Jump to content

User talk:Mliu92

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 146.199.101.199 (talk) at 17:09, 22 August 2017 (→Louise Linton: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Mliu92, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 11:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • capability and redesignated EC-135C.<ref name="Encyl_aircr">Donald, David. "Boeing Model 717 (C/KC-135 Stratoliner/Stratotanker." ''The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft''. Barnes &
  • Plattsburgh AFB, NY, crashed after takeoff at Eielson AFB, AK, killing all four crewmembers.<ref>{{ASN accident|title= 60-0354|id= 19751207-0|accessdate= {{date|2014-10-21}}}</ref> Launch was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weeks 533 and date templates

FYI... no templates are allowed inside {{cite}} templates. It actually destroys one of the main benefits to the template. See Template:Cite web#COinS Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MIT class ring, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dropbox (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) 08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tokyo Bay Aqua-Line, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kawasaki (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) 08:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template is being used

Template {{Israel Railways line}} serves a very specific purpose. If you wish to create a line diagram, start your own with another name. Why would you do that! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, I wasn't aware of its use. Thanks for reverting. Mliu92 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see where it's being transcluded now; would it help to add some commentary markup to keep other editors from potentially breaking the template again? I had something in mind like this:
<noinclude>
Do not modify this template. It is transcluded on Israel Railways 
station pages as part of the routebox.
</noinclude>
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't do any harm. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Theban kings in Greek mythology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiope (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) 09:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flash smelting of copper

Dear Mliu92,

if you find some time – may you please vectorize this scheme of the flash smelting process?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German English
Schwebeschmelzofen Flash furnace
Erzkonzentrat Ore concentrate
Heißwind Hot blast
Schlacke Slag
Abgas Exhaust
Kupferstein Copper matte
Anoden-Ofen Anode furnace
Erdgas Natural gas
Blister-Kupfer Blister copper
Feuerraffiniertes Kupfer Fire refined copper
Anoden-Gießmaschine Anode casting machine
Anode zur Kupfer-Elektrolyse Anode to electrolysis
  • EPA flowchart
    EPA flowchart
  • Outokumpu process auf Deutsch
    Outokumpu process auf Deutsch
  • Outokumpu process in English
    Outokumpu process in English
  • Just the oven, in German
    Just the oven, in German
Hmm, appears to be the Outokompu flash smelting process – interesting, and I'm working on it. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. May you please remove the (unnecessary) <tspan> elements, that I can translate the scheme with <switch> elements?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've added the electrolysis process, have removed the extraneous <tspan> elements, and am working on a vector form for the flash smelting process. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thank you very much! I would like to learn, how you've done it with Inkscape. I can just change small things, but I can't vectorize.
What are green poles (in the EPA scheme)? And I'm lacking a good translation for calcine in German.--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kopiersperre: Thanks! I like your oven picture.
I have some background with graphics (as an engineering student twenty years ago, I learned drafting, and later taught myself Adobe Illustrator to create some schematics for my thesis) but the Inkscape tutorial (unfortunately not in German) is a pretty solid introduction, and volunteering on the Graphics Lab has helped – even if I didn't finish the request before someone else took it up, just working on it taught me some valuable tricks.
According to wikipedia, green poles (specifically, the sap from freshly-cut tree wood) were used in the conversion process as an alternative reducing agent to remove oxygen.
Is Röstgut a good translation for calcine? I'm basing this from comparing the English with the Deutsch version of the same educational webpage from the Copper Institute.
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As using green poles is very historic – can I remove it? The "ore concentrates" influx after calcine should also be removed. In the original it's a bypass for ores, which need no roasting. Cheers --Kopiersperre (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, I removed green poles and the extra ore concentrates, tidied up the placement of some of the text as well. I also added "Röstgut" for calcine, but please make sure I did not break any of the German translation. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. "Röstgut" is fine.
May I ask, how you ended up in editing Wikipedia articles?--Kopiersperre (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going back? The first browsers came out while I was an undergraduate, and one of the first things I read on the web was Philip Greenspun's Travels with Samantha – once I entered graduate school, that site inspired me into setting up my own website (now defunct, since it was a student account). One of the things I set up was a reference site for the Nikon F camera. Before the web I would devote what felt like hours tracking down library references and obscure books to dig up little bits of information on my first and favorite camera. I figured I had already labored to do the research, so why not share the fruits of that labor? I set up a small website which eventually attracted some traffic because there just wasn't that much information out there. Even today it's one of the external links on the Wikipedia article (I just checked, it's not an article that I've edited).
Fast-forward maybe ten years after that and I've got some free time at work, I start reading Wikipedia ... and reading ... and reading. This is the same sort of thing I was aiming for all those years ago: sharing information freely, only now Wikipedia has set up a real structure and tools to get quality work done. I started nibbling at Wikipedia editing here and there as I saw things that seemed very wrong, and that would lead to thoughts like "Well, this article is nice but it could be better if ..." or "Well, this is tagged with a 'citation needed' tag, maybe there's a news article ... ?"
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korean flags

