User talk:Useddenim/Archive 5

Template:St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway
Hello. I have just come back to Wikiing after a couple of years. I think we worked together on Template:Duckmanton Junction once, but maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else. In any event, hello!

I see you've unchanged some of the changes I made to the St Helens & Runcorn Gap Railway route diagram. I most certainly am not precious, but I am keen to learn.

1. You've reinstated lines down the left hand side with ...... rather than CONT arrows. Coming at this diagram as a stranger I would take that to imply that the upper ...... (below left of St Helens Junction) is the same line as the one left of Widnes. That is reinforced by the original text which described both as Liverpool and Manchester Railway. I replaced the ...... with arrows because the two sets of lines are definitely not the same. In short, the line through St Helens Junction is the Stephensons' original 1830 masterpiece, whereas the line left of Widnes is the much later CLC competitor. Perhaps the .... lines convention means something else. If so, please tell me what so I can learn and use the technique.

2. You've reinstated the two Runcorn Gap stations' links to data, which I would normally warmly welcome, but in this instance it stops me dead in my tracks, because the linkage sends the reader to the article about the St Helens and Runcorn Gap RAILWAY, ie the whole line. I wish to create proper articles on both stations but I can't because my attempts to land on Runcorn Gap railway station are redirected and I'm stuck. If you could undo this redirection I'll be able to crack on with writing proper articles for those historic stations.

3. I see you've tweaked the layout in Widnes - great! You've turned very good into very very good. I lack the skill to add one missing ingredient, ie the fact that trains could and did travel from St Helens to Runcorn Gap 2nd station by turning right just before the flat crossing over the original East-West line. The flat crossing is shown, but not the connection. If this isn't clear please let me know and I'll try to sketch it.

I'm off to Germany tomorrow, back on Monday, so I'll not have much chance to look out for any reply from you before next week.

I hope you receive this in the same positive spirit in which I send it.

All the best

Dave DavidAHull (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Yes, that was me. (…was I.)
 * My error. I incorrectly assumed that all the Liverpool to Manchester lines were the same. You are correct about the use of, and I have made the correction.
 * Here's the link you need to start editing:
 * Now added. Please let me know if it still isn't correct.
 * Regards. Useddenim (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!
https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bristol railway map‎
Your last edit left a chunk missing from a corner at Filton Triangle. The half-icons you've got are beyond my limited RDT understanding, could you sort out the corner please? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . I needed an icon that I though existed but didn't (yet). Useddenim (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:SLML/doc
What did you do with Template:SLML/doc? Because I replaced the category there, and the Port Authority Trans-Hudson cat still wasn't removed? -User:DanTD (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First off, I must apologize for a sloppy job of editing. As far as still appearing in the PATH category, I can only guess that that is a caching issue on your computer that will eventually update itself. And just a reminder, template categories are normally on the /doc(umentation) sub-page. Useddenim (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Template:West Lancashire Railway
I think you misunderstood which brackets I was referring to. As far as I know, "Wigan North Western" was never officially named "Wigan (North Western)" with brackets, which is what the mouseover now displays. --  Dr Greg   talk  17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems we were talking at cross-purposes. There are a number of redirect pages of the form Xxxx (Yyyy) railway station for stations that are properly named Xxxx Yyyy railway station that exist solely so the stnlnk template will work correctly. Now does what I was doing make sense? Useddenim (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it makes sense, though, in my opinion, it's a less-than-ideal solution. Maybe we could modify to also cope with a disambiguator that isn't in brackets? --   Dr Greg   talk  18:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've thought of that, but parsing the name(s) becomes extremely complicated when trying to cope with all the possible variations (which is why Stnd, RWS, StnlnkA, Ja-stalink etc. exist. (The full list of templates is at Template:Stnlnk/doc/other.) Useddenim (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You need to self-revert
You need to go self-revert your removal of WP:TemplateData from all of those templates. I have explained briefly in the talk page for the one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (NFTA fleet) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating NFTA fleet, Useddenim!

