Template talk:Transport in Buckinghamshire

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

Transport

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles

Milton Keynes gridroad system

I wonder if a better place for this would be under 'junctions', because of all the roundabouts. It is not a brilliant suggestion, but it certainly doesn't belong under (national) Primary Routes. Only two of them are primary routes (A421 and A509), the rest are minor As (A4146, A422), Bs or Cs. Alternatively, delete it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need its own section? I don't think getting rid of it is the answer. In the meantime I have moved it to an "other" category, as with the rail section. -- role^player 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport in Milton Keynes

This template is getting to be pretty huge, so as part of my planned Transport in Milton Keynes article, I'm proposing the idea of breaking all of the Milton Keynes bits of this template off into a separate template. That will help integrate together all of the MK-related articles and make this oversized template somewhat more manageable.Tom walker (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the sound of that- I'd prefer to stick with geographical counties rather than individual towns. The template's not that huge. Make a MK transport article if you want, but I'd prefer this template to stay as it is. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And so it shall be. Expect Template:Milton Keynes within the next few days. Tom walker (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I just discovered this discussion having already created Template:Transport in Milton Keynes per a discussion on Talk:MK Metro. Is this OK, or would it be better to delete it? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely forgot about this discussion! As the Transport in MK template is so big, I think it is sensible to keep them separate. Tom walker (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fully in accordance with WP standards to have nested templates, and this is particularly appropriate where there is a large urban area with its own identity. We should definitely have 'Transport in MK' which is nested under 'Milton Keynes and under 'Transport in Bucks'. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I just nested it in this template per this discussion. I think I got it right, although someone should probably check. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: should we also nest Template:Railway stations in Buckinghamshire, which appears to be the result of an earlier split from this? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh <expletive deleted>. What I said about nesting is actually a convention on Category nesting, not template nesting. I can't see why it wouldn't equally be true but I don't know of any convention. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Still, template nesting seems to work in this case as it's reduced the length of the template while retaining links to all the articles. It also means that we don't need to have an extra template on each page. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]