Hello, Useddenim! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you have changed a large number of the hex colour values for the London Underground and other TfL services. Where have you obtained your new values from? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I will check my collection to see if I have any overall views of the previous terminal, and the original configuration of the present terminal. Useddenim (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally bold, but template s are a bit out of my specialty... When you made the changes to the UTA color template, the UTA TRAX page showed all of your sample table, and none of the actual colors were showing correctly, just the code from the template page. Sorry. --Admrboltz (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good work with those. I will give them all a quick scan for any obvious discrepancies. Nobody's perfect.
You seem to like a challenge, so how about creating a detailed diagram of the TTC subway tracks between Bloor/Yonge, Bay, Museum, St. George and Spadina stations and removing that same non revenue information from what are supposed to be route diagrams. (See the Template:City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line)) A stand-alone template would allow for a more thorough depiction, while removing misleading information from the main articles. The tracks may be there - but there is no service. A route diagram exists to support an article and provide a graphic representation of what is described there. When that diagram contains a large amount of superfluous information, rather than providing a better understanding of the article, it will often be confusing to the reader. You could forego the "underground" icons and use solid red and blue for the two different lines, since there are many kinds of crossovers and junctions already available. You probably know best. Thanks again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to. However, I seem to have become embroiled in a tiff with Wiebevl (talk) and axpdeHello! who have taken exception to the icons I have created for the detailed track map. I have even been told "There's no need to have horizontally orientated parallel icons"! but I'm not sure that accurate track maps could be done without them (and it's my intention to do the entire network, as time permits). Useddenim (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your templates you seem to have got this idea that Dundas West subway station is related in some way to Bloor GO Station. The closest entrances are actually about 300 metres apart, a long hike on a winter's day, and about the same distance as between some entrances of different downtown subway stations. On the other hand, Exhibition and Longbranch TTC loops are adjacent to the GO Stations of the same name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who put a lot of time in on this RDT I have to say that your tweaking is interesting. I have two minor concerns. First, be careful of the width: the RDT can take over an article if you do not do this. I think that since the diagrams have been separate rather than an integral part of the article some editors forget to watch this.
Personally, I'm not wild about using anything higher than BS5, but in some cases it's unavoidable.
I would also not lump the New North Main Line in with the North London Line at North Acton. The North London Line crosses at right angles but as you can see from the New North Main Line article that line runs parallel to the Central line for some distance. Other than that keep up the good work! Britmax (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure about the layout there (as I am some 5,000 miles and 40 years distant from London), but I will check Google Earth and make the necessary corrections.
I find that the BS number is not as important as the habit editors have of not watching the lengths of the labels on stations and lines. Referring to Acton Town, this is a track plan rather than a diagram. I am personally opposed to the detail here as I feel that it's asking too much of a diagram and it's too much detail for a general encyclopedia, but that's just my opinion. Britmax (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; style can be just as important as substance (or is that just my graphic design experienc speaking?) And to my (minor) shame, I still haven't been able to correct the width mis-match on my version of the District line RDT.
WRT to Acton Town et al., I started doing track plans for individual stations, as some station pages give a very detailed explanation of the layout, and in those cases a picture is worth a thousand words. (But they're not appropriate or necessary everywhere.) Useddenim (talk) 13:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It is difficult to say. What does the icon represent? Is it a crossing on the level? If so, and you want a version that shows equal status, rather than solid red and split blue, why not just create a new icon? Then existing diagrams can use the old icon for the time being, or be updated when appropriate. That was the approach that I took when the red A-road icons (uAKRZu, etc) changed to thinner red and yellow roads. After consultation, I built a new set of uAROADu icons. Interestingly, I have recently changed most of the canal maps I have drawn back to the uAKRZu icon set, as the red of the AROAD set was too similar to the red of the heavy rail, and I started to have maps where an AROAD crossed a canal and a railway.
Such issues are always more difficult when the icons, like these, are used on many wikis worldwide. I have always taken the line that if my new icon is better, it will get used. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that certainly is opaque! My first thought is to simply put an explicit note saying that the meaning of the parameters is explained at Template:Copied#Parameters. However that page itself doesn't look to brilliant at explaining to those unfamiliar with what diffs are. If you think that the Help:Merging instructions need more than that, then I'll start a discussion on that talk page about it. If you think that the Template:Copied instructions need improving discussion on that talk page and link to it from Help talk:Merging. I'll specifically invite you to whichever discussion I start (unless you want to start one yourself first). Sometimes it's hard for experienced editors to see things through the eyes of someone less experienced, so thank you! Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:International Railway Company logo.gif. 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).
