Template talk:Chicago L

Untitled

yes, the interurbans operated on the tracks now known as a el. How does that make them on-topic for a box that lists the current el lines? I'm fine with the current lines having information about their history and links to the interurban articles, but there's no reason for them to be in this box, nor for the box to appear on the interurbans pages. Tedernst 16:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why should the box be limited to current el lines? It should list former lines as well, which includes the interurbans that operated along the el. --SPUI (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand that. The el is a current system so having a box on the current lines showing other current lines is logical and useful. The interurbans have never been part of that system, having ceased to exist as this system was created. And why would it make sense to put the current lines box in the interurbans page? I'm just not following how that's useful. I get how history is useful. The pages for the interurbans are very useful and interesting. And I think those articles should be linked from the lines in qusetion (you'll notice I linked to on from the yellow line as applicalbe). I just don't get the connection when listing all the current lines. --Tedernst

The way I see it, the el is a system that has existed since 1892, and the navbox should reflect that, as it is better to add the small amount of removed lines to the box than to make a separate box for those. --SPUI (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The el is not a system that has existed since 1892. There were many different train lines that eventually were unified. The box is called CTA and is labeled Chicago Transit Authority and Chicago L. The Chicago L page doesn't even mention the interurbans at all. It does say the oldest segments date to 1892, but that's hardly the same thing. It's clearly talking about a present day system. What's the wikipedia policy on disagreements such as these? Tedernst 15:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The box is about the L. The link to the CTA is because the CTA relates to the L. --SPUI (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been reading Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes where it talks about how to use series boxes. I don't see how the articles about interurbans fit in with the articles about the CTA lines and thus should be linked through this box. Could you please let me know how you see things in light of this link? Tedernst 21:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The defunct lines and names no longer in use are an interesting historical topic, but it seems rather silly to include them in the template, which needs to be kept rather minimal as it appears on several pages. Is the suggestion that the CTA template should include links to the rest of the CTA services (i.e. bus lines)? If so, it would be rather pointless as there aren't any articles to reference. siafu 23:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it should be a template about rail operations in the El system. --SPUI (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? siafu 15:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

SPUI, did you read the guideline page I linked? Please let us know how you see the interurbans in this box fitting in with the guideline, or if this is a special case that doesn't fit in the guideline, please explain that to. Saying it just should be one way doesn't make it so. Please explain your reasoning. Thank you. Tedernst 06:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming the template and making the el the focus. I like those changes. I still don't understand how the interurbans articles fit in with the blue line, red line, etc articles per the guideline page for boxes. Help me understand your reasoning? Tedernst 17:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

This is still the template for the Chicago L, and as such has all the lines on it. It needs to be kept short, because its a template, and the former interurbans are much more properly grouped with Metra and its lines than with the current CTA trains. siafu 17:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Alignment

The alignment for this template was changed from right to left a few times, apparently because of flow problems with the Chicago article. However, this template is also used on several CTA articles and a left-aligned table often conflicts with the table of contents on these articles. I would suggest either creating a new left-aligned template or otherwise removing it completely from the Chicago article. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Order

Hey, this ranks about 5,678,837th on the list of most important things to fix on Wikipedia, but ... what's the rationale behind the current order in which the lines are listed on this template? When I re-added Pink Line, I put it right after Red Line, as the order appears to be the visible light spectrum (ROY-G-BIV), with brown added at the end. Would it not make more sense, though, to put them in chronological order of when service began, or in alphabetical order? Or maybe I have OCD. Just throwing it out there. Wiki Wistah 23:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Line (CTA) Red Line (CTA) etc

Yellow Line (CTA) Red Line (CTA) etc. Grade level and at grade or at-grade won't do. But what about street running? There is a problem. Peter Horn User talk 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

In this context street running does not make any sense. Ground level and surface are not helpful either. Peter Horn User talk 23:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Right-of-way (transportation)#Rail right-of-way does not quite work either. I propose a new article called at-grade railway. Peter Horn User talk 01:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I also propose level grade railway Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@SmokeDetector47:
Can you help out?
Peter Horn User talk 20:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

At grade Peter Horn User talk 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)