Australia: Transport Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Trains Template‑class | |||||||
|
I like this template, but it's way too long for this line; all the stations on the line aren't even here yet, and it already is too long for the page that the track is on. Can we take out some old stations and leave it to the major ones? JRG 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the
Sandgate Flyover was added to the article template, and I wanted to correct some details relating to it and the Hanbury Dive to Port Waratah but I can't figure out how...
Ideally, I'd like to be able to show:
I've looked at the templates and I have no idea how to do these! -- Athol Mullen 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
...is incorrect- it is not a Y junction. The Fulch 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a look a closer look the actual dive is before Waratah station, so I have depicted it as such. Also I have reconfigured it so we lose 2 extra lines, I think this better illustrates the route. Nomadtales 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this in the correct spot? The Pelton colliery line actually turns off just after Thornton, which needs to be added. Nomadtales 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Noting that some highway/freeway bridges are now shown on the diagram, I thought I'd add more of them.
The question is, when a highway has been wikilinked in one collapsible section, should I, or should I not wikilink it within a different collapsible section? Normal page layout, which doesn't have collapsible sections, would say no. With the collapsible sections, I'm inclined to wikilink the first occurence within a section for ease of navigation. -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at the current list of dividing points for the collapsible sections and I'm wondering whether other lines would be a better way to divide it.
I'm also inclined to suggest using Woy Woy rather than Gosford because there's it's about half way along the diagram between Hornsby/North Shore and Wyong and the Gosford-to-Wyong section is very small. -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the layout around the dedicated coal lines between Newcastle and Maitland and I'm wondering if there would be support to widen the template from 3 columns to 4, even if just between Broadmeadow and Maitland (or preferrably between Newcastle line and North Coast line)? What I would envisage is running 2 parallel tracks to indicate what's actually connected to what and more clearly show the separation of the coal lines. I could do it in 3 columns if I deliberately ignored junctions such as Comsteel... -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I realise the problem - especially with regard to this particular article - about an unshortened table being too long for the text of the article. However, I'm unhappy about it the way it is: it just obscures all of the information about where exactly the line stops at, because it's completely not obvious that there's any information under those headings. As I said in the edit summary, I only discovered that it was actually there when I actually went to add it in on one of the other articles.
I'd also point out that shortening them across the board doesn't really make sense; the length problems here do not exist for all of them - for instance, I'm pretty happy with how the one for the Main South Line turned out. Rebecca ( talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on mobile shows up (at least on my iPhone) as
Is this an issue with codes on this template, or a more general problem with Wikipedia:Route diagram template?
Newystats ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Australia: Transport Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Trains Template‑class | |||||||
|
I like this template, but it's way too long for this line; all the stations on the line aren't even here yet, and it already is too long for the page that the track is on. Can we take out some old stations and leave it to the major ones? JRG 07:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I noted that the
Sandgate Flyover was added to the article template, and I wanted to correct some details relating to it and the Hanbury Dive to Port Waratah but I can't figure out how...
Ideally, I'd like to be able to show:
I've looked at the templates and I have no idea how to do these! -- Athol Mullen 01:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
...is incorrect- it is not a Y junction. The Fulch 06:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a look a closer look the actual dive is before Waratah station, so I have depicted it as such. Also I have reconfigured it so we lose 2 extra lines, I think this better illustrates the route. Nomadtales 21:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this in the correct spot? The Pelton colliery line actually turns off just after Thornton, which needs to be added. Nomadtales 23:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Noting that some highway/freeway bridges are now shown on the diagram, I thought I'd add more of them.
The question is, when a highway has been wikilinked in one collapsible section, should I, or should I not wikilink it within a different collapsible section? Normal page layout, which doesn't have collapsible sections, would say no. With the collapsible sections, I'm inclined to wikilink the first occurence within a section for ease of navigation. -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking at the current list of dividing points for the collapsible sections and I'm wondering whether other lines would be a better way to divide it.
I'm also inclined to suggest using Woy Woy rather than Gosford because there's it's about half way along the diagram between Hornsby/North Shore and Wyong and the Gosford-to-Wyong section is very small. -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the layout around the dedicated coal lines between Newcastle and Maitland and I'm wondering if there would be support to widen the template from 3 columns to 4, even if just between Broadmeadow and Maitland (or preferrably between Newcastle line and North Coast line)? What I would envisage is running 2 parallel tracks to indicate what's actually connected to what and more clearly show the separation of the coal lines. I could do it in 3 columns if I deliberately ignored junctions such as Comsteel... -- Athol Mullen 04:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I realise the problem - especially with regard to this particular article - about an unshortened table being too long for the text of the article. However, I'm unhappy about it the way it is: it just obscures all of the information about where exactly the line stops at, because it's completely not obvious that there's any information under those headings. As I said in the edit summary, I only discovered that it was actually there when I actually went to add it in on one of the other articles.
I'd also point out that shortening them across the board doesn't really make sense; the length problems here do not exist for all of them - for instance, I'm pretty happy with how the one for the Main South Line turned out. Rebecca ( talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The article on mobile shows up (at least on my iPhone) as
Is this an issue with codes on this template, or a more general problem with Wikipedia:Route diagram template?
Newystats ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)