I've noticed a number of issues with the formatting of the article, causing centering to occur when not needed, and a few sections out of order, likely from improper nesting...
I don't know where to start to fix the formatting, and don't want to give you the impression that I'm not liking the changes...I'd actually like to see it formatted properly first before I suggest anything.
I've reverted your changes to the template here. Your changes leave two junctions on the line marked "Holes Bay Junction" when this junction is identified by the old version, and I left the line to Exeter dotted as it was never built. Britmax (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough with the Dorchester change. Although I would like a difference between unbuilt lines and built ones I can see the point, and have put your change back. Your Holes Bay junction curve is better than mine, by the way. The junction down and to the left is Hamworthy. I'll try to work the causeway bridge in but it works without it so it may be a while. Britmax (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I'm working up a joint railway (GN & GE) on my page. As you have sometimes changed things there I would ask you not to do so until later in the process. There are some complex junctions and if I don't notice a change someone else has made I could get totally lost. Britmax (talk) 11:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I meant to answer but time flies lately. I'm not sure it's an advantage: a little less clumsy in appearance but as the junction still uses two columns there's no gain that way. Britmax (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My though was for complicated junctions: I don't think the example here is too outrageous, and it's more compact that could be done with existing icons. Useddenim (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I wanted to thank you for all the work you've done on the RDTs and icons, and especially on Template:Air Rail Link. Still figuring out the system, but I think you captured most of what I was trying to do. However, I think that adding future extensions to Template:Sheppard Line Map and Template:Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown line can be confusing for most readers. They are mentioned in the article for information, but to put them in the RDT infers that they will be built, which is speculative at best. Ng.j (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum, I haven't been able to find solid refs on either of the two TTC lines. Sheppard is just a pipe dream at the moment, as there is no funding at all, while Metrolinx has stated in documents that the stations between Laird and Kennedy are up in the air. Midland and Ellesmere are also on the chopping block, so who knows? You may have noticed that I haven't really listed any stations except the ones that have been stated will be built, anything else is just unreferenced speculation. Ng.j (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the lead of London (which admittedly has a much more complex system), which has been to include any seriously considered proposals. (Probably the best examples are the Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell which has been proposed since the late 1940s, and the Chelsea–Hackney line which has been on and off again for more than 40 years and won't be considered for construction for at least another half decade.) Useddenim (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that many of the pages which you have recently changed with the edit summary "Icon fix - rename pending" now appear broken. One example was Template:Ealing Broadway station, which I have reverted for now, but there seem to be quite a number of others on a brief scan through your recent contribution history. Could you please explain what is changing, and why? - David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do it this way because there is the problem that a page move can be done in as short a time as three hours, or as long as three days. Also, by making the link changes first and then the page move, there are fewer (if any) unnecessary redirects created. (And, apparently, one is created for each language's Wiki, not just in Commons.) Useddenim (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Have you any idea how soon the relevant move will be done? How many pages are being affected? Which page is it that is going to move? Is this something that should be explained on the relevant talk page or project page? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it was not a real speedy delete reason, so I thought easier to change the size. But that turned out to be a flop. I will exterminate if you think it is very easy to recreate as needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy request was done by me. I fairly doubt there was any use of this icon even if it would have been completely reconstructed. a×pdeHello!13:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not trying to start an edit war; I was just following on (instead of following through (as I should have). The correction has been made. Fin? Useddenim (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my edit summary for this diff. Basically, the text originated from us, and Facebook copied us based on the terms of our free license. This is actually how our license is supposed to work, and I've had it happen in other articles, where people copy us (sometimes violation of the terms of our license), and then editors think that we copied them rather than the actual case, that they copied us. So the paragraphs are fine. Please do not reinsert the tag without other evidence. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted some of what you did because, as I stated, it didn't fit the style used elsewhere on the page. The Great Central winds in and out of the map all the way up and down it, trying to make that use LUECKEs would be pointless, so why do the same for Dearne Valley? I can understand putting them on the same column, but why not stick with the CONTs used elsewhere?. As for Curzon street, that was perfectly fine - the icons were clear and it didn't disrupt the straight central line. While I appreciate your work creating these icons, the diagonal cross in 2 icons you added near Leeds disrupt the straight flow and are to be honest rather hard to decipher - there is a limit to what can be achieved on a small icon, and given doing so would not actually make the diagram thinner, it seems better to have clarity. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at Template talk:S-line#Editprotected circular parameters
'Cause I got interrupted in the middle of an edit session… (something to do about going out for dinner, or some-such real world activity…) Useddenim (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "blindly" reverted. As I noted in the reason, the extension is discussed in the article, and therefore it is reasonable to included in the diagram. I am raising the issue at the talk page to see what the consensus is on the subject. Useddenim (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the BSsplit so the default alignment "inherits" the "parent" entry from BSrow-2. BSto can be done in the same fashion to automatically align the text without using the parameter 3, but I leave the decision to you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re these changes on {{Buckie and Portessie Branch}}. The arrangement from Keith West Junction on the I&AJR and Aultmore does not look too good, however I am not sure how to improve it, possibly going to {{BS5}}...
