Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to discuss anything that needs to be brought up here with me!

Thanks for the warm welcome! It is my pleasure to work with other roadgeeks to improve road-related articles on Wikipedia. TextClick (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed your contribution at Extradosed bridge and then also that you hail from Los Angeles. I think a number of editors interested in roadways and transportation topics are also interested in historic sites more generally (i do both myself, more focused on historic sites though), and I wonder if you might consider contributing photos or otherwise on National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles or National Register of Historic Places listings in Los Angeles County, California. I lived in LA for a while and helped build those list-articles, but a number of new listings lack photos and many lack articles. If you're interested, there is wp:NRHP which would welcome your participation, and there is wp:NRHPHELP with suggestions about how to get source documents and more. Anyhow, thanks for your contributions and welcome to wikipedia in general! cheers, --doncram 22:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, List of road interchanges in the United States is a newish list-article that I contributed to, and it needs development, as do articles about individual interchanges in Los Angeles. Many of the oldest/biggest/best/longest/tallest stack interchanges in the world are in L.A.! --doncram

Hey, thanks for the offer! I will see if I can help in those areas if I can. TextClick (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Illinois Route 390, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanover Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed you added mileposts to the exit list in this article. Do you have a source for this, or did you measure using a map? Just curious about the level of specificity you've entered on these knowing I've never seen a comprehensive NDOT milepost source. Thanks. -- LJ ↗ 13:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did use the NDOT SMH Book and Google Maps as a reference to calculate most of the mileposts manually. There were already some mileposts in the exit list that I also used as references, but they may conflict with the measurements I made. I tried to add these as references into the table, but I had trouble doing so. However, if this is not acceptable by necessary quality standards, feel free to revert my edit. I apologize in advance if this is the case. TextClick (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you measure to two decimal places using Google Maps? Ultimately, if we can reference it, then it can pass muster. LJ ↗ 07:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the desktop version of Google Maps, there is a feature called “Measure Distance.” When you right click on a certain spot, you get a pop-up menu. If you click on “Measure Distance”, you can then left click on another spot, which automatically creates a straight line between those two points. You can also change the shape of the line by dragging on a certain section of the line, which breaks it down into multiple sections. The feature also happens to give you distances in miles to two decimal places, which is exactly how I calculated the mileposts. TextClick (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall it going to two decimals the last time I used that feature... Anyway, a reference should be added, and perhaps a notation that mileages were manually measured. Thanks. LJ ↗ 19:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TextClick. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of disambiguation pages! Just wanted to leave a tip: since dab pages are actually navigation aids (and not articles), red-linked entries only work if there’s a corresponding blue link to an article with that same red link. So I removed Champlain Bridge, Montreal (2019–present) from the dab page at Champlain Bridge, as well as from the navigation hatnote at Champlain Bridge, Montreal (1962–2019).

Also, when there’s an existing dab page that an article could reasonably be listed on, don’t create another for the more specific (but still ambiguous) article titles. I’m thinking here of Champlain Bridge, Montreal and Lake Champlain Bridge. I’ve turned those into incomplete disambiguation redirects to the main dab page, Champlain Bridge. That way we don’t have the reader having to try several searches to get what they want, and we editors don’t have more than one disambiguation page to maintain.

