User talk:Useddenim/Archive 8

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stnlnk deprecated?

Hi, why are you claiming that {{stnlnk}} is deprecated? I know of no such deprecation - and I'm even more puzzled why you are replacing it with {{rws}} which is no more than a redirect to {{stnlnk}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look. It was the mid-spelt {{Sttnlnk}} (note the extra 't'.) And once I started, I just standardised everything. If you prefer {{Stnlnk}} to the more prevalent {{Rws}}, that's fine by me. Useddenim (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{Sttnlnk}} is also a redirect to {{stnlnk}}. Where is this deprecation noted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? As of 22 February, there were 4,671 articles using {{Stnlnk}}, 7,032 using {{rws}}, and one using {{Sttnlnk}} (plus one sandbox). (In fact, {{Rly stn}} should probably go, too.) Do you object to a TfD? Useddenim (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to claim that something is deprecated, you must be able to point to the place where such deprecation has been publicised. Otherwise, you're simply inventing it for your own convenience. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wey and Godalming Navigations map

Thanks for the clean up, I was painfully working my way through the coding! One thing that puzzled me was that {{UK road|A3}} produced a small icon where {{UK road|A25}} produced a larger one, what am I missing? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure; I'm still trying to nail down that glitch. In the mean time, you can adjust the size by adding the |size= parameter to {{UK road}}. Useddenim (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, one of those! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But bear in mind MOS:TEXTASIMAGES which suggests that you should not be using images in the text desacriptions. Bazza (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7: At one point {{UK road}} generated formatted text (as it still does for B roads), but there were some who complained that the black and white (vs. yellow/green) A roads weren't shown correctly. Short of creating an enormous exception table, are there any tools that can analyze the colour(s) of an image? Useddenim (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I know very little about WP tools. It is certainly possible to analyse images on a server to work out dominant colours (and I have done this on PHP-driven servers); and the same can be done via javascript on newer browsers. I've no experience of WP tools which might let this happen as they are mostly magic to me. In the meantime, though, I would suggest that UK roads is changed to conform with the MOS instruction by always outputting text (coloured if necessary blue/white for Mn or An(M) roads, green/yellow for An and white/black for Bn (as at present), even if those colours are, at the moment, strictly incorrect; personally I'd prefer just plain text — it's a label and needs no decoration). Bazza (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript to complicate matters, it needs to be remembered that the primary route network (to which green signs apply) is overlaid on the system of road numbering and primary routes often do not correspond to a single numbered route: an A-road can therefore gain and lose primary status (and therefore its green colouring) several times along its route.[1] Bazza (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you use {{UK road|A3}} and {{UK road|A25}} with no other parameters, the images (c:File:UK road A3.svg and c:File:UK road A25.PNG) are drawn to a common height of 12px. Since the "natural" size of the former is 960 by 645 pixels, and the "natural" size of the latter is 568 by 184, the displayed widths are going to be (960 * 12 / 645) = 18 and (568 * 12 / 184) = 37. The A3 icon has a white border with noticeably rounded corners, the padding between the border and the yellow lettering is fairly constant on all four sides. By contrast, the A25 icon has no border; the corners are rounded to a somewhat smaller radius, and the padding to left and right is much wider than the top and bottom padding. Perhaps c:File:UK road A25.PNG should be redrawn. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have solved the original problem. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MATA Trolley Main Street Line RDT

I have the utmost respect for your way greater expertise in this field, however I still feel that in this case the combined use of “interruption” (L) and “continuation” (CONT) icons would be inappropriate, redundant and somewhat confusing for readers because, in fact, the two symbols would carry the same “message”. I think we should adopt a consistent notation, using:

or “continuation” icons only, i.e. the Riverfront Loop line continues beyond North End Terminal stop making a u-turn on the left + the Riverfront Loop line continues from behind Butler stop making a u-turn from the left;
or “interruption fade” icons only, i.e. the Riverfront Loop line drawing is interrupted between North End Terminal and Butler stops.

