User talk:SilasW

Intro deleted
--SilasW (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

19/05/2010: Instead of archiving today I deleted much old Talk leaving only significant Headings and Comments.

Language categorization
I understand your point that it seems weird to delete the "Afro-Asiatic" category from those articles.

Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms
I'm sorry of my mass edition which surprises you so much (for either the good side or the bad side.) I know I'm not making the best deal but still about splitting of icon list, my main concern is the loading time (I can't even access to Alison's full catalog.) Collapsible section won't help the loading time because obviously those hidden are still loaded. Well yes, collapse the sub-section may help the accessibility to reader, but I do not have a clear idea which way we should proceed. I want more concrete suggestion, or you may finish it on your own and then let us know to give comment. Unfortunately, I must be missing some of the icons during splitting the catalog, so... just sorry. My work is bascially done here, but I will help if you need. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. this is my usual line... please correct my grammar and logical thinking if there's anything incorrect, even for the minor one or writing style. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: BS collapsing error returned
First, this doesn't occur in IE7 which is still acting as my primary browser. (Regardless, the overlayed icons shift when hitting the show of collapsible seciotn in IE7.) Until I tried the others like Firefox, Safari and Opera, I underwent a complete test in my sandbox. The analysis result leads to the conclusion that someone with higher authority altered the difinition of small font  or wiki table class. That change of font size causes the row grows higher under some sort of circumstance that is now affecting our RDT layout. I have revised your sandbox to bypass the glitch but that doesn't mean the problem is solved. It is simply because I'm not clever enough to realize the inner cause and to be able to test it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid not. Check this screen shot captured in Firefox 3.0.5, the newest version by today, File:Sameboat temp.PNG. And sadly the breaking in collapsible section mysteriously occurs only in Firefox (IE/Safari/Opera are all OK.) I only can tell that this might happen when using the Collapsible section and the left-aligned small text column is filled. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which browser are you using? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I can tell IE8 produces similar result as Firefox, which is the most important difference with its elder sisters. Increase the icon size to 21px will eliminate the breakings (use the designated parameter of BS row templates. PX=22px ) But it's troublesome/cumbersome to type/copy this syntax on every row. Decrease the font size by adding font-size:##%; to  of BS-table works too but it requires to font to be shrink to really small so the breakings disappear. The best solution would be increasing the default width (20px) defined by BSpx, but it's being protected. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm the one misunderstood. At least the breaking does not occur in my IE7. If you could, please capture a screen shot in IE7. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

LU list
.... Having found out it is an alternative for a kagool, i don't see how a coat\waterproof is related to a list of stations in a metro system! And for the last part, the whole thing is really. Simply south not SS, sorry 22:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

LU list FLRC
Well i've had courage and gone through with it

Unwarranted precision
For the benefit of anybody reading this, this discussion began at User_talk:Control-alt-delete


 * When, without circumstances changing such as new timetables or the circus coming to town, the figures jump wildly then they are not very meaningful. ORR excludes very low usage stations and those with inexplicable changes, off hand I think that one recent year they omitted 240 unbelievable stations the worst of which reported an increase of 157-fold (NOT 157 percent). As I said ORR suggests a large grain of NaCl. That means that such a reported number as 12,379,000 is not 12.379 million but at the best merely around twelve and a half million. As the figures are inaccurate, five figure precision is meaningless. Perhaps the figures (which now seem to get added to WP station information as year succeeds to year) should be clearly headed as ORR reported counts (with a link to ORR's warning page).--SilasW (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are these figures not the same? *confused* 12,379,000 - 12.379 million - around twelve and a half million


 * Of course 12,379,000 is 12.379 million (but 12.379 million could be anything between 12,378,500 and 12,379,499) but the point is that, as the ORR says, the figures are not accurate, even if by ticket sales (and that clearly is not the real usage of a station). The ticketing systems change, adding an Oyster here and a band of free OAPs there makes the capture of the count vary from year to year. It's not that the format the statistic is shown in is wrong, it is that (with all respect to ORR who aim for improvement) the counting is wrong and variably wrong from year to year. Some editors have got so wrapt in pushing in the figures that they do not see that at best the numbers are well-considered intelligent estimates and a warning about their reliability is needed wherever they appear in an encyclopedia. Surely the example I gave of a 157-fold (or whatever it was) increase shows that--SilasW (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you are aware, there isn't really much more that I can say on the subject since I am purely just programming this, so I won't really be able to say much in the way of changing how we show the statistics. As I said, maybe try Template_talk:Infobox_GB_station :) Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tracks in east London
I feel there should only be a single article covering this topic. It doesn't really matter what it's called, East London line is fine. Any other historical or future names for the line should be created as redirects to this article, which already has references in the introduction to clarify this. The problem with copying over substantial chunks of text to a new article is that the updating history is lost. . . Rcawsey (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

