User talk:TheTrolleyPole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TheTrolleyPole, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Contacts[edit]

s-line template[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The Carleton Station article has the following statements:

{{s-rail|title=OC Transpo}}

{{s-line|system=OC Transpo|line=O-Train|previous=Carling|next=Confederation}} | mpassengers= }}

The line parameter in the s-line statement needs to be changed from "O-Train" to "O-Train Trillium Line" as OC Transpo will have 2 lines of O-Train service.

From the documentation (Template:S-line), there appears to be a table hidden somewhere in the system to define each rail line. Do you know where that table is stored and how I can view it? Should I be attempting to modify that table or cloning it with the new rail line name?

Thanks, TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Those {{s-line}} sub-templates are rather intricate. In this case I renamed Template talk:S-line/OC Transpo right/O-Train and Template talk:S-line/OC Transpo left/O-Train (for the "right" and "left" terminus) and and adapted Template:OC Transpo lines and Template:OC Transpo color. I also updated all the Trillium Line station articles, not just Carleton Station. That should take care of the issue. Huon (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Search for all articles referencing a given article[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Does Wikipedia have a utility to identify all articles that reference a certain article?

Foe example, I would like to identify all articles having [[O-Train]] or [[Ottawa O-Train]] (a redirect), or simply the phrase "O-Train" buried in the text. The meaning of "O-Train" has changed so that virtually all articles that mention "O-Train" must be slightly reworded. All such articles would have a link to the O-Train article.

I find that the Google search engine (e.g. search: Wikipedia "O-Train") provides only partial results.

So far, I have found 16 such articles but I suspect there may be more.

Thanks, TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

here -- Diannaa (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere also may help. Huon (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello again.

When using WhatLinksHere to scan for article O-Train, I get over 500 article hits of which I estimate that 95% are unwanted hits. The problem appears to be that O-Train is referenced in 8 templates. So even though there are no direct references in 95% of the articles, there appears to be an indirect reference via the template. Would there be someway to exclude such indirect references from the search?

If not, a user (who I believe is an editor) suggested I temporarily delete O-Train from all 8 templates, do the search and changes, and then undo the temporary deletions. Any comments on this Plan B would be welcome.

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing eight templates, worsening (even temporarily) hundreds of articles in the process, just to do a search seems a bad idea to me. This search finds all occurrences of "O-Train" in the wikicode, but it's not limited to links (and you apparently can't search for "O-Train]]" in the same way). Still, those pages most likely all are relevant. Huon (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the Trillium Line article[edit]

Splitting the Trillium Line article 1[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I wish to complete the splitting of article Trillium Line by first copying all its text into article O-Train (which is currently a redirect toTrillium Line and then start to edit or delete duplicate sections. The Trillium Line article is a somewhat intricate Siamese twin of 2 topics, but I know how to handle that.

I documented my plan on the Talk page. An editor directed me to seek the advice of the help-me service.

Another editor had expressed concern about copying over the revision history to the new article and an article said there is an administrative function to do so.

So, could the text and revision history be copied over from Trillium Line to O-Train?

Also, is there a command I could use to lock out non-registered (IP-address) users from editing for a week while I work on the 2 articles?

I would appreciate any other advice you may have.

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste moves indeed are a problem, but since here content and edits on what should remain and what should be split are intertwined, it's impossible to use admin tools to cleanly split page histories. The procedure for splitting pages is explained at WP:PROPERSPLIT. One could argue that it would be more appropriate to keep the current article's history at O-Train; if that's preferred, you could move the page to that title and then split off the Trillium Line content. Regarding protection I have replied at the article's talk page. Huon (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the Trillium Line article 2[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Given the answer in the previous inquiry, I believe I should build a stub article to replace the redirect in O-Train moving text from article Trillium Line.