As I saw your work on Korean flags at the graphics lab, I remembered an issue I posted at the german graphics lab last year that was not fulfilled completely:

The flags of the army, [navy, was already done] and airforce lack the following text[1][2]: 


   조국의 통일 독립과
   인민의 자유와 해방을 위하여.

The flag of the military does not exist yet as an SVG, it contains the following text: 

   조국의통립과
   인민을위하여

Can you correct the flags?--Antemister (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Antemister: I've harmonized the size and writing style for the three branch-service flags. According to FOTW, the top line characters in the KPAN ensign are in navy blue, but I couldn't find a photographic reference to back it up. Changing the color of those characters is fairly simple, though.
The KPA flag will take a little more care, but I think I can handle it as well, although it will take me some time to trace the emblem. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a vector source for the DPRK emblem, which made this approximately 1,000,000× faster than retracing a blurry GIF. That should complete all the requested flags. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, now the images are correct, I'll nominate the original files for deletion then. Did you really start to vectorize the emblem?--Antemister (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My workflow is generally to put up a raster copy and trace directly over that. I had the raster set up and ready to go, but then I thought I should check for a better (higher resolution) copy of the emblem, which is when I found the vector emblem on Commons – thankfully. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, FOTW is the general source for flag information, but not the most reliable one. Original photos are much better ones, so you are right using the photos as reference. Can you speak/write Korean?--Antemister (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and unfortunately, no, I have no Korean literacy. My wife can read Hangul but that's limited to being able to pronounce the words correctly, since it's a phonetic setup. The high-res photo has fairly stylized characters but I'm fairly confident the substitutes are correct. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do beautiful work!

Do you take requests?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: Thanks! I'm looking at the Benin flag now and scratching my head a little – I need to figure out how to get a varying line thickness into Inkscape. Let me know what you have in mind, and leave some description on my talk page. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Can you do on my requests? Thanks Arianator with love (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:38 inf div -vector.svg

Hey there,

First, let me say kudos for the vectorization of the 38th Division's Second World War flash. Secondly, a request. Looking at the three version's available on the Imperial War Museum's website, they appear to be much more yellow than the shade you have used. Is it possible you can amend the colour? Kind regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: Thanks, I wasn't quite satisfied with the yellow either. I edited the file to be a bit 'richer' in color. At the moment it looks like Commons needs a little more time to process the change, but if it hasn't updated after a few hours, I'll re-upload the amended file. The old yellow color was (hex) value #f4cd71 as set by eyedropper against the cited IWM raster file, although that was a guess, since the fabric texture meant there's several shades of yellow to choose from. At the moment I'm going with value #fd3 as the new yellow color – basically this reduces the blue channel which makes the yellow less "gray". Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the change, it looks great! Kind regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

US Population Density Map

You created a pretty interesting map to display population density that currently appears on a couple of pages about state populations. I think that there is one minor issue with it though, it appears to have Colorado and Wyoming mixed up.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Population_Scaled_US_Map.svg

Jamo2008 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamo2008: Thanks for pointing it out, I've fixed the mixup with a new version. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations (1976).svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of the Commonwealth of Nations (1976).svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for What's in Wikipedia graphic

I should have checked on the workshop page earlier. I spent much of today trying to get the right colors in place on my own, and came up with something almost as good as yours, without text of course. I guess I was 2 days late and a dollar short.

So it's great! I shouldn't ask for more. But if you want to make it even better, here's what I suggest.

  • All the labels look quite busy and a bit confusing. Is it possible to put the labels for the subcats actually on top of the "books" in a low-key color similar to (lighter or darker) than the "books"?
  • Could you lighten the cross-hatching for the sports so that you can see the colors underneath better?
  • Perhaps there could be two lines coming from the label "Sport" one to the bios and one to "Society"
  • The "GEO, W" green should probably be lighter
  • The colors for "BDP, F" and "BLP, F" are very close making it hard to read - could you distinguish them better?
  • The subcat labels could be shortened a bit to fit on top of the books better, e.g. 1990-, 1991+, East and West (for GEO), probably "Ed" instead of "SOC, E"
  • The black lines outside of the bookcase could be removed.