In my last edit (which you modified) I tried to follow the first option, admittedly in a rather convoluted way due the lacking of appropriate symbols (above all, in the dovetail “continuation from” group), but after some thought I convinced myself that in this case the second option is the best; therefore, I drew and uploaded these two appropriate “interruption fade” icons - (u3LSTRaq-) and (u-3LSTRaq) - choosing the intermediate section of 3-column curve in order to have a more compact diagram. Being my first attempt at uploading images to Wikimedia Commons as well as creating BSicons, I would be grateful if you could kindly check them out. Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reasonable solution. Useddenim (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yak79 2.0 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Island Main Trunk

I've looked more carefully at what you did at the above article and realised you replaced the full text of the route map with the template. I don't feel the need to apologise for reverting you, as it was not clear on a small cellphone screen what you did. This 2RR could have been avoided if you had provided an edit summary, but like many lazy editors, you didn't. Akld guy (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: I'm not going to throw aspersions at you (even though you richly deserve it), but if you ACTUALLY BOTHERED CHECKING THE EDIT, you would see there is an edit summary (namely “RDT”). By your own admission, you didn't actually look at the article, but apparently merely looked at your Watchlist and thought “Vandalism!”. This 2RR could have been avoided if you had paid attention to what you do. Useddenim (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I viewed the diff while on cellphone while out for the day. I watch all New Zealand railway articles, being a frequent traveller, and was aware that there was no NIMT template. After seeing a 3.7 kB deletion, I checked your User page and saw that you're Canadian. It seemed unlikely that a Canadian would create a template, so I reverted. Yes, I could have checked whether a new template existed, but that would have involved typing or copy-pasting the name,→ an awkward process on cellphone. If you had provided a more informative edit summary, such as: Created new template, replacing content, I would have assumed good faith and spent more time checking than I was prepared to do under the circumstances. Your laziness = stretching AGF and obliging others to work harder. Akld guy (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akld guy: Now you're just trying to justify your rudeness. Also, get your facts straight: I'm American (not that that has anything to do with ones' competency as an editor – I'm not going to assume that all Kiwis are jerks based on your behaviour). Useddenim (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it's obvious who's lazy (or have you just not figured it out?): 1) Look at diff; 2) tap article name to see latest revision. Less trouble than cyberstalking. Useddenim (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your User page clearly identifies you as Canadian. Whether you're an American living there is unimportant. Strawman argument about your nationality. I made no ad hominem attack about that, merely pointing out that I thought it was unlikely that a non New Zealander would go to the trouble of creating a template. Your response accusing me of racism and cyberstalking is grounds for a complaint at WP:ANI. Akld guy (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've wasted more time with your pettiness than it would have taken to actually check the edit in the first place. Don't be so thin-skinned. I doubt an ANI would go anywhere. Useddenim (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. Do you read anything carefully?My user page says I use Canadian English – as a compromise between the British and American editors I interact with. Nowhere do I state my nationality. Useddenim (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Thameslink

I was noticing the Thameslink template is a bit odd. In the north it has all the branching lines, including freight-only ones, while in the south it has some on the south-eastern side (but not all, for instance it's missing St Mary Cray area jct) and none on the Brighton side. The Sutton Loop is presented as entirely isolated from the rest of the network. Also Ashwell & Morden is omitted from the Cambridge branch, but this may be intentional if TL trains don't stop there. Though technically they don't stop at Hornsey either (GN) but that's listed. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it; I just cleaned it up some. Useddenim (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template : Chester & Connah's Quay Railway

This template was very recently shown as being edited on 22 May 2018 at 11:21. Some glitch has appeared as when you now choose "download as a PDF" and print it out, there are multiple blank lines breaking up the sequence of the printed information.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS and Jc86035: Do you think you guys might have had something to do with this? Useddenim (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit on 22 May 2018 at 11:21 (UTC) replaced File:BSicon lHSTfq.svg with File:BSicon lHST~L.svg and File:BSicon lHSTgq.svg with File:BSicon lHST~R.svg. Since that merely replaced redirects with the actual filenames, there's no way that it could alter the output. So the problem must have arisen elsewhere. As I've only been working in the Module:Routemap/sandbox, and that is not used in Template:Chester & Connah's Quay Railway, I can't see a mechanism for the sandbox to affect it. Perhaps Jc86035 can see in the template info] where one of the 21 transcluded templates might be causing the effect? --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher, RexxS, and Useddenim: As usual, converting to {{Routemap}} seems to help. {{BS-table}} hasn't been actively maintained for about seven years now, and using it at all is probably a mistake.

I have an AWB configuration based on Module:Routemap's convertbs function which can mass-convert these to {{Routemap}}, but what happened when I tried it out was that almost every edit had to be to be checked manually to add |navbar pos=2, fix includeonly tags, or do some other thing like removing {{Infobox RDT}} from the article the diagram was used in. A lot of old diagrams also have semantically incorrect or outdated diagram code (e.g. line continuations without continuation arrows). Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template : Brecon and Merthyr Railway

I have a request that both the former and now closed Brecon and Merthyr Railway station of Pant now be shown on this template in addition to the Pant station (shown on the blue line) that is the current one of the Brecon Mountain Railway, as both are in completely different locations.