Wikipedia editor Allthefoxes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Lead section?"

To reply, leave a comment on Allthefoxes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway
I need your expertise to try to resolve a matter of a certain station that does not appear to be shown on the actual line diagram. I refer to Marron Junction. In the actual Wikipedia article, that station is shown as one of the three terminal stations in the "overview" panel at the top right-hand corner under "termini". In the actual article, it is also mentioned amongst the stations shown under the heading "Northern Section". It would appear that on the actual line diagram, Marron Junction (sometimes referred to as Marronbridge Junction) should be above that of Bridgefoot, just below the actual junction of this railway with the Cockermouth and Workington Railway.

This was a short-lived station, closed in 1899. It is also shown on the Wikipedia list of Closed Railway Stations of Britain. Can you or another of your senior colleagues be so kind as to amend the line template to show this station upon it.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Border Union Railway line template....a possible station addition
Not wishing to make any amendments myself to the existing Border Union Railways template, note that in the Carlisle area, after the Parkhouse Halt station, the DISUSED RAILWAYS website has both an article and a line diagram on the Border Union Railways which states that from 1863 to 1864, there was a station called PORT CARLISLE JUNCTION which is said had some timetable stops during its short life.

May I ask if you could investigate the matter and if you deem it worthy, can you cause that station to be entered onto the Wikipedia line template.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Would it be between Parkhouse Halt and Port Carlisle Junction, or Parkhouse Halt and Harker? Useddenim (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer to query raised.
The carefully drawn Border Union Railways line diagram that is incorporated in the DISUSED RAILWAYS Port Carlisle Junction railay station article clearly shows Port Carlisle Junction railway station to be situated south of Parkhouse Halt in the lines leading towards the Carlisle convolution of numerous lines connections, in the region of the line junction called Port Carlisle junction.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

PATH line map
With regard to Template:PATH line map, I wonder if you can make a correction. Namely, to add the Harrison station to the Newark Park Place Hudson and Manhattan route. The Harrison station was existed as part of the H&M system and was relocated when the line was re-aligned to Newark Penn. Much thanks for your attention and help. Djflem (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I could add it, but you need to be a little more specific with where exactly it was. Useddenim (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Laird
Hi there. Just curious why you feel it is necessary to note that Laird must be noted to have been originally been called Brentcliffe in Eglinton Crosstown line? Many of the station names have changed at this point, I do not see the value. It's cruft in the template, and can be noted in its respective article. -- Natural  R X 05:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That was not even the same station. I think the location at Brentcliffe was to be built instead of both the station at Laird and the one at Leslie. When the one at Leslie was reinstated the one at Brentcliffe was too close. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am (generally) loathe to delete information from RDTs that other editors have created, but since both of you seem to think that it superfluous, then go ahead and remove it. Useddenim (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Greenhill Junction)....Wikipedia line diagram template
You will note that Overtown station is shown only on one of the two lines on the Wikipedia line diagram, but there should be another one situated on the junction of the other line that is shown diametrically opposite to the position on the other line.

If you refer to the Wikipedia list of Closed Railway Stations, you will find that one of these was closed in 1881 and the other one was closed much later during the Second World War in 1942.

If you do find a spare moment of your valuable time, can I be so bold to ask you to enter a "closed station symbol" on the line diagram where none exists at this moment in time, in order that both of these two closed stations are shown on the line diagram.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which one closed when? Useddenim (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition of the closed station symbol on the other line to update matters. The records suggest that it was the one on the line south of Wishaw South that was the one that closed in 1881.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Template:X## SBS BRT map-infobox
I have reverted the edits and made a note of the convention on Template:Bus route legend -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLstation
Template:MLstation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

