User talk:IJBall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thank You

Thank you for taking your time to read my arguments, we need more people's opinion on this matter at the moment. It's just me and Massypacer hammering it out.Terramorphous (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii

What's up? Honolulu project not a "metro system?" -Fluous (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks more like light rail to me, and it's currently listed in the Light rail in the United States "under construction" section. There's a discussion about this at the Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project Talk Page - at best it looks like it might qualify as a light metro, as it won't have the passenger volumes generally associated with "heavy rail" (aka. metro) systems. At the least, I think this one needs to go to the metro list Talk page before inclusion in the metro 'under construction' list. --IJBall (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

List of metro systems

Hi, IJBall.

I think you and I and a few others are interested in a good article at List of metro systems. It is a knotty subject, and it needs the cooperation of experienced editors. I am ready to help, but I am not ready to engage in years of fruitless discussions with editors who change their position by the minute, and who clearly need a remedial course in WP. I have been following this article for many years, and it has lost a few excellent editors over this. A lot of the energy dissipated on the talk page would be better used for research and for finding proper sources. Which often can be quite a learning experience.

Thank you for reverting the reverted UITP edit. The old source is either gone because someone cleaned up the UITP site, or it is gone for a reason, namely not to clash with the proposed standard. I have been involved in a few international standards, and it's no work for easily excitable people. Whether we like it or not, the cited UITP definition is the last word. If we find a more current one, we should use that. You and I may think that the definition is too broad. It is our right to think that, but our opinion should not influence our work. We need to work with what is handed to us.

Also, I work as a journalist (not in this field, one with tires) and from daily experience, my high opinion of published sources dropped considerably.

I can be reached via my talk site, also via email. I have lived and worked around the world on many continents and in many cultures, and I am not interested at all in advancing a certain city. Best, BsBsBs 07:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be honest - at this point, I'm not sure there's much more I can meaningfully contribute. I'm coming at this from the general view that the List of metro systems is already too long and inclusive, and the loss of the UITP reference is likely to only exacerbate this problem. Seoul has already been bundled together. And now is looks like even systems that share actual rail tracks (e.g. with commuter rail, or freight rail) are going to be included now too. At this point, my position is that if this trend continues, we might as well just rename the list "List of metropolitan rapid transit systems", and be done with it. So, as I said - I'm not sure how much help I'm going to be from here on in... --IJBall (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Very true. That's why I have many times (even years ago) suggested that editors need to decide what they want, a (narrow) list of subways/undergrounds/tubes, or a burgeoning list of "Metropolitan rapid transit SYSTEMS." Both are possible and supportable by sources. The current situation definitely isn't. The UITP appears to go in the latter direction. I will compile a chart of definitions and put it up in talk. I just notice that neither the NTD nor the APTA actually define Metro (at least not in the often cited defs), which may come as quite a shock to some.

The list appears to have fallen victim to boosters of certain cities. In search for extra mileage, definitions were widened and cans of worms were opened.

As for editing here, please don't give up! The page needs all the sane people it has. BsBsBs (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut

Pls Contact me directly. Will be traveling and out of time for a lot of typing. Writing court documents did cost too much time....

Thanks, B

BsBsBs (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, will do, if needed. But I suspect things will mostly settle at List of metro systems now (at least, I hope!...), so any changes can probably wait for a little while... --IJBall (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. I do not want to give new openings for attack. If new systems are added, I suggest we deny anything without refs. I'll put a sources needed tag up, and we should start removing unsourced systems. That usually gets attention fast. We are not their source diggers. I'll be at the West Coast in a few weeks.BsBsBs (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the improve tag from March 2010 should suffice. I hate tag plastering. BsBsBs (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Flag of Belgium

what do you mean about "visual improvement"? you jugde state flags if they are nice or not? flag of belgium has 13:15 dimension and it is written in legal act so your comment is at least redundant. - Aight 2009 (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2014