There is a precedent for this request as on the Template : Ruabon to Barmouth Line, both the original and now closed station of Corwen is already shown on the template in addition to the new heritage station in the town, which too are in completely different locations.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Useddenim (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amtrak Shuttle

Hi Useddenim! I was wondering if you could help me out with the Amtrak Shuttle template. I was trying to fix the track heading into Springfield, MA by replacing ABZql+l with KBZql+l, but that doesn't exist. KBZ+l works, but I need the other curve in the top right corner. You could take a look at the station layout template to get an idea of what I mean. Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daybeers: I've edited the junction to use

(KRZl+l). Is this what you intended? Jc86035's alternate account (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035 (1): Yes, thank you! –Daybeers (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035 (1): Could one of you help me add New Haven State Street station to the template? It might be good to use {{BSsplit}} like is used on {{Hartford Line}}. It's located at milepost 61.4. If possible, could the continuing arrow for the NEC northeast to Boston also be corrected, as the track actually goes east after this line splits from it? Maybe make it turn so it's pointing 90 degrees east? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Useddenim (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wansbeck Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Eastern Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Route Diagrams

I've noted some that were showing up as containing "fostered content" mostly as they use a deprecated template. As you have experience with the relevant conversion process would you be willing to take a look at them?

I converted the Yellow Line over already but would appreciate a second glance..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation and route-templates

I appreciate the work you are doing at the route-templates. But I am less thrilled by the many links to disambiguation pages you create in the process. Could you pay more attention to the links to disambiguation pages and solve them yourself? Thanks in advance. The Banner talk 13:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Sorry; that's what happens when I come in and edit to cool off after working too long in the hot sun. Useddenim (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The same issue was there mid-winter... The Banner talk 22:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbitten fingers? Let's just chalk it up to editing when tired. Useddenim (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template Talk : York and North Midland Railway

I have made two entries upon this page in past years and I would like you to look at them and let me have your thoughts upon the matter, please.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Template talk:York and North Midland Railway. Useddenim (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:sfms

What makes you choose to use {{sfms}} versus {{MUNI stations}}? I find that the name of the latter makes it more clear what it's for - especially in the already confusing environment of editing an RDT - and it's not really a situation where saving a few characters means much. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compactness. And I don't understand why you went and changed all of the the {{stn}} and {{rws}} templates to {{MUNI stations}} in the first place. Useddenim (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{MUNI stations}} means that the links are always correct - as soon as the backend template is corrected for a page move or other change, all the links and link text are corrected. {{stn}} and {{rws}}, as blind templates that don't use a backend, don't provide any real advantage over raw wikilinks except for compactness. As I said, a few fewer characters of text is not an advantage when it makes editing more confusing, especially for those just learning to edit RDTs. Why is compactness so important to you? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neatness;
In complex templates (particulary when there are many {{rail-interchange}}s and other items) it's easy to lose part of a row when it spans more than one line. Reason enough? Useddenim (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I agree with Pi here: using templates that have defined links rather than the generic "xxx station" is much better, especially when you're talking about an RDT. Maybe to clear up the confusion, {{sfms}} could be moved to something like {{munis}}? Much like the templates I created, {{cdots}} for {{CDOT stations}} and {{lirrs}} for {{LIRR stations}}. –Daybeers (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daybeers: Sounds reasonable; maybe we should write a guideline for the naming of the short-form template shortcuts? Useddenim (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lest you think I'm all criticism: I'm very impressed by your work on the downtown section of J Church. Is there any chance you could repeat that magic on the K, L, M, N, S, and T templates (which all have rather different versions of that downtown area) when you have a bit of time? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color/colour for TTC

Just realizing we are probably annoying RHaworth by debating the matter on his Talk page... should we maybe take the discussion to Template talk:TTC colo(u)r? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixed revision by DuncanHill"

Well that's one way of telling people that I corrected a bad link that you appear to have introduced. By the way, why not use that template for the link to Bradford Interchange? Or is it only when I use a normal link to a station that it needs to be fixed? DuncanHill (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill: I assume your artless comment refers to {{Queensbury Lines}}? Also, please note that [[Bradford Exchange railway station)]] and [[Bradford Interchange railway station)]] both redirect to Bradford Interchange. Useddenim (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I am aware they both redirect to the same place. I fixed a bad link - Bradford Exchange which isn't a railway station, and isn't in Bradford. You decided to call me out by name in your edit summary for no good reason. You "fixed" a link I introduced, and didn't "fix" another, and call out whoever introduced that one. Next time try "use obscure template for link, instead of perfectly good ordinary wikilink" instead. DuncanHill (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you make changes to Route Diagram Templates maybe what, two, three times a year? and you want special dispensation from following standard format? {{rws}}/{{stnlnk}} is transcluded hundreds of thousands of times on approximately 20,000 pages, so it's hardly an “obscure template”. And then you have the temerity to criticize how I manage my own talk page?!?

