Template talk:Disused rail start
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Convert to using S-rail-templates
[edit] | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone please edit the template to use the {{s-rail templates? See Sandbox-version. Tholme (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Done I checked a dozen semi-random pages that transclude this template, and they all look fine. Ping me from here if you find a situation that is broken by this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Disused railways
[edit]It is an unwarranted assumption that a disused railway station is on a disused railway. The header of the central section "Disused railways" is incorrect for disused stations on lines that are currently in use. I suggest that it be changed to "Original railways". Relevant examples: Clapham Common, Stewarts Lane railway stations; the companies that built them are long gone, but the lines they stood on are still in use.
(Why is "railways" in the plural? I do realise it is because of {{s-rail}}, not this template, but can anything be done to make it singular?) -- Verbarson talkedits 22:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Verbarson: We have
{{Disused rail start}}/{{Disused Rail Insert}}for the pre-grouping owner/operator of closed lines, and{{Historical Rail Start}}/{{Historical Rail Insert}}to show the pre-grouping owner/operator of lines that are still in use. We don't need more. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)- Thanks. I wasn't aware of the Historical... versions. They fit the case. -- Verbarson talkedits 22:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)