Module talk:Adjacent stations/China Railway High-speed

Individual lines, or "passageways"?

I thought it would be good to raise this here in case anyone else feels strongly about this. Should we use each line segment as the title ("Zhengzhou–Xuzhou high-speed railway") or the longer passageways ("Eurasia Continental Bridge passageway")? The problem with the former option is that some lines are the wrong way round, for example the naming of Zhengzhou–Xuzhou high-speed railway is west-to-east whereas Zhengzhou–Xi'an high-speed railway is east-to-west. I don't think the ordering is significant, so we could just rename the articles.

I'm leaning towards using the passageways to organise the stations, perhaps with subtitles for each individual segment. NemesisAT (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Unless station density is low enough to justify a railway diagram template which appropriately covers the second option (I think the navigation and the diagram should cover the same area - it's always possible to refer to the longer passageway via another navbox or in prose); the first one would be more appropriate (given what appear to be the rather long distances covered). Or at least I'm writing from a perspective of mostly European origin, where stations are every few kilometers... Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, the station density is low but these railways are long and the route diagrams complicated already so as far as articles are concerned I think most should stay as separate articles. My proposal then is, at least for the better defined "8 horizontals and 8 vertical" passageways, to consistently name each railway so they're going in the same direction, if that makes sense, such as the example in my initial comment. So that for stations on the core "passageways", the previous (left) station will take you west while the next station (right) will take you east. This is sounding like a lot of work... I'm happy to try and do this but it would take a while! NemesisAT (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Well WP:COMMONNAME is a consideration. Are there other reasons beyond mere geography for the name changes? It's perfectly valid for these not to be in the same direction, especially if one of the cities is more of a major center. The alternative could possibly be created as a redirect for use in the navboxes. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not sure to be honest. I only started editing frequently last year and feel a bit lost! I never thought about using redirects, but actually, that would be much easier than renaming articles and allow for a consistent direction for the adjacent stations boxes regardless of the individual line articles. In this case I would only need to edit this module and the left/right fields on individual articles, no renaming of articles required. What do you think? NemesisAT (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to get lost in all the bureaucracy; although usually taking a few moments to think it through (common sense) is a good substitute. WP:PAG and the associated template Template:Wikipedia policies and guidelines are a helpful overview and index.. Well in addition to COMMONNAME there's WP:CONSISTENCY, so that might affect things too. A notice at WP:CHINA might get the attention from editors who are more familiar with the area. Redirects are definitively easier, though. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I realised I missed your question in your previous comment. I'm not bothered about the article names, I just think it would be easier to navigate the adjacent stations templates if there is a consistent direction where possible (the left box goes roughly west while the right box goes roughly east). Good idea, I'll leave a message at the China WikiProject too. Thanks again, NemesisAT (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)