I have cataloged the sections in the Trillium Line article below and perhaps the splitting is not as complex as I first thought

  • 0 (introduction) - Move only paragraph 2 to O-Train
  • 1 Pilot project - Stays in Trillium Line and add a brief overview in O-Train
  • 2 Trillium Line - Stays in Trillium Line and add a brief overview in O-Train
  • 3 Early extension plans - Move to O-Train and replace by brief overview in Trillium Line
  • 4 Expansion plan - Intermixed topics
  • 5 Fleet - Stays in Trillium Line
  • 6 Facilities - Stays in Trillium Line
  • 7 See also - applies to both articles with little modification
  • 8 References - No REF commands are coded in this section.
  • 9 External links - Stays in Trillium Line

Sections 3 is nearly half of the article length and appears to be the only section I want to move intact to article O-Train. The main problem with this section is that other articles link to this section directly thinking it is in O-Train, which the redirect disguises.

Thus, I want to move paragraph 2 of the Trillium Line intro and Early extension plans to the O-Train article with attribution. Expansion plan is a small overview to be reworked in each article.

Given the article cited in the previous help request, it appears I should give attribution to each block of text I move from one article to another where attribution means stating "Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]" and "Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] to [[Destination article name]]" in the edit summary. There are only 2 blocks of text to be moved with attribution.

So, I need to spend a lot of up-front time building the O-Train stub, install it and then quickly transfer in the 2 chunks from article Trillium Line with attribution.

Is the above the approach I should take?

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest you create a draft in your userspace, transfer whatever you need at your leisure into the draft (with attribution), and when it's ready we can get rid of the redirect and move your draft in its place. That last step will require an admin's help in deleting the redirect; you're welcome to {{ping}} me when you're ready. Turning the redirect into the new article will also work, of course. Huon (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the Trillium Line article 3[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello again.

I like a little clarification on how to do the attribution mentioned in your last advice:

  • When you say "userspace", is that my sandbox?
  • My sandbox's revision history is rather cluttered due to experimentation. Does that get copied when an administrator installs the new article?
  • The article you directed me to, How to properly split an article says:
    • Paste into the new article (contents from the source article) with edit summary "Contents [[WP:SPLIT]] from [[Source article name]]" and save the new article."
  • Thus, does this mean that I should copy the split text in a separate step so that the edit summary for the split contents becomes part of the sandbox's revision history? Is that how I should handle attribution?

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

TheTrolleyPole, you can have multiple sandboxes, for example User:TheTrolleyPole/sandbox1, User:TheTrolleyPole/sandbox2, etc. There really is no limit. You could also call them other things like User:TheTrolleyPole/O-Train.
As for the actual content creation - I'm with Huon on this one. There is no need to "quickly" copy things over, as it simply makes for more errors and more work in the long run. Pretend that your sandbox article is the new O-Train article, and do everything properly (attribution and whatnot). When it's ready, it can be moved to the proper location. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting the Trillium Line article 4[edit]

@Huon:Could you please install the new "split" O-Train article. It has attributions in the revision history and is in User:TheTrolleyPole/O-Train. It replaces the redirect on the current O-Train page. Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Section links[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Some articles link to a section within another article: e.g. [[O-Train#Early extension plans]]. At times I find such links broken when someone has renamed the section. Thus, I like to add a comment such as:

==Early extension plans==<!--[[OC Transpo]] links directly to this section name-->.

I have come across a case where about a dozen articles link to a section name in a single article with the majority of the links being broken due to section renaming. I was thinking in this case I should set up a redirect page called "O-Train early extension plans" containing: #REDIRECT [[O-Train#Early extension plans]] and have the dozen articles reference the redirect. The benefit is that if the section name changes, then only the redirect needs to be changed. However, I am concerned that someone might say I am cluttering up the search function with unnecessary search titles.

The question is: Does Wikipedia have a recommended practice for such section links?

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Use {{anchor}} within the heading rather than an external redirect. If the heading gets renamed, as long as the anchor remains so will the link. I will demonstrate tomorrow. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Secondaywaltz; this is precisely what the {{anchor}} template is for. Basically, add {{anchor|Name of the section as it appears in the incoming links}} next to the section heading, and if it's subsequently renamed, the links will still point to the right section automatically, with no need to even change the redirect. On an unrelated note, I have moved the draft on O-Train into the mainspace. Huon (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
For the example you give it would be {{anchor|Early extension plans}}, which you insert at the end of current heading name to maintain the link. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Section link test[edit]

The title is "Theatre" but the anchor is "Theater".

