Template talk:Railway stations in West Midlands/Layout discussion

Layout 4

A hybrid of layouts 2 and 3, using {{flatlist}} but collapsible (if this is technically possible)

• What do you meant by "collapsible" Andy Mabbett 08:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As seen in Layout 2 - each section can be opened and closed, defaulting to closed. By the way, please leave comments in Template talk:West Midlands railway stations/Layout discussion to avoid confusion. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to have a hybrid layout as you describe. Fingerpuppet 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Layout 5

As Layout 4, but without Midland Metro and Heritage sections. Museum Halt to be added to "Other" category

Layout 6

If you have any other suggestions, these can be added and debated as well

Discussion

I've created this page to allow discussion of the various possible layouts for this template. Hopefully this will lead to some consensus. Please remember the usual talk page guidelines. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To start the ball rolling, my personal preference is layout 2 - it appears neatest when closed up, though still a bit ragged when open. Layout 3 has problems in IE6 as discussed on the main talk page - I'd be interested to see how it should appear (though not enough to make me want to download IE7 which I can't stand!). Hopefully Andy Mabbett can fix this. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the visual appearance of version 2, but it's much bigger than the others. It's important that we use {{flatlist}}, because that uses proper html list mark-up, which improves semantic meaning, and aids accessibility and usability for people with non-traditional browsers (hand-helds, aural, etc.). We should also include CSS to make this non-printing (or lobby for all such templates to be made non-printing). Thanks to Tivedshambo for starting this page. Andy Mabbett 08:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you think layout 2 is larger Andy - I've tried it in both IE6 and IE7 and it seems smaller in both cases (see this screenshot for IE7). Is this not what you get? Incidentally, you'll notice the problems I had with IE6 are also occurring in IE7. Ho hum - now to restore back to IE6 :-)  – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what Andy's trying to do with his {{flatlist}} script, but unfortunately the output is still a bit ugly. Specifically, the text between the vertical bars is offset to the left, and the vertical bars are too large, colliding with the lines above and below. (This is happening on both IE6 and IE7.) Some personal opinions about the various options:

• Maybe we could move the Midland Metro to another template: that would reduce the size of all versions.
• I'm not a fan of the show/hide feature in general, even though it does have its size-reducing advantages.
• Another problem is the separation of "mainline" stations: how does a station qualify to be "mainline" (or "major", "main" or otherwise important), in this context? (See these discussions: [1], [2], [3], not to mention the infamous [4].)
• Possibly disused stations could have their own template too, especially if the number of links grows to include all those listed here. I've no idea of where to put the Museum Halt though.

So I would go for either Version 3 (if {{flatlist}} can be improved) or Version 1, but with the Metro stations removed either way. --RFBailey 11:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd certainly be tempted to put the Museum Halt into "other" - that would save loads of space. The Metro's a tough one, and I could go either in or out. For completeness I'd like to see it as in, but I'll not be complaining too much if it ends up as being out. Another possibility would be to have the Metro as a link along the bottom as in template 3.

As for the "mainline" stations - my idea was to put the WCML stations (or as I like to think of them, the "old InterCity stations") in there, as I wasn't happy with the "Birmingham City Centre" stations being placed separately, when Coventry and Wolverhampton (and possibly Birmingham International) are far more important on a national basis than Moor Street and Snow Hill. Andy suggested that the two Birmingham stations ended up back in there, which is what you see at this time.

I have to say that I prefer the look of template 1 over template 3, and I quite like the fancy expand/contract - which I why I came up with template 2. Fingerpuppet 13:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, the disused stations should be kept separately. While the number is quite manageable at the moment, when it is finished the list will be far too big for a template. I also think that "West Coast Main Line" is incorrect - for a start it's the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Loop, and there are many stations on the route not included because they're not mainline. (Even though Coseley and Penkridge are called at by most Citilink services - is that not mainline?) Worley-d 15:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're unhappy with that - how about "Stations with Annual Passenger Usage over 1 million". I reckon that'll give you BNS, International, Coventry and Wolverhampton - all of whom are well over that mark. Moor Street, Snow Hill and S&D are all well under that mark at less 0.3 million each. Are there any between 0.3 million and the smallest "large" station (International) at just under 2 million? Fingerpuppet 15:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we concentrate on the layout of the template please - what goes into each section can be debated on the article talk page. Thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

My preference is for option 1, with option 2 as a fall back. The vertical bar divider given by the {{flatlist}} template is ugly and difficult to read, using the hyphen it is much easier to read the list of items. The layout is also much clearer with the lines centred on the screen.

Should we be using similar templates for other regions and not just limiting the discussion to the West Midlands?

If we are talking of printing/non-printing this should be a user option. The user should have the choice of having the navigation box printed or not printed.

Keith D 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to replace the | with - or ndash in the {{flatlist}} coding? – Tivedshambo (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. It would appear that all the other uses of "flatlist" use the | character.

On another point, are we actually any nearer to a consensus than when we started? Nobody seems to like options 4 or 5, but there is support for each of 1, 2 and 3. Fingerpuppet 07:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be he bullet character as used in several of the navigation box templates Keith D 11:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No Consensus

As this discussion has unfortunately reached no consensus, and as the {{flatlist}} version still appears not to work, at least in IE6, I propose restoring this template back to its original state. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)