Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 117Avenue (talk | contribs) at 02:21, 16 August 2013 (→Template:ETS LRT future: Useddenim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Big Move, task force

Just FYI, I have created {{Big Move Project}} for use in template boxes of rapid transit projects in The Big Move. So far though, I have only implemented it on the A-Line article, because I don't know if it is something I should be deploying across all the wiki articles. I want some way to identify all the projects and spur articles for those which do not have wiki articles yet, but I probably want to discuss this with the general community and get some consensus first before undertaking something this big. It's got me thinking of creating some type of task force that is part of WP:ONTARIO, similar to the task forces that WP:MILHIST has. That would allow discussions over other issues too, and allow editors to have a place to ask questions. I wanted to get your opinion. Cheers. --Natural R_X 17:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a Big Move project or task force is a little too narrow. Perhaps an Ontario/Public transport task force. Therefore I can see no purpose for this template that can't be done by a simple Wikilink and that would be redundant to the content in the body of the article. If A-Line is a Metrolinx project why do you not want to include it in the {{Metrolinx}} template? I added it, you removed it and now you want to add a different Metrolinx template. You can't have it both ways. Why not just stick to the main one? This will allow for navigation between articles, which is the whole purpose of a Navbox. In other words, if an article is linked from a Navbox it should be sufficiently related that the template belongs in that article - and vice versa - add what is directly related. It is not a list of external links. But back to the project idea. Why not just start on The Big Move talk page? There has never been any discussion there, which probably means that it is far too early for a protect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I initially wanted to distinguish between projects that are being worked on (pursuing agreements or construction) and those that are still 'sitting on the books'. I've begun assembling the list in my sandbox, why don't you take a look and see if this will be too much for one navbox; if not, I can begin implementing them. As for the project, I suppose I could start a discussion on the Big Move talkpage. I was hoping a Ontario public transit task force could benefit articles beyond the GTHA, but I suppose it could be a place to start. Thanks for your feedback eh? --Natural R_X 17:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to {{Big Move Project}}. I'm working on getting it ready for roll-out onto all the articles within it. If you have any feedback or further contributions, lemme know eh? --Natural R_X 22:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The template is not an article and has no content. Are you making up some of these titles? I recommend updating the Big Move master article to give context and structure, before spinning off the components. There is no rush, and I will help out where I can. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course its not an article, its a navbox? Can you clarify? And yes, there is no rush. --Natural R_X 04:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A navbox should ideally be in every article it contains. It would be pointless in adding it to everything mentioned as part of a "mobility hub" which are really areas of study as part of an overall transportation concept, rather than about the physical facilities. That information belongs in article space and should properly be expanded and explained in the context of The Big Move and/or local transit system planning. This massive navbox now contains many superficially connected articles which really don't relate to each other. See Misplaced Pages:Avoid template creep. BRT and LRT projects do belong there. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, yeah I was wondering if I should encompass it into article space, trasferring it would be no problem. Perhaps, List of Metrolinx mobility hubs? --Natural R_X 17:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Created Metrolinx mobility hubs to give more detail than just a list. Please expand on this and check for mistakes. I think it's a good start. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Generic railway infobox

Hey there. I've been working up a generic infobox that could replace the various country-specific infoboxes. The prototype is at User:Mackensen/Infobox railway station and there are side-by-side examples with the originals at User:Mackensen/stations. I'd be interested in what you think. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My initial impression is that most of this is identical to your, now standard, {{Infobox station}} and you really don't have to duplicate it any more. I think it is unnecessary to offer those multiple parameters for the geopolitical divisions of {{{municipality}}}, {{{district}}} and {{{state}}} just for the station location - and get rid of the icons too. Infobox station has all that is required with {{{address}}} and {{{country}}}. Almost every other building infobox gives only one parameter for {{{location}}}. (see Category:Buildings and structures infobox templates for examples). Now that we've eliminated those you could use the standard infobox, except for the unique connections in each country (perhaps use a subtemplate) and another couple of parameters like {{{architect}}}, {{{manager}}} and {{{station_services}}}. There are more comments to come. Sorry that this has to be very hurried but thanks for letting me know. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I be commenting on the template talk page to allow others to comment and rebut? Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I should probably move it the actual template space first. This was in part a thought experiment to see how divergent all the templates were and a thought toward refactoring some of the cruft in Infobox station. There's already an internal child {{infobox}} handling connections in the redesigned version, so that wouldn't pose problems. Mackensen (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pune railway station

Noticed your edit on Pune railway station. I do agree that the the images were with a dark background as they were taken at night but they are of much better clarity than the image you have replaced it with. The present image is too much of a long range shot to have reasonable meaning. So would you reconsider reverting your edit? Superfast1111 (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:ETS LRT future

Re your comments here and here: I created the "future" template in good faith, then asked 117Avenue for constructive criticism; instead it appears that the two of you decided to "slam" me. As for being blindsided, 117Avenue didn't bother to inform me of his deletion nomination, so just a little tit for tat.
I created the new template because 117Avenue persistently removes references to future expansion from his existing template , but I do agree that the new one can be put on hold. Frankly, I think the best solution would be for both deletion nominations to be closed/withdrawn. Please note that I didn't act overly boldly and simply replace the existing one in the article.
I hope this puts some clarity into the issue. Useddenim (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My opinions are my own, and I want nothing to do with any disagreement between you two. I admire your work in the creation of RDTs but your enthusiasm sometimes gets in the way. You tend to overwhelm a simple diagram, as an outline of the route, with a completely detailed map of past, present, future and speculation, and everything that happens along the route. I will make any comments about specific templates in the relevant place, although I agree that there could be a place for both of these. Thank you again, for the task you have taken on. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Useddenim, I replied to your query on my talk page. I asked you what purpose you were trying to fill. You didn't respond for two days, or add the template anywhere. You shouldn't have been blindsided when I opened up a discussion for it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)