User talk:RickyCourtney/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 2    Archive 3    Archive 4 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  ... (up to 100)


Suggested edits to the Gulf States Toyota Distributors page

Hi RickyCourtney,

I hope you are doing well. Previously you had helped review and update suggestions on the Gulf States Toyota Distributors wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_States_Toyota_Distributors

I would love your help to clean this page to focus on Gulf States Toyota instead of Freidkin Group. The article is currently confusing because the current version focuses on Friedkin Group and is irrelevant.

Can you please review my suggestions to update the page with the goal of making it focus more on Gulf States Toyota, the intended topic of the page?

I have added additional suggested edits to the Gulf States Toyota Distributors Talk page and would kindly request your help in reviewing those recommended updates. Thank you for your time and consideration!--SSuggests (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Elevated

Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Elevated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak ridership template

Mind if I request a feature? A separate parameter for custom citations would be helpful, especially for FAs and GAs using a particular style. The template looks good so far. SounderBruce 02:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bruce! I'm just now starting to dabble in making templates, but I will see what I can do! --RickyCourtney (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: Just to be clear, do you just want an option to turn off the citation or are you envisioning something else? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of a switch condition to swap the default citation for a custom one (I'd rather cite the state PDFs instead of the lists). SounderBruce 03:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce How about this, I have made separate parameters for the citations, which will allow them to be used in a simple railpassbox format like this:

{{rail pass box |system=Amtrak|passengers={{Amtrak ridership|Tukwila}}{{Amtrak ridership|citationWA}} |pass_year={{Amtrak ridership|date}} }}

Or they could be used in prose like this:

In {{Amtrak ridership|longdate}}, {{Amtrak ridership|Fresno}} passengers boarded or detrained at Fresno station.{{Amtrak ridership|citationCA}}

With the benefit being that the text would be dynamic and update across all pages at once.
Thoughts on how I could improve this? RickyCourtney (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uncoupling the citations from the template, it should be fine now. I tried to add an access-date parameter, but it wouldn't work despite a few attempts, so I'll go with normal citations on articles like Tukwila station. SounderBruce 02:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that solution is, when the ridership numbers change, the citation will be out of sync with the data. I think I have the access-date issue fixed now. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bold title

Please note that per WP:USSTATION#Lede, "station" should be bolded in the first line of the article. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for pointing that out. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely thrilled with your ridership and station code templates - those are an elegant solution to a thorny problem. However, I don't agree with edits like this. To me, Fairfield–Vacaville station in May 2019 reads much more naturally than Fairfield–Vacaville station, May 2019. Additionally, for addresses that fit on a single row, splitting the municipality onto a second row seems unnecessary. Infoboxes are already too long, and that just adds one more row. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I’ve only shortened long-ish photo captions for brevity. I probably overstepped on that one. Feel free to revert it.

As far as the linebreak goes, I’d like to fight for that one. Infobox width is extremely subjective. Even if we set a fixed width, the text will still wrap on mobile devices. Putting the street address, city/state, and country on separate lines is a mostly universal way of presenting addresses. That way, if the text wraps, it’s still clear.

Not a huge deal, I’m not dead set on it being presented that way, but I think it’s the consistent way to handle it across thousands of pages. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's a good point with the addresses - I forgot that the infobox width is based on thumb width in preferences. It might then be worth using the |borough= parameter; that will automatically add the line break.
I would in turn advocate against use of the |type= parameter. It duplicates information that is already elsewhere in the infobox and lede (typically the first line), and again adds to the length of the infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak ridership by station for FY2021