You have to look at the context of the table - making Belgium's flag smaller affects things like how the country names line up in a way that is less than visually appealing. Aside from that, even the Flag of Belgium page states that the 3:2 flag is used much more commonly than the "official" 13:15 flag which is, "Technically the national flag, but rarely seen." There is no need for a table like the List of tram and light rail transit systems to use the "official" flag, especially when it needlessly messes up the visual aspects of the table. Thank you for the Warsaw entry, though... --IJBall (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't make this mistake because it is so popular. if you look at flag of denmark or norway at this table you will see that also these flags are shorter than the rest of them in this table. - Aight 2009 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The difference is, the "official" (relatively smaller) flags are used basically all the time in the case of Denmark and Norway. That isn't so with Belgium, where in fact the "normal" sized the flag is "Much more common than the official version." Again, in the case of the List of tram and light rail transit systems there is no compelling "need" to use the "official" flag of Belgium over the "common" version. --IJBall (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Seoul removal

Why Seoul? We shold keep the three most used systems. Or the most extensive ones. Seoul is in the top 3 either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.112.188 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Then put Seoul back in, and remove Shanghai or New York. London should remain, as the oldest system. Regardless, we can only allow three images above the table from now on... --IJBall (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if London stays, then we'll put the three oldest systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.32.112.188 (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be another option. I'd maybe take this to the Talk page to gather consensus on which three images are best for the page. --IJBall (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Budapest Metro total length

Hi. According to the references (listed in Budapest Metro article), the total route lenght is 38.4 kilometres (4.4 for Line 1, 10.3 for Line 2, 16.3 for Line 3 and 7.4 for Line 4). I think we should change the data in List of metro systems article. Best wishes. --Rovibroni (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The line lengths listed at the Budapest Metro article include a figure for I think it is Line 2 that is track length not "route length" (and the lengths given for both Lines 2 & 3 are from references that are not from the operator, BKK, which makes them suspect in my mind...). The two references (from BKK) listed at List of metro systems give a combined route length for Lines 1-3 of 30.8 km, and a length for Line 4 of 7.4 km - that yields a total combined route length of 38.2 km, which is the figure given both on the List of metro systems, and at Budapest Metro's article. --IJBall (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I checked the references, the data for Line 3 is route length ("forgalmi hossz" in the source, lit. means "traffic length"), which is 16.3 kilometres. The track length ("építési hossz" in the source, lit. means "built length") is 17.3 km. Data for Line 2 is "forgalmi vágányok építési hossza" in the source, lit. means "traffic tracks built length". According to a BKV (today subsidiary of BKK) report [1] the total route length for Lines 1-3 is 31.4 km, the track length is 34.8 km (however other BKV/BKK report shows 30.8 km, as you noticed). I seek some reliable source about the exact length of the lines.--Rovibroni (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

For right now, I'll take the 2011 report from BKK as the most "authoritative" number available (esp. over the BKV number from 2006). In any case, any total system length figure quoted right now for Budapest is going to represent a WP:SYNTHESIS issue, because it requires at least two (or in the case of the 'Lines' table, four!) separate references in order to "infer" the correct value. Frankly, until BKK issues a new report that gives the new total system length, including Line 4, we are not going to have a "definitive" figure, and there's going to be some uncertainly in the system length value. But, for now, I strongly believe we should stick with the two references currently used for the system length as the most "accurate" figure(s) we have currently... --IJBall (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we have to wait for the next BKK report. However the article needs reliable sources (the current one is not "official") about the exact length for Line 1, Line 2 and Line 3 separately. I believe there are some books about them (published for the openings by the planning company or the BME). I'll have a try.--Rovibroni (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: the Budapest Metro article, the reference for the length of Line 1 is actually BKK as well, so Line 1's reference is good. So you'll only need to find better references for Lines 2 and 3. --IJBall (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