re:Mogadishu
Yes, SilasW; you're pitiable schadenfreude has already been noted. Until you have a way of actually proving that the picture you keep harping about isn't of Mogadishu, we have no recourse but to conclude that you are letting your POV get the best of you. Cheerio! Middayexpress (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Southampton and Dorchester Railway
I've tweaked the diagram here to put the subject line in the centre as far as possible. I feel the the "new" main line should stay, albeit off to one side, as its construction was a major factor in the decline of the Southampton & Dorchester. As you commented on the talk page about this issue I thought I would seek your opinion on the changes. Britmax (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Shepherd's Bush station map
You are correct that there was a goods line link between the Central line north of White City and the West London Line. I haven't shown this as the connection is about where the top edge of my map finishes and it was really produced to show the multiplicity of stations in this area with the same name rather than the lines themselves. You can just about see it here on a map from the 1940s or more clearly here on an earlier map (you'll need to manually zoom in to the Shepherd's Bush area).

The line which the Central line now uses was originally built by the GWR before WWI as a goods line, with the Central London Railway providing the passenger services, although that didn't start until 1920. --DavidCane (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo station
Dear Silas,

With respect to your encyclopaediac knowledge about railways, I think you have been taken in by Network Rail's public relations spin on this issue. It seems to me and most people who have to use Waterloo station on a regular basis that it is a scandal that NR has done nothing to bring the four unused platforms at Waterloo into use: a relatively cheap project that would improve station capacity by 20 per cent. Waterloo is one of the busiest UK stations and because of the lack of platforms commuters often have to wait in the station concourse for ages before a platform is allocated to a train. Passengers are often told which platform to go to just two or three minutes before the train leaves the station, which is of course a completely chaotic way to run a railway. By contrast the website of the Swiss Railways is able to tell you which platform to use at Zurich or Geneva stations up to YEAR before a train leaves. Two or three weekends of engineering work would be all it would take to add a dozen sets of points further down the lines. That work would also cost far less than the 20 million pounds that was recently spent installing completely unnecessary ticket barriers at Waterloo: another indignity which rail users in more civilised countries don't have to put up with.

Petershipton (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

More on Less clumsy junctions
Don't worry another opinion is always welcome. I was going to do something about the gaps but the real world got in the way. Another solution I find is to use the bigger of the bridge icons as this makes it look as though the gaps were put there to make the bridge easier to see. A shameless cheat but not without its virtues. For an example see Ormskirk Branch Line.Britmax (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Eurostar
The connection between the Chatham Main Line and the route into Waterloo was only used by Eurostar to access the international terminal at Waterloo. Since the move to St Pancras it is no longer used. If you look at other rail line diagrams you will see sections that are similar; this will usually signify a route that is still extant, but no longer used Hammersfan, 23/09/09, 14.53 BST
 * You're right, that is a thought - North Pole became redundant when Eurostar moved their operations, and hasn't been used since 2007. As a consequence, it should be in the same position as the link from the CML into Waterloo. Hammersfan, 24/09/09, 10.52 BST

Great Western Railway
Your edits of Great Western Railway come at an opportune moment – it's coming to the end of a long process of preparation for a GA nomination, so an extra pair of eyes is proving useful. Geof Sheppard (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Anticartographicism
Thank you, and sorry! But there's plenty more spin from the attic; just look at everywhere 's been inserted. NebY (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Platform layouts
I note you've deleted the 'layout' section on Westbourne Park. On a purely personal note can I say I support this, as I've never seen the point of the rash of such layouts which have appeared over tons of station articles and - basically - are a self-evident and non-informational waste of space. --AlisonW (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