Thanks for your work adding the the passenger ridership template to Amtrak station pages. One question, why list FY2019 date when FY2021 data is now available? As example, the FY2021 ridership for Berlin CT can be found on this link — https://www.greatamericanstations.com/stations/berlin-ct-ber/ FFM784 (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, because Amtrak hasn't published the consolidated state ridership fact sheets for FY21. Pulling up the ridership for each individual station on Great American Stations would be nightmare. The point of this template, is beyond the first time, adding all these templates -- it will be much easier to update every station's ridership, nationwide, at one time. Also, on a side note, I think Amtrak has been reticent to post the FY20 and FY21 numbers, because they're depressed by COVID. Hope that explains my thinking better! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:San Joaquin Ridership

Template:San Joaquin Ridership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Template:J Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Information icon Hello, RickyCourtney. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:J Line (Los Angeles Metro), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Airline table example on phone.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Airline table example on phone.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Maps

What should be the best way forward here? I’m willing to find a compromise, but that certain user keeps attacking me and (selectively) reverting my edits, but I notice he didn’t do yours. What should we do? Blissfield101 (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should let this discussion run its course until a consensus is reached. Right now there is no consensus to add the maps. I would encourage you to look up Wikipedia‘s rules and find ways to invite more editors to come in and add to the discussion. RickyCourtney (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Heart Aerospace

Information icon Hello, RickyCourtney. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Heart Aerospace, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Hill Avenue transfer

In the past, I've intentionally removed mentions of the "transfer" between the B and the other branches at Chestnut Hill Avenue. The idea of it being a transfer seems to have largely originated on Wikipedia; the MBTA doesn't mark it as such on maps, and it's substantially longer than other close approaches that are not considered transfers. While it's the closest approach of the B to the other lines, it's not actually a useful transfer - it's 1,500 feet from the B to the C, and 1,900 to the D, with a grade and numerous crosswalks. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I’ll remove it. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Heart Aerospace

Hello, RickyCourtney. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Heart Aerospace".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited OMNY, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omnibus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak Maple Leaf Canadian service resumption

You added on the Maple Leaf (train) article that service to Toronto resumes on June 27, however the Amtrak website continues to state that resumption is still to be determined, and it is not possible to book a cross-border ticket even after June 27. Could you provide a source for your edit? Thanks. Reaperexpress (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for normalizing the references

Hello. I was doing a long manual editing in the reference section of the Amhara genocide article. You did a fantastic job "normalizing" the references with ProveIt. It looks like this tool does some magic. Thank you! Petra0922 (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Also, highly recommend using ProveIt. RickyCourtney (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely worth considering!. Thank you for fixing the infobox caption as well. I appreciate it. Petra0922 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ENC XHF

Information icon Hello, RickyCourtney. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ENC XHF, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit concerned...

... about Template:American transit ridership, particularly its use in article text. The general practice, as per the template guidelines, is not to use templates in running text, as it makes editing considerably more difficult. Your work is impressive, but I hope you will reconsider this approach or seek broader consensus for it. -- Visviva (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss it. My feeling is that these pages get very little attention or update, so this is a durable way to keep this information up to date. I'm open to any ideas on how to do it better and I'm also happy to eliminate the article text. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The exact wording is Templates should not normally be used to store article text, as this makes it more difficult to edit the content. I don't think this usage is in violation of that - the template is just storing numbers and citations, not actual prose. Having the numbers and citations in the template guarantees they will be updated together, and that they'll be consistent across the article, which are both very good things.
Looking at South Bend Transpo as a typical example, I do see two other issues that need addressed. One, you should clarify that it's weekday daily ridership, as that's very different than simply dividing annual by 365 (since weekends tend to have lower ridership). Two, there are currently duplicated citations because of the daily and annual uses. I know that this will only last until the daily is changed to the next quarterly update, but it's less than ideal for now. Perhaps there's some logic that can handle that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535 Thanks for your input. Fixing the citation issue was a lot easier than I expected it to be. I also added weekdays to the infoboxes too. The benefit of this template is that I was able to update dozens of pages in a few clicks. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GO Transit

