User talk:REEDriler

Hello, REEDriler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  
  
  

==References== {{Reflist}} 

Hello there Could you please help me understand why this is not working at all, since there is for instance https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115689934#P402 ?

Bouzinac (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply] 

Hello. that is because the OSM relation is not connected to its wikidata. The P402 property does not matter here. Every route relation must have its wikidata tag on OSM, for eg [1] REEDriler (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha OK so OSM is the source of the relation. How do you ask for adding a wiki number inside the OSM relation? Bouzinac (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac You can create an account on OSM and add a wikidata tag to the relation. REEDriler (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you are doing well. I've uploaded wikidata numbers inside the OSM, for instance about https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115689934#P402

Stations can be shown but not the line? I'm puzzled...

Bouzinac (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

🥲 dear @Bouzinac, its only been 7 hrs since you updated the tags, it will take up to 4 days for it to appear here. From my personal experience, it may take longer. And there is a possibility that it might disappear again. Another way to see if it works is if these links show the points for a wikidata, just replace the ids https://maps.wikimedia.org/geoline?getgeojson=1&ids=Q115689934 and geopoint/geoline/geoshape accordingly. REEDriler (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, is this line relation functional in OSM ? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27502952#P402 Bouzinac (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac, No. Seems like Line 3 was inaugurated just today. REEDriler (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac, updated the item. REEDriler (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ; about the S4 line Bern, data has been put into OSM 18 days ago, still not showing on the map template? Bouzinac (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Maybe this has got something to do with it. You could also raise this issue on WP:VPT. Thanks. REEDriler (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, so there's a bug open. T325293 Bouzinac (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, it's working! ^^

Nice! and sync for S1 was vfast. Its already visible in the first map. REEDriler (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well... what number should I amend in OSM for line S2 : https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9577399 or https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/26989 in order to add wikidata:https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q115689932 ? And another technical question : the colour of the lines comes from metadata inside OSM or has been queryed/picked from wikidata? Bouzinac (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac The wikidata tag to the route relation is what that matters. route master may or may not have the wikidata tag, It doesn't matter here. The colour, title, title link comes from wikidata. REEDriler (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if there is a relation A-B, which has childs A to B and B to A, the wikidata number shall be on the children A to B + B to A for the template to function, and it does not matter it being on the master A-B ? Bouzinac (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bouzinac It shall be on route relation of type "route" which has the element "ways" of the line feature grouped together as its "members". This route relation may further be a member of route route with Tag:type=route_master which itself may be a member of another route relation with Tag:type=network", but we need not get there because as I understand there are no "ways" associated with it which is needed to represent a line feature here. REEDriler (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Rapid Metro Gurgaon navbox}} is currently broken, and it appears to have been as a result of this edit of yours to {{Metro box}}. But please correct me if I'm wrong. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

fixed and thanks REEDriler (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the prompt fix. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello REEDriler, I saw you reversed my edit in the ridership table of the Delhi Metro page, citing that 87% of 2019 ridership cannot be ca. 4.7 million a day. However, the stated ridership levels of previous years can't be right. As an avarage 2.5 million riders a day never add up to 1.79 billion riders a year in 2019 as is also stated on the same page as well as in the List_of_metro_systems. The ridership numbers that are stated in the article I cited (average of 4 to over 5 million riders a day before COVID-19), are in line with a 1.79 billion riders a year. I cannot provide numbers for all previous years, but the numbers as they are stated in the current table are highly unlikely to be correct. -WouterH 00:09, 7 February 2023 (CET)

Hi, now it depends on how you count the ridership numbers, the numbers in that article you cited are based off line utilization and is mentioned there. Saying a GA's years of sourced info from DMRC's own Annual Reports as "highly unlikely to be correct" would be absurd. Please find the sources in the table header, and these [2] [3] [4] might give a better insight. Also I don't mind about the type of calculation, just the numbers being inconsistent with the rest of the numbers and in this case for a fiscal period. REEDriler (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're right that the counting method might be different. But my suggestion is not absurd at all, just because of simple logic. A ridership of 2,4 million would add up to about 850 million passengers a year (usually less, because average weekday ridership usually is the norm, and higher than weekend ridership). And in the same article 1.79 billion, so more than double, is stated as yearly ridership in Delhi. Nowhere it becomes clear that the table of average daily ridership uses another calculation method, one that is even different from the text right above it and one that is different from the norm on other metro systems on Wikipedia, where usually line utilization or unlinked passenger trips are used. That is also preferrend because it makes comparing ridership much easier. I'd suggest to clearly elaborate the calculation method of the ridership table in the article, because it is not clear right now. WouterH (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the line utilization figures which analyzes how each line is performing separately needs clarification reg its un-unique and artificially increased count when trying to being normalized as system's "ridership" as a whole, whose stats are useful to no one but the operator's planning dept. OK. And from the same page you mentioned earlier, see 🡢 Ridership; I see discrepancy, much less a norm. REEDriler (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you show a network and show a specific line inside that network, eg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligne_C_du_tramway_de_Strasbourg#Trac%C3%A9 it would be nice that the said-line would be on the first layer, not "hidden" by other lines... Any idea ? Bouzinac (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]