US Station naming conventions
What are your thoughts on the "new" conventions for naming US stations? It seems that the changes now being implemented mean that most (if not all) of the station templates need to be rewritten to conform to X station, X station (Foo system), X station (Fu System Bar line), and&mdash;in some cases&mdash;X station (Fu System Bar Line And-Then-Some Branch) with exceptions for X Station. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * IDL. AFAIK, there wasn't any disambiguation problems with X (System station) and X (Y Line), so those should have been left alone. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it.) I think this is another case of a few individuals deciding what ought to be without taking into account what other problems it might cause. Re-writing the templates to allow for both patterns during a likely-to-be-forever transition period will be a real PITA. Useddenim (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like we're on the same page, then. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So, what to do about it? Given some of the editors who are involved, it looks like a done deal to me. Useddenim (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is anything to do. Stuff like this is part of the reason why I've been less active lately. Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Light grey pictograms
Happy New Year c2013 you did some wonderful work on Duckmanton Junction, where you represented closed and lifted lines in light grey.

I have now moved on to Cumberland, as you may remember from my stumbling efforts on the Whitehaven, Cleator and Egremont Railway RDT in November or December.

I am working on the Gilgarron Branch and Lowca Light Railway and am drafting a route diagram to show the later stages of their decline, as we did on Ducky Jct, using light grey pictograms to try to disentangle the confusing changes for the reader.

I've got my head round what happened on the ground and how to show it, but I'm stuck because the set of light grey pictograms appears to be incomplete.

I created a list of pictograms needed for a full set of 45 and 90 degree curves, vertical, diagonal and horizontal straight lines and stations, excluding "tight curves" which I don't anticipate ever using. I then went methodically through the list, ticking off the ones which exist.

I believe the following are missing, some of which have stopped me in my trackspun intended?; others could be needed in the future.

Could you please either 1) create them, or 2) (preferably) guide me how to do so?

The missing ones are: I reckon that with these and overlays and the ones already in place users should be able to do pretty well anything.

I hope this makes sense.

Best wishes

Dave


 * It's actually pretty easy: just open the corresponding file in a text editor, change the string   to , Save as… , and then upload to Commons. Good luck. Useddenim (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Great! Could you please suggest text editors I may be able to get hold of? DavidAHull (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you use a Mac or a PC? Useddenim (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * on a Windows machine you can use Notepad. I assume Mac/Linux/whatever have some sort of similar program. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the kind help you two have given me so readily I've done what I needed to to and I'm enabled for the future. Thank you both very much. DavidAHull (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Dave

Template:South Western Main Line
You added an icon and link to Farnborough Airport on Template:South Western Main Line. This small airport doesn't really warrant being on an RDT — it has no public scheduled flights — and its inclusion sets a precedent for cluttering the diagrams with other incidental information. Farnborough (Main) railway station makes no mention of it. I suggest it's removed. Bazza (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You should take that up with – he's the one who put it there. I was just following along, doing clean-up. Useddenim (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a regular on Wikipedia any more, so I didn't get this last week. I do believe that the world-famous Farnborough Airshow warrants it's inclusion. --RaviC (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia line diagram...WEST CUMBRIAN RAILWAYS ... an observation made
This line diagram is a work of art in itself and I wonder if it is intended that all the railway stations of the constituent railway companies are intended to be shown on this line diagram. If that be the case, I have noted the following insertions that now need to be added:-


 * Brookfield needs to be entered between Wigton and Leegate (Note this station was opened in 1844 and closed in 1845).....
 * Arkleby needs to be entered between Aspatria and Bullgill.....
 * Linefoot needs to be entered between Dearham and Dovenby Lodge.....
 * Gillfoot needs to be entered between Woodend and Egremont

Looking where Great Broughton is shown on the line diagram, it would appear that the following two stations should be shown as being below it:-
 * Buckhill Colliery Halt.....
 * Camerton Colliery Halt

I am unsure of how matters of website protocol are affected in cases like this, but may I ask if there is any automatic notification link created where if a station entry is made on the line diagram of any constituent companies that it can automatically be made at the same time upon this matter template by the person making such an addition in order that both run with the same information

