Hi there, I have noticed you uploaded some photos for the Temple University page with file names that do not follow the Naming Conventions. While I have moved your two photos to the proper titles, in future please follow the aforementioned conventions when uploading photos. I would also suggest that you take a look at the Photo Quality guidelines in the same link. Thank you! --ArticulatedTalkContrib 03:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Status/Disposal column missing
Make sure to add the Status/Disposal column as is standard to the wiki fleet pages.
VIN Check digits
I have noticed that in your recent revisions where you have entered a VIN, the check digit frequently is incorrect. The additions are definitely a step forward, but when you do this, a given page takes two steps back. In the future, could you take the time to make sure that this does not happen again? It's not the detail that is my issue, but moreso the principle. -- LegoNovaLFS2001 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
MCT hasn't even recieved any new buses.....
New MCT buses haven't even arrived yet to MCT they are still in California.
I'm trying to make things simpler, easier and faster, and you just go run around and revert everything!
Normally I just take what's written in my Discussion section and shut up and learn from my mistakes, however this I have to reply to.
I'm simply converting the VINdet (Or whatever it's called) formatting stuff to the correct format that is to be used on the wiki VIN pages. I am not *removing* your information or mistyping it (If there was any instance of that, it was a mistake and for that I apologize), I am simply converting it into the format that is *supposed* to be used.
If anything, I could accuse you for vandalism for taking pre-existing pages and converting them into your non-standard template format for VIN pages, categories, etc. In some pages, you seemingly didn't even add any new info and just converted it to your new format. Based on my conversations with other wiki editors and evidence from your own talk page, your unique formatting isn't supposed to be on this wiki at all, so converting pages to that format could be considered vandalism in and of itself. Just like transit agencies have to spend lots of time and resources into removing graffiti from trains and buses, wiki editors have to spend lots of time removing your template and replacing it with the standard one accepted here. Here are a few quotes:
"Hi there. There have been a few complaints from other users about some of your recent edits which I would like to acknowledge. I know you are relatively new to editing on the Wiki, so here are a few tips to consider:
Please ensure you follow our Wiki's guidelines and established standards when editing pages, and not copying Wikipedia or coming up with your own unique formatting."
(From Articulated, 20:34 18 January 2020 UTC)
Thank you for hard work and time inputting VINs onto the wiki. However, I am requesting you to refrain from changing the current format of the VIN Page templates. The other admins and I have been discussing our thoughts on your new format (VINdet & VINdet2) for the last month. There are some aspects that are favorable such as the justified VINs. However, the majority of the admins and moderators (such as myself) prefer the current format. The other wiki editors may also find this new formatting to be a bit too complicated. The coding appears to be easy on the eyes, but in terms of editing I would not feel comfortable with adding hundreds of VINs in a short amount of time. I would have preferred if you had reached out to the admins and moderators on the forum page before going ahead with changing the VIN page format. I saw you asked Kevin L. what he had thought, but not anyone else. At this moment we are currently making decisions on what to do next. Pages may need to be converted back to the standard format. During this time I would appreciate if you would use our standard formatting when inputting VINs into the wiki.
(From Detroit Diesel 6v92TA, 3/5/2020, 12:21 PM PST)
For consistency's sake, I didn't really want to insert my comments in the middle of all these quotes, but I feel there's a very important passage in Detroit's message above:
"At this moment we are currently making decisions on what to do next. Pages may need to be converted back to the standard format. During this time I would appreciate if you would use our standard formatting when inputting VINs into the wiki."
"However, the bigger issues come with the use of the template itself, and not the formatting it produces. Personally I do not like how the VIN is split into two (I understand why you set it up that way, but it would not be my preference), and your use of the template leads to some issues due to the rigidity of the formatting, such as [] being visible on any entries where the operator has not been entered (see Proterra Catalyst 'VINs' as one example of this). By creating new larger pages that combine multiple models, it has now created a big issue with having duplicate information, which would require two edits to properly keep up to date, and runs a significant risk of pages becoming outdated or mixed up if one page is updated and the other isn't. As well, I have significant concern with how the user base at large is able to read and understanding the coding associated with your templates. Most users on the forum are not experienced with coding (and definitely not up to the level you and I are at), and implementing a technique that requires an advanced knowledge and understanding of coding may scare off some users from being able to feel like they can contribute. Many years ago as a young editor I tried to bring various "shortcut" templates over from another Wiki I was involved in, and they ended up creating more confusion and difficulties than it was worth; they all eventually fell out of use and went back to regular, simple formatting. Regarding the "inconsistencies" among VIN pages: Welcome to the CPTDB Wiki. We have general formatting standards that we encourage all users to follow on a go-forward basis, but it is a mammoth task to keep track of every detail on the nearly 35,000 pages on this Wiki, especially little coding details that may not be visible. All VIN entries should use the "id" tag to enable linking from fleet pages, and I try to update entries that do not have one when I find them. As for the " marks, they are not necessary for coding in most circumstances. Personally, I prefer them, and usually use them when editing or creating new pages; however, some users do not use them, and on VIN pages in particular I follow whatever the existing formatting on the page is."