If the heading is the same, then adding the anchor is redundant. I thought you wanted to add an anchor where the title had been changed. 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
From what I seen, contributors change section names without worrying whether another article links to it. A major part of the problem is that there is no warning (a comment) or protection (an anchor) in the wiki-code. Thus, my concern is in future mods rather than just past ones. So, I should either use a comment or an anchor to mark linked section names. Which would you prefer? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: A compromise would be to add a comment on the line for a linked section name saying: <!--Other articles link to this section name. Thus, if you change this name, you must code an {{anchor}} for the old section name to avoid broken links.-->. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be letting minor problems distract you from the prime mission of writing a good article. Don't worry about any of those petty things. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

O-Train maintenance[edit]

See Big O-Train maintenance contract up for grabs, for more information. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I was trying to find info on who is currently doing the maintenance but without success. Alstom says they would do maintenance training but not for whom. So, instead of leaving "Maintenance is provided by Bombardier Transportation", I replaced it with the more neutral "Before their retirement, the Bombardier Talent trainsets were maintained by Bombardier Transportation at the Walkley facilities." TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
. . . . and that is why I gave you this link. It was not a coincidence or mind reading! I could not find any recent contract called or given out by the City of Ottawa, and that article was a year ago Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hillcrest Complex[edit]

I see you have added more details about the Hillcrest Complex (and improved articles for other TTC facilities). Perhaps it is time to create a stand-alone article, to go with the carhouses. Note that the redirect has existed for a long time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So we would like to do a split of the Hillcrest section to replace the redirect with a new article, and replace the old section by a summary and a "main article" link. I might be able to find more material for the new article but until that time the new article would have nearly the same content as the old section. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's probably the TTC's most important facility. I think we should be able to work up something. There is no rush. Secondarywaltz (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

New article[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am splitting the "Hillcrest Complex" section from article Toronto Transit Commission facilities into a new article called Hillcrest Complex that will replace a redirect of the same name. Could you please replace the redirect with the following new article from my sandbox:

User:TheTrolleyPole/Hillcrest Complex

The first revision history description for the new article says: "split content from Toronto Transit Commission facilities#Hillcrest Complex; see that article's history for attribution".

After installation of the new article, I will delete the old section from article Toronto Transit Commission facilities with a revision history description saying: "split content to Hillcrest Complex". Then I will add the following replacement:

Hillcrest Complex

Hillcrest Complex is the TTC's largest facility and is responsible for most of the maintenance work on the system's surface vehicles, including heavy overhauls, repairs and repainting.

Thanks TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to Hillcrest Complex, but I'd say it needs better references. Of the current three, one is TTC, another is a fan page, and the third is a blog. None of that constitutes a reliable independent reference. Huon (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The above comments on reliable, independent references are problematic. Both Steve Munro and James Bow have much knowledge of history and current events. Disqualifying them wipes out a huge, reliable source of info. Disqualifying the TTC means we cannot cite the commission's project plans and announcements. This would leave only published books (by rail historians) and occasional comments by newspaper reporters. Any comments from editors? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Huon: You were too quick in moving an unfinished Draft from User space. Well, at least it's out where other editors can contribute. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@TheTrolleyPole: Fill out the content on each building, and add more references. You don't need to discuss everything with others. Just do it! Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought about declining the help request, but I expect the topic is notable enough for an article; everything else can be resolved by editing. Huon (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

SmartTrack[edit]

I'd invite your comment on this. Thanks. --Natural RX 13:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Maple Leaf Forever Park[edit]

User:TheTrolleyPole/Maple Leaf Forever Park is a new article to replace a redirect to Alexander Muir#Legacy. This is not a split as no material will be removed from the Alexander Muir article, which will be modified to link to the new article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Topher385 moved page User:TheTrolleyPole/Maple Leaf Forever Park to Draft:Maple Leaf Forever Park: Preferred location for AfC submissions.