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your praise, but I did not create the diagram (just cleaned it up some). I do, however, have some further questions:
 * Is Brookfield situated before or after the junction to Mealsgate?
 * Is Linefoot situated before or after the junction to Great Broughton?
 * As far as your last question goes, I am not aware of any mechanism that would do that.
 * Useddenim (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

West Cumbrian Railways line diagram...Answers to the two questions that you have raised
The location of the very short lived Brookfield station (1844-1845) was before the junction to Mealsgate as will be seen when viewing the latest edition of the Maryport and Carlisle railway line diagram, as that location was double-checked with other sources prior to that station first being entered upon that particular line diagram

The location of Linefoot (a station that DavidAHull has only just written a full article upon) was before the junction to Great Broughton. DavidAHull and I have been in contact concerning these matters via a different website that we both participate upon. It was he who entered that station upon the Maryport and Carlisle line diagram, after writing his full station article.

I trust that you will now, being in possession of these two answers, together with the other station details in my original notification to you, be able to update the West Cumbrian Railways line diagram.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diagram problem
Hi, can you take a look at your change to the Harrogate Line. There appears to be a problem with the pictograms not meeting-up and there are small white sections between each of the pictograms on the line. Keith D (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Same problem with this change on Wharfedale Line. Keith D (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would appear to be a wider problem than that: see North_London_Line and Hastings Line for example. Bazza (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably this: . Bazza (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you correctly identified the culprit. 50.75.157.38 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Template of Harbour Line
Thanks for the fix. However i had implemented the route map in Panvel railway station yet still the infobox has some bugs. Needed help. Thanks again. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . The RDT needed the proper header and footer, and needed to be invoked with infobox rdt instead of being transcluded directly. Useddenim (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a tonne mate. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Waverley Route line template...Your assistance required
Can you tidy up the line template as where I have attempted to add Port Carlisle Junction Station, it does not seem to work

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . Useddenim (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Main West
I just tweaked it a tad, but then in asking, I noticed I had already worked on it at User:Dave_Rave/sandbox1. Apart from your suggestion for Lapstone being on the same line, is that an improvement for the Little Zig Zag ? --Dave Rave (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think I cleaned up the diagram, but your sandbox version has a different geometry for the zig-zag line, and lacking any sort of additional reference material, I don't know how to reconcile the two. Sorry that it's not the answer you were looking for, but it's the best I can give right now. Useddenim (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the approach angle to the bottom points was altered slightly so as to hit the curve up to the tunnel, but it's essentially the same place. And Lucasville is at the junction, but not quite the end, but sort of close enough. A good graphic is here --Dave Rave (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro)
Template:Line 1 (Budapest Metro) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 20:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

West Cumbrian Railways master template
There have been four very recent station additions made on the template for the Carlisle and Silloth Bay Railway and these need adding onto this template. They are:-
 * Causewayhead
 * Sleightholme
 * New Dykes Brow
 * Port Carlisle Junction

Could you be so kind as to add these onto this template

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In case my request seemed ambiguous, I wanted those four stations to be added to the template for the West Cumbrian Railways