Hi there. I've reverted this edit because the template you used created problems. In particular, the sentence with the fragment "the system had a ridership of" has lost its associated data. Feel free to revert my change once you've addressed this issue. Mindmatrix 02:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it now. RickyCourtney (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think there's still some data missing though. Based on the text you added in the article, an entry for "ON Toronto GO total daily" needs to be added to {{American transit ridership}}, or that item removed from the article's text. Mindmatrix 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh. Sorry. Fixed... and I'm gonna go have another cup of coffee. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For your work on the 2022 Missouri train derailment article. The work you've done on it has been immense and irreplaceable. Thank you. Sea Cow (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:STExpress color

Template:STExpress color has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:S-line/STExpress right/550

Template:S-line/STExpress right/550 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, RickyCourtney

Thank you for creating Toyota Motor Manufacturing Tennessee.

User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello, thank you for the article. I am hopeful that this can be referenced with secondary sources. Right now it is referenced by three press releases.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura County Line

Hello. I noticed that you undid some of my edits regarding the planned Ventura County Line extension to Downtown Ventura station, with you stating that there is no evidence for such. I am assuming that you did not notice, but on the bottom of the webpage that was cited (metrolinktrains.com/schedules/scheduleupdate/?epsremainingpath=schedule-update), there is a section titled "CODESHARE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS." The third question down asks, "Where is the Ventura - Downtown / Beach Station?" and states that "Metrolink trains currently do not serve this station, but will in the future." Fluffy89502 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I didn't see that, but I do now. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility

On 8 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility is the second-largest concrete building in the U.S. – behind only the Pentagon? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, LAX Consolidated Rent-A-Car Facility), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook update
Your hook reached 8,450 views (704.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo you

Very glad to see the article on the LAX improvements. Nicely done. jengod (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! RickyCourtney (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Street View links

I tend to support having Street View links for stations that aren't just building-and-a-platform, especially those where the entrances aren't obvious (especially underground stations, and sprawling complexes like North Station). For understanding how complex stations are laid out, those links add a lot of value that isn't provided by just the coordinates. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I can lay off removing those. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Envoy merger tree

Template:Envoy merger tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Minor barnstar
Thank you for the good catch on "C & K Line Link" instead of "C to K Line Link", it's a small difference but a huge catch! Amyipdev (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how much you do on other things as well - you hold almost all contributions on a lot of stuff for LA Metro - thank you so much for your service. o7 Amyipdev (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! RickyCourtney (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BART racist design

How can a train system being designed to skip black and other POC neighborhoods be considered to have non-racist motivations? Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastfoodfanatic Wikipedia's policy is crystal clear on this point:
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
Unless you can find in a reliable, published sources that says somehing to the effect of "BART's designers, motivated by racism, skipped black and other POC neighborhoods", including that assertion on Wikipedia is an unacceptable synthesis. In fact, that claim is so controversial, I would expect that multiple sources may be requested. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-high platforms

I appreciate your cleanup on the Muni surface stops, with one quibble about platforms. We generally don't note platform height in the infobox (it's too much a detail), and it's a bit misleading on stops like The Embarcadero and Bay station to say 2 side platforms, 2 mini-high platforms. That makes it sounds like it has four platforms. The mini-high sections aren't separate platforms; we can note them in the prose, but I think 2 side platforms is sufficient for the infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:San Gabriel Subdivision

WikiCleanerMan hs embarked on another of his rampages. Useddenim (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Template:J Line (Los Angeles Metro)

Hello, RickyCourtney. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Template:J Line".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TY!!