AfC notification: Draft:Maple Leaf Forever Park has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Maple Leaf Forever Park. Thanks! Naraht (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Muir Memorial Gardens[edit]

Draft:Alexander Muir Memorial Gardens is a new article to replace a redirect to Alexander Muir#Legacy. This is not a split as no material will be removed from the Alexander Muir article, which will be modified to link to the new article.

Disputed contribution[edit]

Contributor Special:Contributions/99.255.143.109 made a change to article SmartTrack that I disagree with and wish to reverse. I documented the issue in Talk:SmartTrack#Unionville; however, I doubt Special:Contributions/99.255.143.109 will read it. I suspect that this is the second time the contributor made such a change. Do you have advice on how I should proceed? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
Please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You should try to talk to the editor first, then take higher steps if the previous ones don't work. The nutshell summarizes it quite excellently:
Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 20:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to this map: http://smarttrack.to/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/SmTk-NewOption.png?x64185 2607:FEA8:A29F:FDEE:592B:5D66:F665:799E (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Second inquiry[edit]

Contributor Special:Contributions/99.255.143.109 has no talk page to discuss the disputed entries, and has been using out-of-date info to override my own contributions. May I add the {{Disputed}} tag to the article pointing to the article's talk page to attract comment hopefully from editors knowledgeable about the subject matter? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheTrolleyPole: You can still post messages to an IP's page, just like any other user: User talk:99.255.143.109. The {{Disputed}} template is used when the entire article's accuracy is disputed, which I don't think is the case. What you're describing is called disruptive editing behavior on 99.255.143.109's part. If the IP user doesn't respond to your concerns you should start an request for comments on the article's talkpage.
Obviously, if you have newer reliable sources that show that the information supersedes that of the old ones, you should go ahead and do it yourself. If the user keeps making those disruptive edits, and your various steps of conflict resolution don't stop them, then you could request a block (or page protection, the admins will evaluate and decide). Make sure that you're not violating the rules yourself (such as the three-revert rule; see edit warring). —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

173.230.176.176[edit]

  • Discussion with administrator El_C 03:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC).
  • WP:BITE: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

REF date formatting[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The date function eg {{date|2017-01-23}} translates into "23 January 2017", but one editor insists that the date be presented as "January 23, 2017". So, is there a date function that would produce that result from yyyy-mm-dd input?

I have created templates in an offline file to reduce work and errors, and facilitate consistancy. The template (see example below) is based on yyyy-mm-dd format. I simply key in the yyyy-mm-dd date once, and copy it to the other locations modifying the "accessdate" as needed.

<ref name=TheStar-2017-??-??>{{cite news |url=??? |title=??? |newspaper=[[Toronto Star]] |author=Ben Spurr, San Grewal & Jennifer Pagliaro |date={{date|2017-??-??}} |accessdate=2017-??-??}}</ref>

I suspect that editors may be inconsistant in opinion on date format judging from corrections (or lack thereof) to REF dates in my contributions. I believe I saw the date={{date|2017-??-??}} technique from the contribution of one editor, which appears to be unacceptable to another. Is there a published standard for REF dates?

Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Try {{date|2017-01-23|mdy}} to get January 23, 2017. There is no general standard; the date format should be appropriate for the topic of the article (that is, articles on American topics get "month day, year", British or European topics mostly get "day month year", other topics accordingly - if in doubt, follow the pattern used by the source itself. Unless it's a clear-cut case of inappropriateness, don't change the pattern already established in an article. WP:MOSDATE has more on how to format dates. Huon (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Date template[edit]