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it was perfectly clear. I am just not yet ready to tackle a major revision of the top portion of the diagram. Useddenim (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please write a more neutral message to wikiprojects in the future, as per WP:CANVASS. ~ RobTalk 23:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with BU Rob13. Just simply notify the WP that "(issue) is being discussed at (location)", linking as necessary. No need to hint at or advocate your view in the notification. That should be done at the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood. See User talk:Lost on Belmont. Useddenim (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I 100% understand why you did it, but I rolled back your most recent edit at the TfD. If you'd like to collapse them and put a link to the consolidated discussion, feel free, but those comments need to be preserved at TfD because the discussions will be linked on the talk pages of the kept templates. Also, you had accidentally added a withdrawal from me to a nomination I did not withdraw (the zero-transclusion draft template that will wind up being userfy'ed). Again, I 100% understand what you were thinking and I know you were acting with the best intentions, but the comments are needed there for historical purposes and in case the templates ever come up for TfD again. ~ RobTalk 01:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, but I'm still copying them to Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template. Useddenim (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I get everything, or are there some loose ends floating around somewhere? Useddenim (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like you got it all. And yeah consolidating for whoever cares to continue this conversation is helpful. I no longer do, since another editor in this topic area is targeting me for my "crusading". ~ RobTalk 10:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unable to print out hard copies of Wikipedia line templates
You made a helpful comment (noting that I have should have prefixed my query with the word "Category") on the query that I raised very recently on the talk page of Redrose64 and on that same page, another contributor made mention of the fact of a possible reason why this might have been the case due to an internal and unresolved Wikipedia matter.

Have you any news as to when this problem will be overcome and matters returned to normal.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that the RDT are now able to be printed out as hard-copies once more, so can I thank all concerned who were instrumental in setting matters straight.

Paul Sidorczuk (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tempe Streetcar
Could you give me a hand with this? I'd like to show that the Metro rail (red) station at 3rd Street is between the two halves of the streetcar line (blue), accessible, and currently open; the streetcar stations should be shown as accessible stops not currently open. (The streetcar stops might be offset slightly to the south as well.) I'm at a loss how to do all that and connect it either with a hub, or with the grey connector like I used at Dorsey Road. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for intrusion, but I think all ACC icons can be replaced by more ordinary station icons when the whole system is accessible. If you want, you can just add a "All stations accessible" remark at the top or bottom of the map. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this what you had in mind? Useddenim (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's largely better, although I suppose there's no good way to show the 3rd Street stops on the streetcar as not yet being open. I also don't like the current dots to show the line continuing - they end in an awkward half dot. Would it work to have a fade on the dots, or change them to a whole dot at the end? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That’s about the best I can do with the VMR, complete with new icons and . Useddenim (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks GREAT. I can live with 3rd Street as it is; thanks for all your help. I've added your icons to the table for reference, and I'll certainly be making use of them elsewhere. Update: Already created the other three basic colors, and used them in half a dozen templates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RDT request
Would it be possible for you to redraw this diagram but using the parallel icons. Retaining all lines and platforms, road and rail bridges etc? I'm hoping to put a proposal forward at UKT but would like to have three different diagram types to present. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I will, but not until later in the week. Useddenim (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please would you ping me when you've finished this? Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. (Sorry; forgot about this.) Useddenim (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Metrolinx logos
If the component parts of File:Metrolinx logo.svg that you have uploaded to Commons are free, then so is this. Why don't you complete the set? Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not possible. In its entirety, particularly with the inclusion of the slogan, puts the logo over the threshold. Useddenim (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The slogan is only additional text, and you've already uploaded everything else. The logo of an M in the shaped piece is the only thing that might have given me doubts. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and make the transfer. This wouldn’t be the first time that a logo has been over-cautiously categorized as non-free. Useddenim (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you were trying to clean things up, but now I realize it's your own agenda to generate icons. I was only trying to help you bring things together and I don't really care either way. Thanks for your continuing template work. I appreciate that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Île-de-France tramway Line 1
Template:Île-de-France tramway Line 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is nominated only because it's unused and replaced by a file which shows the route, to be clear. ~ RobTalk 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Brentford railway station (GWR)
Hi, why did you [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Useddenim?offset=20160516021600&limit=5 move a page that was already a redirect]? -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Standardized naming. Useddenim (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All you needed to do was create a redirect, no move was necessary. Indeed, WP:MOVE specifically recommends not moving redirects. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Strapp Lane Halt
Why did you remove my edit on the position on the map of Strapp Lane Halt. Please note that Strapp Lane Halt was sited between Witham (Somerset) Junction and Bruton and not between Witham station and the Junction. The junction to the East Somerset Railway was almost at the end of Witham station.Steamybrian2 (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See the diagram to the right. It was easier to revert and then fix than to try and correct the damage. Useddenim (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Apologies- I was unable to complete the edit of the map due to lack of knowledge of understanding the map computer language. Noted with thanks for completing the work Steamybrian2 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Cumbrian Coast Line route diagram
a) in your recent tidyings-up after my recent (well-intentioned but doubtless disruptive) efforts the junction with the Solway Junction Railway has moved to the Carlisle side of Leegate. I'm not sure if that was inadvertent, or a deliberate alteration. If the latter, I disagree: the SJR junction was just after Brayton and well before Leegate see this old map
 * My error. Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

