User talk:Rileyrob

Previous discussions can be found at User talk:Rileyrob/archive

Durham

You can't find anything in Category:Durham because everything's under Durham (City), Durham (County) or Durham (Highway Authority)! Steven 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd just figured that out from your edits. Would you like to sort it all out?! Oh, you already have, thanks!Rileyrob 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ratings in categories

Hi Rob,

I've changed Category:Wolverhampton and Category:Bath to include a "do not fiddle" template, and another chart to show the existence or otherwise of maps in infoboxes. What do you think? Steven 18:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it. It means another trawl through the pages of course, but hey ho! The only comment I have is that the two different shades of green suggest that one is better than the other. I would argue that they serve different purposes. For defunct, and short routes a < sabremap > is more appropriate. For longer routes, like the A38 or A82, one of the older style maps is far better, albeit no one really seems to know how to create them! Rileyrob 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I wanted to differentiate them somehow. Any suggestions gratefully received! Steven 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I reckon it'll do for now. If we are going through changing these, I reckon a NOTOC would be another good plan on most (perhaps not the really big cats like London though). I'm just trying to think if there is anything else that may be of use, but the only thing that springs to mind is photos - image in gallery/image in page/no image. Dunno if that is possible, would be useful on junctions etc too. (My tea is cooked now!)Rileyrob 18:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Can we also put all of the places categories in an obvious place, so that people can just look for their local area. There's too many for one cat, and the large places / smaller places is not that useful to people trying to work on Sheffield and South Yorkshire at the same time. Do we have categories for regions? Probably less divisive and more user friendly than counties. (My tea is burning now). Rileyrob 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't, but we can always split up "smaller primary destinations" to regional-based ones. The original idea of Roads by Area was to basically take in not only the places themselves (which in itself is a zillion different definitions), but in their rural hinterlands too, where they're not taken up by somewhere else - so Birmingham is pretty much anywhere inside the Brummie Box that isn't better described as Solihull, West Bromwich, Smethwick or Halesowen; Manchester is pretty much anywhere inside the M60 (plus out to the airport) that isn't better described as Salford, Stockport, Stretford etc. The edges are deliberately fuzzy. Sheffield, therefore, doesn't just mean Sheffield (the urban area) or Sheffield (the district), but can extend reasonably into NE Derbyshire, across to Rotherham and so on. Steven 19:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We have categories for regions (done via the infobox) - both [[Category:Places in <region name>]] and [[Category:Primary Destinations in <region name>]] exist. Thus we have Category:Primary Destinations in Scotland and Category:Places in the West Midlands region to give two examples. Si404 13:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I've found a bug in your code, but it's not actually in your code, if you see what I mean. Some pages have images in them, but are for some reason being added to the "Needs Images" category. I'll try to bug-fix the code that's causing the original issue, but the workaround is now on Category:Wolverhampton.

EDIT: Sussed the problem. Everything that uses the "old infobox" style box (so junctions etc) gets added to Category:Needs Image if it does not have a photo in the infobox itself, not that there aren't any images in the relevant gallery. I'll need to think about the best way of fixing it, but for now my work-around will work. Steven 07:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats odd. As far as I know, the two images sections rely on the following: Either the page has an image in the gallery, relying on Category:Articles with pictures in the gallery, which I believe Jeni coded, OR there is a {{needsimage}} tag on the page, which I believe automatically inserts the page in Category:Needs Image.

Now, obviously some of these will have incorrectly remained on pages, and this does miss a whole range of pages where the needsimage is missing AND there isn't an image in the gallery.

I am a total novice on this sort of code, so just did a copy and paste from higher up the page, fiddling with the bits I understood to make it do roughly what I wanted, and by and large it seemed to work. Hopefully this all makes sense, and helps you debug it! Rileyrob 11:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about the gallery images, and the needsimage template. The problem is in the Old Infobox template which is hardcoded to add items to the Needs Image category if there isn't an image in the infobox - therefore the Needs Image category can't be relied on. I might well remove that hard-coding tonight, but as the job queue will then become massive, I have to be very, very careful about doing it.

My workaround simply puts items in two groups: those in Category:Articles with pictures in the gallery and those that aren't! It seems to work consistently too. Steven 12:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did look at doing that, but apart from the code being more difficult (although I see that it isn't as bad as I had thought it might be), there are pages out there with images in the gallery - trasnfers from coppermine mostly - but no image on the page, so the needsimage tag highlights them too. I fear that there is no easy solution, and whichever way we go at least at the moment we have something which gives an idea of which pages need looking at.

On a slightly different note, and I suspect this would be pretty tricky, is there any chance of creating separate templates for any of the work we've done here, so that we just put in {rating temp} {map temp} {image temp} on the pages, and it can 'harvest' the category name to do the rest for us? It would make updates a whole lot more easier to do. Personally, I wouldn't know where to start, but if anyone thinks it is possible and has the time, could it be looked into? Rileyrob 12:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be possible. I'll look into it. Steven 13:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it's not that hard. Take a look at Category:Wolverhampton to see if it's OK. Steven 15:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Great! The only possible problem I can see is that we now have a section for 0 stars, which was previously missing, but those articles which don't have the {rating} template are now omitted (I think anyway), when previously they were black. Other than that, good work, thanks! It will certainly make things a lot easier in the longer run. Whether I can be bothered to change all the pages already done or not is another matter! As you've fixed that so quickly and efficiently, any chance you can come and diagnose the fault on the cooling fan on my old Landy? Or, fix the wiper motor? Thought not! Rileyrob 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Land Rovers are outside my area of expertise! Actually, the error existed on the original ratings - except it actually missed out unrated articles and had the heading "Unrated articles" for items rated as zero! I think it's fixed now. Steven 15:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know that there's also Category:Non Primary Destinations now - as seen on Category:Smethwick. Oh, and I've fixed the bug where 0 star articles and unrated articles were swapped... Steven 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, spotted that, thanks. I also noticed that some of the PDs I'd done (taken from the OS map) have been moved to non PDs. I'm guessing this is from the latest round of changes? Avonmouth, Stow and Stroud were the ones I noticed. Rileyrob 21:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't look at the new list! I'd just spotted that the place articles had the white "non primary" header rather than the green "primary" header... Steven 21:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A82

You seem to be doing a lot on the A82. Have you noticed that the old road bridge over the railway line by the Milton Hotel (or whatever they call it now!) is still there?

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=51346879@N03&q=Old%20road%20bridge%20over%20railway%20line%2C%20Fort%20William J--m--b 18:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that, although I had forgotten. I was never quite certain if it was retained due to the cost of demolition, or if it now carries services. I think it should have been left as the pedestrian route, but never mind. I'll try and add it in next time I'm working on the page. I think I even have some photos I took of it somewhere! Rileyrob 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Upload pictures

Hi Rob,

I've made that change already to the Routebox, given that it's actually a separate sub-template that sorts out the "upload?" bit - so there's no benefit in waiting for a big change. Steven 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Malagan Bridge

This wants inserting on A87 Template also A87 Named User page in appropriate places Bob 11.30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean Bob. This is a bridge, not a junction, and at present there doesn't appear to be a template for bridges in this area. Rileyrob 11:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got junctions on the brain.Bob 11.30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

St Helena

Might it be an idea to cover the unsigned A roads? Si404 23:04, 15 March 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, I'm going to do all of the roads, just starting with the easiest! Rileyrob 09:44, 16 March 2013 (GMT)