As I said, it's great as it is, so I won't ask for more after this - I promise.

Thanks again,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: I don't mind the requests – this is an interesting request, and thanks for taking on the hard work of actually pulling the numbers together. Without the data, all the picture would be is a picture. I'll incorporate the comments, but it may take a little while – I'm traveling on business and may not have enough time in the evenings to work on it uninterrupted. I will get an updated version to you by the end of the week.
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: I had some downtime during the meetings today and I tweaked the picture slightly – please let me know what you think. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mliu92: fantastic! As good as I could have imagined at the start. My only quibble is now the gray lines in the hatching for sports are a bit too hard to read. Maybe it should be black lines but thinner than in the 1st iteration. In any case, I'll use the current graphic proudly, my job is now to get the write-up to look so good. Thanks. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones: simple enough to fix! Let me know what you think. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Great job! I couldn't ask for better. Thank you very much. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales for 1 use of the graphic. I've tried to annotate the graph with percentages. I thought it was done, but I can't get it to show up. Playing around with purging now. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alphago logo.svg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alphago logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar image request

Could you have a look at this? --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% sure that this does not meet the threshold of originality, so it can be moved to Commons under a free license. Jolly Ω Janner 23:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jolly Ω Janner ! I agree and have added three versions to Commons with some construction details. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphago logo.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alphago logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for creating the vector image I requested... and all of the other times you'd edited an svg file for me! I appreciate the help! 🇺🇸 Corkythehornetfan 🇺🇸 22:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphago logo.svg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alphago logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Font fix wanted

Hi Mliu,

may you please fix the text at File:Amtrakfreqmapcolor svg.svg? Cheers, Kopiersperre (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (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) 10:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Intel processor roadmap

Hi, I've exchanged the template with your vertical format. I've put the legend into an extra table so it's formatted correctly and moved it inside the nav box. There was a closing bracket too many which I removed. Great work! -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Coffee Lake is an oddball, from the little information that is available so far it's going to be 14nm and possibly coming after Cannonlake, which is 10nm. -- Pizzahut2 (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mexico nuke plant map

Template:Mexico nuke plant map 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) 22:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mliu92. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 November

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

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) 00:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi Mliu92. I'm sure it was inadvertent, but I want to note that you marked this edit as a minor edit; it was not. In glancing over your recent edits, I see that almost all are marked as minor, even the substantive ones. I wonder if there's a technical glitch because, as far as I know, the ability to mark edits as minor by default no longer exists. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch: thanks and sorry – I have a (self-deprecating) habit of marking nearly everything as a minor edit. Looking at Help:Minor edit, though, that's clearly not the intent of that checkbox, and I wasn't trying to avoid further review [nearly all of my edits are substantiated by links to newspapers or other sources]. I'll mark it appropriately in the future. Thanks again. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disney's America

Hey Mliu92, I wanted to drop by and thank you for expanding this article last December. In my class today, we briefly touched on the Disney's America controversy, and the historical background you added to the article was very helpful. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)`[reply]

MFD

Hi, Just to make you aware I've sent one of your userspaces to MFD > Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mliu92/sandbox/Toyota Land Cruiser (J60), You should've got a notification but Twinkle had failed & I had no idea it had so apologies for that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caltrain Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Jose (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) 09:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caltrain Express