One follow-up point: Even if good references are found for the lengths of all 4 lines, the sum of those 4 figures won't necessarily be a better figure for the total system length than the sum for the length from the two references used currently, due to WP:SYNTHESIS. Thus, I think we are definitely best off sticking with the 38.2 km figure, and the two references, for right now, at least until BKK puts out a new report and we can get a single-reference source for the total system length of the Budapest Metro. --IJBall (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think in this case we can change the total length data in the Lines table if a better source says other length for Line 2 or Line 3 ("total" section with the note, clarifies the difference), and as you explained, we should keep the data from BKK (as the most authentic source) in the infobox (38.2 km).--Rovibroni (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Agreed!  :) --IJBall (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

LA Metro lines

Hi IJ, seeing as you're working on the Los Angeles Metro pages I thought I would pass on some hearsay from the head of metro operations. When the regional connector opens the name "Gold line" will disappear. The Expo line will take on the color of gold and continue into East Los Angeles. The blue line will continue into Pasadena and beyond. Some point after that or even possibly before, the names of the lines will be changed to simply letters. See this draft concept map (link). My understanding is this is all but approved. Seeing that none of this is announced or official, you can't cite it yet, however, considering some of what you're adding is counter to this, I thought you should at least be aware of what's probably coming. It's up to you if you want to make any changes. Thanks much for all of your work on these pages, it's really appreciated! Lexlex (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Ugh - can't say that I like that! Thanks for letting me know, though. But I think what I've written is OK for now, as it's what's indicated on Metro's maps for the Regional Connector... --IJBall (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Metro Systems Ridership addition

Do you think it is okay for me to add all of the ridership information on List of Metro Systems article? No one (other than you) seems to be objecting. Staglit (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As I suggested, I'd appreciate it if you would at least work up a partial (or full) 'mock up' of the revised table at your Sandbox page, and then link over to it from the List of metro systems Talk page, so that we can comment on the final product. For example, I am pretty picky about things like the order of the columns and table layout, so I'd like to get a look at what you're proposing for the page, before I withdraw any objections. (Also, you'll probably want to link to it from the Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides page as well, as that article will simply be turned in to a 'Redirect' page, if everyone likes what you've done with merging the Ridership data into List of metro systems.) So, show us what it will look like - once we get a good-looking merge of that data in to the Metro systems table-list, I'll withdraw any objections... --IJBall (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though I agree with the merge, IJBall is right; consensus is not about the majority, it is about making a decision based on mutual acceptance (ideally). To this end the talkpage discussion should go on for at least one week and a 'mock up' should be created either in userspace or on the talkpage. Liamdavies (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

IJBall, I've done a test here : https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Staglit/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 20:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made some changes to that (i.e. switched column order) in a way that I think is an improvement. I really would urge you to post links to this at both Talk:List of metro systems and Talk:Metro systems by annual passenger rides. I'd also appreciate it if you would add a few more entries (especially those with multiple 'Notes', as the ones with 'Notes' will be the hardest to fit in to the table, and so they'll be the most important ones to check and see in the new table...). I would also you urge to keep working up your version over there until you've completed the revised table - then when you are done with it over in your Sandbox, you'll be able to do one 'cut & paste' to bring your final version over List of metro systems all at once... --IJBall (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Dates

Why are access dates "better" in ISO style? As for changing the dates, I thought both mdy and dmy were used, and picked one to change them all to. Looking back, it seems only mdy was used, so my bad. — lfdder 13:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly prefer ISO style for reference 'accessdates': 1) it differentiates them from the regular reference 'dates'; and 2) it makes it much easier to see how "old" references are in ISO style, as the 'year' is listed first in the 'accessdate' parameter. I personally really dislike it when articles have both their references' 'date' and 'accessdate' parameters in exactly the same date format as it makes it harder for the reader to easily pick one out from the other. So, I almost always do either mdy or dmy format (depending on the page) for references' 'dates', and ISO for their 'accessdates'. I realize that's a stylistic preference of mine, but I think it's a logical and reasonable one. --IJBall (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Makes sense to me. — lfdder 14:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Revised List of metro systems table