b) representation of Solway Junction Railway is a bit tricky, and currently a bit wrong; it ran to a junction (Abbey Junction) with the Silloth line as shown, but both the line running W from the junction and that running N were part of the Carlisle and Silloth Bay Railway (the SJR had running powers to the N over the Silloth line). Strictly speaking, therefore the 'Solway Junction Railway' label should be applied to the line running between the junction with the Cumbrian Coast line and the Silloth line.
 * Will fix it this evening. Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Apologies for not being bold and making the edits myself. I'm afraid I don't understand the syntax of route diagrams well enough to think it sensible to try to make the relevant alterations, nor have I any confidence in my ability to become adequately competent any time soon.) Rjccumbria (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. And just keep practicing—that’s what sandboxes are for. Useddenim (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Great Eastern Main Line RDT
Thanks for that. I reverted an unsourced and unlikely change, and have no idea where the "haven't" came from. Britmax (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And I thought it was something like ‘haven't I’ taken care of that yet... Useddenim (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TRS
Template:TRS 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 • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TK
Hi Useddenim. Can you add M9 line symbol of Istanbul Metro to Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TK ?

Thanks

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Istanbul_public_transport_-_M9_line_symbol.png

Lpxl (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion requests
Please do not use the template directly. A speedy deletion may only be performed if one or more of the WP:CSD criteria is met; and your use of the template does not indicate which criterion applies. We have a wide range of criteria, and many of them have two or more matching templates; please use one of those so that the deleting admin has a clear understanding of why you believe the page should be deleted. That reason will end up in the deletion log. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT
Today, I went to the master index pages that cover all these Template : RDT and clicked on this template. As you are aware, this template shows all the CLOSED railway stations on this line.

Imagine my amazement to find what actually was shown was a North Wales Coast Line RDT in place of what was clearly shown to be the case on the master index. Only currently OPEN stations appear on this over-simplified RDT.

Can you help in this matter by finding out who has removed the ORIGINAL Chester and Holyhead Railway line template, please. Medically, matters are still slow in my medical recovery, unfortunately, so it is at times like this, your undoubted expertise is of the greatest help.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to see who did what to a page, simply click on its View history tab. Nonetheless, this RDT seems substantially similar to when you edited it on 24 September 2012‎ and then again on 14 July 2014.
 * In the future, it would be particularly helpful if you also include links to the pages you are talking about. I didn’t have too much difficulty finding the Template:Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT (even though you had omitted the word ‘Railway’); however, I have no idea what you mean by ‘the master index pages that cover all these Template : RDT’. Useddenim (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I owe you a most sincere apology for putting you this trouble. What seemed to confuse me was the heading immediately over the line diagram reading "North Wales Coast Line" and such are my current moments of confusion caused by the side-effects of the six daily post-stroke drugs that I have to take. Thank you all the same for the tidying-up that you have just made.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that I see how the problem has occurred. There are TWO template involvements, not one, involved here. 1) Template : North Wales Coast Line RDT 2) Template : Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT Have a look at both of these (both are headed above the line diagram as North Wales Coast Line) and it appears that what is shown on the Template : North Wales Coast Line does in fact have all the updated CLOSED STATION amendments incorporated, so that one is the one that should be shown on the TEMPLATE : Chester and Holyhead Railway RDT, but the heading over the line diagram should be amended to read Chester and Holyhead Railway.

