![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before I start adding abandoned and proposed lines to the Country Branch Lines section, do they belong there, or should there be more sections?
I'm thinking, for example, of the abandonded Belmont line, Toronto line, Richmond Vale line and the proposed Fassifern to Hexham (Newcastle bypass) freight line (which would use part of the Richmond Vale line).
Oh, and the skitube isn't a branch line! -- Athol Mullen 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Something nice and simple before it was 'sexed up' a bit too much IMHO. The Fulch 11:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the manual of style permits it, but how about putting collapsible sections in the template? This quick example has something broken in it but gives the general idea:
|
---|
-- Athol Mullen 06:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we classify the partly built but unfinished Maldon to Dombarton line? It is a country line, but construction was stopped part way through. It apparently remains reserved in perpetuity in case a future government or private company decides to complete it. -- Athol Mullen 07:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that they should all be listed individually as per before the change by JRG- without colour dots. For example, the Illawarra line is a different line to the Eastern Suburbsa line etc, even if Cityrail runs the same trains over them and markets them as a unit. This template should be on infrastructure not how CityRail markets their services- we already have CityRail line templates. 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) The Fulch 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The size of the infobox is not too big; there are plenty of boxes that are much bigger. The collapsible version looked horrible, and as it's usually the only infobox on the relevant page there is no need to have it collapsible. Collapsible boxes are where there is a need to cut down on space for multiple infoboxes. This box outlines major railway lines in a whole state, and it's bound to be big - so it doesn't matter, let's just leave things as they are. I'm inclined though to merge some very small railway lines into the main line (things like Medway Quarry, eg. should be merged into the Main South Line article, for example) - this would cut down some of the content, and make it manageable (and stop the articles getting deleted as they are bound to be by the anti-stub patrol). JRG 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Navigation}} was deprecated, which is why I have previously converted this template to use {{ Navbox}} instead. Navigation was deprecated due to problems in some browsers, and problems when javascript was not enabled. Sorry to have to keep changing the template, but it seems as though it has not changed much in appearance. -- CapitalR 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the look to one collaspable section and subgroups after seeing how the kiwis have done it - Template:NZR Lines. I guess I should have bantered it through here first, after now reading the past discussions. So if no one likes it then I have no problem with it being converted back .. under concensus. But for my mind the older version though had too many show buttons and titles and took up a big chunk of space at the bottom of the articles from the outset. This one takes up a big chunk of space as well, but only after it is expanded. Nomadtales 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
JRG I don't see you coming up with any ideas, just your glass-half-full, reject everything vision. If you look at the templates for the UK - eg {{ Railway lines in North England}}, {{ Railway lines in South-West England}}, {{ Railway lines in Wales}}, {{ Scottish railway lines}} etc - you will see there is a standard. Using a single navbox. If the idea I put forward was rejected (and rejected I dare say by the power of one) because it is too big, that is a result there being a lot of lines in NSW. Why don't we either break the template into seperate regions like the Uk .. or JRG you come up with something better, perhaps then you actually might like it. Nomadtales 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is already a CityRail lines template - {{ CityRailSydney}}, I cannot understand why we need to duplicate the info in these templates. It unnecessarily bloats them. So I am proposing a new NSW regional lines template (see below). In it I have broken the lines down, instead of their region, to instead their current state - open, closed or lifted. I have also included a clause to specify either it to be collapsed or not in its initial state. So can I please get a few more views on this than just one negative one. Nomadtales 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK So with the CityRail template changed to a Navbox if we change to my suggestion for the regional lines Navbox, any articles that could benefit from both can easily have the two added to the bottom and they will at least match. Is there a consensus for change now? Nomadtales 10:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have had another crack at fixing this template so that it doesn't use multiple Navboxes nested inside each other to give that current awful look. Can I get a consensus that this is now better format? As to the arrangement or grouping of lines I am not bothered and not really worried if this gets altered. Nomadtales 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems with dividing the lines into open and closed is that some of the open lines are closed for a lot of their length such that the name of the line corresponds to the closed section. Quaidy 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot has happened in navbox template development since 2007!
I recreated the template to use the newer Navbox with collapsible groups template, which greatly reduced the amount of markup and gave it a more streamlined appearance. I also used the hlist and bulleted lists to remove the need for middots.
Hope the result is in keeping with what you fine folk had in mind :)
-- Ruben(nerd) ( talk) 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dorrigo, not yet a tourist but much heritage but also not operational
Katoomba scenic railway, both but not main gauge.
Ok? -- Dave Rave ( talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Before I start adding abandoned and proposed lines to the Country Branch Lines section, do they belong there, or should there be more sections?