(From Articulated 01:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC) )
I am having an issue with you changing the layout of the templates used for the buses' VIN page directories. The existing format that is used for the VIN page directory templates is perfectly fine. It is easy on the eyes and easier for inexperienced editors to work with in comparison to the layout you've started to make. There is also an error when trying to edit your templates when pressing the "e" button, as it does not take you directly to the template's code for editing. Your template layout does not include an area for buses older than 1980, which used serials instead of VINs. Your templates also combine 2 different manufacturers into 1 template, which was not the case before (for example, Ikarus VINs). I noticed you even went out of your way to delete the existing template for the Eagle International VINs, which was just recently made and replace it with your template layout. While doing this, you removed links for future pages. I have discussed this with other admins & moderators. They are having issues with your recent template related edits as well. Similar to the issue we raised with you changing the coding layout for VIN pages, we would appreciate if you would reach out to us on the cptdb.ca forum page if you want to request changes. There is no way to know if the admins and moderators of this wiki are in favor of major changes without even discussing it with us. Please refrain from changing the layout of templates in the future. For the second time, the admins and moderators are going to have to discuss what we will do about reverting certain pages and templates back to how they were previously, which is frustrating and time consuming. There are no official written rules about template layout standards, but that does not invite you to change everything to the way you prefer it to be. Consider this your final warning. Action will be taken next time.
Detroit Diesel 6V92TA"
(From Detroit Diesel 6V92TA, 3 April 2020, 1:50 PM PDT)
I can understand *why* you'd be upset, but all I'm doing is reverting it to the proper formatting where I, and the many others using the wiki, can edit a page with ease.
Also, I fail to see you how you are trying to make things "simpler, easier and faster" when "It [the old format] is easy on the eyes and easier for inexperienced editors to work with in comparison to the layout you've started to make." (Detroit Diesel 6v92TA, 3 April 2020 1:50 PM PDT)
- For the record, changing the back-end formatting without modifying the content on the page is not considered vandalism. My further reply is here: User talk:Useddenim --ArticulatedTalkContrib 00:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
GM New Look Serials
Hi there, thanks for all your effort in adding thousands of VINs and now Serials to the Wiki over the past couple of weeks.
However, I noticed an issue with the way you're adding the GM New Look Serials to fleet pages, such as West Fordham Transportation Company 263, 363, 463, which does not follow the pre-existing standard. Only the last four digits are needed; the model does not need to preceed it. You can refer to these pages as examples. Also, when adding serials/VINs, please add them to the serial/VIN page, and link from the fleet page using the appropriate ID number (e.g. "T6H-5308N-C001-C002"). The serials are relatively easy to do (compared to VINs), as they only require one line to be added to the charts.
Reply: Roger that -thumbs up-
- Just another reminder to add the id to the links on the fleet pages too, similar to how VINs get linked. The GM New Look Serials is a massive page, so it's very difficult to find an individual entry otherwise! I have made the changes to the Green Bus Lines pages already. --ArticulatedTalkContrib 03:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Loundon County Fleet Roster Update?
Hello, I was wondering if you knew if the remaining D4500's at Loundon County were retired yet? I haven't seen them in a while and was wondering if they got retired by the 2020 MCI's.
Yes my understanding is that the last of the D4500s were retired in either late 2020 or early 2021 by the 2020 D4500CTs. I don't know when exactly they were retired, but per a roster a friend forwarded on to me, all of those 2004s (And all of the 2005 CLs and most 2006 CLs for that matter) were gone by the end of March 2021. As with every non-Volkswagen settlement bus that gets retired, there's always the slight possibility that it (they) could have been reactivated since then, but I never heard of that happening with these 2004s. Hope this helps.
Orion6025 Thanks for that. I know there are 4 remaining 2006 CL's ( 71025-71031 ) left but they haven't been active in a while, are they on that roster your friend sent or are they retired? Thanks The7exp (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the 4 CLs (71025, 71027, 71029, 71031) were listed as active on the sheet.