Thank you for finding a photo of one of the tunnels! jengod (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yellow Line (BART), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Line.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:City Terminal Zone LIRR

Two thoughts about the template changes. First, the removal of the Lower Montauk, which was included by consensus, shouldn't have been done. And also, making Atlantic Terminal further to the right than LIC was also previously discussed. We don't need all the subway connections either; they were left off for a reason. Finally, East New York station is not underground. Honestly, I don't know if it needed that radical of an overhaul, just the addition of Grand Central Madison. oknazevad (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the layout over from the main LIRR map, so you may want to address these issues there too. RickyCourtney (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the Removal of the Company Officers Section and My Other Contributions

This is the link to your edit that I am referring to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amtrak&oldid=1131165458

Why are they "unnecessary cruft"? It would seem useful to have sections referring to the current and past Board Members and Company Officers, rather than just having them mentioned here and there in other parts of the page. DeanC01 (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off let me start by saying no offense was intended by my edit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that

"Prefer prose where a passage is understood easily as regular text that appears in its ordinary form, without metrical structure or line breaks. Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain."

I feel that the information on company officers and others, could be better presented as prose where appropriate on the page. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"First off let me start by saying no offense was intended by my edit."
Fair enough
Would it be better to put the who is the current CEO, President and who are currently Board of Director members in the Infobox? DeanC01 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In keeping with what's done on most "company" pages -- I would support listing the CEO and President in the infobox, but not the board members. RickyCourtney (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would create much issue to have the Board Members in the infobox. I don't see why it has to be filled out like other pages. DeanC01 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the infobox for the Amtrak article should look like the infobox for the USPS Article. DeanC01 (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with editing template

With the Yellow Line of the Washington Metro being cut back from its northeastern terminus from Greenbelt to Mount Vernon Square, the station layouts on the pages for the stations from Mount Vernon Square northeastward now need to be updated. These stations all use this template. However, I lack the knowledge to be able to make these updates. Would you be able to take a look at this? OrdinaryJosh (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Check the pages to see if my edits introduced any errors into the template. Let know if any additional tweaks are needed. RickyCourtney (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. Thank you so much! I really appreciate the assistance. OrdinaryJosh (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of different aircraft types

What isn’t notable about the difference between say, a Boeing 747-400 and a 747-400BCF? there are substantial airframe modifications, enough that they’re considered different aircraft types by ICAO. I suggest you stop making edits like these. SurferSquall (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I don't see those different aircraft types listed on List of aircraft type designators.
Secondly, Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia for AvGeeks like me. Is there really such a huge difference between a 747-400F and a 747-400BCF that a general audience needs to know?
Furthermore, what's the difference between a 767-300ER/BCF and a Boeing 767-300ER/BDSF that's important to point out on a general audience encyclopedia page? The company that did the conversion hardly seems important. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-400F has a nose door, no nose door on BCF or BDSF. Also, the types can be recognized without being listed on the Aircraft types page. I’d argue it’s a common name issue as most websites are going to distinguish between the three. In addition, while Wikipedia is a general knowledge website, why not have distinctions when possible? There’s no way this is too specific for Wikipedia’s rules. SurferSquall (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UMSL Stations

Please revert your edits to the UMSL North and South stations on the St. Louis MetroLink. That is a misspelling. Bi-State Development does not use that formatting when referring to these stations. Also please don't simplify full station names. It's not Shrewsbury but Shrewsbury-Lansdowne I-44. You need to be consistent with how the system has officially named their stations. Please don't shorten or re-name stations without at least initiating a discussion.

If you are not familiar with the area, please open a discussion before renaming pages.