Talk page discussion copied here for reference

I am wondering why you have been converting the REF dates, for example, from {{date|2017-05-13|mdy}} to May 13, 2017 even though the date template produces the same result, thus satisfying MOS:DATEFORMAT. A Wikipedia Help person actually had advised me on how to use the date template to produce mdy format specifically for a REF date. See User talk:TheTrolleyPole#REF date formatting. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just using a script and it doesn't use the Date template. It does find and fix occurrences of misformatted dates in the body, though, and honestly I think using the date template for references is overkill. The only benefit of using {{date|2017-05-14|mdy}} vs. plain "May 14, 2017" is that it makes it relatively easy to change the date format if you want to... except this script, WP:MOSNUMscript, can do that quickly too, and "May 14, 2017" is arguably easier to read in the source than the templated version. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. If there are utilities to convert REF date formats, why does Toronto subway still use one convention (access date : ymd) and the line articles (e.g. Line 5 Eglinton) use another (access date : mdy)? The inconsistancy is one reason I use the date template. (Another is that my REFs usually have 3 dates where I type in one in ymd format and copy it to the other locations. Still another, is that I can convert an access date from ymd to mdy without retyping the date.) TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I edited many of the TTC-related articles to follow mdy as that seems to be a fairly accepted "Canadian" format and most of them had a collection of very inconsistent date formats. However, Toronto subway had access-dates that were all or predominantly yyyy-mm-dd and as per MOS:DATERET, we are apparently supposed to maintain existing formats. I didn't think a strong argument could be made that everything in that article should be converted to mdy on the basis of it being all over the map, so I left it as is. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Visible anchor[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I had modified an existing section title within an article to make it an anchor because another article has a link to that section (Line 1 Yonge–University#Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension). The idea was to inform future contributors that modifying this section title would result in a broken link. My mod in article Line 1 Yonge–University was:

== {{Visible anchor|Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension}}{{Anchor|Spadina extension}} ==

The {{Anchor|Spadina extension}} was pre-existing.

However, Editor #1 reversed that mod with:

==Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension<span id="Spadina extension"></span>==

Editor #1 explained the mod as "Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension: per both {{anchor}} and {{Visible anchor}} template documentation, neither should be used in section headings, also id with section name created by section formatting already".

An Editor #2 told Editor #1: "That is what they are designed to do. I leave that to you but you probably broke links", but left Editor #1's mod intact.

The visible anchor documentation says: "This template should not be used within section headings. Doing so will result in broken links in edit summaries, as well as possible duplicate anchors."

So, who is right - Editor #1 or Editor#2? If Editor #1 is right, why does visible anchor exists? How should one protect against broken links?

Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It helps to provide links to diffs, and pinging the editors in question could be considered a courtesy when discussing whether they are right or wrong.
That said, Joeyconnick referred to the template documentation in their edit summary. You quote it above; it clearly says that the template should not be used in section headings. So Joeyconnick is right, and Secondarywaltz is wrong about what the templates are designed to do.
The templates exist because people may want to link to parts of an article that are not section headings - say, a word within a table, or maybe even something within the running text. In such instances the templates can be used to create new anchors that will accept incoming links. If you are concerned about broken links, my advice would be to add a HTML comment after the section heading (likely in the next line) that says where the links are coming from. Huon (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes[edit]

==Toronto–York Spadina Subway Extension<span id="Spadina extension"></span>==

Using Wikipedia articles as a REF[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I revised a short summary paragraph in a neighborhood article to briefly describe public transit in that neighborhood with links to the public transit articles that had all the details and the REF's. The short summary required 5 REF's which I copied from the linked articles.

Instead of copying REF's from the linked article, is there a way to indicate to editors that the linked Wikipedia articles are the references? Using the main-article and see-also tags seemed to be inappropriate. Thanks.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Copying references is the way to go. Firstly, readers should not be sent on a scavenger hunt to verify information. Secondly, the article you are referring to might get changed - and then you'd be pointing to an article that might no longer back up the content in question. Huon (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
What you did is correct. Every article should stand alone, although links are expected to the related subject. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Renaming an article[edit]

See {{Requested move}} to do this formally. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested moves

Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions

Public art[edit]

McCowan Yard[edit]

Draft:McCowan Yard is a new article to replace the redirect in McCowan Yard which currently points to a deleted section in article Toronto Transit Commission bus garages, an article no longer related to "McCowan Yard". Thus, the redirect "McCowan Yard" must be deleted before moving Draft:McCowan Yard. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Background notes: Toronto Transit Commission facilities was moved to Toronto Transit Commission bus garages after all rail facilities were deleted from the article including the section on the McCowan Yard. Redirect TTC McCowan RT Yard needs to be changed to redirect to "McCowan Yard" after the draft is moved. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am trying to replace a redirect with a new article. I have set up Draft:McCowan Yard but I think it is missing a template to trigger the review process. How would I get the draft installed? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey! I've tagged the page with WP:G6 and an administrator should delete the redirect shortly. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: McCowan Yard has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
McCowan Yard, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