Hello! I was just wondering if you could maybe clean up the table in my sandbox. I haven't a clue how to make new rows, so some help would be great (like for new york, seoul, london, ect.) CTAГЛИT (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My Sandbox! — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Staglit - I will likely just use my test edit table at the top of your Sandbox as the basis of a new table. But getting all of the old table over to that version will be a pretty big job - it'll likely be this weekend, or possibly next week, before I'll be able to tackle a job that big! But I'll starting working on that Friday... Once I'm done, I'll put a final version of it up at my own Sandbox page so you can take a look at it. --IJBall (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Erfurt Stadtbahn

As requested, I've had a look at your draft article. It seems pretty good to me, although I haven't yet reviewed it in detail. I'm a bit busy this week, but I will create a Bonn Stadtbahn article on either 30 or 31 May. In June-July, I'll be visiting Germany (and Europe) for the first time in nearly five years, and while I'm there, I'll be checking out some things of interest to me, eg trains and trams. After I return home, I'll have a closer look at all the Stadtbahn articles, with a view to improving them and setting them out in a more uniform format. In the meantime, your draft article looks like a good model to follow. Keep up the good work! Bahnfrend (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ridership

Hi IJBall!

I was just wondering, you've been doing a lot of work on List of Metro systems with notes and such, and I was just thinking it might be easier for you to add all the new things to the to be added chart with ridership on my or your sandbox page. That way, it won't be as much work when transferring all of the content.

ThanksStaglit (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the opposite, actually! - That I'd try to finish off the referencing before you try to tackle the "merge". In any case, I'll likely continue putting the final few ref's up at the existing List of metro systems. If a few of them get lost during the merge project, it'll be pretty easy for me to go back and restore them, after the fact... But thanks for thinking of me! --IJBall (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I guess i'll keep an eye out for your edits so I can add them to my new chart; I'm sure this will work out just fine, we can work out any kinks later if we have to. Staglit (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seoul metro

You reverted my edit and said that the issue regarding the "total" row "will be resolved". Well then where is the ongoing discussion on the talk page that is in the process of resolving this (with or without voting requested)? Ancient archive doesn't count - that is a past/resolved history AFAIK ongoing unresolved discussion is not archived - archiving is essentially ending the discussion and declaring consensus - there has to be something on the talk page). —Loginnigol (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not resolved yet - the contents of the "Totals" row has to be converted in to a note that will be attached to the systems operating in Seoul - that was what the consensus on the issue was. That will be done in the near future. Please don't come in and disrupt a consensus that took months to achieve. Just be patient, and the issue will be resolved, likely in the next week or two. --IJBall (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How am I "disrupting a consensus"? Theere's nothing on the talk page! You don't seem to understand others' point of view: if the talk page is empty then others cannot magically know that there is a yet-to-be-completed editing process going on. —Loginnigol (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Check the archives. This a years-long controversy about Seoul. This latest consensus is an attempt to resolve it. --IJBall (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, there is a 'Note' attached to that 'Totals' row that you deleted that explains exactly what its purpose is. --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, this was the "push" I needed - the 'Totals' row has now been converted to a 'Note' attached to Seoul's systems, and has been deleted from the table. Hopefully, this will satisfy your earlier concerns... --IJBall (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks! —Loginnigol (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Hey IJBall, an IP User (87.21.150.95) has just deleted everything on My Sandbox Page saying 'IT TOOK ME HALF AN HOUR TO CHANGE THE DATES TO FA STANDARD: FCK OFF. YOURE ON YOUR OWN') He had helped a lot with adding content, and I really have no clue what that means or what FA standard is, and what I did to upset him. Do you have any ideas?Staglit (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Staglit - the IP user started changing the 'accessdates' in the references from 'ISO' format to 'dmy' format, unprompted and without discussion. I reverted those changes because, 1) your project wasn't about messing with the references, and 2) it took me a long time to get the List of metro systems references into an acceptable WP:MOSDATE format, and I didn't want that changed without strong consensus to alter the changes I had made to those references over months.