re:Strength of overlays
This is the result of disagreement between Axpde and me. Originally I prefer the inside of ELEV must be filled by white background in favor of the overlaying result. But Axpde in commons:File_talk:BSicon_hSTR.svg insisted to revert the white area. So eventually I made the variations hSTR2 and hSTRq2  for that purpose. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that has been updated into the STR# family of icons. (See Route_diagram_template/Catalog_of_pictograms/branchings for an explanation.) Any required background blanking can be accomplished with  and . Useddenim (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

re: Rail map curiosity
It's fairly tricky to include RDT into Infobox rail line. I guess it's far easier to comprehend by comparing the changes I made to Heathrow Airtrack and Heathrow Airtrack. Coincidentally I'm doing a mass modification to the articles which have transcluded my infobox rdt for better rendering of the route map in the infobox. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The noinclude in the beginning of Heathrow Airtrack is for better presentation as a standalone map in the template page but not affecting the rendering result in the article infobox. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Creating a template for tube station's in London
I have been using a template Template:Stnlnk recently for railway station's, could you in anyway suggest a template name for tube station's and tram stop's. Please could you let me know soon, thanks User talk:East London Line January 9, 2010.
 * (I 'see from your apo'strophe's that you are a greengrocer) Personally I've sometimes used, but it operates slightly differently: see the example usage in its documentation. I'm commenting here because I'd also like to know if there is a simpler official method. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply: Shepperton Branch Line
Sorry I was not aware of this as it is shown fine on my PC, but I not sure how to change this. Likelife (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Gowdall junction
Hello can you take a look at the talk page for Template_talk:Hull_&_Barnsley_Railway - I think but am not 100% certain that the H&BR goes over and not under here.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hull and Barnsley
Hello, can you upload an image of what is happening - I see that one section heading is long - but for me it only extends across 1/2 the page and doesn't interfere with anything. I'll ask to see if anyone can solve the problem.87.102.67.84 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tried reducing the browser size and also using zoom magnification (increase font) on the page with no real problems - what I'm seeing is that beyond a certain point the section title is split into two lines in the section display - and that display never gets any bigger (wider) beyond that.87.102.67.84 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

more... - blue lines
I totally agree with the idea of using 'metro blue' (or another colour) for the non-H&B lines ie NER lines. Clarify when I say 'pure H&B' I mean just to cover the period 1885 to 1923 - but still including other lines that cross and join - ie the NER in hull. - the big difference between the 1923 map and the current map is the NER line to cottingham (see image - the line that goes through Newington).

If anyone does make a 1923 situation route template I will make the relevant 'diff templates' eg drax, changes a hessle rd(hull).

As for the blue line idea - I'd back you 100% on this if you want to do it. I think most others would agree it's a good idea.Shortfatlad (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannon street
Yes, 1908 OS map calls it "Cannon Street Station", as did all the books I've seen. It's possible/likely(?) - as the station closed to passengers 1924 it seems unlikely that it ever got the chance to be renamed to avoid confusion with the other cannon streets (Cannon Street Road railway station (closed before it opened) and Cannon Street station (SR) so not part of the same network until 1948?)

I'm willing to be proved wrong though.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to look at some of the books that have old railway timetables and tickets in - if they say "Hull Cannon Street" I'll change it.Shortfatlad (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