Don’t forget to also read MOS:DAB. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment at Talk:Champlain_Bridge,_Montreal_(2019–present), the article names linked from the DAB page Champlain Bridge may need consideration. --Cornellier (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interstate 49 in Arkansas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the long term plan here, to replace all of them? While it can't be manipulated the previous map looks much better and provides provincial context. This map is much better suited to the much shorter routes, but it'd be a nice to see a link to a discussion for Alberta roads where this was deemed to be the best way to go forward, especially since it's redundant with the Route map drop down that already exists at the top of the page. -- Acefitt 00:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, could you clarify what you are referring to? TextClick (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox map on Alberta Highway 16 and Alberta Highway 1. -- Acefitt 03:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going with consistency with the other pages regarding the TCH, as they all used interactive maps. If the original SVG file maps are preferable, I can add them back. TextClick (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine as is, thanks. Just clarifying. -- Acefitt 06:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrdinaryJosh! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Adams Township, Warren County, Indiana that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. This applies to all of the other edits you are doing on "Adams Township, ..." articles. Archer1234 (t·c) 08:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thank you! --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @OrdinaryJosh. I am @Archer1234. Please see Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review. You are adding the {{redirect}} template to all of the "Adams Township, ... County, Indiana" articles saying that "Adams Township, Indiana" redirects to each. "Adams Township, Indiana" is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. As a consequence, each article to which you have added that {{redirect}} template gets placed in Category:Articles with redirect hatnotes needing review, which is a tracking category that should normally be empty. I monitor that category, which is how I came to notice what was happening. It would be helpful if you would remove each of those redirects since they do not apply. If you have any questions about this, let me know. Thanks. Happy Editing. — Archer1234 (t·c) 08:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, per MOS:ORDER, {{use mdy dates}} should go beneath hatnotes like {{distinguish}} and {{redirect}}. — Archer1234 (t·c) 08:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and noted. Done. Apologies for marking the first edit as "minor" by mistake once again. --OrdinaryJosh (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meow! LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

meooooow :3 OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For tireless contribution and attention to detail in finding and installing the correct logos, fonts and roundels on the line pages of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - It is noticed! Lexlex (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your move of {{Pacific Surfliner}}. If you look at Category:Amtrak route diagram templates, the majority are titled Template:Amtrak XYZ. I think it's better to keep consistent naming across the set than try to match the article name. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I can move it back if it's better that way. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scarlett, please note that WP:RM#CM requires that a move be listed at WP:RM (rather than being boldly performed) if it is potentially controversial, specifically including if there has been any past debate about the best title for the page. Given that there was a previous discussion on the talk page - and that the station's name has been sufficiently politically controversial to merit two paragraphs - this was a controversial move. It would be best if you move it back to the previous title and file a move request. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for letting me know. I’ll move it back. —-OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I greatly appreciate the cleanup you've been doing with Bay Area transit maps. For KML files like Template:Attached KML/Bay Area Rapid Transit, I think it might be worth using an icon from Commons (perhaps one from commons:Category:Pin icons) rather than the one from Google. That removes an external dependency; currently, if Google deletes the file on their servers, it breaks things on our end. Thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like that. My only issue is that I will need to figure out how to do it, but if and when I can, I am for sure going to do that instead, because the Google icons do not look good in my humble opinion. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., if you have one of those Commons icons in particular that you favor from that catalogue you linked to, I will be more than happy to use it. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I picked commons:File:30x-Marker.png, though I'm by no means wedded to it. To test, I just used search-and-replace to swap every instance of https://www.gstatic.com/mapspro/images/stock/503-wht-blank_maps.png with https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/30x-Marker.png in the KML and commons:Data:Bay Area Rapid Transit.map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I see, did that work for you? I tried doing that as well, but the icons still remain the same on my end. Maybe the cache just isn’t updated for me? —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your maps showing the routes of the B and D lines for LA Metro have a minor error, you can see on the OSM relations where the actual subway tracks go following Wilshire/Vermont, but the curves you have are a little bit too tight. Not a big issue, but it's not quite right. AveryTheComrade (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AveryTheComrade:  Done. Apologies for the late response, but I have redrawn the split. Just give the cache a bit of time to update it. To be fair, I didn't draw the original split; that was inherited from the previous editor(s) who initially created and updated the original KML file that I adapted the interactive map from. But yes, I agree, the original split just didn't look good to me either and was a bit of a nuissance. I tried my best to follow the OSM relations, and I hope that it's good enough. Thank you! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I saw a hidden comment on an article about Metro Rolling Stock that claimed the C Line will have P3010s or not following the renovation of all P2000s. I saw that it was you who made the edit. I wanna ask where you got this info. I know its just a small comment, but I'm curious to know as a railfan myself. Thanks! Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m part of a Facebook group which has members in it who work for Metro, and one of these people who has intimate knowledge from being a train operator gave me this information after I asked regarding the rolling stock. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the link, if possible? I want to join. Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways what will happen to the rolling stock of LA Metro for light rail when LAX transit center opens, like which line has which cars (ec: E Line P3010s)? It seems P3010 cars 1209 and 1210 moved over to C Line just since October tho, in September they were still on the C Line. Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make a post in the group once you’re approved to join. —-OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then I will!!! Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways it was nice learning about this group I hope I get approved to join. Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got approved! Do you have any pics of 1206 1207 and 1208 from C Line btw maybe you can take those pics, your pics are nice for C line. Could be added to a Wikipedia page to update Green Line page. Thepassionatepuppy (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent edits improving the Edmonton LRT articles. Some of these edits (example) are minor edits simply to avoid redirects in wikilinks. Note that such edits are unnecessary, and even discouraged, per WP:NOTBROKEN. 162 etc. (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to point out two quick things.

