Difference between revisions of "User talk:Supernutorcrazy"
Wekelwrady (talk | contribs) |
(→user: Draconite Dragon: new section) |
||
| (59 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you. | I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you. | ||
===Reply: | == Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout == | ||
No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop? | |||
Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority. | |||
I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are. | |||
===Reply=== | |||
I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop. | |||
And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out. | |||
You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops. | |||
For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station. | |||
===Reply (11/1/2023)=== | |||
Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map. | |||
Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations? | |||
Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards. | |||
===Reply (12/1/2023)=== | |||
In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction. | |||
Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit. | |||
I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare. | |||
== Map progress == | |||
Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process. | |||
== Reply: Fleet Size of 912 == | |||
Hi. | Hi. | ||
I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day. | |||
== Concourse and exit layout WIP == | |||
Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout. | |||
Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note. | |||
As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards | |||
== User : Draconite Dragon == | |||
Hi Admin, | |||
I would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon | |||
On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161. | |||
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281) | |||
He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily. | |||
(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/) | |||
After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.". | |||
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379) | |||
I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later. | |||
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon&offset=&limit=500&target=Draconite+Dragon) | |||
I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist. | |||
Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki. | |||
Regards, | |||
Haram | |||
== Recent edits== | |||
Hi admin, | |||
Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks | |||
https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history | |||
== ItsRaboot == | |||
Hi, <br/>Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.<br/>Thanks,<br/>AirFan19 | |||
== User Weilong == | |||
Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not | |||
== user: Draconite Dragon == | |||
pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon | |||
all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment. | |||
and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??) | |||
seem like his edit are based on single day spotting. alway have to undo his edit... | |||
Revision as of 12:57, 11 March 2024
Rules for my feedback to stop irritate me.
- Please kindly wait for up to 7 days unless stated otherwise for my reply to your feedback. No reply will be given if your feedback does not require reply or I could not answer to your feedback.
- Please do not ask for general question like How to etc.
- Please do not ask for permission to do something.
- Please refrain from requesting to retrieved deleted article as excessive history will be cleared.
- When requesting me to edit locked pages, please give either
- Affected sections code
- Advertisement in full
- Affected parts to change in details.
- Avoid statement like same as other vehicle
- Please kindly indicate Autoblock ID if you have been affected from it.
- I will not entertain any request under BCM transition.
Leave your message below
Rail Wiki Expansion
Hi Supernutorcrazy,
Is it OK to add info of train deployments (including TRNs and their sequences), acronyms legend and train fleet info (similar to what's done for buses)?
Data can be obtained from here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PMuCeF31etWzPv_U42qMaFoHvYwDpnkSWHgjvuuTxdg/edit
All data collated in the above document are based on spottings and observations from fellow enthusiasts.
I hope you will support us to make these valuable information more accessible to all. Thank you.
Sengkang / Punggol LRT Route Map, Plaform Layout
No objections for Sengkang / Punggol LRT route to be entirely based on geological layout. Initially thought that the EWL Changi branch can also be my point of reference, but geological layout is more logical. For the subsequent LRT stations do we just only include the stations that are within the direction of travel within the loop + opposite loop?
Looking at the platform layouts, I believe we have more than enough space to implement the pictograms bah. Nothing comes to mind that any of the elevators/escalators, faregates, Passenger Service Centre would clash together in one layout. Ticketing machines should be easy to find unless the machines that only accept cash are hard to find within a station, so I don't think that would be a priority.
I have two different takes on exit layouts. One is within the station concourse, and the other, the Locality maps that we are all familiar with. I personally feel that it is more important to indicate the exit locations within the concourse. As for Locality maps, would rather think of putting it on the Alternative Travel Methods pages of certain stations. Can disregard if the locality maps are very detailed in indicating bus stops eg. Maxwell, otherwise, maps that date back to the early 2010s eg. Chinatown, Boon Lay or lacking in detail really need some updated exit map guidance so that we can convey to them where the bus stops are.
Reply
I think we are good to go with sticking with a single line option for an LRT layout so that there is a clear sense of direction. We will not need an entire loop.
And just nice! City Hall platform and concourse illustrations perfectly fit what we are looking for. I would strongly encourage to give this kind of design a go. Maybe you are right, provided if no size constraints on the wiki page, for an afterthought, we can consider putting the ticketing machine positions after we get everything laid out.
You and I are also on the same page when it comes to Locality Map presentation. There is indeed lots of inconsistency in various stations. I had once wrote in asking the authorities and MRT operator to get the 2013 Chinatown map upgraded, they say they would, but I have not heard a word from them ever since, nor was it renewed. I believe getting every MRT/LRT station to have the newer TEL standard map will take eternity. Raffles Place map may have upgraded, but in turn did not reflect OCBC Bldg or Prudential Twr bus stops.