https://www.metrostlouis.org/metrolink-station/umsl-south-station/

https://www.metrostlouis.org/metrolink-station/umsl-north-station/

Lightmetro (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your feedback. MetroLink uses "Shrewsbury" on platform signage, so it would be a recognized abbreviation of a very long station name. On train car head signs they use "Shrewsbury I-44" as another abbreviation. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake...though my home station (Clayton) still has signage that lists Shrewsbury in large letters with "Lansdowne I-44" in smaller print underneath. You can also see that formatting in other images of the stations. But that was how the system was signed after the rebranding when the Blue Line opened. Some stations, like FPDeB have yellow signs abbreviated only to Shrewsbury (like your example), however, that branding is not consistent across the whole system. Over the next year, Bi-State is replacing all the signage, displays, public address systems, camera systems, etc. at the stations, so it's likely to change again.
I'll have to look for some proof, but since most of the SD-460s (the SD-400s are due to be replaced beginning in 2026) have had their head signs converted to digital, I believe Bi-State is running the full station name now. They couldn't do that previously because they couldn't fit anything larger than "Shrewsbury I-44" old roll style head sign. Lightmetro (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to give a little more insight into my thinking: these platform layout templates are being squeezed into a small space since the update to the new narrow width Wikipedia skin. The same is true for mobile devices. Like the headsigns we discussed, brevity is important. I figured that the one name was better for trimming down the width of those templates. That said, if you feel strongly as a local that we need to have the full station name, I don't oppose it. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have probably checked a little more into it before I fired off a message, honestly it seems most stations have a mix (which would be typical for Bi-State lol). Despite being a regular rider, it's not something I've ever noticed. I do believe the new header signs display the full name since they have a digital scroll now and drivers announce the full name as well. Either way, I'm fine with with the short one due to your reasoning about mobile devices and whatnot. I hadn't considered that, I'm currently on a laptop.
You are correct about UMSL, another detail apparently right under my nose that I never noticed. Interestingly it's never stylized that way in the local media and the Transit app lists both without the dash as well. Anyway, carry on. I did revert some of the Shrewsbury edits, but I will place them back. Lightmetro (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As to the UMSL station pages, I’ll point out that MetroLink includes the dash on the official system map and the station signage. Those are more permanent than the website pages you linked. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airport Info Bo Layout For Regional Carrier

It says in the rule that it needs to be by the actual company which in this case is delta connection which its self is a subsidiary of delta air lines Lucthedog2 (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:1 Line (Sound Transit)

Hello, RickyCourtney. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1 Line".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of errors...

I saw that you shared the updated schedule for the A Line effective June 2023. They still list the Line 130 as a transfer point even though Metro (themselves) gave that route to Long Beach Transit as new Route 141 last summer. This makes me think of how there are/were a lot of errors on the Torrance Transit schedule book for June 2023 (when the city opened the new transit center on Crenshaw Bl). I first noticed the following errors when Torrance started giving out booklets on the new bus schedules last weekend (June 2-4, 2023).

  • Line 1:
    • Did not include the new segment on Crenshaw Bl for the new Mary K. Giordano Transit Center, while the other routes (Lines R3, 4X, 5, 6, and 10) did.
    • (along with Lines 4X, 6, and 13, which serve the Harbor Gateway Transit Center in Gardena) Still lists the southbound bus stop for Line 550 (to San Pedro) even though the segment was discontinued last Christmas and replaced with more frequent service on Lines 205 (Vermont Av) and 246 (PCH, Normandie, Vermont, Gaffey)
  • Lines 6 and 13: At the Artesia station, just like the A Line schedule for June 2023, the Torrance Transit booklet still lists Metro's Line 130, even though that route was eliminated last summer.
  • Line 8: The original (pre-2018) LAX City Bus Center design (in which the bays are horizontal, facing east and west) is still shown even though the newer center has the bays in a vertial position facing north.

Thought I could share this with you.

PuppyCatBree (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Surface Island

Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Surface Island has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Surface Side

Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Surface Side has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Underground

Template:LACMTA Platform Layout L Line Underground has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!