Did I introduce an error in a hasty edit? yes. Did I write an accurate edit summary? yes. Was there any malice or intent to denigrate you? apparently in your opinion. Are you being too thin-skinned about this? yes. Should this just simply be left to rest? YES. Useddenim (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag me in the first place? If you felt my attention needed to be drawn to something you should have used my talk page. Why did you even name me in the edit summary anyway? And finally, please do not tag me in edit summaries again (or find any other way of forcing notifications upon me), I find it extremely unhelpful. I have a watchlist, and I can read. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was done as a courtesy – a concept you don’t seem to be willing to extend to others – otherwise you would have simply received an automated notice that your edit had been reverted.

I have a talk page, too, and from hereon in I would prefer that you stay off it. Useddenim (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thessaloniki Metro

Hello, thanks for cleaning up Template:Thessaloniki Metro Phases 1 and 2. Think you can also sort out the code in the development plan version, at Template:Thessaloniki Metro? Thanks in advance and keep up the good work! --Philly boy92 (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating it. I've noticed that you have created Template:Dimokratias–Nea Krini - why is that? I don't think it needs its own template, it is a very arbitrary cut to the network. If you feel like correcting more templates, there is also Template:Thessaloniki Metro Line 1 and Template:Thessaloniki Metro Line 2. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The line segment templates ({{Dimokratias–25 Martiou}} and {{Dimokratias–Nea Krini}}) contain code that is common to the other four Route Diagram Templates. As the system is opened, only one template will need to be edited, and the others will update automatically. (The BART system makes extensive use of this sort of line segment sub-templates.) Useddenim (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks. Could you add the two extensions branching off the western loop, shown on the official map (1 unnamed station, Efkarpia and Nos. Papageorgiou on the other one). Also, any way we can make the map centred on the infobox? When they get put into the infoboxes of the articles for Line 1 and Line 2, the map is justified to the left and it looks weird. It might interest you to know that the Thessaloniki Metro article was made a B-class article today (up from start-class). --Michail (blah) 05:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Useddenim (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing all that and merging the template with rint; I think you missed a } at the end of the airport tag though (on the alt parameter), and it's giving an error. If you put {{rint|thessaloniki|a}} it gives

. It's fine, but on the Template:Thessaloniki Metro it breaks up the code. If you hover over the icon I've put here, it gives the same message as it gives on the template. I'd fix it myself, but the template is protected. I'm temporarily removing it from the template until it's fixed. Cheers! --Michail (blah) 07:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also made an SVG icon for Proastiakos Thessaloniki, could you put another parameter in the rint|thessaloniki section so that when you put pr it gives

([[file:Proastiakos icon (no text).svg|30px|link=Proastiakos Thessaloniki]])? Sorry for all the requests. --Michail (blah) 15:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Useddenim (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template rwsa

Thank you for the advice about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Oceanian stations). I have been maintaining stations in Sydney Australia and some in Melbourne for a few years now and was not aware of this page. It raises an issue about the use of template rwsa which I used in an update of a location in Sydney last week and which was reverted on the basis that rwsa should only be used within the body of other templates and not in the body of articles. The change was urgent so I redid it just using wikilinks. But I do question it as the page you referred to, implies to me that templates such as rwsa can be used anywhere. Any comments?Fleet Lists (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have a problems with {{RwsA}} being using in body text, as that's one of the things that templates are for: to simplify the entering of repetitive information. However, as you noted, some editors are opposed to using them outside of Route Diagram Templates, Infoboxes or {{S-line}} templates. All I can suggest is that you engage the critics one on one, and try and change their opinions. Useddenim (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Route maps

I find that you have been doing great work in improving railway route maps, and I believe that you are familiar with these. You had worked on the Asansol–Tatanagar–Kharagpur line yesterday. Now I find that although on the template page everything is fine, the text page has a jumbled up look. The problem is same with two other pages - Howrah-Bardhaman main line and Sealdah South lines. Yesterday, I had removed the railway route template from the text page of Sealdah South lines. You may please place it back, when you work on it. Please help in getting these text pages in order. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll have to look into it after work this evening. Useddenim (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting right the templates. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taff Vale Railway

Between Abercynon South and Pontypridd, the template line curves to the left. Between those two stations lay Berw Road Halt (Opened 1904, Closed 1906) which is not shown on the line template, but because my computer skills are miniscule compared to yours, with the template as it currently stands, I wonder if you could be so kind as to add that halt to the template.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophon Philosopher:

Done. Now it remains for you to write the article about the Berw Road Halt railway station. Useddenim (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rhymney Railway

Near the top of the template, below Dowlais Cae Harris, there is shown the station of Incline Top, which seems somewhat strange, as when you click on the station name, you are taken to the article on that short-lived station (1846-1858) which says it was situated on the original section of the Taff Vale Railway between the stations of Abercynon and Quakers Yard.