I'm thinking, for example, of the abandonded Belmont line, Toronto line, Richmond Vale line and the proposed Fassifern to Hexham (Newcastle bypass) freight line (which would use part of the Richmond Vale line).
Oh, and the skitube isn't a branch line! -- Athol Mullen 05:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Something nice and simple before it was 'sexed up' a bit too much IMHO. The Fulch 11:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the manual of style permits it, but how about putting collapsible sections in the template? This quick example has something broken in it but gives the general idea:
|
---|
-- Athol Mullen 06:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we classify the partly built but unfinished Maldon to Dombarton line? It is a country line, but construction was stopped part way through. It apparently remains reserved in perpetuity in case a future government or private company decides to complete it. -- Athol Mullen 07:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that they should all be listed individually as per before the change by JRG- without colour dots. For example, the Illawarra line is a different line to the Eastern Suburbsa line etc, even if Cityrail runs the same trains over them and markets them as a unit. This template should be on infrastructure not how CityRail markets their services- we already have CityRail line templates. 10:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) The Fulch 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The size of the infobox is not too big; there are plenty of boxes that are much bigger. The collapsible version looked horrible, and as it's usually the only infobox on the relevant page there is no need to have it collapsible. Collapsible boxes are where there is a need to cut down on space for multiple infoboxes. This box outlines major railway lines in a whole state, and it's bound to be big - so it doesn't matter, let's just leave things as they are. I'm inclined though to merge some very small railway lines into the main line (things like Medway Quarry, eg. should be merged into the Main South Line article, for example) - this would cut down some of the content, and make it manageable (and stop the articles getting deleted as they are bound to be by the anti-stub patrol). JRG 05:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{ Navigation}} was deprecated, which is why I have previously converted this template to use {{ Navbox}} instead. Navigation was deprecated due to problems in some browsers, and problems when javascript was not enabled. Sorry to have to keep changing the template, but it seems as though it has not changed much in appearance. -- CapitalR 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the look to one collaspable section and subgroups after seeing how the kiwis have done it - Template:NZR Lines. I guess I should have bantered it through here first, after now reading the past discussions. So if no one likes it then I have no problem with it being converted back .. under concensus. But for my mind the older version though had too many show buttons and titles and took up a big chunk of space at the bottom of the articles from the outset. This one takes up a big chunk of space as well, but only after it is expanded. Nomadtales 08:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
JRG I don't see you coming up with any ideas, just your glass-half-full, reject everything vision. If you look at the templates for the UK - eg {{ Railway lines in North England}}, {{ Railway lines in South-West England}}, {{ Railway lines in Wales}}, {{ Scottish railway lines}} etc - you will see there is a standard. Using a single navbox. If the idea I put forward was rejected (and rejected I dare say by the power of one) because it is too big, that is a result there being a lot of lines in NSW. Why don't we either break the template into seperate regions like the Uk .. or JRG you come up with something better, perhaps then you actually might like it. Nomadtales 00:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as there is already a CityRail lines template - {{ CityRailSydney}}, I cannot understand why we need to duplicate the info in these templates. It unnecessarily bloats them. So I am proposing a new NSW regional lines template (see below). In it I have broken the lines down, instead of their region, to instead their current state - open, closed or lifted. I have also included a clause to specify either it to be collapsed or not in its initial state. So can I please get a few more views on this than just one negative one. Nomadtales 01:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OK So with the CityRail template changed to a Navbox if we change to my suggestion for the regional lines Navbox, any articles that could benefit from both can easily have the two added to the bottom and they will at least match. Is there a consensus for change now? Nomadtales 10:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have had another crack at fixing this template so that it doesn't use multiple Navboxes nested inside each other to give that current awful look. Can I get a consensus that this is now better format? As to the arrangement or grouping of lines I am not bothered and not really worried if this gets altered. Nomadtales 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the problems with dividing the lines into open and closed is that some of the open lines are closed for a lot of their length such that the name of the line corresponds to the closed section. Quaidy 23:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot has happened in navbox template development since 2007!
I recreated the template to use the newer Navbox with collapsible groups template, which greatly reduced the amount of markup and gave it a more streamlined appearance. I also used the hlist and bulleted lists to remove the need for middots.
Hope the result is in keeping with what you fine folk had in mind :)
-- Ruben(nerd) ( talk) 09:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Dorrigo, not yet a tourist but much heritage but also not operational
Katoomba scenic railway, both but not main gauge.
Ok? -- Dave Rave ( talk) 05:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)