Thanks so much for helping clean up the Skyline article. It had its last major updates in 2021 (and before) and now with the planned opening in this month, I tried to revise & update information as much as I could, but there's a lot I don't know how to do (e.g. with the route diagram) and best practices I'm not aware of. I'm happy this article is getting some love and attention – your edits are extremely helpful and appreciated, and will be deeply beneficial to the community here on Oʻahu when it comes time to ride the train later this month, especially due to lack of centralized, easy-to-understand local resources about rail operations. Mahalo nui loa! –Fpmfpm (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. It was my pleasure. Please feel free to reach out if you need assistance with some of those more technical questions. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question! For the route diagram in the infobox, I've never edited one before, but do you know why the Kalauao/Pearlridge station dot is a different color (white fill with black border) than the rest (solid dark blue)? The legend shows that it says "Between modes" and I'm not really sure what that means, so figured I would ask you and you would probably know. It seems like the Lelepaua/Airport station is also marked as "Out of use; line in use" but why would that differ from the other not-yet-opened stops? Thanks for your help. –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The white fill with black border dots represent an “interchange” between different modes of transport, as depicted on the right of the diagram. In the case of Pearlridge it’s to the nearby monorail.
The white fill with gray border dot seen at the Airport is a future interchange station. In that case the transfer is to planes.
Hope that helps! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I probably should have figured that one out – same as on any transit map… Even though they're not accessible right from the stations themselves, it makes sense that it still counts as providing interchange/access to a different mode of transportation. :) Mahalo! –Fpmfpm (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One more question for you, @RickyCourtney. Every (well, almost every) Skyline station has some public artwork displayed at it – a sculpture, mural, mosaic, etc. – and I think it'd be great to include a photo of this plus information (about what it depicts, symbolizes, how it connects to the station & area, and the artist) on each of the station pages.
There are also 12 concrete pillars, each uniquely engraved, which tell different stories about the ʻili in which each stations has been built, divided up into three layers for the heavens, earth, and sea. I've taken photos of all the different artwork (and corresponding informational plaques) and some of the pillars.
Each station also has an associated oli, or chant/song, consisting of approximately two verses.
Since the above information exists for every station, how would you suggest I edit the articles to best display it in a consistent manner across all of them? Would adding some of this info into the infobox be appropriate? (I believe it should be prominently displayed in the article, as it is physically in the station.) Similar to how the infobox for universities will list a motto, colors, newspaper, etc… I was thinking the station infoboxes here could list the featured artwork title & artist, the story/ies featured on the pillars, etc.
Or, should I instead simply add a regular section and put all this information together in there, writing in prose? Either way, I was thinking of adding a gallery element to show a couple photos of artwork and pillars. Thank you! –Fpmfpm (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there's no firmly established way of handling art at stations. First off, the station infobox isn't coded with parameters that can handle something like you're talking about, so that's not really an option. I'll point you to two good examples of handling this, and let you decide what you think is best, and what's in keeping with the cultural importance of this artwork.
Hope that helps! -- RickyCourtney (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! It does. Just had time to go and add a bit of info & photos I took to the various station pages – hopefully everything looks good! Will add more info about the pillar design later. –Fpmfpm (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For hard, persistent work on public transport articles to update and clean them up for preparations of their openings. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m flattered. Thank you very much. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So well-deserved! –Fpmfpm (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding bus operators

I appreciate your infobox cleanup of WMATA stations, but please do note that the names of transit operators shouldn't be bolded. Per MOS:BOLD, there are only a limited number of circumstances where bolding should be used. There's no need to emphasize the names of the operators. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk)

Thanks for the tip. The formatting was all over the place, some bold, some not. I'll standardize to not bold. Have you brought this concern up at the NYC Subway pages? -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the changes. I haven't brought it up there yet. BTW, this is a personal opinion rather than being strictly policy-based, but I dislike {{start date and age}} being used for railway stations. For anything other than current/ongoing events, the age of a station isn't important enough to be in the infobox. I replace it with {{start date}} whenever I'm making changes to an article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly, and don't have access, I can make that change pretty rapidly with AWB. RickyCourtney (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hello RickyCourtney!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Alaska Airlines fleet. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. If you are unsure of what language to use on a page, please check other similar pages to familiarize yourself with it before attempting to make such edits. SurferSquall (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Newark Penn Station Platform Layout

Template:Newark Penn Station Platform Layout has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VinFast