Should this station be removed from this template?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done: replaced with an incline. Useddenim (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brecon and Merthyr Railway

Having been researching the area of this line south of Bargoed, there appears to be two colliery halts that do not appear on the line template, but I am unsure as to the possibility of including these upon the line template without prior approval of a far more learned personage as yourself, so I submit both of these halts with details below:-

After Aberbargoed, comes Bargoed Colliery Halt which was open from 1926 until closure in 1962

After Maesycwymmer, comes Llanbradach Colliery Halt which was open from 1928 until closure around 1948

Neither of these two collieries appear on the line template, as some do on other lines, plus there is also the query (one that I have not yet solved) as whether or not these two halts were on the main running line of the Brecon and Merthyr Railway or on the actual line that branched off into the collieries.

The computer useage on the "edit" section of this in the area of query seems far too complicated for me to follow.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Useddenim (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Züm 501 502

Template:Züm 501 502 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rigi Railways

Thanks for that. I have been on both Rigi Railways (25 years) and I assumed it was metre gauge without checking. I will also fix the southern end of the Base Tunnel connection when I can get around to it.--Grahame (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PA

This edit may be perceived as a WP:PA. If you want to dispute the quality of certain edits, there are other, more helpful ways to raise it. At least leave out the PA and describe the actual point not a generic yell. Also, you can use that post to explain why you have that on your mind six years after. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Useddenim. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Line and East West Rail RDTs

moved to Template talk:Varsity Line RDT 03:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Burry Port and Gwendraeth Valley Railway

Can I ask you to be yet another person to assist on a matter, having proved your worth time and time again to me over the years.

I need you to look at the Talk Page of WereSpielCheckers where I raised a query about a certain matter and I originally had responses from two sources. but since then I have made a further addition to the same Talk Page query where the External Sources of the Wikipedia article on this railway does contain some interesting matter. What thoughts do you have on the matter and does any part of the Wikipedia article need updating?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma City Streetcar‎

Hi Useddenim, I see you partly reverted my edit at Template:Oklahoma City Streetcar‎, undoing all the "geometry" changes I did. Could you please explain what's wrong in these changes? As far as I know, there are no predeterminded guidelines about how routemap diagrams should be shaped (indeed, I'm sure there aren't, give how different are to each other - for example - the ones of the U.S. streetcar systems). Sincerely Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you go back and look at Mjdestroyerofworlds’ original version of the diagram, you can see that he made a credible (but very space-consuming) copy of the actual street layout. I took out the 90° turn and straightened out the “L” to reduce the amount of white space, while still trying to retain as much of the previous character as possible. IMHO, your version with the shifts and wider turns loses the sense that this is a route that follows city streets. I hope that my reasoning makes sense to you. Useddenim (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, you seem peculiarly picky about what geometry you wish to retain, and that which you want to make wacky. like depicting the Template:Muni Metro with a crooked Market Street Subway. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: Is it better now? Useddenim (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Useddenim, after seeing that older version I got your point; I really appreciate Mjdestroyerofworlds’ efforts - and your attempt to adapt it is noteworthy, too - but I think being "geographically-accurate" is beyond the scope of routemaps, besides being impossible for a scheme that is, basically, one-dimensional; as long as the topology of the route is respected, the simpler and the smoother the diagram is, the better. In truth, I'd go for an even more radical linearization than I did in my edit, but I "restrained" myself out of respect for the fellow editors who created and developed the template. Anyway, in the current version you restored there are some things that are wrong even assuming the "street layout" approach (e.g. Midtown and NW 10th Street stops lie aligned on the same street).