1.   (uBRÜCKE2 green) is incorrectly named; the u prefix would only be necessary for  (uBRÜCKE2). I could not figure out how to request a renaming on a mobile device.
2. The only icon needed before replacing the existing Metrolink diagram with the colored one is  (tpHST) in ruby for San Clemente Pier. After that, there should be nothing holding back the merging of the colored diagram into the existing one. Thanks for reading, let me know if you have any questions. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Fixed. I reuploaded the file under the correct name and nominated the incorrectly named file for deletion. Thanks for point that out, I didn't even notice!

2. Done and done. Thank you so much for all of your hard work on this amazing colored diagram! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arts/Industrial District station is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arts/Industrial District station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit under the logo? Bzik2324 (talk) 21:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was unnecessary and made it look too cluttered. —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your last edit here, on Wikipedia for 2023. I do not have any bad intentions for all of that. I hope you understand me. Γιάννης Ευαγγελίου (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This probably wasn't your intention, but you did, in fact, make the very last edit of 2023 according to UTC time. Strange lottery to win! If you're curious, this was the very first edit of 2024. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 01:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you gonna add interactive maps for even discontinued commuter rail lines? Coreyriffinbeastoperatorblue (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. A recent RM at NAIT/Blatchford Market station showed that only one article is required for the (former) NAIT station and the current NAIT/Blatchford Market station. I believe that this should also be applied to the template here - the reference to the closed station can be removed. I've tried doing it myself but end up misaligning the rest of the lines; as you appear to be familiar with the markup, I'd appreciate your help here. 162 etc. (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Baltimore Arena station move request. Several other of the circa-2018 renames will need one of us to file an RM as well. I've compiled sources here: User:Pi.1415926535/Baltimore. All except Hamburg Street seem clear-cut. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, jeez, I didn't realize that this issue was this severe. Thanks for letting me know; I'll see what I can do. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: Hopefully I did it correctly? I filed an RM on the main Light RailLink talk page, and I hope that I spelled the new station names correctly (i.e. should Mt. or Mount be preferred, and should there be spaces between the words and the slashes). Let me know if there's anything else that I should do. Thanks. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: All looks good to me! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that?Naraht (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used the order WMATA uses on their official Metrorail map. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Appreciate you adding the maps to various transit articles. The line colour for the Millennium Line needs darkening as it isn't distinguishable from regular roads/highways given how close the official colour is to the colour Google Maps uses for roads. I tried editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Map_data/Wikipedia_KML/Millennium_Line but either it's cached somewhere or that's not where it needs editing.

I'd suggest #E0A800 or #BD8E00 but clearly something different from #ffce36 is needed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Hopefully the colour updates by the time you're able to see it. While your edit wasn't incorrect, I actually used Commons map data to render the maps, so I actually had to edit the colour at Data:Millennium Line.map and Data:SkyTrain (Vancouver).map over on Commons. Let me know if the colour looks good and if you need any further assistance.