Hey there, I saw your new article at Caltrain Express and just wanted to commend you for your incredible work in writing the article! If you get the chance, you should recommend it to WP:DYKN for more exposure on the front page! A topic like this has a wealth of trivia on which to draw from! Anyway, I was actually going to start a draft of Caltrain electrification in my sandbox, but seeing as you recently created this article, I wanted to run it by you first and ask if you were already working on a draft. Again, good work! --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Haha169: Thanks for the kind words and recommendation; I'll follow up with Did You Know at some point. As you suspected, I have a draft for electrification started as CalMod (I'm still doing research on the origins and have traced it as far back as CTX – originally, it looks like it was all one mega-project including DTX, which I'm also drafting. I had actually started DTX first, but then kept finding hints and intentions for the Downtown Extension dating back well over a century, and electrification is really just the latest wrinkle for that. Are you a Caltrain rider? It's part of my daily commute, which got me started thinking about the history of the service, so that's when I started my first article on local train service, which eventually became Dumbarton Rail Corridor.
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I posted my draft up at Electrification of Caltrain and I welcome you to add whatever research you've found! It looks like CalMod is the overarching program for electrification, CTX, and DTX, among others, and could merit its own article as well. I am a Caltrain rider! Well, when I am in the Bay Area, at least, which is currently not often. But Caltrain is what got me really interested in public transportation issues wherever it is I currently am, so I give it credit for that. Goodness, I've never seen the Dumbarton Rail Corridor article before either, and that is truly a piece of work! How long did it take to put all that together? Thank you for all your hard work on this subject, and keep up the good work! --haha169 (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Haha169: Your new article looks great! I think CalMod won't need its own article – I'll copy the new electrification article into my sandbox and edit it to add in CBOSS/PTC and some of the earlier history/planning; once I copy over the new edits, we could probably rename the new article to "Caltrain Modernization Program" as that's the official name of the project, which has two main sub-projects: PCEP (Peninsula Corridor Electrification) and CBOSS; CalMod even has its own logo. DRC was approximately three weeks, on and off, especially since some of the older information is getting buried in linkrot. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to see how it looks! Are you sure CalMod wouldn't need its own article? If the scope were only electrification and CBOSS, then it could be merged with the electrification article; but your research sounds like the project also includes elements of CTX and DTX and others, and from there it can only get more complicated organization-wise. So it might be simpler to have a main CalMod overview article and separate, more detailed articles for the individual projects that have enough notability to merit them, which probably only excludes CBOSS. However, I'm just thinking aloud, this all depends on how your CalMod article turns out! Good luck!
Oh, and are you a graphic designer? The way you pump out those vector graphics - especially for Dumbarton Rail, are really impressive! --haha169 (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just an amateur – I'm an engineer at my day job. My thought (not confirmed yet) is the FRA waiver to run EMUs over the electrified line depends on CBOSS. I need to read the waiver carefully. PTC was mandated in the wake of the 2008 Metrolink crash, and CBOSS was intended to be Caltrain's way to meet the PTC requirements. However, I think PCEP and CBOSS are inextricably linked through the FRA waiver: no CBOSS = no EMUs since the Peninsula Corridor still has Union Pacific freight trains running over it, and the lighter-weight EMUs aren't built as redundantly heavy as the existing diesel push/pull coaches for Caltrain. Also, since Caltrain has them lumped together I thought it should be in the same article. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Haha169: I've blended our ledes together and adopted the main article history, check it out here. I'll continue to work on adding CBOSS details and expanding the 1992–2012 period. I may need to add another sub-section to describe the FRA waiver.