I am also not entirely sure about the use of the {{BSkm}} parameter. This template was intended for distances, and using it in this application does not really work for me. The text is a bit small for my liking, and when I viewed on my smartphone it does not read very well. (Yes I know that this item it something you have being doing for quite some time, and I have been mulling it over for a while).
Hello Useddenim, Pencefn has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Carlisle area - mostly like it, although would prefer a straight line from Citadel north to Rockcliffe
Area around Gretna - yuk!
Carstairs - would prefer the line to be straight without the kink at the south end.
Intermediate junctions - your revision does not remove much if any white space. A 90deg bend rather than a 45deg would take only one line. (yes I know I did them with a double kink initially).
Carlisle's been straightened out (that was easy) – but I suspect that Citadel South Jn is pretty complicated in the real world
Gretna is pretty much back to the way it had been (which took some pretty tricky coding, if you peek under the surface), except for a minor ¼-shift to the left on the main
bringing the lines together at the station, and moving the offset into the wye (excuse me, triangle) helped Carstairs; and finally
I thought that the double kink was a deliberate construct, to allow insertion of the junction name (as done at Gretna Junction).
Looks better - the challenge you now have is when you work on the RDT for the other two bits of the Caledonian Main line from Carstairs. I copied the code so that Carstairs looked the same for each (as for the Edinburgh end - have fun - the lines are complex, and I struggled to fit it all in).
You might want to look at the RDT in Carlisle as well, as that was my starting point for the south end of the CR Maim Line. There is an RCH map also in the station article. THe RDT has an error in it as the CR Gretna and BUR Gretna stations were seperate (but side by side). Look at the OS Map link at Gretna (Border Union) and you will see the siding that was the remains in 1945 of the BUR station. I travel that line regularly, and the remnants of the station are just visible. Next time I go past on a road trip I will stop and get some pictures.
Carry on the good work.
Hello Useddenim, MiszaBot III has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Re {{Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Edinburgh) RDT}}, {{Caledonian Railway (Carstairs to Carlisle) RDT}}, {{aa}} and Caledonian Main Line - I would suggest that Carstairs is orientated the same way in each RDT (i.e. Carstairs above the triangular junction and Strawfrank Junction below, with the line to Edinburgh to the right). This also highlights the very sharp curve from Carstairs station when heading to Edingburgh. This way the three RDT in the article have a common layout where they meet. When I produced the RDT, I split it into three it easier to look after, but felt Carstairs should look the same in each case. Thoughts? --Stewart(talk | edits)16:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Another good tidy for {{Shields Junction}}. You will see that I have changed the template to {{BS-map}}. One improvement in my mind - which I tried to make, but struggled with the coding - is to make the line from Glasgow Central to G&PJR straight. The Paisley Canal line can stay where it is, or even at 45°, towards the bottom right. Thoughts? --Stewart(talk | edits)18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this, the Paisley Canal line needs tidying up. On thing which I am not sure about is how the Polloc & Govan/General Terminus line joins into the G&PJR. This is line comes up from low level after the City Union Line and G&PJR have joins at the west end of Shields Road platforms, rather that the City Union joining to the GP&G/General Terminus Lines first. Thoughts? --Stewart(talk | edits)22:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos on the assist with Template:Pittsburgh_Light_Rail, it was confusing me some. Favor to ask however, it seems my compass was off slightly with the exact location of 279, I corrected it locationally in the template but somehow it is displaying an elevated track when it should be a subway. Appreciate your assistance on this and thanks for all your expertise! Marketdiamond (talk·contribs) 08:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for catching the crossing error (typo on my part), but if you check this edit, you'll se that you were the one who introduced the superfluous second crossing... Cheers! Useddenim (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Useddenim, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Useddenim/Sandbox/Van Hool. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:S-line#Editprotected circular parameters. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
, 
etc.); and
(
(
Done. BTW, almost all of the BSicons are listed at Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms. Useddenim (talk) 10:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks for catching the crossing error (typo on my part), but if you check this edit, you'll se that you were the one who introduced the superfluous second crossing... Cheers! Useddenim (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AGlobalUsage&limit=50&target=BSicon+ugSTR.svg){kind=link}