re: Using narrow icons
So I've attached few examples to correctly apply them in the map with BSicon_d.svg (narrow version of leer) and PX parameters: PX (global for the same row), PX2, PX3, etc. Be prepared that lining up the normal (1:1) with narrow (1:2) icons on the same row will require a very messy PX setup for the whole map. I found the maps in Dutch and Korean Wikipedia use the same 1:2 icon without problem because their BS templates define the height of image as well by 20x20px rather than width only 20px (see Image tutorial). But our BSpx is now protected.-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway line#Merger
You are invited to join the discussion |here. Fayenatic (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Chessington Branch Line
Can you deal with the blank space at the top of the page please. As an experienced editor, one would have expected better from you than to leave a page in such a bad state of affairs. Bhtpbank (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a problem which shows up in IE7 but not in Firefox or Chrome. The text which is written after the template is delayed in IE7 to start level with the top of that template, whilst in Firefox and Chrome the text is placed immediately after the "History" heading. Similar effects have been noted on several other articles, and is not specific to that template, but also occurs with other templates which build a table, such as the  in So Runs the World Away; I've also seen it happen with images placed in similar positions, such as with  of 1984 Dallas Grand Prix. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you User:Redrose64. I left the layout slightly better that it was at birth but wives and children and frying pans dragged me away before I could try another fix (likely to have been unsuccessfully from what you wrote). Please do not read another editor's talk page to see comments on insensitive remarks.--SilasW (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for reading your talk page but I have it watched, because I've left comment here before; and I always watch talk pages where I leave comment, just in case a reply is posted. I do occasionally post comments to existing threads which I didn't start, but when I do, I try to offer constructive suggestions. What I'm trying to find is a general fix for this blank space issue which only shows with IE7. The only one I know which works is to move the template down the page so that more text goes above it. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, O Redrose64! I did not mean "Do not read my Talk", contortedly I meant "A certain editor's Talk has many comments saying 'Do not be so acerbic.'".--SilasW (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge of station articles
I have not checked whether the two stations whose articles you recently merged were really one even although their existences did not overlap, but the resultant article is confusing for if they count as one why are they in different districts? Readers should not be puzzled.--SilasW (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Globe Road and Devonshire Street railway stations were the same location (naturally on the corner of Globe Road and what was Devonshire Street), and at some stage used the joint name (see ). As for Mile End or Stepney, I simply merged the articles.  I would say it was in both, and that Mile End was part of Stepney.  But feel free to choose whichever you prefer. --Rumping (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Southall station article improvement
Hi, last night I have started on trying to get Southall railway station towards FA status and I have added significant content to the article. In regards to the comment regarding station trend icons, quite a lot of stations of similar size have them: Highbury & Islington station and Anerley railway station. In regards to the north goods sidings of the station the London Railway Atlas shows them, but I think we would need a second citation to establish its actual location. Finally, should we move up the station succession box further up (as with London Paddington station? --Marianian(talk) 15:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Brentford
Please see my talk! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aden Hashi Farah
I read somewhere last night that (Aden Hashi Farah) his approximate age was 35 years old (as of the time when he was killed). Which would be 1973 - 1974? As for the day and month, it didn't say. Therefore I didn't cite it as a reference in the InfoBox I created. Adamdaley (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Silly redirect
Hey, sorry, I didn't mean in a bad way. I just meant silly as in it's a such a quirky phenomenon. A redirect like that wouldn't exist unless there was a good reason. I try to inject a little humour into the tedium of editing sometimes. Sorry again. –Schmloof 09:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

New North Main Line RDT
The link to the Chiltern Line hear Greenford found its way over in error when I cut and pasted the simplified version from the Central Line during the course of work I did today, and I have now removed it. Thanks for the heads up and good catch! Britmax (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Park Royal on NNML
I'va added the Piccadilly line station to the NNML diagram. Let me know what you think. Britmax (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CONTr and all that
Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains especially the list request at the bottom in the subsections.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (response) Yes, if a machine can be made to manually tag all the affected pages (there is a list) then that would help editors to fix the problem. The issue I had was that the changes didn't even show up on pages I was watching, So I had no idea they were quite badly broken until another editor came along and manually fixed one...
 * I'm trying to find someone to get a bot to automatically fix most of the pages .. there are a whole lot. It's possible that other language wikipedias have been affected too, but I don't know how to go about fixing that.Sf5xeplus (talk)


 * (response) Yes, The check if CONTl appears after a "" ) sounds like it would catch 95% of them.
 * I was thinking of a the simpler straight swap on articles that people haven't added to the 'done list', coupled with as many messages to known editors to "keep an eye for a bot that unfixes things"
 * Do you know of a bot owning editor who might be able to do either of these? Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Railway electrification in Great Britain
What a horror! There were around ten more "saw"s. The article needs a thorough rewrite.--SilasW (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Don't get me started on bad English! (: Stifle (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

South West Trains rolling stock
Please don't create blank pages in articlespace. If you need time to work on the article, you can do it in sandbox space (e.g. User:SilasW/South West Trains rolling stock), but the page cannot be moved into article space until there's actually an article. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
WVRMad • Talk • Guestbook 18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:SilasW/WlooEast
User:SilasW/WlooEast, 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/User:SilasW/WlooEast and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:SilasW/WlooEast 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. Pkbwcgs (talk) 07:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)