Trains: in UK Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This template was nominated for deletion, but did not have consensus to delete. Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005. However, given its sheer size it may be worth considering to split it or convert it to a list. R adiant _* 09:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
What is the source for South Eastern’s high-speed trains being designated Class 395? David Arthur 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page.
I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other.
I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here.
-- Jorvik 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-- AlbanScot 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reasons why these are lowercased? I've only ever seen them uppercased, and for the most part they make more sense in uppercase, as abbreviated designators rather than "words". 90.203.45.143 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Any reason why Southern Railway designations are here at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbw2 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Per my recent edit summary, I'll be adding {{ commonscat}} to each page individually. I can't do this at the moment as Commons is down so I can't check the categories. I'll sort it soon. Adambro ( talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Should these two be combined into one page? They are almost word-for-word identical descriptions, for the most part. Useddenim ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Class 707 is listed among the AC units, but it is for SWT, so DC. Perhaps someone could think about how the template ought to be rearranged? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are the DC-only 375 and 376 in the AC section? Stifle ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Coradia175: you reverted my removal of the 705 link from this template. Why do we need to keep this link in there, when the Class 701 was not well-known by this name and it must be very confusing for readers, especially when there is no explanation as to why Class 705 directs to the Class 701? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 17:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: Can I suggest a compromise? Linking to the same page three times is not good practice, especially in a template; on the other hand, these designations existed on paper and are mentioned in the 701 article. So how about [[British Rail Class 701|701]] (originally 705 and 711), and then [[British Rail Class 711|711]]? Scolaire ( talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Trains: in UK Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This template was nominated for deletion, but did not have consensus to delete. Thus it is kept. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/June 2005. However, given its sheer size it may be worth considering to split it or convert it to a list. R adiant _* 09:55, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
What is the source for South Eastern’s high-speed trains being designated Class 395? David Arthur 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I have created a new design for the template. It can be found below. The benifits of it over the current design are that it is collapsible, it has the v-d-e function, the layout is clearer and the template takes up less space on the page.
I would like to hear the thoughts of other people first, and have a consensus reached on whether it should be implemented. If you wish to make any changes to the design, then please make a copy of the template below, then modify it. This means the templates can be compared against each other.
I have also made similar proposals on the related templates here and here.
-- Jorvik 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
-- AlbanScot 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Any particular reasons why these are lowercased? I've only ever seen them uppercased, and for the most part they make more sense in uppercase, as abbreviated designators rather than "words". 90.203.45.143 18:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Any reason why Southern Railway designations are here at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenbw2 ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Per my recent edit summary, I'll be adding {{ commonscat}} to each page individually. I can't do this at the moment as Commons is down so I can't check the categories. I'll sort it soon. Adambro ( talk) 19:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Should these two be combined into one page? They are almost word-for-word identical descriptions, for the most part. Useddenim ( talk) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Class 707 is listed among the AC units, but it is for SWT, so DC. Perhaps someone could think about how the template ought to be rearranged? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Why are the DC-only 375 and 376 in the AC section? Stifle ( talk) 11:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Coradia175: you reverted my removal of the 705 link from this template. Why do we need to keep this link in there, when the Class 701 was not well-known by this name and it must be very confusing for readers, especially when there is no explanation as to why Class 705 directs to the Class 701? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 17:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
3O Response: Can I suggest a compromise? Linking to the same page three times is not good practice, especially in a template; on the other hand, these designations existed on paper and are mentioned in the 701 article. So how about [[British Rail Class 701|701]] (originally 705 and 711), and then [[British Rail Class 711|711]]? Scolaire ( talk) 12:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)