Template talk:Tubestation

	Trains Portal

	London Transport 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

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways.
	This template is supported by WikiProject London Transport.

Untitled, 2014

moved from User talk:YLSS

Unlike most of your edits, I find this change rather pointless as there are only two stations (Hammersmith and Edgware Road) that have parenthetical disambiguation in their titles, and neither one follows the format you added. (They both follow the form Xxx tube station (Yyy line).) Besides which, there’s already {{LUL stations}} which provides an expanded range of options for when they are needed. Useddenim (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are Wood Lane (Central line) tube station, Wood Lane (Metropolitan line) tube station and Swiss Cottage (Metropolitan line) tube station. But yes, that wasn't very prudent of me, and I won't mind if you revert the changes. YLSS (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest an updated to this template, as follows:

[[{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{1}}} tube station({{{2}}})|{{{1}}} tube station}}|{{{1}}}|alt={{{1}}}]]<noinclude> {{documentation}}</noinclude>

This will allow the line to be specified like Hammersmith and Edgware Road.

--Dkbottomley (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Useddenim's position now, having thought more. Since LU interchange stations are treated as one object (unlike, say, in Moscow Metro), we are left with very few cases where a disambiguation is needed; and seeing that the template is used a lot, it would be better to leave out additional conditionals. YLSS (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update it was only a suggestion to possible make RDT templates cleaner, but seeing there is inconsistencies in naming (which seems to be a common issue here) it would not always help anyway.--Dkbottomley (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]