The one that is currently on Template : Chester and Holyhead Railway should then be the one shown on Template : North Wales Coast Line and can be translated there with no amendments required.

Can I have your thoughts upon the feasibility of carrying out these two transpositions, please? Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the two templates are virtually identical, so I think the solution is to simply eliminate one. Useddenim (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for such a speedy response. If you do keep just a single common template, then let it be the one with the most historical station information upon it, which is the one that makes mention of the first stations at Prestatyn and Llandudno Junction. I think that steamybrian2 has been aware of this same situation.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that unless the topology of a station has changed (e.g. on the opposite side of a junction) or it has moved a significant distance (i.e. > 1 km/&frac12; mile), it still should only be shown once on a diagram. Useddenim (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought that the distances from of both the first station sites at Prestatyn and Llandudno Juncton were in excess of your stated mileage requirements from the site of their second and current station sites.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Commons
Hi, could you have a look over at Talk:BSicon/Renaming? I pinged you a few times, but maybe Echo isn't working properly again. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 14:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TK
Hi Useddenim. Can you update ferry, seabus and metrobus logo in Template:Rail-interchange/doc/TK? Thanks.
 * Metrobus: Metrobus (Istanbul) Metrobus Official Logo: File:Istanbul Metrobus Official Logo.png
 * Municipal ferry: Ferries in Istanbul Municipal ferry Official Logo: File:Istanbul Şehir Hatları Official Logo.png
 * Sea Bus: İDO Sea Bus Official Logo: File:Istanbul public transport - Ferry line symbol.png

Lpxl (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bala and Festiniog Railway Route Diagram
Hello again

