for you to do that. --SPUI (T - C) 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't make much difference...future stations will need it too and the whole point of the template is so that you don't spend your time doing such useless repetitive tasks. what's the grudge anyway man? come on. lensovet 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, or I may start assuming bad faith on your part. I have been here for a long time and have seen the problems with these methods. --SPUI (T - C) 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wayne-Route 23 (NJT station)
How, specifically, should I lay out an article on a proposed station? I intended my sections to reflect the NJT project notice, so that SPUI (and any other skeptic) could tell that this was an active project and not just--well, talk. You and I have done some good work together on these NJT station articles--so if you have a suggestion for how I can write a better article on a proposed station, I'd like to see it--specifically. --Temlakos 23:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. You merged "See also" into "References." Our mutual associate did the same. It is a whole lot simpler. Next question: does the New Jersey Transit template belong in an NJT station article--or not? Our mutual acquaintance has been systematically removing them. Should he have done that? --Temlakos 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Our mutual acquaintance had threatened this article with deletion. This prompted me to find the NJT system-expansion project notice and to quote extensively from it, in case anyone had the slightest doubt that this project has gone beyond the talking stage. --Temlakos 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Centered text in centered images
(Ford Ranger EV). Thanks for the article cleanup. My spell check quit with a SW upgrade. By the way, I always center short title text in centered images - I think they both look and read much better that way. Do you have any special objections to this? (It looks fine in my browser - problems there?) Best wishes, Leonard G. 04:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I took a look at it now and you're right, it doesn't look that great. but to be honest, i think the image would be much better off if it was floated to the right and displayed as a thumbnail. Let me know what you think of that. lensovet 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Owing to the panoramic nature of the image most of the drama and detail would be lost if taken down to a few hundred pixels (in my opinion). Note that the image is not just the Ford - it is the line up of EVs and hybrids, and I think it is a fitting final image for the article. - Leonard G. 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * take a look at what I've done now; I actually moved it to the end of the section and applied wiki-style formatting to it. lensovet 05:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice. I would like to use this instead of thumbs where there is no significant text with the image, but cannot in general since the "px" has no sizing effect (as in Wrightspeed X1 article: "[[Image:WrightspeedOverview4881.jpg|frame|center|400px| ]]" ). Do you have fix for this? (note that the Range EV pano is sized appropriatedly). Now how about the big text, and the appearance will almost identical to the original. ;-) Leonard G. 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Spring Valley (Metro-North station)
Thanks for the catch (and moving the article and reverting my edit)! I was on a roll on the NJT stations and forget that Spring Valley was a MNRR station, unlinke Pearl River and Nanuet, even though I've been to the stations and read the article 100 times. That's why we have watch lists, to double check edits by other people. Alansohn 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

References vs. Sources
Sorry for the delay. I've usually seen (and used) references used as a section listing footnotes in the format. Sources would be a section listing external references in magazines, articles or external links, that don't apply to a specific section of the article. Alansohn 03:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation for Moscow Metro
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.-- joturn e r 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

template njt-sta
spui, i'm reallly curious, why are you so bent on making this template "useful" for substing? Take a look at Template_substitution and let me know which one of those bullet points is applicable to the template. I'm not seeing one. lensovet 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In a way "Using certain templates hides wikitext from newcomers, which prevents them from learning how to use it." applies. If we use templates for what should be a simple link, we get scope creep of a sort, in that noobs see these templates and want to make their own, and soon we have templates for every possible link type, and what we have is much more complicated than simple linking. But really it's just easier to deal with simple links than with a template like this. --SPUI (T - C) 00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * eh, but then at arguments against substitution we also have
 * A substituted template can add a lot of wiki-code or HTML to the article, harming accessibility for the less technically-inclined.
 * Substituting templates prevents newcomers from learning to use templates, and prevents users from finding their documentation.
 * personally, I don't see the need for substing for three main reasons:
 * Without substing, we can have shorthand types and designations. We can also have a default value for the type, i.e. don't specify a type, and then station is automatically made into NJT
 * Not substing guarantees that the links will always look the same and will always link to the same article name format
 * Errors/typos are easier to fix, because you fix them in one place only, in contrast to (two places in) piped links
 * Regardless, I think that there is neither a strong case, based on "guidelines", as to whether or not we should subst. Therefore, I'd judge it on the usability merits. The way I see it, there's plenty to gain in terms of usability for the Non-substed version, and very little, if anything, for the substed one.


 * P.S. As for noobs, I doubt too many would use it anyway. lensovet 00:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I don't see the need to subst either - just type the link normally. But if you are going to use the template, either subst or make it possible for others to subst. --SPUI (T - C) 00:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * man, what is this? you don't see the need to subst, yet you edit the template to make it substable! where's the logic? If you don't see the need to subst, then leave the template alone and let me use it as I wish. at least me and temalakos will be fine with it.lensovet 01:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to subst in its current form because others can subst. --SPUI (T - C) 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because we should not be using templates for simple links. --SPUI (T - C) 01:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Duh, there's a big difference between a template that's placed in the article and one that's only called by others. --SPUI (T - C) 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Freeway/motorway/whatever category
Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --SPUI (T - C) 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Muni Metro
I guess we can live with that. --physicq210 00:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad you approve. --physicq210 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Muni template
I didn't change the template. All I did was insert, which sort of disassembles the entire table and renders it possible to add finer details (like the station directions, hint hint). Cheers, physicq210 04:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)