Mjdestroyerofworlds: at least in this OKC Streetcar case, he was completely right in reshaping your version - which was overly-accurate, space-consuming and contained actual mistakes (more than a stop/station in the same row) - but his attempt to retain as much of the previous character as possible has been, IMHO, a bit to much detrimental to the graphical cleanliness. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, Yak79 2.0; how’s this: back to your geometry, but with “squared-up” corners? Useddenim (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine arrangement (by the way, I think also that your last version of Muni Metro it's good). Thanks for your always committed work in this field of Wikipedia! Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec18a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

Ϣere SpielChequers 13:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad templates with new wikilinks

Please could you cast an expert eye over 209.155.29.2's recent edits? A good example is {{New York & Greenwood Lake (Erie Railroad)}}. The IP added wikilinks in good faith but many of them lead to (or have been correctly disambiguated to) settlements rather than stations, and we may prefer to leave that text black. There are also mistakes: the line certainly doesn't go to Soho! Thanks, Certes (talk) 13:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to simply do a mass rollback, but I've been reverting them one by one. I don't know why they targeted RDTs, but it seems to be a case of indiscriminately (red)linking anything that didn't move… Feel free to jump in and join the party. Useddenim (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I've rolled one or two back but generally have tidied up instead where possible. Clearly it's an experienced editor, as they've attempted to use {{BS}}, but not quite experienced enough… I'm busy now but will look at the rest later today. Certes (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've sorted out most of them now. I left a few that appear helpful or at least not damaging. Please can you look at {{NJT stations navbox}}? The new additions seem to be for relevant stations but they don't have articles, so I'm not sure that they belong in a navbox. Thanks, Certes (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Branch Railway

I have just printed out the four A4 pages of this article to pass on to a colleague who was interested in reading about it. However, the line template on the first page, whilst looking fine on viewing the article, prints out with white spaces between each line. Could you be so kind as to investigate and see what you achieve on a print-out. I recall that a couple of other artcles had this same problem over a year ago, so if it needs amending, can you oblige?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cairngorm Mountain Railway

I see you revised the Template: Cairngorm Mountain Railway for the route map.

It displays fine as a Template page, but if you look at the Wikipedia page for CMR, you should see the template is not working at all.

Regards,

Hugh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughwicket (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Useddenim (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Streetcar

Hi! Many thanks for sorting out the excessive white-spacing at Template:Cincinnati Streetcar. I have one little question, however. Why is it thought necessary to indicate the Fort Washington Way route numbers twice, belt-and-braces-style? Especially since the "belt" (the little shield images) appear to be little more than ornaments: it is only the "braces" (the spelt-out route numbers) that are of any clickable use. So why not eliminate the reduplication, retaining the more directly useful part of the display? -- Picapica (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Picapica: The route shield icons come along with the {{Jct}} template. “Fort Washington Way” may be better known locally, but Interstate/US Route numbers are generally more recognizable; however, the diagram would be too wide if both were on the same side. And yes, the icons should have clickable links. Unfortunately, as savvy as I am with templates, I don’t know Lua programming to be able to make that fix. Hope this clears thing up. Useddenim (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the speedy explanation, Useddenim. However, it does provoke the further question: why use the {{Jct}} (highway-relevant) template at all in a rail-related diagram? Especially since no road junctions are involved! -- Picapica (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Standardized format; and
A few years ago some roads editors went on a binge and changed bare links, so why fight it? Useddenim (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Routemap template in infoboxes

Hello Useddenim, I'd be interested to know your thoughts on a matter: I'm currently working on the "routemap" diagram for Danhai light rail system, and I'm wondering whether to put it directly on the article's infobox (as I've done in my sandbox) or to create a new, specific template (to be used in the infobox, as in OKC Streetcar's and other cases). Which choice do you think it'd be better? As far as you know, is there a rule/guideline for such a situation? Best regards, Yak79 2.0 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, so it's up to your personal preference in most cases. However, it's better for diagrams to be stand-alone templates when they are either very wide, or used on more than one page. I hope this helps. Useddenim (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami route maps

I inadvertently reverted your edits that moved the line designations from before to after the station names on the Metromover and Metrorail maps. Wondering if you think it's best to move the colors back to the left side of the station names? I think it's easier to read them when there aren't little boxes in between the station names and the route diagram itself, but not necessarily sold on that. — C16SH (speak up) 22:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to have them all line up neatly, which also matches the key at the bottom. Useddenim (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DART lines

Hello. Please can you enhance the "dart" section of {{Rail-interchange}} to link to Green Line (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) etc. even when parameter 3 is not 1? Test case: the coloured boxes on {{DART light rail}} currently link to dabs Green line etc. Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for catching that oversight. Useddenim (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Howrah–Kharagpur line

Hello Useddenim. I require your help in fixing the alignment of the collapsible section of the template Howrah-Kharagpur line. Issue is that the lines near Kharagpur were not correct as several flyovers were missing. Now I used your edit in Template:Asansol–Tatanagar–Kharagpur line to bring the collapsible section from Kalaikunda to Kharagpur and made minor change to the positioning of the continuation route of Kharagpur-Bankura-Adra line but I am not able to fix the alignment and I am messing up the curves as I really suck at using the new template format. I have not reverted my changes however but I would really appreciate if you can help by correcting those alignment issues. Thanks! GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I missed my comment in the talk page. Many thanks to you for helping fix the issue. Thanks! GoldenDragon2293Return

