User talk:Useddenim

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

Template:Lynnwood Link Extension[edit]

Could you please fix the duplicate argument errors you introduced with this edit? Normally I fix these errors myself, but this set of templates is so extensive, and so poorly documented, that I doubt I could do it without spending quite silly amounts of time on the task. Plus I'm reluctant to second-guess the intentions of another editor.

The errors occur in three calls of {{jct}}, where the argument |rdt= is set twice (to "y" and "T") in each instance.

Thanks,

--NSH002 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:North Staffordshire Railway RDT[edit]

Sterling work on tidying this up. I don't pretend to understand all the icons so to see someone who does give it a through overhaul is great. One question some of the continuing lines are using the CONT arrows and some the LKRWI type dotted lines, do they signify anything different? Nthep (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The   (CONT) arrows show a line that leaves the diagram, whereas the   (LSTR) dotted lines show a line that continues at another point of the diagram (see as an example the two ends of the LNWR line to Stafford). Britmax (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I though we agreed (or at least discussed) using   (LSTR) for contiguous stretches (usually short), and to use   (STR)smth +   (MFADEf) for two widely separated ends. YLSS (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Not that I recall. (Must have been some other Useddenim.) In general, I still prefer   (LSTR), though in multi-coloured diagrams (e.g the {{District Line RDT}}) the FADE seems to work better. Useddenim (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Pink Line[edit]

Are you planning to create the missing icons added in your most recent edit to Template:Pink Line (CTA), or was there some mistake? Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

See commons:User talk:Useddenim#k in blue. Useddenim (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
But I wonder — Lost on belmont, was that original curve intentional or not? To show that the unused branch was once the main line or something, and that the new connection is more curvy, I dunno... YLSS (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The original curve was intentional. At this location, the Douglas branch (now part of the Pink Line) connects with the Congress branch (part of the Blue Line) via a long incline. Although the Congress branch is the "main" line, the incline to the Douglas branch is geometrically the straight path and the "diverging" tracks for the Congress branch curve around (westbound to the north, eastbound to the south) this incline. So I originally laid out the icons to try to illustrate how the current Congress Blue Line runs around the former Douglas Blue Line incline. The track map in the infobox for Racine illustrates this junction. Does it really matter? I suppose not. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
So all that work was for nothing? I thought you had drawn it the way you did for a lack of blue k icons. Useddenim (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
And uploaded   (d-STR2+r blue) & co.? Well, Lost on belmont, you're the guru of Chicago diagrams, so it's up to you which option is better. I see benefits in both (but usually I try to emphasize such historical intricacies). YLSS (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I prefer the curvy Blue Line, and I see that it has already been restored. I wanted to make a similar arrangement at Template:Blue Line (CTA), but I was too lazy to come up with the appropriate connecting generic road icons to illustrate that the four tracks are all within the highway median.
I wouldn't say that "all that work was for nothing." You wanted a live demonstration of how certain "k" icons would work, and those modifications did that admirably. Places I've always wanted k junctions/curves are at Paulina and Washington Junctions in Template:Northwest branch (CTA) and Template:Lake Street Elevated (CTA), but I have yet to work it out so that the close junctions and station didn't look like dung. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Done & done. But, Lost on belmont, I’m not sure where “the four tracks … within the highway median” are in the Template:Blue Line (CTA)? Useddenim (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The location in question is at the position on the map labeled "Service now provided by Pink Line." The at this location, the ex-Blue Line should continue straight down and then transition to elevated and. An ehABZql junction of ex-Blue should exist with the current Pink Line. The current Blue should curve around the ex-Blue incline to one side or another (screen-left is probably better) with both the current Blue and ex-blue incline appearing within the median. After passing underneath the elevated Pink line, the Blue Line should curve back and resume "central" position in the map within a vPR2.
I recently uploaded vRP2rg-, vRP2rf-, vRP2lg-, and vRP2lf- to make this happen and had almost finished the design when my browser unexpectedly quit on me and I lost everything. Additionally I had been expanding the map to BS5 to not only accommodate the passage under the Pink Line, but to rectify the subway/elevated curves to more closely match Template:Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway (CTA) (which itself needs work).
Also I see you have already taken some time to do a few modifications to the Blue Line template, however, I-190 doesn't actually curve away from the subway line like 90 and 94 do. Instead the subway line remains within the "median" just underground and the highway loops at the airport as seen here. *Shit-eating-grin* Sorry. Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
WRT that junction with Douglas branch, how about like this? YLSS (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a little tight, but that's to be expected given the constraints. Its great! Lost on  Belmont 3200N1000W  (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mitre line[edit]

Hi, I had received a notification about your reversion of my edits on {{Mitre Line}}, although you then withdrew your decision. Please, next time take a look at the edit before reverting it "automatically". I've been here for over six years and I usually proceed in good faith. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fma12:: The edit was neither automatic, nor malicious. However, I've found that when an RDT gets out of whack, it's often easiest to fix it by seeing what the editor was trying to do, revert back to the last “good” version, and then apply the edit correctly. Sorry if your feelings were hurt. Useddenim (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul Metro lines route maps[edit]

Hi, Useddenim! I've been impressed with the work that you've done with route maps like {{Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Map}}. So I was wondering if you could take a look at the route maps used with the Istanbul Metro lines – M1, M2, M3, M4, and M6 – when you get the chance sometime (as you're a lot better with this kind of thing than I am!)... I'm pretty sure knowing what you know that you could improve these, as they don't even seem self-consistent from line to line (seemingly using different formats – e.g. M2's map vs. M4's map), and the route map for the M6 line looks particularly like a mess to me... Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Now the articles themselves could use some a good clean-up. {{Istanbul mass transit color}} should also be checked; and your input would be welcomed at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Template:Istanbul Metro M1 route diagram. Useddenim (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Hastings Line[edit]

Following your changes to the diagram, I can't make head nor tail of it! Can you please change the diagram to show the connection at Robertsbridge between the Hastings Line and Rother Valley Railway as open? Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Useddenim (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Nope, still showing the connection as closed, even after purging the page. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Is this what you meant? (When I revised the diagram, I kept the same topology as the earlier version.) Useddenim (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Underground Line E template[edit]

Hi! I appreciate the edit you made to Template:Line E (BA) adding the ghost stations to the route map. However, the place in which you positioned them is incorrect. The original map of the line in 1955 (with the original trajectory) can be found here. Note that the San Jose station displayed there is not the same station as the current one, despite having the same name. If you feel like adding the ghost stations to the Line A template, that would also be a great addition. I would do these things myself, but when it comes to templates I have a tendency to break things. SegataSanshiro1 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yonge-University Line Map[edit]

(Comment removed because Secondarywaltz can't keep a civil tongue. Useddenim (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC))

OK I'm over that. How about adding the Eglinton Crosstown line? They're digging real big tunnels. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The only problem with adding that line is that its name seems to change every 90 days... Useddenim (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Berlin icons[edit]

"s-bahn" and "u-bahn" is the value used for all the other Germany S-Bahnen and U-Bahnen in {{Rail-interchange}} (see Template:Rail-interchange/doc/DE), hence my having done it "incorrectly". Or were you perhaps referring to my having placed Berlin underneath Blackpool? A truly horrific mistake, for which I deserve all of your ire. Alakzi (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No; I meant that it should have been seamlessly integrated so rather than only accepting two specific values, any valid parameter for {{BLNMT-icon}} would work for {{rail-interchange|berlin|}} (which it now does). Useddenim (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)