Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Hotdog with ketchup! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Roundish ⋆tc) 01:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I made some substantial changes to the template.These include ‎removing unnecessary information that properly belongs on individual station pages, and ‎‎removing the Amtrak lines. I have placed all the information from the latter in a new template: {{Chicago Amtrak services}} so your work hasn't been lost. Also, a couple of other general comments about styling conventions for RDTs: squeezing information about two different icons into one line is a no-no (for example, ^{Prospect Heights}
_{Empire Builder to Seattle or Portland}, where the referenced items are on completely different lines); and moving stations somewhat randomly to wherever they would fit, resulting in awkward interleaving. More information is at Wikipedia:Route diagram template/MOS. Useddenim (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. As for the Amtrak routes, I had only included routes that share stations with Metra (hence there were no routes towards the Rust Belt or Northeast) but I admit I won't miss working with those on one template. As for styling, I’ll try to keep things in better compliance with the style guide. Certain adjustments, like shifting Joliet to the right one, were made to allow provisions for extensions without causing a headache in the future when such might happen. Lastly, I want to thank you for your patience as I get the hang of working with route diagrams. Your guidance has been very helpful! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem – we were all beginners at one time. And the way I figure it, the more people who know their way around route diagrams means less work for me! Useddenim (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem any good alternative, so I had to add a blank row in the station names on the right side. It was the only way I could figure out to avoid have stations for the MD-W and UP-NW lines flop-flopping back and forth from one side to the other. Useddenim (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you both to read the important accessibility-related guideline at MOS:SMALL. I have had to fix this template a few times to comply with that guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Two things on my mind. 1. I did think about using the "trail" color for UP-N in the beginning, but I thought "misusing" a color wouldn't be allowed. But if it is allowed, I’ll take it! It looks better! 2. To avoid the gap, I suppose bending the McHenry branch backwards again would be the best solution. I did not realize that keeping station links on one side was your goal when I undid that. So I'm in favor of bending it backwards (STR2+3) like before, especially if the alternative is a gap. I will do it myself as long as you don't object to it. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repurposing icons is allowed, as long as it's noted on the diagram; see the last bullet under Wikipedia:Route diagram template#Style guide. Useddenim (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One last concern I did not address earlier was the square between Grand/Cicero and Elmwood Park. It is a very innovative idea but the station links cannot be interacted with; it opens the square's file. I suppose it is not a huge concern but I could not think of an alternative other than bringing back a info bar above the key. But I will hold off on that because there is probably a simpler way, like [note 1] or something. I will post a laundry list on the talk page so that other editors can be informed without making a misguided edit. Thanks! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed; it was just a matter of the order the items were displayed. Useddenim (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm about to drop a hard block on (at least) one of the ranges you work on--there's an especially gross longterm abuser active there. I hope this doesn't bother you, or bother you too much, but if it does, please have a look at Wikipedia:IP block exemption, and ping me--you will still have talk page access. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait it out. Thank you for the message and for your service to the site! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see the edits you are referring to appear to have been made in bad faith, but I also see you are an Oversighter, so I just want to be clear that if any of the files I uploaded on Commons yesterday/today (same username) were done incorrectly, (I selected public domain for copyright because all of the images were simple shapes) I do apologize for that. I am not familiar with uploading. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread contains discussions and links to photos of the track and platform arrangement at River Forest that I thought you might find useful. There’s discussion and photos of Track A1 and its associated platform (since removed). Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost on Belmont: Thanks for letting me know! I'm always up for a good read. I will update the station page and keep that in mind when I create a diagram (AlphaBeta135 has created several, and seems to need assistance with Jefferson Park.)

It may take a while for me to create the diagrams and fix Jefferson Park, as my computer suddenly perished. Thus, visual template edits (as I prefer them) are restricted to library hours for now. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably add a key to this diagram for the non-standard colors. Useddenim (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I will take care of it shortly. I can see how it's confusing since the SSL has one color on its own diagram and another on the regional diagrams. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new vertical lift/bascule bridge icon  (LFTW) is now live, but only in standard, ex, u, and uex colors. Wanna add some more colorful entries to your list of BSicons you’ve created? Lost on  Belmont  ^3200N_1000W  (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost on Belmont: I will add f, fex, exyellow, expink, maroon, denim, and exdenim for sure. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hard work in research and editing railway articles and route diagram templates. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that I'd drop on by and give you a barnstar as a token of my gratitude of your fine work!

