User talk:Pldx1

|| Archives (Index) 1 2 This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Usefull links:   MiszaBot   Lowercase sigmabot III  
{{User:ClueBot III/running}}    The current status of ClueBot III is: Running

Reference errors on 26 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Grade I listed buildings in Wiltshire page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Pldx1 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Pldx1 (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Thanks for your participation at RfA and other important elections for key positions within our ediing community. In order to attract more candidates of the right calbre to these posts, there have been long campaigns to reduce the drama. You could help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

A second request. If this continues I will escalate for possible disruption. I have seen how you have participated at the ACE already. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT.src

A tag has been placed on Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT.src requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A10, F1; duplicate of Template:Great Eastern Main Line RDT

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Happy now? Useddenim (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Were you planning to write {{BS2ROUTE}}? Useddenim (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion salvaged from Template talk:Great Eastern Main Line RDT.src

This page should not be speedily deleted because this file is the code source of template {{Great_Eastern_Main_Line_RDT}}. This source is coded in the {{BS-map}} format. This format is human readable, and was used to obtain the {{Routemap}} template that is actually used by transclusion. This other format is far less human readable. A really great solution would be to write a BS2ROUTE template that could do the translation. Using {{BS2ROUTE|Great Eastern Main Line RDT.src}} would be an efficient method to ensure that both files remain in sync. In fact, many of the templates written in the {{BS-map}} format generate an overflow when directly transcluded. Let us be nice with the people that are writing this kind of templates.

By the way, I am waiting for a message on my talk page about this request for speedy. --Pldx1 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a template (I assume it would be subst:'d) to translate {{BS-map}} to {{Routemap}} format would be helpful; but if you can't associate |ICON|ICON|O0=ICON||Text with ICON\ICON!~ICON~~Text, then I have to question if you should even be editing RDT's in the first place. Besides, the syntax of {{BSmap}} is hardly "human readable" in the first place. Finally, keeping a second copy of a page in a different format in a separate location is a bad idea, and just begging for divergence. Useddenim (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this ".src" page is a good idea either, it's not a conventional subpage to the root page like [[/old]]. Wiki keeps all the history of each page, so we only need to remark the last version of BS-map in the root talk page of this diagram template for sake of clarity. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A10 is for articles, F1 is for files, and T3 is for templates. They are all for pages that are duplicates of another page. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for salvaging this discussion. Some remarks:

1. I agree that Great_Eastern_Main_Line_RDT/src would have been a more conventional wiki-name than Great_Eastern_Main_Line_RDT.src
2. I am not a regular user of {{BS-map}} or {{Routemap}}. I was rather a passer-by, with the intent of keeping the Great Eastern Main Line page below the template_include_size_limit.
3. I was curious of the reason of the avoidance of the new format {{Routemap}} by the usual maintainers of several RDT templates. I have drawn in petto my own conclusions, but maybe I was wrong about that.

Pldx1 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer {{Routemap}} because it's much friendlier when dealing with overlays (not necessary to keep track of what column an icon is in, which overlay it is), and it's not necessary to change the {{BS}} sub-template when adding or removing columns. I'm guessing the opposition to using the new template is fear of the unfamiliar. According to Sameboat, about half of the RDTs at zh:WP have already been converted. So, unless there's a compelling reason (approaching the size limit, or left-and-right text) I'm not changing existing diagrams. Useddenim (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Useddenim. I think that, sadly, this is far worse than fear of the unfamiliar. Everybody knows that "one should remain conceptual" in our mind and that we should think "let us call a subroutine" instead of "let us make a JSR", or "let us match a pattern" instead of "let us make a sed -e ". But the trend exists. Lets apply that to User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Trident13_Railways/src#Canadian_Pacific_Railway as example. This one is a {{BS-map}}-coded map, while User:Pldx1/Bs-map/Trident13_Railways#Canadian_Pacific_Railway is its {{routemap}} counter-part (where I have replaced all missing icons with a yellow disk). One can see that something turned wrong somewhere. What is your best guess about how to fix these maps ? (this is not a test, I simply have not found a convincing solution). Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, the {{routemap}} version has been fixed. As far as I can tell, most of the problem came from attempting to load a non-existent icon. The rest was fixed with some half-width and quarter-width icons. Useddenim (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

template include size limit

?!?!?!?!????? i didn't know there was a template include size limit. since a few months ago, i was wondering why my page doesn't render correctly. now i know why. i will try to split the page. thanks. Pancho507 (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Medway watermills diagram

There is a problem with the diagram now. Your edit has caused it to finish at Farleigh Lock. I've resisted the temptation to revert you. Please try to fix in the next 24h or I will restore the diagram back to the original pending a fix. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Mjroots. You left me a message on my talk page. I will reply at Template_talk:Medway_watermills_diagram#Continuation because your message underlines a problem that goes far beyond individuals. Your are totally right when being infuriating when a template you created and maintained across the years, starting 2009, becomes messed because someone modified something somewhere without taking care of the consequences. But... I am not the culprit ! Let us continue this exchange at Template_talk:Medway_watermills_diagram#Continuation. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

About page splitting

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give List of Pokémon episodes/Header a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Winterysteppe. With a Section title, this looks better. Pldx1 (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

hmmmmm ok. no objection from me. Winterysteppe (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ja Myung Go, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jung Kyung-ho (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

fixed. Pldx1 (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: admin dashboard

thanks for bringing that to my attention. It's fixed now (hopefully). If not, feel free to fix it yourself. :) Cheers Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)