As a result of that, I'm going to go leave a vandalism warning on the IP user's Talk page - if the IP user messes with your project again, we should definitely report it... --IJBall (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave a report if he does anything again, maybe he will come around. He just changed the system length on the Vienna Metro to Penis Length, so I imagine he won't.Staglit (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Metro Istanbul

Hi,

I hope you like this map in Istanbul Metro (Infobox) better. Premétro line T4 is in very light colour now (as the other tramway-lines). This map looks better and is more detailed than the "geo-map".

Kind regards (R1410 (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC))

Yes, I think that works much better than the original version (that I replaced with the 'geo-map'). My only quibble is that I don't like that the T4 line is as "thick" as the other Metro lines, rather than being the same ("thinner") thickness as the other tram lines on the map... but that is quite a minor complaint. One point though – I have seen no one refer to the T4 line as being "Premetro"; even the operator refers to the line as a "tramway", and they seem to consider it to be the same as the T1 line. For what it's worth... Thanks for working that new map up though - looks good! --IJBall (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Nanjing Metro Line S1

It's a metro line. Albeit more in tune with BART or the Berlin S-bahn, with its longer stop spacing the large reach out of the city. It is fully grade separated and isolated from the other rail services. It uses B type cars in 6 car formation; the same sizing and loading gauges of the Beijing Subway cars. Ninggao intercity railway (宁高城际轨道交通) seems to be a dated term, the media seems to always refer it as the Airport Line (机场线). The branding is very similar to the S-XX and U-XX dynamic you see in Berlin or the numbered urban lines and the named suburban lines in Beijing.Terramorphous (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I guess I have to accept that, even though the different branding bothers me. Last question - what are the peak headways on it?... --IJBall (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Final Switch

Hello - again.

I've noticed you finished on your ridership reference split, and other small edits, and I'm just wondering what else needs to be done exactly so I'm prepared for the move. Staglit (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Just one last thing: copy over the "Under construction" section to your Sandbox. Then I'll separate those references in to their own section (I think there's only two of them!). Once that is done, I think it is ready to be copy-and-pasted over the the List of metro systems, and then we are done!! :D --IJBall (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Trams in Rouen

Hello IJBall. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Trams in Rouen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I'm not at all clear why the Old Rouen article should go here, and not the new one, which would seem more sensible to me. The Instanbul article you linked to covers both old and new as far as I can see. Thank you. GedUK  11:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated that you added map, however...

While it was correct for you to change the map from the Russian version to the English version in the Timeline of the war in Donbass article, the article is a WP:LIST and it had already been established that it does not belong in a timeline article as it already exists in the main article (being War in Donbass). Please see the relevant section on the talk page if you feel that there are policy or guideline rationales for duplicating it on the timeline. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sao Paulo State elections & Sao Paulo Metro

Sorry, but what in God's name do the Sao Paulo State elections have to do with the new line 15 of the Sao Paulo subway, which had been inaugurated yesterday? I really didn't understand. And what kind of reference do you "approve"? Thank you. MarcosPassos (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The primary website for the Sao Paulo Metro is this one: [2] – lately, when one tries to access it, there's a message about the bulk of the website getting shut down for the state elections this year (today, I can't seem to access this website at all). Anyway, that website is where you used to be able to get a primary reference for total system length and total number of stations for the Sao Paulo Metro, but it's apparently down until after the elections are over this fall. To answer your question, you need a reference that quotes the new total system length and new total number of stations to be usable – a reference that simply says that two stations opened, without quoting that there are 67 stations in the system won't do, as that would represent a WP:SYNTH situation. But my general point is this – there is no pressing need for the List of metro systems to be up-to-the-minute accurate with its figures – if you can't find a reference like I outlined above, I wouldn't worry as one will likely became available with the new correct figures in just a couple of months. This Sao Paulo situation, and the lack of easy references for the new figures, is not unique and has happened at the List of metro systems before (and will surely happen again, down the road). --IJBall (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

One more thing – it would seem that Line 15 is a monorail. If so, it won't be included in the List of metro system article's figures anyway: we don't count monorails in with our figures there (see, for example: Kuala Lumpur Rapid Rail entry). --IJBall (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your well-detailed answer. All points taken. I just disagree that we wouldn't "need for the list to be 'up-to-the-minute' accurate with its figures". We are in the internet age, so we do need very fast updates, hehe. Cheers! MarcosPassos (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency (2011–present)

