![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done. Please see
old revision for previous list.
Booglamay (
talk) -
23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting worried about the size of this template: it's starting to get far too big. (It's already taking up most of my 800x600 display....) Maybe the Metro stations could have their own template? Possibly even the disused stations should have their own as well, especially if all those listed above (and some in Coventry?) are going to be added. -- RFBailey 09:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This regional map showing operational and disused railway station is a very good source and reliable at that. Some stations are outside the West Midlands boundary. - Erebus555 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay: it's in Staffordshire, not the West Midlands. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the no more stations outside the county are added! -- RFBailey 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Wombourne branch, the Penn station is also outside the boundary (it was in Lower Penn), as is Himley. Possibly Gornal station was too, but I'll need to check a map. -- RFBailey 10:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Gornal is in the Dudley Metropolitan Borough so is almost certainly inside the West Midlands Conurbation. Worley-d 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've applied {{ flatlist}}, so that these list are marked up properly. Also sorted the tram stops alphabetically. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm confused - it appears to have changed format without any further changes. When I saw it this morning it appeared as a very long list - one station per line. Now it's similar to the original, with a vertical bar between them. Could this be the IE6 problems referred to earlier? – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuck. I can't say I'm keen on the "new look", even if it has technical advantages. I've looked at it on IE6 at home and IE7 in my office, and the spacing and size of the vertical bars just looks plain wrong (sorry, I can't offer a screen capture). Perhaps experimenting can be done in somebody's Sandbox until it has a more attractive appearance. (I see that {{ flatlist}} has only existed for a couple of days anyway, and was created by Andy Mabbett too). -- RFBailey 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot from IE6 - I've looked at it in more detail, and can see the problems discussed above. For example Jewellery and Quarter are split with a | between them. Also, some rows are indented, others are not. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new discussion page at Template talk:West Midlands railway stations/Layout discussion in order to discuss which of the suggested layouts should be used for this template. Please feel free to voice your opinions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The top section should not include simply the stations in Birmingham City Centre, as both Snow Hill and Moor Street have passenger numbers of less than 0.3 million. These should be replaced by Coventry, Wolverhampton and Birmingham International stations. The first named two have passenger numbers of over 2 million, and the last named is just under 2 million. This means that they are far more important stations, and should be given the most prominent places.
(outdent) When I originally created this template, it was to replace a "Major stations" template, with the idea of side-stepping the issue of what constitutes a "major"/"important"/"main"/etc. station (see these discussions: [1], [2], [3], not to mention the infamous [4]). As has previously been discussed in various places, the usage figures for second and third stations in places such as Birmingham (and Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, etc.) are far lower than reality for two reasons:
Direct services to London isn't necessarily a helpful criterion here: Chiltern Railways have regular direct services from Solihull and Dorridge to Marylebone, as well occasional ones from Stourbridge Junction, Cradley Heath etc. Also, thanks to the way things are timetabled, at present there are some direct services from places like Hampton-in-Arden and Tile Hill to Euston!
All in all, the "Birmingham City Centre" stations is a purely geographical descriptor, about which there should be no arguments. -- RFBailey 11:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Creating this sort of arbitrary criteria, and the associated petty pedantry, is what I was trying to avoid. I've seen more "what constitutes a major station?" debates on Wikipedia than anyone can reasonably expect to tolerate! Essentially people are trying to reverse-engineer a set of criteria that will uniquely determine the list of stations they want to include (New Street, Snow Hill, Moor Street, Birmingham International, Coventry and Wolverhampton). I stick by just separating the Birmingham City Centre stations: there are enough of them for this to be worthwhile, and it avoids the arbitrary size/traffic/destinations criteria.
(For the record, ["services to London" AND "terminating services"] would rule out Moor Street: no trains terminate there at present. I can be pedantic too.....) -- RFBailey 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just stick to "a rowful", and leave it as it is. At the end of the day, it's only a list of stations. It's not worth falling out about ;-) – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the template, removing the Main section entirely, moving the stations that were there into the Open section (which I've now subclassified by boroughs). One of the reasons I've done this is because I'm really not convinced that Moor Street and Snow Hill are truly mainline stations. If anyone disagrees (quite possible), then can I suggest that instead of reintroducing the Main category, the mainline stations are shown in italic font - compare Template:Merseyside railway stations. Bazonka ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I understand the benefits of this template and how worthwhile it is, it now makes the template look pug ugly. The pale coloured links don't work with the colour scheme and it really isn't too brilliant with my colour blindness. Other thoughts? - Erebus555 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We've got one or two articles about goods stations in the area starting to appear. Should we add those to the template, or have a separate template linked off the current one, or ignore them completely? Fingerpuppet 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Widening-out the issue; I think we need separate templates for each section (excepting "heritage", which can be merged into one of the others); each referencing the others. I've set up {{ West Midlands railway stations (disused)}} as a starter. It may need shorter name! Andy Mabbett 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before ( here), but I've been bold and reformatted the template. I've used the {{ navbox}} template, so it should introduce some degree of consistency with other similar templates, e.g. {{ Railway lines in Central England}}. If consensus is to keep it as it was, feel free to revert. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary from Tivedshambo, I think the disused stations section is beginning to rather swamp the rest of the template, and would probably be better off in its own template. What do others think? -- RFBailey ( talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many proposed stations for this region according to http://networkwestmidlands.co.uk/train/Rail%20Development%20Strategy.pdf
Therefore, someone should put in a new section of this template. Many of the articles regarding the new stations are written already.
Regards, Btline ( talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Done. Please see
old revision for previous list.