Sorry, we edit conflicted. Here was a comment that I was planning on leaving: Yep, I also think the FTA waiver is the bit that would tie the CBOSS in with the electrification project. As for CalMod as a whole, is it just those two projects or does it also incorporate CTX and DTX? If it were just the latter two, the article could be left as is while incorporating CBOSS; but including CTX and DTX would probably merit a separate article, along with a longer history detailing how those projects came to be and became tied together under CalMod. The Caltrain article strangely has two sections on electrification. I originally wanted to target that article for improvement years ago but it was too daunting. --haha169 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed article looks good! One thing, I think "Caltrain origins" might be better worded as "Background" and I'm not sure if years are necessary in the headings. After CBOSS is included in the history, design, and funding, this would make a good article! --haha169 (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Haha169: I agree with your proposals; the years are more of a crutch for me to establish a timeline. As far as I can tell, CalMod is limited strictly to CBOSS and PCEP. CTX was an earlier project and DTX is even earlier (there are newspaper articles from 1911 that speculated a downtown extension for SP was coming soon!). I see the nutshell history of Caltrain and these projects is this:
  1. 1863: SF&SJ builds the line
  2. 1870: SP purchases the line – this is kind of fuzzy, as it appears a SP-controlled company was the purchaser
  3. 1907: Bayshore Cutoff opens, rerouting the line to the east side of San Bruno Mountain. Incidentally, the old right-of-way to San Bruno is being used by BART.
  4. 1918: SP opens One Market Street headquarters; shape of the building leads people to speculate it will be the downtown terminal
  5. 1950s: Speculation that BART to San Mateo will replace Peninsula Commute
  6. 1977: SP wants to discontinue the service, California legislature passes AB1853 to subsidize tickets and keep it going
  7. 1980: Caltrans takes over, contracts with SP for operation
  8. 1984: Caltrans proposes DTX
  9. 1992: PCJPB purchases the right of way, proposes electrification which will facilitate DTX
  10. 2000: Caltrain discusses electrification projects with public
  11. 2000–2004: CTX funded and built, ridership growth
  12. 2005: Caltrain officials privately propose "Caltrain 2025" vision for the future, presented to PCJPB in 2006 and recommends EMUs
  13. 201x?: FRA waiver for using EMUs, also includes PTC requirements based on Metrolink crash of 2008
  14. 2011: Spectacular budget deficit means Caltrain considers dropping Baby Bullets; realizes without dedicated funding sources (PCJPB is funded by three county transit agencies: SFMTA, samTrans, VTA) and partnerships, no major projects will ever get off the ground
  15. 2012: Blended system with CAHSR
  16. 2015 and beyond: I think are well-covered now. I'll add more references and CBOSS content as I go.
So I'll continue to work on the expansion of the article, probably this weekend. DTX article at a later date ... Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a hefty bit of research! Take your time to get the article off the ground, thanks and good luck! --haha169 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ask, does the $1.9b electrification price range include CBOSS as well? Additionally, I read Clem's analysis about differing platform heights with HSR and the purchase of custom dual height doors on the Stadler trains. Perhaps this is worth adding as well? I won't be available this weekend, but I'm just tossing these two ideas out for future additions. --haha169 (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the $1.9b includes CBOSS, but that project has run well over budget so I'll have to dig up some sources for the total cost/budget. That will probably go into the still-evolving cost/funding section. Clem's blog has a lot to say about CBOSS in general and I'll be mining it when I go to write up the CBOSS section of the design, as well as the dual-height doors (unlike the European KISSes, the Caltrain KISS will feature four doors per side (!), two low and two high. SF deals with different platform heights with Muni by equipping those LRVs with steps that can be raised or lowered; the subway stops are all high platforms, but there's a good portion of street railway for those routes as well. It would seem to make sense that if (1) HSR is going to use high platforms and (2) Caltrain infrastructure should be interoperable with HSR then lifting/lowering set of stairs would be more appropriate to accommodate staggered rollout of high platforms at all Caltrain stations, rather than having a whole additional set of doors. In talking with Caltrain conductors, door malfunctions are the most common mode of failure (to be fair, we're talking about 20-30 year old equipment) and to double the number of potential failure points ... well, I'm just a rider, right?
In short, both points are good and will go into the Cost/Budget and Rolling Stock sections, respectively. I've briefly updated the history with what I dug up on the 1992 and 1998 electrification reports. I also found the EIR (2004/2009) which will probably go into the design section. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great work on the history section! There are certain parts that I feel are quite technical and might fit better into the "design" section, under their own subheader as previous designs. You delve deeply into the details of the 1998 Rapid Rail Study and the collision mitigation, for example, both of which I believe are better suited for design. Let me know what you think! --haha169 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback and I'll be the first to admit I tend to get wrapped up in technical details (as an engineer ...). I've updated the draft but won't update the main article (otherwise I might lose those details) until I get the "Design" section under better control (right now it's just a bunch of sketchy information). Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Just giving you the heads up, and again, great work! If you don't mind, I might do some re-organization in the coming week if I have time.--haha169 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, and please do not hold back any changes for my sake as the design section will take a bit of time to rework. I'll keep plugging away at it in the meantime. The history section is done (except for the planned move of some 92/98/06 content to Design. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a heads up, but I'm afraid that the article is just getting too long. The WP:SIZE guideline says, "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects. While expert readers of such articles may accept complexity and length provided the article is well written, the general reader requires clarity and conciseness. There are times when a long or very long article is unavoidable, though its complexity should be minimized. Readability is a key criterion." Now, this is just a guideline, but there are parts of the history section that I believe is simply too detailed. Much can be moved to the design section, but other parts, such as the discussion on the Atherton hold-out rule, is simply too detailed. A list of the six firms that qualified to bid for PCEP is not necessary, just the number and the winner. Things like that.

