BC Transit 2008 Polars talk on Awesome cheese
Edits to the Durham Region Transit page
Hi, thanks for the feedback. I have been using the Show preview button before uploading.
Going against standardization
Your edit at 10 March 2012 of page Template:Oakville Transit of removing the apostrophes around the route name has gone against the Naming Convention of Bus Route pages. Seeing as your supporting of "Standardization", I am personally shocked by this move.
I shall quote the exact line:
"The title is to include the transit agency in full, the word 'route' (note no capital 'R' as it is not part of the transit agency name), the route number, and the route name in apostrophes."
Also the reason I choose to have the colors as they were before your edit of 10 March 2012 was going by your Wiki Colour Standards because on the TTC Template, the "Primary colour" is the exterior colour while the "Secondary colour" is the interior. I was keeping the Oakville Template in a set "Standard". I do agree with your reason for edit as it does look better, but I am explaining the reason behind my decision. Your the one after all who demanded standardization, I am trying my best to meet your wishes for Standardization. I have decided voluntarily to follow your standards, even though I will remind you that am not required to do so. I do appreciate the correction for routes 102 and 190 however as I did miss those errors in the preview and would like to Thank you for correcting them.
I also would like it if you would stop stalking my edits and instead spend the time on something more productive, like for example, updating the YRT section, which is in need of a massive update. Or maybe even creating some missing pages, or even helping by adding navigation templates to systems without navigation templates. There are way more productive things to do that would benefit the wiki as a whole rather then spend all your time stalking my edits. Thank you.
P.S., I might revive the Standardization Review as you are correct, we do need set standards, especially to prevent situations like this which keep occurring on a frequent basis, since you can't seem to follow already set guidelines such as the "Naming Convention", evident from this edit. My decision to revive the Standardization Review is still undecided as of right now. It even states on the Main Page under "Information for Editors":
- PLEASE ADHERE TO NAMING CONVENTIONS AND CITE SOURCES WHENEVER POSSIBLE!
If you would like to escalate this and take it up with the Admins, I will be more the willing to co-operate, as I was thinking of taking this up with them but I figured I would see if you were willing to co-operate voluntarily first and resolve this without escalation. But I am tired of you singling me out while going against standardization. --M.Wright 01:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, I never understood the need of the apostorphes. Perhaps there is more discussion needed on the matter on the board. --A. Badaraco 23:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Photo used with permission?
I saw an anonymous flyer that has your picture of Miway XD60 1351. Its exactly the same picture as yours with 6 woodlands reflected on the left side of the bus. I wonder if they got your permission to publish it into their flyers. -noahrp24
Deleting build dates and model numbers
What was the point of deleting all of the exact build dates that I applied to the Madison County Transit Gillig BRT's? These dates were taken directly from the Gillig build plates on each bus by someone who I know that works at MCT. I also noticed before you deleted Gillig model numbers on a different page a while back and I had to add them back. The model numbers help determine the exact specs of the bus. I am asking you to please refrain from deleting important specific info such as exact build dates and model numbers.
Thanks, -Detroit Diesel 6V92TA
Toronto Transit Commission 4204
Hello, As you know, ALRV 4204 has been preserved by the HCRR. I added it to their page's roster (along with the CLRVs), but 4204's existing photo has an adwrap. This photo is currently used on the page, but only because I didn't notice until the edit was saved. Do you happen to have a more appropriate photo, would the former feature photo (featuring 4207) be good, or should no photo be used for the time being? Jaymaud0804 (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- I would argue that the current photo of 4204 does not meet the Photo Quality guidelines; there are a few poles (and a person) in front of the car. My personal opinion on the matter is that eventually it would be best to have photos of the cars operating in their current setting (i.e. at the Museum). --ArticulatedTalkContrib 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)