Thank you for your changes to the Bala and Festiniog Railway route diagram. I'm happy with all the changes you've made except one, which I don't understand. Could you please put me right? You have reinstated the wording "Bala Lake Railway" next to Bala Junction, which to me implies that the line going right (east) is something to do with the Bala Lake Railway, which it isn't and never has been. The disused and lifted line eastwards ended up at Ruabon and the first stop was Llandderfel, as shown on the Ruabon to Barmouth line route diagram. The start of the Bala Lake railway is correctly shown as the blue railway line at the very bottom of the Bala and Festiniog Railway route diagram which matches the Ruabon to Barmouth line route diagram (and reality.) I suggest that if you want to retain the BS construct next to Bala Junction you replace "Bala Lake Railway" with "Ruabon to Barmouth line", leaving Llandderfel in small letters as the first station. Kind regards, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, which has now been made. 22:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks good, thank you, DaveDavidAHull (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've worked my way down to Bala Jct and now I'm dealing with the northern end of the line and the complexities at Blaenau Ffestiniog. The Route Diagram is misleading and confusing to people looking at a map or on the ground in that it shows the Ffestiniog Railway line heading off down and left from "Blaenau Ffestiniog (GWR)". The Ffestiniog track has always approached the joint station from the other direction. At the very least it should be shown heading up and left, rather than down and left. Historically there were at different stages interchange stations (effectively, but not called that) at both Blaenau Ffestiniog (LNWR) and Blaenau Ffestiniog GWR. My ideal representation would be to have two parallel disused stations at Blaenau Ffestiniog (LNWR), both on used lines, one blue, the other red, with the Ffestiniog line veering off left immediately up from there. Unfortunately the syntax used at Blaenau Ffestiniog (GWR) has me beaten, so I can't do a first pass myself. I hope this makes sense and you can do it. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Is this what you mean? Useddenim (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's exactly what I mean. Wow! Thank you. DaveDavidAHull (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:River Line (New Jersey Transit)-infobox
Hello, I see the changes you made to this template. I preferred some of mine more, but I digress. The Pennsauken Transit Center has the RiverLine on a low level platform and the Atlantic City Line is elevated. I made this error in my template, maybe you can more easily fix your version than I can. j.reed (talk) 13:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Busy rail templates
Hi Useddenim, thanks for your help with Manchester Metrolink rail templates earlier. I was wondering if you could provide some quick feedback on some changes I have made. I have added major roads, rail and rivers to Metrolink templates but am unsure about the finished result. I am now worried that they now look too busy and so I was wondering if I should revert back to the simplified versions. Examples are: Template:Rochdale Manchester Metrolink line and Template:Manchester Airport Metrolink line. Cheers,  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  17:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not too busy. They’re not overloaded with excessive detail (such as the ). However, if you take a look at my, you can see how I put the templates into standardised format. Cheers. Useddenim (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help!  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Scottish RDT
Please show me the relevant article which shows the "standard Scottish RDT format". Nathan A RF (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just take a look at any of the 200-or-so diagrammes (that you haven't changed) in Category:Templates for railway lines of Scotland. Useddenim (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a relevant article and has no hard evidence. Please could you show me a relevant article and stop talking to me so pessimistically, and would you mind not undoing my edits unless you have a valid reason to do so (i.e., something is incorrect). Nathan A RF (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing from a generally-accepted format is a valid reason;
 * The same applies to you, too: don't just hit when just one item should be corrected.
 * Useddenim (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when does the pattern that exists cannot at all change even if it is (in my opinion for Template:Glasgow to Edinburgh via Carstairs Line) quite cluttered and a bit hard to read at first. Also, do not judge me for seeing things that should have been changed after I had undone your edit. I have only done that once. Please do not judge. Nathan A RF (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Page move
What you just did for Newcourt (Exeter), can you please do for Higham railway station, Kent? It's known as such on the National Rail website and the Higham (Kent) railway station redirect is blocking a normal page move. Cheers, Lamberhurst (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Useddenim (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:CRT Line 3
First of all, thanks to fix the problems in CRT routemaps. But there is something wrong with your new map. The main line of Line 3 goes from to, and the Airport Branch is expected to be operated independently from  to  according to the info from local BBS. You can transfer between them cross-platform in Bijin. When a train of the branch leave Bijin, it can turn around within the branch or go to the main line. Can you fix it? David S. Hwang (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

&#123;&#123;Routemap}}
Since Routemap is the newer version of RDT compared to BS-map, would it be logical to convert all BS-maps to Routemaps? What is your opinion? Nathan A RF (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There is no consensus to do this. Any such conversion that is both undiscussed and unjustified will be seen as disruptive. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. New maps can be created in either format, but conversion should be reserved for cases where there is a consensus to do so, as well as cases where it solves technical issues with BS maps (like MBTA Red Line, where it solved a longstanding alignment issue with the collapsible sections). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am in 100% agreement with you that it would be logical; however, there are some editors who strongly dislike the new template and are vehemently opposed to it. I encourage you to add your opinion to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template‎. Useddenim (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Elevated v icons
Regarding, would it be better to make the vINT portion 500px wide (as with normal vINTs), since additional side icons have to be used anyway? This would, however, require the fancy curves by on (e.g.), which I have no idea how to draw. (I'm guessing that hvKINT and hvINT would have different formation shapes?) Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Metro Green Line
You might be interested to comment on Metro Green Line, about whether to convert to routemap Zr2d2 (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

WCML
Please, I know you have strong opinions on certain things and it would be nice if you could maybe help in the WCML fiasco that is occoring on Talk:West Coast Main Line? I would greatly appreciate it. Nathan A RF (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you really sure that you want me to weigh in on this discussion? However; I have been following it, but since it is a debate over content, not design, and on a subject that I don’t really know anything about, I politely decline. Useddenim (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

P level template
Not sure what it's for, but see User:Useddenim/P-level, where the template's been userfied. When it's ready for use in the mainspace, no prejudice against moving it back. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)