Booglamay (
talk) -
23:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting worried about the size of this template: it's starting to get far too big. (It's already taking up most of my 800x600 display....) Maybe the Metro stations could have their own template? Possibly even the disused stations should have their own as well, especially if all those listed above (and some in Coventry?) are going to be added. -- RFBailey 09:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This regional map showing operational and disused railway station is a very good source and reliable at that. Some stations are outside the West Midlands boundary. - Erebus555 18:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've removed Wyrley and Cheslyn Hay: it's in Staffordshire, not the West Midlands. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the no more stations outside the county are added! -- RFBailey 08:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the Wombourne branch, the Penn station is also outside the boundary (it was in Lower Penn), as is Himley. Possibly Gornal station was too, but I'll need to check a map. -- RFBailey 10:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Gornal is in the Dudley Metropolitan Borough so is almost certainly inside the West Midlands Conurbation. Worley-d 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've applied {{ flatlist}}, so that these list are marked up properly. Also sorted the tram stops alphabetically. Andy Mabbett 09:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Now I'm confused - it appears to have changed format without any further changes. When I saw it this morning it appeared as a very long list - one station per line. Now it's similar to the original, with a vertical bar between them. Could this be the IE6 problems referred to earlier? – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yuck. I can't say I'm keen on the "new look", even if it has technical advantages. I've looked at it on IE6 at home and IE7 in my office, and the spacing and size of the vertical bars just looks plain wrong (sorry, I can't offer a screen capture). Perhaps experimenting can be done in somebody's Sandbox until it has a more attractive appearance. (I see that {{ flatlist}} has only existed for a couple of days anyway, and was created by Andy Mabbett too). -- RFBailey 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Screenshot from IE6 - I've looked at it in more detail, and can see the problems discussed above. For example Jewellery and Quarter are split with a | between them. Also, some rows are indented, others are not. – Tivedshambo (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I've created a new discussion page at Template talk:West Midlands railway stations/Layout discussion in order to discuss which of the suggested layouts should be used for this template. Please feel free to voice your opinions. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The top section should not include simply the stations in Birmingham City Centre, as both Snow Hill and Moor Street have passenger numbers of less than 0.3 million. These should be replaced by Coventry, Wolverhampton and Birmingham International stations. The first named two have passenger numbers of over 2 million, and the last named is just under 2 million. This means that they are far more important stations, and should be given the most prominent places.
(outdent) When I originally created this template, it was to replace a "Major stations" template, with the idea of side-stepping the issue of what constitutes a "major"/"important"/"main"/etc. station (see these discussions: [1], [2], [3], not to mention the infamous [4]). As has previously been discussed in various places, the usage figures for second and third stations in places such as Birmingham (and Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, etc.) are far lower than reality for two reasons:
Direct services to London isn't necessarily a helpful criterion here: Chiltern Railways have regular direct services from Solihull and Dorridge to Marylebone, as well occasional ones from Stourbridge Junction, Cradley Heath etc. Also, thanks to the way things are timetabled, at present there are some direct services from places like Hampton-in-Arden and Tile Hill to Euston!
All in all, the "Birmingham City Centre" stations is a purely geographical descriptor, about which there should be no arguments. -- RFBailey 11:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Creating this sort of arbitrary criteria, and the associated petty pedantry, is what I was trying to avoid. I've seen more "what constitutes a major station?" debates on Wikipedia than anyone can reasonably expect to tolerate! Essentially people are trying to reverse-engineer a set of criteria that will uniquely determine the list of stations they want to include (New Street, Snow Hill, Moor Street, Birmingham International, Coventry and Wolverhampton). I stick by just separating the Birmingham City Centre stations: there are enough of them for this to be worthwhile, and it avoids the arbitrary size/traffic/destinations criteria.
(For the record, ["services to London" AND "terminating services"] would rule out Moor Street: no trains terminate there at present. I can be pedantic too.....) -- RFBailey 15:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just stick to "a rowful", and leave it as it is. At the end of the day, it's only a list of stations. It's not worth falling out about ;-) – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the template, removing the Main section entirely, moving the stations that were there into the Open section (which I've now subclassified by boroughs). One of the reasons I've done this is because I'm really not convinced that Moor Street and Snow Hill are truly mainline stations. If anyone disagrees (quite possible), then can I suggest that instead of reintroducing the Main category, the mainline stations are shown in italic font - compare Template:Merseyside railway stations. Bazonka ( talk) 20:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I understand the benefits of this template and how worthwhile it is, it now makes the template look pug ugly. The pale coloured links don't work with the colour scheme and it really isn't too brilliant with my colour blindness. Other thoughts? - Erebus555 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
We've got one or two articles about goods stations in the area starting to appear. Should we add those to the template, or have a separate template linked off the current one, or ignore them completely? Fingerpuppet 16:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Widening-out the issue; I think we need separate templates for each section (excepting "heritage", which can be merged into one of the others); each referencing the others. I've set up {{ West Midlands railway stations (disused)}} as a starter. It may need shorter name! Andy Mabbett 21:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone else have any thoughts? Andy Mabbett 11:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed before ( here), but I've been bold and reformatted the template. I've used the {{ navbox}} template, so it should introduce some degree of consistency with other similar templates, e.g. {{ Railway lines in Central England}}. If consensus is to keep it as it was, feel free to revert. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this edit summary from Tivedshambo, I think the disused stations section is beginning to rather swamp the rest of the template, and would probably be better off in its own template. What do others think? -- RFBailey ( talk) 13:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many proposed stations for this region according to http://networkwestmidlands.co.uk/train/Rail%20Development%20Strategy.pdf
Therefore, someone should put in a new section of this template. Many of the articles regarding the new stations are written already.
Regards, Btline ( talk) 20:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)