For a start, I think we can focus on just three details on a map on this wiki: Road Shape, Exit Alphabets/Numbers, and Bus Stops with numbers. Important amenities second, that would be an afterthought. In this way it will be less exhausting, and we can make better effort and productivity for make such map layouts for every station.
Reply (11/1/2023)
Road name, 5-digit bus stop code, the suggested visual markers and exit numbers as the main map details should work fine. Looking forward to implementation! Maybe we can try out City Hall first, the road shapes there are almost straight, and not really much development happening nearby. Do let me know how much time it takes to make such a sample map.
Oh and one more question, is the line layout supposed to like only reflect one station code at transfer stations?
Would like to seek advice. Thanks and regards.
Reply (12/1/2023)
In chemistry, only a suitable range of the amount of catalyst added will increase the rate of reaction. If we use an excessive amount of catalyst, there will be little effect on the rate of reaction.
Like how we have 200+ stations in Singapore, we will find that implementing locality map on an image graphic can be done within a year, which you say can use Photoshop for processing, and that might spur us in finishing the job. Even if editing means that we have to replace the image graphic, but assuming replacing the image graphic=same process as implementing image graphic first hand, few days of editing will still be worth it. On the opposite hand, we might find ourselves giving up halfway in implementing a wiki html, though initially it sounded tempting that a future edit would be easier, and that adds up to more than a decade and a half. That would be comparable to growing a gingko tree and waiting for it to bear fruit.
I was also thinking, we can straightaway dive directly into exits numbers/layout to platform layout/concourse as one of the choices selected, since this type of implementation is also doable within the one day range. Looking forward to how the effect will look like so that we can compare.
Map progress
Thanks for the update! Will this 5 min walking speed be the standard plan for all stations? Because I am about to plan to send over the map screenshots with all the required 5-digit stop codes(as remarks) reflected in the alternative travel pages.I will do my best to assist in this process.
Reply: Fleet Size of 912
Hi.
I will leave the fleet size as 4 for now. As far as I know they only have 4 buses scheduled with 5 AP duties every day.
Concourse and exit layout WIP
Bedok draft has been sketched from Photoshop, and I am on my way to collect more icons, and will make a visit to Admiralty probably next week to trial a similar layout.
Current elevator dimension is 160x160 on a side note.
As discussed before, I agree that there is indeed a need for a file sharing system, especially for icons. Thanks and Regards
User : Draconite Dragon
Hi Admin,
I would like to bring your attention to this user : https://sgwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Draconite_Dragon
On 30 Jun 2023, he claimed that SG6198L and SG6199J has been on 161 for a week on his talk page. As I am a regular passenger of Service 161, I have never seen these 2 buses perform any trips of 161.
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584281)
He then removed SG6077C and SG6102M from 161. However, these 2 buses were still being spotted daily.
(Link for pictorial proof : https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct9AGtXxp8T/)
After playing a cat and mouse game of undoing and redoing edits, he suddenly removed the two buses (SG6198L and SG6199J) from 161 and added them into 154, despite "saw it doing 161 for a week or more.".
(Link : https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379 and https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_160_-_169&diff=prev&oldid=584379)
I believe this is not the only standalone case. The user has made many edits and some edits involved shuffling in buses into a service and then removing them a few hours later.
I believe his edits are just merely acts of vandalism, and those buses he proclaimed to be on whichever services, do not actually exist.
Please do take a while to look at his edits, as there are a lot of inconsistencies in his edits, which would cause a lot of reliability issues with the wiki.
Regards,
Haram
Recent edits
Hi admin,
Please kindly take a look at this user edits on service 5, user had placed false info on bus deployments and undoing them will make it hard for other users. There are more new accounts created like this. Thanks
https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Trunk_Services_2_-_9&action=history
ItsRaboot
Hi,
Would like to bring the above user's edits to your attention. They have edited the AWBDR CDGEs into the grey box section in the infobox, even though these units aren't deregistered yet. See https://sgwiki.com/index.php?title=Volvo_B9TL_(CDGE)&curid=7032&oldid=590814 . This is their 3rd time editing this, despite me & another user telling them not to. I would've reverted their edits if not for 3RR.
Thanks,
AirFan19
User Weilong
Hi could you keep an eye on this user Weilong, his edits look dubious, plus he doesn't edit the relevant pages, not even sure if his edits are correct or not
user: Draconite Dragon
pls look into the edit for this user Draconite Dragon
all incomplete edit... alway fail to edit former deployment. and even when he edit former deployment, the dates are all wrong (many are backdate to Jun 2023? or Dec 2023??)
seem like his edit are based on single day spotting. alway have to undo his edit...