Additionally, I took some inspiration from your work on the Metrolink RDT and also added line colors on the LA Metro Rail RDT and coloring the Warner Center segment of the G Line on the Metro Busway RDT. Just thought that I might reach out and see if you were interested in the work I did on those templates, like if I chose the appropriate color sets to use for example, or if there's anywhere else in particular that could be improved upon.

Thank you and have a nice day! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just got done doing the same to the San Diego Trolley RDT if you were also interested in looking at that one. There was one junction between the Blue and Green lines between Tecolote Road and Old Town that I was just unable to figure out. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: First and foremost, thank you kindly for the barnstar! I will make a place for it in the near future.

Second, I took a look at the G and J Line diagrams and they look great. One thing I would do is use  (exKHST2 orange) for Warner Center, but I decided not to poke around at it because I can understand it just fine without messing anything up. Whether or not you change it is your choice.

Third, I looked at the San Diego diagram, and I have a few things to say. Although I see it is geographically accurate, I think the north end of the Blue Line should be "unfolded" and displayed as a straight line, because that should allow for the diagram to be narrowed down to three-wide. And perhaps the Silver Line could use  (LSTR grey) icons because as far as I know, it does not run daily (and it shows where the other three lines run/terminate. That's all I have for now. Thanks again for the barnstar! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I implemented the suggest change in the G Line for Warner Center, and it definitely looks better. As for the San Diego RDT, I took your suggestions to heart and compressed it down to three columns, along with the better line layering you suggested and the usage of more standard icons.

That being said, thank you again! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This is not really a formal comment at all, and I hope that it is coherent enough to understand. So, I'm sure that you're familiar with my latest work on the RDTs for LA Metro, the San Diego Trolley, the Washington Metro, MARC, VRE, and the Washington, D.C., rail network. I find myself second guessing my color choices on these templates a lot. I'm debating whether or not to either use the color sets simply titled "red", "blue", etc. or use color sets which are the closest shade to the official map/bullet colors for the lines. I basically chose to use the closest shades for each lines, and sometimes this resulted in me using the standard color sets for "heavy rail" and "light rail" (case in point the B Line for LA Metro, the Red Line for the Washington Metro, and the Penn Line for MARC.) I'm not so certain of this choice, because this may also potentially cause issues when I intend on going ahead and recoloring each RDT for each individual line on each system, because those standard sets are also used for other heavy rail/metro lines on many of those RDTs. I was curious what your thoughts were on this.

P.S. On the Washington Metro RDT, I'm really considering removing the yards and the non-revenue connectors, (and also maybe potentially making each station "BHF" sized, and also interchange stations between lines "INT") simply because I think they aren't really that necessary and may cause some confusion for some readers. Was also curious what your thoughts on this were as well. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: •The main things I noticed with the Washington Metro RDT are that each station's structure is shown accordingly (at-grade, elevated, etc.) but some of the crossings are left ambiguous, and I haven't spent enough time in DC to see for myself what goes over and what goes under.

•I am rather impartial to yards in general, some people like them and others don't. Since they are there and not causing problems, I say they stay put unless/until a more experienced editor overrides me. (but I might color them black to tell apart from the Blue and Silver Lines.)

•As for non-revenue connectors, I urge you to leave them, because they could always be reactivated in the event of service changes. I would only remove them if the connectors themselves get torn up.

•Full support for converting to BHF and especially INT. Even the official WMATA maps use INT.

•I'll have a look and see what I can do, including with the other diagrams you mentioned. Thanks for reaching out! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: I made some formatting edits to a copy of the Washington Metro RDT. It is in my sandbox. I showed the Red Line crossing over the Blue/Orange/Silver Lines near Farragut North/West as a wild guess, because weaving the other three lines over and then under the Red Line sounds like foolish engineering. But to be clear, I have no citation to back that arrangement up so keep that in mind before making a definitive edit.

