User talk:DanTD/Archive. October 2008

Newburgh-Beacon Ferry

My intention had always been to add that category whenever I got around to creating it. Thanks for taking care of that! Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

South of the Border image

Hello, you've talked about that "Tickled Pink" image on my discussion page... I was having a hard time remembering what you were refering to. But after searching my contributions on Wikicommons, I now remember. Some stupid bot erased my on image of about 30 that I had put up, because that ONE image didn't have the copyright thing, while all others I've had uploaded had it. I just forgot to write that ONE... Sure I do have that image somewhere. I'll put it back up soon. --Smumdax (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's done!... Since you've answered quite fast, I thought it was only fair to put it up quite fast also. After all, that image was way overdue since march 2007! ;)--Smumdax (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Railway Line Template troubles continue

Sorry I do not have a clear idea about your issue even after reading the article Long Island Rail Road and those route templates. Do you have trouble to include the route template into the infobox or the article itself? I will gladly help if I know any solution. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have included the route template into the article with a tricky "table in the table" technique. But, well it looks bad in my opinion. You can't use the system_map parameter to transclude the route because {{infobox rail}} limits only an IMAGE to be used for this parameter, really unfortunate. If you prefer this style, you may change the pic thumbnails arrangement (like moving all right-aligned thumbnails under the infobox table) in order to avoid br clear. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There're 2 options. Use the route template separately (like moving it to the section "Lines and services") rather than attempting to transclude it into the {{infobox rail}} because it only allows 1 single image for the system_map parameter. Or changing to another infobox that is capable to transclude route template. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have do little change in the route template for the previous edit. They should be reverted. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That huge gap is the result of image thumb arrangement. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

At this rate, you should reduce the quantity of picture thumbnails. Generally disuse them or move them to a gallery. Or move all of them to the top, right below the infobox 1 by 1. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Example: User:Sameboat/sandbox2 -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Long Island Rail Road pictures

Why does the infobox at the top of Long Island Rail Road have to have the logo, a map, and two pictures? It pushes the more important information in the infobox way too far down the page to make room for pictures that would be better placed elsewhere in the article. I removed one of the two pictures, since two is excessive, but I don't think there is a need for either of them. Take a look at Bay Area Rapid Transit for example: there's just a logo and then the information in the infobox. While I think the map is useful there, neither of the pictures are really needed -- definitely not both. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:BlastOButter42, DanTD said:
That particular version of the infobox contained two pictures to show both the diesel and electric trains. It was only messed up when Sameboat added the line template from the Long Beach Branch. I was just restoring it to the previous condition. ----DanTD (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is it really necessary to show both the diesel and electric trains? Is it really necessary to show even one of them? I had restored the template to the way it had been before Sameboat changed it, and then also removed one of the pictures, since two pictures there is unnecessary and pushes the more important information in the infobox too far down. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:BlastOButter42, DanTD said:
It already has the caption reading "The Long Island Rail Road provides electric and diesel rail service east-west throughout Long Island, New York." It would be foolish to eliminate both pictures, when the caption describes both types of systems. For the record, I didn't create the infobox as it was before Sameboat changed it, and this really doesn't push the information that far down at all. ----DanTD (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the caption would be removed the pictures were. The point of an infobox is to make standardized information easy to find, right at the top of the article, not to show pictures. The pictures would be more useful, IMHO, elsewhere in the article, like under Lines and Services. The logo and a map are all that are needed at the top, besides the information in the infobox. They are nice pictures, though, so they should be visible. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On User talk:BlastOButter42, DanTD said:
The infobox is designed to carry both a map and an image. In this case, it's actually a single image of both types of trains. Personally, I like it as it was, but if you want to talk to somebody about it, go to User:AEMoreira042281, instead of me. In any case I'll look at the article on the Bay Area Rapid Transit, but I'm not changing my mind about the LIRR at this point. ----DanTD (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked you because you reverted my edit when I removed one of the pictures of the trains in the infobox. (I know it was actually a single picture, but the technical aspect isn't the point.) And I know the infobox can hold an image and map; I'm just saying I don't think that's best here. At least, not an image that's actually two images. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)