I'll trust you did the right thing. With all the subsidiaries and mergers taking place, I wasn't sure whether the company the article was about was in fact the one that merged, or whether the merger was just done by a subsidiary.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, SPAC transactions are strange. Basically, VinFast wanted to go public, but they didn’t want to jump through all the hoops of an IPO. So, instead, they purchased an already public SPAC, basically a shell of a company that exists solely for the purpose of one day being acquired. Once VinFast acquired the SPAC, it can go public as the existing company. But for all intents and purposes, the whole legal concept of which company “survives” is moot. The SPAC was never a “real” company… so it’s VinFast that’s the survivor. It’s the same company it was yesterday, just a little poorer (cause it bought the SPAC) and now publicly traded. Hope that helps! RickyCourtney (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether the company that went public is the subject of the article, or a subsidiary of that company. I've never understood which is which.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I see you've been busy. So I really need to trust you did everything right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The company that went public is the subject of the article. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think after all the cleaning up you and possibly others did, that is more clear now.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tesla, Inc into Tesla Fremont Factory. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa, my apologies for neglecting to mention that in the edit summary. Thank you for the suggestion about the Copied template, I've gone ahead and added it to the talk page. That's a good workflow for me to consider in the future. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The template is optional; the edit summary is mandatory. Thanks. — Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airo count

The Amtrak press release says 83 trainsets (73 from the 2021 order plus the 10-unit option order just executed). Are other sources saying 85? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I fixed that. I did the math wrong. It's 83: 75 for the NEC and 8 for the Cascades. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of United States light rail systems by ridership

Information icon Hello, RickyCourtney. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of United States light rail systems by ridership, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swapping A Line northern segment to west to east

Hi! I noticed you swapped the adjacent station modules in the west-east stations along the J Line. Since the A Line behaves similarly to the J Line, orienting itself to west-east north of Memorial Park station, should this also be done for those stations north of Memorial Park station (and also perhaps the station platform diagrams for their respective articles) as well? Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left-side images

I hope my revert didn't come off as rude. To expand on my point there: accessibility guides consistently recommend that text be left-justified, as a ragged left edge (centered or right-justified text) or inconsistent spacing (fully justified) is more difficult to read. Wikipedia is already left-justified by default, so that's taken care of. None of the professional/academic guides I can find say anything about left vs right image placement, and professional publishing uses a variety of image placements; it just doesn't seem to be a concern outside Wikipedia. Using {{stack}} to push images right against an infobox carries its own issues, as seen at Superliner (railcar)#Background. {{clear left}} won't clear those images, and {{clear right}} will push everything below the infobox; without a clear, the next stacked-right image stacks up to the left of the first image. I've returned the second image to the left to fix that issue.

Similarly, sandwiching text between thumbnail images isn't a major issue any more - half of readers are on mobile view/the app where all images float above the section text, modern browsers do a better job handling text placement, and modern screen resolutions are much wider than they were 15 years ago. Sandwiching isn't ideal, for sure, but it's better than creating a lot of whitespace like is now present at Superliner (railcar)#Design.

@Mackensen: Courtesy ping since it's your FA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this isn't major issue for me, but the rules around this are confusing as heck. I'm just trying to follow them as best as possible. In my opinion, the big change is the new skin. Almost all desktop viewers are now reading these pages in a very compressed viewport, so the white space is no longer the issue it once was... however sandwiching text is a much bigger issue than it once was. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing 737 MAX orders and deliveries

Hey,

you updated that article and removed the variants from the table "Orders and deliveries by customer". As an edit summary you just wrote 'cleanup'. Could you write the reason for removing the variants? WikiPate (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey WikiPate, Boeing does not provide data on the orders and deliveries by model type. Therefore it was impossible to verify the accuracy of the information. RickyCourtney (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, this data is available from several other sources. RedundancyAdvocate (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RickyCourtney/Archive_3&oldid=1189517133"