NYS&W

With regard to Template:NYSW (passenger 1939-1966) map, there is an error which you be able to correct. The Edgewater Branch does indeed do a 'jug handle' over the main line, but the symbol shows that correctly. AND, incorrectly, it shows the branch line diverting & going off to the south (or right), which is not the case. Thanks for your help. Djflem (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:

Done (correctly, I hope!) Useddenim (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Djflem (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Hiwilms. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Central Terminal, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hiwilms (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues in all Routemap templates

Hello Useddenim. I observed this message "‹ The template below (Routemap) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›" in almost all Routemap templates in Wikipedia. Chandan Guha made me aware of this. I tried to fix it but was unsuccessful. It seems to be a Wikipedia issue. Can you please have a look at it ? Thanks! GoldenDragon2293Return —Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed: it actually applies to {{BS-table3}}. Useddenim (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superb! Glad to know. Thanks! GoldenDragon2293Return —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Busway, Auckland

I have reverted the edit you made to the above article. I understand that Routemap is preferred over the deprecated BS-3 template, but your edit completely misrepresented the situation at Panmure station. Until we can figure out how to show it as a connected walkway, I prefer that you leave it alone. Akld guy (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are different modes (busway and railway) it is not necessary to actually show the rail line; an interchange icon

(exKINTa) is sufficient. (Service icons—{{Rail-interchange|rail}}

—are optional.) Useddenim (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's all I wanted. Akld guy (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Auckland Line

At this template you have not correctly shown the situation at Penrose station. It currently shows the Onehunga Branch tracks splitting off the mainline south of Penrose. The correct situation is that they branch off north of Penrose to a side platform just to the west of Penrose's main platform. There is an overhead walkway between the two platforms. Would you kindly fix this. The original route showed it correctly. Akld guy (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that a few hundred metres makes much difference on a line that is just shy of 300 km long… (but changed anyways). Useddenim (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your dismissive attitude, because it was clearly shown wrong. Thank you anyway. Akld guy (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to put it into context. If you were to look at a topo map of the entire line, the junction would represent approximately one one-thousandth of the route. Is it really necessary to show that level of detail? Useddenim (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. Akld guy (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections? I agree. Useddenim (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template : Calderdale Lines

On the line that shows the Halifax High Level railway branch line, an entry for Wheatley is shown. My records show that this short-lived line only ever had the two stations of Pellon and of Halifax St Pauls, so can I request the removal of the Wheatley entry on this template.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Altho' is it possible that Wheatley belongs on another line?) Useddenim (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Amtrak

Template:Amtrak has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culvert icon

Hi. I want to add a culvert icon to a Routemap, but cannot find any list of icons. Is there an icon that depicts either a dry culvert or muddy/low flow culvert? Akld guy (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for

(BRÜCKE1) or

(BRÜCKE2). If you want, you could overlay it onto

(LWASSERq) to create the equivalents of

(WBRÜCKE1L) and

(WBRÜCKE2L). The list of icons is at Commons:BSicon/Catalogue. Useddenim (talk) 12:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that list of icons.

(BRÜCKE2) is listed as culvert so I have used that one. These culverts are dry (well, they are right now in summer, and I think they're only a trickle in winter) so the water overlays aren't appropriate. Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gautrain route diagram

Hello
You recently reverted an edit I made here; I've opened a discussion there if you care to comment. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeovil-Taunton line Wikipedia article

Within the body of this article, there is included a line template that is headed Yeovil to Taunton Line. After the entries for both Yeovil Town and Yeovil Hendford, there is an omission that I would like to be corrected, which is the addition of Hendford Halt which was opened by the GWR in 1932 and remained open until 1964.