P.S. I've noticed the same issue with Line 1 for the Toronto subway. Would you like me to darken the colour for it as well with #E0A800? —OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That would be great... that was the first one I noticed (Line 1 Yonge–University) and I was like, "Why is that map blank?" 😂 —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to make a change like Special:Diff/1212257065 you need to make sure that every invocation--such as on station articles, or {{Maryland Transit Administration}}--is updated to match. Otherwise you get a bunch of errors, because their templates are looking for a line called "Metro Subway" that no longer exists. The change probably wasn't necessary at all; the link already goes to Baltimore Metro SubwayLink. Mackensen (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shoot… thanks for letting me know. Let me know if there’s anything else worth fixing, I’d be more than happy to help. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the module syntax is somewhat arcane. I think everything's sorted. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OrdinaryScarlett. Thank you for your work on Cocoa station. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, a week or two ago, there was a discussion about the TRE route diagram and its varying levels of detail. After that discussion, I went ahead and created eleven rudimentary RDTs for the Chicago area, and was wondering what you think of them. They are in my sandbox. As described, they include only station links (and the state line for one route) and the idea is to put a line on each corresponding station page, so one can see all stations on the given line, not just adjacent stations and termini. (I have not filled in the top or bottom with the navbar, title, etc. because they are currently proofs of concept. They would definitely be collapsible.) I look forward to hearing your feedback. Thank you! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look great to me! I'd imagine you had something in mind like how the station pages for the Edmonton LRT display the entire system diagram in the infobox but instead just localized to a single line that's simplified? (Example: Churchill station (Edmonton)) And the diagrams would look something like the diagram in this photo I took at a station (they have these at each station), showcasing only connections and where the station is on the line? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: Yes, precisely. Although I have thought of one problem…there are some stations that are served by two or three lines (and in the case of Union Station, six) which would mean having several diagrams on some pages. It may be bothersome for the viewer to look through them all, even if they are made collapsible. The last thing I need is for them to be added to every relevant page, only for one or two to be removed. Either way, they still need polishing before testing them out. Thanks for your feedback! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OrdinaryScarlett, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Mountain House Community station, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain House Community station.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dclemens1971}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OrdinaryScarlett. Thank you for your work on Adly Mansour station. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:E Line (Los Angeles Metro)/detailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East San Fernando Valley Light Rail Transit Project/detailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foothill Extension/detailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:L Line (Los Angeles Metro)/detailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arrow (rail service)/detailed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:K Line (Los Angeles Metro)/detailed 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]

Thanks for your work colorizing so many of these templates. Question regarding the San Diego templates: should we bother including the Silver Line? It only operates holiday weekends so it doesn’t feel necessary to me. RickyCourtney (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that same exact question before and come to the same conclusion, but I wasn't absolutely certain on removing it. That being said, I agree, the Silver Line doesn't operate anything even remotely close to regular service. To me, it feels misleading to include it on the templates for the other three lines since that implicitly places it on equal footing with them when that is really not the case. I'll remove it from them. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a personal opinion, but we should really be trying to avoid using the BSsplit template when possible. If you haven’t seen, it causes the text to look very squished on mobile devices, which is where most readers use Wikipedia. Just wanted to share with you as a thought starter, and because you’ve become a power editor of the strip maps! RickyCourtney (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha, I agree. Was this in response to just the split station names in particular, or were there more I also needed to remove as well? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are the Noisy–Champs resp. Le Mesnil-Amelot extensions to Lines 16 & 17 already under construction? If yes, a source would be nice, if not, they should be moved back into the Planned section, I think. Rontombontom (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. I moved them back. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note that you're working on replacing wikilinks (Edmonton Light Rail Transit to Edmonton LRT.) Note that such edits are unnecessary, and even discouraged, per WP:NOTBROKEN. 162 etc. (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I’ll keep this in mind moving forward. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi... appreciate your work on the transit templates and your contributions in general.

