Template talk:Glenelg tram line

	Australia portal Glenelg tram line is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
	This template is supported by WikiProject South Australia.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport.

Trains

Trains Portal

This template 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

Labels for free fare zones

@Useddenim: I do not find that it's necessary to label the free fare zones. It doesn't appear to add any value to the template, which ideally should be a simple depiction of the route, but the primary function of the yellow shading is to distinguish the free fare zones from where regular fares apply, it just so happens that Glenelg and the CBD mostly coincide with these zones. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 06:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Mitchell 98: Note that the free fare zones were labeled “City” and “Glenelg” on the original diagram, so you seem to be the only person who thinks that it's not necessary to label them. Useddenim (talk) 11:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: To which original design are you referring to, the original creation of the template by you, or the first time the fare zones were included in yellow, also by you? In addition, the main free zone actually leaves the Adelaide CBD (bordered by the Park Lands) to terminate in the suburb of Hindmarsh.

On a completely unrelated note, what is the purpose behind using crooked symbol for Adelaide station? Would it not be easier to keep a standard symbol there? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: Edit: Could I also ask why you are changing the legend for the free tram zones? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Mitchell 98: Why do you continue to insist on removing information from the diagram? Useddenim (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: I laid out my rationale for removing the unnecessary fare zone labels and restoring the original colour legend for the zones last month in the messages above, to no response. I will reiterate that not only are the fare zones not actually named, the names you have given them do not fully correspond to the areas that they cover. As for the colour legend, that was borrowed from the Melbourne tram route templates, and was the original version added to this template so there is no case of "removing information" for the colour legend.

As for the removal of the road underlays, when I was shortening the icon for City Depot to remove it from the same column as the new tram extension (similar to what you did with the red mainline Adelaide railway station icon), and I found that there was no half-width road underlay that would correspond to the half-width rail icon. I made the WP:BOLD decision to remove the remaining road underlays both due to this and to make the diagram a bit easier to read. I've worked out a way to do this now and I've added it to the template, but I haven't touched any other revisions until they can be discussed. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk

@Useddenim: I would also like to add that the zone labels are broken on mobile devices; the text overlaps the main map. I think this scenario is at risk of spiralling into a potential WP:EDITWAR, so I do hope that you will actually read and respond to these messages please! – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 21:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no black border around the free fare zones; I don't understand why you keep adding one in the key. Useddenim (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned in my responses above, the original key that was added kept the key separate from the main map area; it is not representing a physical part element of the route itself. It also frees the colour key from any edits made to the main routemap. I am failing to understand your motives.

The main point I am trying to raise is the removal of the free zone labels, which, as mentioned previously, do not correlate to the zones that they have been assigned to, but mainly because they do not work on mobile devices. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Route Diagram Templates not displaying properly on mobile devices is a known issue. The fact that the free zone labels appear on the wrong side of the line in some instances is minor. Useddenim (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still ask, what is the purpose of labeling them? – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 00:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask AtD; they were the one who added the zones in the first place. Useddenim (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I ask AtD when you were the one to originally add the shading and the labels? The original markers likely showed location only not the fare zones, but the current shading represents the fare zones and hence the labels that you added are inaccurate. [1] – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 04:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further contributions, I will be removing the fare zone labels within the week. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]