Because the computer skills needed to achieve this are way above my knowledge and not wishing to spoil the existing line template, I beg your forebearance in requesting that you be so kind as to make the required addition, especially with regards to the numerous white spaces that are shown on this template between station entries when you try to print out the article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Useddenim (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:BSO

Template:BSO has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Brescia Metro

Template:Brescia 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. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Routemaps

Hi useddenim! You seem to be an expert on the routemap template, and I am very new to it. Is there a definitive style guide on how they should look? I don't want you to keep having to revert my edits, but at the same time, I'm pretty sure most of the changes I've made are mostly standard, like connection icons being right-aligned. I'm new to this and have a lot to learn, but I want to make sure my contributions are helpful. Rivkid007 (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivkid007: There isn't, but there should be. I've started putting things together at User:Useddenim/RDT MOS, but it is very rough. (I need to remember where all the snippets of discussions are that have accumulated over the years.) Useddenim (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Okay. It seems that even within systems, there are lots of differences between different lines. I do like to keep icons aligned though- is that problematic?Rivkid007 (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. For UK diagrams they are invariably adjacent to station names. Although it does look neater to have all the icons aligned in a column, when the text area is too wide or there a only a few icons on a long diagram they look “lost” when off to the side. And just to complicate things, on some diagrams the

symbol appears in its own colmn between the route and the names. I generally go with what looks “right” to me. Useddenim (talk)

Boulogne-Calais RDT

Can you please tweak the {{Boulogne-Calais RDT}} to show a disused halt at Calais St Pierre on the main line. No interchange as the two stations were open at different times. Mjroots (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{Lille-Fontinettes RDT}} needs the same edit. Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done & done. Useddenim (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biddulph Valley Line

moved to Talk:Biddulph Valley line (where it properly belongs). Useddenim (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:London-railway-routemap

Template:London-railway-routemap has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Island District

Hi! You undid my edit to the Metra Rock Island District routemap template. The way I arranged the names of the stations is the same as it is displayed on (only the part before the dash is listed on timetables. The long names cause the template to be unnecessarily wide. It seems that many Metra station pages are also mis-titled, as the names used on Wikipedia often vary from those used by Metra. I'm not the most experienced editor and I don't want to go around moving pages, but it seems that such a review is necessary.

Also, unrelated, I posted an edit request a while back in {{Rint}} but part of my request was something that I don't have the knowledge to achieve, which is to be able to toggle the word "line" or the full spelling of the names of Metra lines when using the template. Is this something you can help with? Thanks! Rivkid007 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. See WP:COMMONNAME and I-don't-know-how-many page move discussions about why we don't necessarily use station signage as article titles. (Think about how many Union Stations there are, for example.) Also, I'm not sure how you think that the station names overlapping onto each other is an improvement.

Yes it is; I have Template editor privileges. There are a couple of other cities that that change could/should be applied to, but the coding is rather complex and I haven't got the time to take care of it just yet.

And an unrelated reminder: italics is used for connecting lines on RDTs, so please don't remove any more of them. Useddenim (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info about the italics, I didn't know that. As for the station names, the WP:COMMONNAME certainly isn't the long form name of every single station. Someone traveling on the Rock Island District line would say they are riding to 115th Street, not 115th Street - Morgan Park.

The text overlap did not show up on the diagram on my end- it rendered properly. Is there a way to check whether RDTs will render properly in all environments? Thanks again for your help. Rivkid007 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs on Template:Abellio Greater Anglia RDT

I noticed you had edited Template:Abellio Greater Anglia RDT. It is now showing some disambiguation links. I think Bampton should be Brampton railway station (Suffolk) but I'm unsure about how to handle Newmarket railway station. Alresford railway station, Hythe railway station and Hockley railway station are also dabs. Any help appreciated (so I don't break the templates).— Rod ^talk 09:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, because I didn't edit any of the links, just the overall layout. However, I will take a look at it later. Useddenim (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they have been fixed by User:Nthep.— Rod ^talk 12:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and another editor has fixed some further errors since.— Rod ^talk 12:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priestfield railway station

I have been approached by another contributor with regards to how this station is now just shown as the Midland Metro station very near the top of the Wikipedia Template :Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton RDT. The now-closed Priestfield railway station in its Wikipedia article seems to say that the site of the tram stop is very near to the site of the original Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton railway station, yet the person who contacted me says that a reading of area maps shows the distance to be in excess of 350 metres away from the site of the tram stop and as such the template RDT should show both the entries for the now-closed station railway station in addition to the existing entry of the tram stop.

What are your feelings on the query that has been raised with me?

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is all-new physical plant, then I concur that another icon is warranted. Useddenim (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the original Priestfield railway station was opened by the Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway very many years prior to the opening of the Midland Metro tram line, also being on a totally different site quite a distance away from that where the tram stop was built, and noting how the tram entry of Priestfield tram stop is shown on a blue line on Template : Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway RDT, I would like an entry for the closed railway station to be added to it, but the fact that the blue line is on that area of the RDT, my very limited computer skills are such that I will most probably make a mess of entering the information on the RDT, so may I ask if you would be so kind as to do this on my behalf.

I have passed your view on the matter to the person who raised the matter with me and he sends his thanks to you.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Useddenim (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]