Can I ask, though, that you not change the icons on the TTC templates yet one more time (from the stations showing the handicap symbol to not and back again)? I believe this is the third or fourth cosmetic-only change in about as many months now and it's getting a little frustrating. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for reaching out. I’m sorry about the constant back-and-forth annoyance. I promise I’ll be sure to lay off doing this from now on. I’m frankly not certain what is preferred for the Toronto subway templates, a label at the bottom of the templates if all stations will be accessible, or just having every station being individually labeled with accessibility signs. Either way, I’ll defer that to you and other local editors, and I hope this doesn’t leave us on bad terms. Thanks for the honesty and upfrontness, I really appreciate it. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... for all the MAX Light Rail-related updates you've been making. I really appreciate it! truflip99 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks! It’s my pleasure. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority station platform templates for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 September 10#Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority station platform templates. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I support this, no opposition from me whatsoever. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you hear that the Aviation/Century station will open earlier in October 2024 instead of November? I'm excited about the change, especially with the fact that I live a mile from the Redondo Beach (K Line) station. PuppyCatBree (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe i left a note on Talk:San Francisco 4th and King Street station before moving the page UnsungHistory (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnsungHistory: Please read WP:PCM. For potentially controversial moves like this one, you should file a move request rather than unilaterally moving the page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OrdinaryScarlett, can you share your opinion on the best and most consistent way to cite sources published by transportation agencies, specifically the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)? If the agency (who is the publisher) has a corresponding article on Wikipedia, should we wikilink the agency or not? I'm asking because I've noticed inconsistencies lately in Los Angeles Metro articles as LACMTA is sometimes linked or not in citations. I am now confused about how to cite the publisher correctly. I've looked at examples from various transportation agencies (ex: Sound Transit; not wikilinked) worldwide, but they cite them differently as well. Also, when citing the official website of Los Angeles Metro, do you commonly cite it by the website (www.metro.net) or by the publisher (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority)? Thank you! Peterlaxamazing (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I just got back from a hiatus from editing. I don't really have a good answer to either. I'm sorry I couldn't be of help! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it:) The answer is quite vague anyway. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that "the name of [the] publisher may be wikilinked if relevant". I think Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is appropriate to wikilink in citations. However, I want to ensure that I do not go against the existing style of Los Angeles Metro articles.

While waiting for your reply, I looked at examples from other transit-related articles in other cities. To avoid overlinking, I noticed that some articles (like Seattle and Portland transit articles; many of which are good or featured articles) only wikilink each publisher the first time it appears in an article. Maybe we should apply that to Los Angeles Metro articles. What do you think? Do I need to start a formal discussion? Thank you. Peterlaxamazing (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While you provide a fairly compelling argument for combining certain railway stations into one Wikipedia article, can you provide the specific criteria (beyond making "more sense to me personally") that would determine when two stations that are fairly close in proximity should not be combined into one article. This would help in clarifying when stations should be combined. In addition, in your assertion for combining stations into a single article, you provide several sources that treat them as a single station but seem to ignore the multiple other sources that consider them to be separate stations. Another criterion that is worth considering is if one of the stations is open daily, while the other is not.

Specific examples such stations in question are Union Station (Ogden, Utah) and Ogden Central Station, as well as Provo Central station and Provo station (Amtrak). An Errant Knight (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if you feel this is more appropriate, then feel free to revert my edits on those pages. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed the background shading from the passenger rail network for Connecticut yesterday, which means unless I am mistaken, California's diagram is the only state network RDT that still uses it, and I have always found it annoying to work with and have been removing it in my sandbox. The question I thought I would ask you is whether I should leave Metrolink as one color or color each line individually.

There seems to be no clear decision with other state diagrams. To name a few, Colorado and Illinois have separate line colors, while Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania do not.

On one hand, none of the normal Metrolink colors (jade, lime, maroon, orange, ruby, saffron, sky, violet) would interfere with other systems within California. On the other hand, it would make the key much larger. I just wanted your input before I committed to one systemwide color or 8 individual colors. Thanks for reading, and I hope to hear from you soon! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Like you said, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus, but I'd be in favor of the individual colors here. I think in cases like Colorado (RTD) and Illinois (Metra), each systems' individual lines have a very clear and distinct map color used by their respective transit agencies and don't interfere with other systems statewide. In my opinion, if I'm correct, states like Pennsylvania (SEPTA), Connecticut (CT Rail), and Massachusetts (MBTA) don't use individual line colors in their respective systems. I'd argue that the templates for New Jersey and New York could both potentially also use individual line colors, though I'm not sure if they weren't added because it would've been too difficult or would've interfered statewide. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]