I haven't blocked FutureTrillionaire this time but I have reminded him of the 1RR per 24 hours restriction and thought you might have forgotten it also. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, good point. --IJBall (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

http://www.uitp.org

Hello ! I have put http://www.uitp.org to the noteboard https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN. I don't think such membership associations can be used as reliable sources. And I thought we had established S-Bahn in Berlin, Hamburg and Copenhagen as metro. Please respond at the noteboard. Boeing720 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cook Partisan Voting Index

With all due respect, my last edits removing the “Party of Governor” and “House balance” columns were perfectly consistent with your very own argument to me: that all information in each of these columns was already available at-a-glance in the Political party strength in U.S. states page, which I had not previously visited. Never mind, though, because I won’t be wasting any more time editing this page. For the record, a mere handful of people opposing my actions does not amount to “consensus strongly disagree[ing]” with me. Derekgts (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that wasn't the argument at all. The point was that readers at the Cook Partisan Voting Index want simple information – namely: based on the state's CPVI, what party does the governor of that state belong to, are both Senators from that state from the same party or is the Senate delegation "split", and what is the make up that state's Congressional delegation? Your edit to split the Senate column in to two to show the "Senior" and "Junior" Senator actually made it harder to pick out the details about a particular state's Senate delegation, which is why two editors (myself included) reverted it. So, the overall point was that your particular edit made the table harder to read AND also that that level of detail basically wasn't appropriate to an article like Cook Partisan Voting Index and was redundant information with information that could already be found at the Political party strength in U.S. states article where the level of detail that you wanted was appropriate.

The thing to remember when editing Wikipedia is that some of your edits, no matter how much effort you put in to them, may not get consensus support, no matter how much you personally think they improve an article, and not to take it personally when that happens, as you seemed to here. But I appreciate you taking the time to post here, as that was all I really wanted in the first place when you reverted the second time was a discussion about why these edits probably weren't the best way to go here... --IJBall (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Louroujina

1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG quite clearly states that flag icons are permitted in settlement infoboxes for the country and top-level administrative division.
2. See here.

213.7.22.7 (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a question into the Talk page of WP:INFOBOXFLAG about this – the first two paragraphs make of INFOBOXFLAG it quite clear that flags should pretty much never be used in Infoboxes. Paragraphs #3 & #4 delineate a few exceptions to when they can be used. The first sentence of Paragraph #5, which you are quoting, appears to completely contradict the first two paragraphs of the policy. In general, many city articles on en Wikipedia do not use flags in the Infobox, so I'd like more clarification on this. Let's see if there's any response at MOS:ICONS Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but the flags are used across all of these articles. Would it not be better to keep them until that point is clarified? 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that the flags as they were used at the Louroujina article Infobox "add value" (and they were used there in such a way that I've seen reverted at other similar articles), so I really don't think they're necessary there. But whatever is said at the MOS:ICONS Talk page will hopefully clarify the issue... --IJBall (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say they help in (re)cognition. I don't know if that's a good argument for having them there. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I've seen flag icons used all over the place, e.g. in language infoboxes (list of countries where the language is official), see e.g. German language. It seems this guideline is followed rather loosely or selectively. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

A year and a half ago, you mentioned the possibility of nominating Politics of light rail in North America for deletion (well redirection back to main article). Since then you have made some small additions to the article. Still, I think merge, redirection or deletion are in order. Do you still agree with redirecting this back to Light rail in North America? Geo Swan (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd still support a merge (of the referenced material at Politics of light rail in North America – the unreferenced material should just be cut). But now that the Politics of light rail in North America article has been substantially trimmed, I'd no longer have an objection to merging it back to Light rail in North America . So I think it's time to start a new Talk page topic on the merge proposal (I guess that would require updating the 'date' parameter on the 'merge' tag....) – this time, I'd support such a merge. --IJBall (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)