I want to reiterate that I really appreciate all the hard work and research that you have put into this article. But at over 80KB, this article is really too big for its limited scope, and what we are striving for is readability for a general audience, and these blocks of text kind of hinder that. --haha169 (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've gone ahead and trimmed the article and moved some elements from history into design. I don't believe I removed anything critical, but if I did, please feel free to add it back in! Please let me know if there is any disagreement over the restructuring. --haha169 (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Haha169: Thanks again for the attention and I do appreciate the editing. As I've said before, as an engineer I'm all about technical details and trivia so I lose sight of the big picture, and I've never studied the Manual of Style in detail, so I wasn't aware of the size guidelines.
I'll work my ever-evolving draft to parallel the existing article and let me know what else I should move into the Design section. At the moment I'm block copy-and-pasting the technical detail into Design: Evolution with some minor edits to make the relocated details hang together. That means that sub-section is 90% complete, but the remainder of "Design" is still very rough. Should I stop adding to the "Design" section completely? If it's overall article length that's an issue, there's still quite a bit of content that could be added to "Design" and I'll discontinue work; on the other hand, if a slimmer "History" is okay, then I'll continue working to add to "Design" instead. My thought is: lede (summary length; if it's interesting, the reader will go on to History); history (social history, reduced technical content; if interested, the reader will go on to Design); design (technical details for the very interested reader).
Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think design is where it is okay to get more in-depth (but not too much so). In the end, Wikipedia is a general resource encyclopedia. This essay, while not an official rule, presents a pretty good case for what should be included. In the end, what you want to add is up to you, but just consider that "readers might lose interest when a portion of an article goes into too much detail on one specific aspect" and if what you're adding might contribute to that.
So no, don't stop adding to "Design" completely. Please continue adding, but keep the length and overly detailed elements at bay. --haha169 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That is an excellent essay and I understand where my personal preferences could result in an overly-long article which would be interesting to a (very) limited audience. I've carried through a few more edits to the live article to reduce some irrelevant/redundant details and may add a paragraph or two on PCEP infrastructure in the near future (talking about the need for a longer overtake based on the CHSRA "blended plan" and some technical details on electrification structures and substations), but I'm happy with the article as it stands now. Thanks for your edits and guidance, again. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding and for your continued edits! I agree that the design section might need a mention on overtake tracks. Good luck! :) --haha169 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new "PCEP" section in "Design" there are several elements that are already directly mentioned in the section directly above. My suggestion would be to is to add Point Lick, the 130-140 miles of overhead contact wires, and the sentence on barriers into the relevant areas of the first paragraph of "Design", and omit the rest of the first paragraph (as it is either repeat information or quite detailed) and spinoff the second paragraph into a separate section on overtake tracks...although remember that the scope of this article is the modernization project, not the HSR compatibility project, so we shouldn't dive too much into detail about the latter.

Lastly, there is a discrepancy that needs to be fixed. Is the electrification project 49mi or 51mi? --haha169 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took a swing at consolidating the information in the "design" section. The FEIR indicates electrification extends somewhat south of Tamien (Figure 2-1), whereas the UP agreement indicates PCEP ends at San Jose (Tamien, milepost 49.2). The UP agreement does mention CP Lick (milepost 51.4) as the end of the PCJPB-owned right-of-way, and that Caltrain will not pursue electrification south of CP Lick, so that's how I came up with 51 miles.
Great work on synthesizing the two parts together! I ask about this inconsistency because the lead says 49 and design says 51 and they need to be the same. I have changed the lead to reflect the 51 miles from this source. Again, thanks for all your hard work! --haha169 (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Even though you say you're an amateur, your vector graphics for the Dumbarton Rail Corridor are very professional. Keep up the great work! haha169 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Caltrain Express

On 22 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caltrain Express, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that within a year of implementing express service (train pictured), San Francisco Bay Area commuter rail system Caltrain experienced a 12 percent increase in ridership? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caltrain Express. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caltrain Express), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peninsula Commute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4-4-2 (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) 10:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peninsula Commute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Hopkins (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) 10:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Mliu92, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:South America nuke plant map

Template:South America nuke plant map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of former Belgian municipalities

Hello! I have seen that you found out what the flag of Laeken was and was wondering where you found the flag of a former municipality, do you know where to find more? Greetings, Frostpunk (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostpunk: The flag of Laeken was described as a request from the Graphics Lab; I did not have any other source to go on. By the time I picked up the request, another person had proposed colors, so it was a simple matter of making a 3:4 rectangle divided in thirds horizontally. In general, Flags of the World has the best resources/dedicated research on municipal flags, but I'm not sure if they would have flags of former municipalities. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Linton

Looks like it might need semi-protection soon. Says the anonymous editor... :-) 146.199.101.199 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mliu92&oldid=796715793"