Template talk:Hastings Line

Revised RDT Hastings Line

I have recently updated the RDT for the Hastings Line to what I would call 'my specifications', albeit generally improving it and correcting a few things. I would like to know what everyone thinks about it before it is posted on the main page. Thank you. Template:Hastings Line/Sandbox Nathan A RF (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

TMI. It is generally accepted that not every LC and cross-road should be listed. On the plus side, it’s an improvment to have the distances and lengths both in the right-most column. On the other hand, some lines of text are much too long and should be split into two rows (or simply be edited down with less information). It’s totally unnecessary to have the NR symbol beside every station — or for that matter and — that information properly belongs in the line and station articles. And there is also an excessive amount of bold type: its use should be kept to a minimum, as the wikimarkup automatically inserts it to highlight a link to the current page. Useddenim (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved it to Template:Hastings Line/sandbox, that being the normal capitalisation for sandbox subpages of templates (see WP:TESTCASES) - if we had {{documentation}} on this template, lowercase would be the only recognised form. But I do think that it's overdetailed; also, the mileages are supposed to go in the column to the left of the station names, see WP:RDT#BSn row templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)