TheDragonFire (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Trillium Park[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello. I made a mistake and moved new article User:TheTrolleyPole/Trillium Park to Wikipedia:Trillium Park when I should have tried to move it to the "article" space. Sorry. I was trying to replace redirect Trillium Park with the new article. When I tried to replace that redirect with the new article, I got the message that I was not authorized to do such a move. Could you please help me out of this dilemma. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The redirect to be replaced merely points to a section that just makes a brief mention of the park being described in the article. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Done. Alex ShihTalk 00:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions[edit]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award[edit]

CanadaRedBarnstar.png The Red Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to TheTrolleyPole for improvements to the quality of a half-dozen transit and park articles during The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 502 Downtowner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 503 Kingston Rd, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI station renaming[edit]

As as local editor, you may have an interest in Talk:Toronto Pearson Viscount Station#Requested move 6 February 2018. So far the discussion seems to be by people who do not regularly take an interest in Toronto stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Schematic diagram[edit]

Lost source code (resolved)[edit]

I recently modified the schematic diagram named "St. Clair detailed" changing the two title parameters within the template source code from "St. Clair detailed"/"St. Clair (detailed)" to "St. Clair circa 1945"/"St. Clair (circa 1945)". After saving the change, I could no longer edit the schematic template as the edit function uses the new title (St. Clair circa 1945) instead of the template name (St. Clair detailed) to retrieve the source code. It seems I fell into a trap. The template is used in 512 St. Clair, and the tag is inserted after the infobox. Could someone please help me to access the template source code again? How should I change the displayed title? Is there documentation for schematic templates? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it for you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Documentation[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Is there documentation on the codes used to draw lines for rail line schematics as in the attached template (St. Clair detailed)? Currently, I have to search for an example elsewhere and copy in its code. Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a good place to start would be at Wikipedia:Route diagram template. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. You can also start a discussion at WikiProject Templates. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greyhound Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince George (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The 10,000 Challenge (Canada)[edit]

It's that time of year again! The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its second anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award (year two)[edit]

CanadaRedBarnstar.png The Red Maple Leaf Award
This maple leaf is awarded to TheTrolleyPole for expanding three transit articles during the second year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toronto streetcar system rolling stock, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Milton and East Haven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, TheTrolleyPole. 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)

Maps as REFs[edit]

check-mark
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

User:Magnolia677 reversed a mod I made citing the reason "This entire section is based on an editor's interpretation of two maps". (The article was Exhibition Loop which describes a streetcar loop.) I had used maps before as REFs without a problem. Essentially I was converting into words what I saw on the maps. I know that Wikipedia has writing guidelines. So, are there guidelines for or against using maps as a REF? I have seen seen Wikipedia articles (e.g. Leslie Barns) showing a schematic diagram of a rail installation but not citing a REF. So an additional question is why would it be appropriate to describe a rail installation in a diagram without a REF, but not in words even with a REF? Presumably, both came from a map. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: Request for information. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem with looking at a map and describing what you see is that you may see something that isn't there. This essay describes that and other issues. For example, in this edit you wrote "Exhibition Loop lies on the north side of Manitoba Drive within Exhibition Place", but the maps used as sources show the streetcar tracks going under a highway (which may or may not be "within" Exhibition Place). This map also does not support that the tracks are "within" Exhibition Place. I've also been unable to find a source to support or deny this, so at this point it's just one editor's interpretation of a map. That was just one example from the edit, which certainly seems to be original research. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd be very cautious about using maps as references; it's rather easy to give them undue weight or even to engage in original research. For example, "The loop [...] runs counter-clockwise." - I don't see that the map shows the direction. There are also issues with Google Maps' reliability. Not citing a source of course isn't any better. Using reliable secondary sources and summarizing what they report about the loop would be the way to go. If no human has bothered to write about those details, maybe they aren't all that important. Huon (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)