I also recolored the yards and non-revenue lines to black, but I regret doing so. They look too much like interchanges, so Base U would be better and we would just have to make the Blue Line a lighter shade. Perhaps ordinary blue is best, because  (CBHF blue) is available and  (CBHF denim) is not. The other colors look great. You could make the Red Line  (STRq red) red if you really want to, but  (STRq) works too and I would only encourage changing it if all replacement icons are available.

I would love to do more, but I have some stuff going on in person tonight, so all I can provide is a head start. Hopefully it helps! Sorry for rambling. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! As for the issue with the lack of replacement icons, I could just go ahead and make anything that is missing (like I just did with  (CBHF denim), let me know if there are others needed and I would be more than happy too make them as well!), so personally I'm more interested in which color sets would probably look better for each line, especially the Blue and Red lines for the Washington Metro, haha. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had one last quick question, haha! In your opinion, do you think that all stations on all interlined segments of the Washington Metro (Blue/Orange/Silver and Green/Yellow) would look better as  (INT)? If so, I’d be more than happy to make the change. :) Thanks again for all of your work on this RDT! —-OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett: If I am being completely honest, no. They should be fine as is, because each line uses the same set of tracks and as far as I know, they all run local at every station. (The one INT change I made after the template was updated was for a station that connects to MARC Trains.)

Also, completely unrelated to DC but while you’re here, I noticed you do a lot of work on road related articles. I decided to make east and west 45° curves for the  (vRP2) set, just in case they are ever needed for a highway. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good to know, haha. I was considering it too, but yeah I felt that it might've been a bit overkill. But yes, thank you so much for the new road BSicons! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For inspiring me to go ahead and make more colored route diagram templates. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promise that this'll be the last time I'll bother you by directly reaching out to you specifically for anything related to BSicons, but I just wanted to say that from the bottom of my heart, thank you. Thank you so much for everything. You've inspired me to go ahead and add line colors to many different public transport systems across the U.S. (as of the last time I reached out to you about D.C., I've completed multiple colored RDTs (the light rail systems in San Jose, Sacramento, St. Louis, Houston, Pittsburgh, and Dallas, sBX in San Bernardino, the Purple Line and streetcar in D.C., and the Red Line in Baltimore, if you really want to check them out yourself, don't be pressured to of course!) over the past couple weeks and I'm really happy with how all of them turned out. I know I already gave you one, but here, have another barnstar!

As for me, I'll be taking a break from doing these for a while. I feel like this is a good enough position for me to take a breather after the past relentless weeks of work on these. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested in the following discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_25#Template:Skytrain_MIA. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that my changes to the Milwaukee District outbound termini was too confusing. I don't know if it's that confusing since the Metro-North Railroad's New Haven Line does the same thing. Look up the West Haven station. Endrias Kassa (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrias Kassa: Thank you for your message. I think as a whole, the weekday and weekend schedules for the MD-West Line are similar enough that a note on the Elgin and Big Timber pages should be sufficient. Unless we were consistent and noted all changes between weekday and weekend schedules (for example, from Western Avenue, link Galewood instead of Grand/Cicero.)

If that is implemented line by line, rather than station by station, it would make much more sense for the average viewer. I will help with that where I can. It would be quite useful for the BNSF Line come to think of it. Thanks again for reaching out! Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps looking at a method similar to the Caltrain line would be smart, with two separate "lines" (service patterns) so that they can be easily told apart. Although admittedly, Caltrain has multiple named service patterns for its one route, and Metra does not. Perhaps "Weekday service" and "Weekend service" would be sufficient. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just decided to do it for the MDW line only because no trains go further outbound than Elgin on weekends and holidays. Trains on the other daily commuter lines reach their outbound terminus at least once all day. Endrias Kassa (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like how it is on the CTA purple line. Endrias Kassa (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Endrias Kassa: I suppose that works too. It just makes more sense to be consistent with the whole line instead of only the endpoint. Maybe a second row could replace the "weekday limited" notes that are currently shown on the station pages. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]