User talk:Useddenim

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hello, Useddenim. When editing Melbourne train station track layouts, you have consistently ignored the convention of Australian track layouts, including putting in station names beside the platform, italicising previous and next station names, and putting them on the left of the layout instead of the right. Also, numerous details in the layout including points with the ability to turn right, left and straight ahead have been simplified to just one direction. There are also numerous aesthetic clipping issues after your edits, with corners not filled and icons that do not fit which lacks visual appeal. This has happened several times and requires complex fixes after your edits including Template:Frankston railway station, Template:South Kensington railway station, Template:Richmond railway station, Melbourne and Template:Broadmeadows railway station, Melbourne.
Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines before editing, and some edits have been reverted before the issues above have been addressed.
Sandbox of Template:Broadmeadows railway station, Melbourne/sandbox is created with your previous edit, with the Frankston one already edited in an attempt to fix the format. Purin128AL (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Useddenim, reguarding your recent mass revert, you mentioned that the naming convention has largely ignored the the existing WP:RDT concensus. However, nowhere in the article dictates that the platform numbers should include a background, the adjacent stations should be italicised and there are not even a convention set up for track layouts in that article.

This citation therefore does not support Useddenim's edits and is rather used to support their own WP:POV, and has forcefully applied his own conventions when creating route maps in other WikiProject pages to WikiProject Australian Transport while ignorring the existing consistency for all Melbourne track layout articles.

Many of the "improved" designs is even flawed including trancating details thinking it is uncessessary in Template:Frankston railway station's previous version, but adding other unneeded information such as in Template:South Kensington railway station; as well as leaving diagrams with incorrectly clipped icons, as shown in Template:Broadmeadows railway station, Melbourne's previous version. I do admit that reducing whitespace for track layouts are a good measure for large diagrams, but should still follow local consistencies and not to publish changes before fixing all errors.

To avoid the three-revert rule and edit warring, I propose to bring this matter to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. If this message is unresponded or result of this discussion is inconclusive. Purin128AL (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I believe you are referring to WP:RDT/MOS, not WP:RDT
2. Although it does not dictates that the platform numbers should include a background, it goes without saying that diagrams should be a legible as possible. And though the guide does not say backgrounds must be used, nothing says that they can't be, either. In fact, the {{BSot}} template is used in some two dozen Australian station and track diagrams, including Armadale railway station, Perth, Bayswater railway station, Perth, Beckenham railway station, Cannington railway station, Claisebrook railway station, Claremont railway station, Perth, Daglish railway station, East Perth Rail Yard, East Perth railway station, Fremantle railway station, Kelmscott railway station, Kenwick railway station, Leederville railway station,McIver railway station, Midland railway station, Perth, North Fremantle railway station, Perth Rail Yard, Perth railway station, Showgrounds railway station, Perth, Thornlie railway station, Victoria Park railway station, Perth, West Leederville railway station, Whitfords railway station, and Woodbridge railway station, Perth.
3. WP:RDT/MOS#Text states that italics are used for connecting lines. A glance at nearly all RDTs will show that "connecting lines" includes the trackage to anything above or below the diagram (although perhaps this could be stated explicitly). It does NOT say that italics should be used for rivers or any other features.
4. WP:RDT/MOS was written to be as broad and inclusive as possible (as opposed to the picayune, micromanaging directives in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Transport/Naming convention and guidelines) which is why there is no specific subsection for track layouts.
5.  (dDSS3+1) and other double slip switch icons were newly created to correct the omission.

Useddenim (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently DMTCL announced new metro stations for MRT Line 6. I edited Template:Dhaka Metro line 6 to add the new route but still there are issues. Can you please fix the template? (Note: Tongi Junction railway station will be connected to Tongi metro station) Mehedi Abedin 06:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rht has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Armadale-Thornlie Line has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago Amtrak services has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dimokratias–Nea Krini has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southport/Aintree lines has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingston Branch has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kajang line mapframe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm probably missing something, but I don't understand these changes of yours at all. The article Boten–Vientiane railway states it runs between Boten and Vientiane, both in Laos. While your changes to the route map template suggest it lies entirely within China. They both can't be right. --DB1729^talk 04:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DB1729: Thanks for catching the error – that's what happens when one edits when they're tired. Useddenim (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help:) I've put back the correct category. Indeed it was I who had added both the Laos and China category last year.[1] Something gave me the impression it ran through both countries I guess. Maybe I was tired too? --DB1729^talk 12:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also fixed {{Railway-routemap}} so that it now includes Laos. Useddenim (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that and for all you do. Cheers! --DB1729^talk 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template namespace says "Templates that violate the guidelines on this page, have poorly defined function, are redundant, become orphaned or used on only one page, or violate any Wikipedia policies may be nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion." How does moving track layouts for a single station to a template not violate this? Most of these templates have no chance of being used on more than one page. Steelkamp (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]