This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
@Epicgenius, FFM784, and Pi.1415926535: The station layouts were also removed at other Hartford Line stations. I think that these diagrams should be included, and they can be very helpful to understand station layouts. I agree that they need to be worked on. I think a consensus should be reached. I should not have rollbacked the edit on the Stamford page.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kew Gardens 613: I agree with the inclusion of the station layouts. They don't violate WP:NOTTRAVEL as there is nothing about these diagrams that give travel directions, suggestions, or other non-objective information. Moreover, they can be useful, as in the case of the Stamford Transportation Center's layout, where the placement of the platforms is not immediately clear from the text. However, if there are two tracks that both carry the same bidirectional traffic to the same directions, I think we can put it in a footnote. Simple layout stations like the Meriden Transit Center usually don't have station layout diagrams because it is easy enough to describe it in a few sentences, but a pictorial format helps for those who can't read/don't feel like reading.Also, if you want confirmation before rollback, you can install User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js on your personal Javascript page. epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed multiple times at WP:Trains with the clear result that diagrams are not needed for simple station layouts. I will revert any addition of them to Hartford Line articles, where they do not belong. They take up a great deal of room on the article, with little to no benefit over the much smaller s-line templates in the infobox. Stamford is a perfect example of where an RDT or an SVG map (showing only track and platform numbers, not services) should be used, not a diagram - as FFM784 points out, it's often inaccurate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the points made by Pi.1415926535 and see no reason for cluttering up the station articles with a complex station layout diagram. Keep it simple please, and limit any diagram to simply tracks and platforms. Most everything else in these station diagrams ventures into the realm of travel information and is simply much more complex than most anyone cares about.FFM784 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FFM784 and Pi.1415926535: It doesn't really fall into travel information to describe whether there's a mezzanine, or whether the station is located above or below street level. It does fall into WP:NOTTRAVEL territory when we tell readers step-by-step directions of how to get to each platform, which isn't the case here. However, I do think that adding a specific destination does make it complex, which is why the footnote-solution works. Also, with simple layout stations like this, we don't really need the station layout diagram. Perhaps an RDT would be useful, but the problem is that we would also have to map the switches and geographical features near the station. Maybe we can just show the platform and track numbers, and combine this solution with {{Ja-rail-line}}. epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
