Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Article templates

UK connections templates

There are some templates Template:rail_start, Template:rail_line and probably some others which are used in many (all?) current UK railway station entries to give the current immediate connections (next station) from that station. I have not found any documentation on these templates, in particular on the (parameterised) coloured bars down either side of the 'line' box - the colour appears to code the operating company, but I haven't seen a key.

A couple of days ago I adapted these to make Template:historical_rail_start and Template:historical_rail_line, with date and company fields, and put them in a couple of stations; but I'm already having doubts about the approach.

Thoughts? ColinFine 23:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only just found Template:historical_rail_start this evening. Following the example set by other user(s) I have been using Template:Historical Rail Start and Template:Historical Rail Insert. These have been used for a large number of stations on lines around the Scotland. Thoughts, comments..... Stewart 21:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest not using this template and use the {{start box}}/{{succession box}}/{{end box}} template combos instead. That template combo is in use on a lot of pages and is well tested. Plus its usage helps provides a consistent look throughout the wikipedia. In my opinion, the {{company presidents}} template doesn't really add anything not available in the other combo. — Bellhalla 17:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to suggest that {{company presidents}} be deprecated in favor of {{succession box}}. In fact, once all uses of the former are migrated, I could speedy delete it (as creator of the template) under criteria General-7. Slambo (Speak) 14:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Whatlinkshere/Template:Company presidents, that's already the case, so I'll be bold and make the update. Slambo (Speak) 14:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow gauge templates

I've added some templates that expand to common narrow gauges in both imperial and metric. I'm using them on the List_of_British_Narrow_Gauge_Railways. Feel free to use if you find them useful. Gwernol 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

specifying gauge

I added an infobox to Huntsville and Lake of Bays Transportation Company but it won't accept a different gauge. This was a narrow guage railway, 3 ft. 8 1/2 inches. Can someone tell me how this should work? --Atrian 16:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You used infobox SG rail - infobox rail is for non-standard gauge. --SPUI (T - C) 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heralds removed

I've just reverted an edit to this page wherein User:Durin has excised references to the logo_filename field (though he has not damaged the templates themselves). I'm of the opinion (and I would guess the legal beagles would support this) that use in an example is exactly what "fair use" is supposed to cover. Mangoe 16:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if you read the page that Durin linked to you will see that he is correct. Fair use images cannot be included in templates because there is no guarantee that the template will be used on an appropriate page. Fair use is very restricted and these images can only be used on articles that are about the subject of the image. Any use of such an image on another page opens Wikipedia up to the possibility copyright infringement lawsuits. Its pretty important that we all be very careful where and how fair use images are used. So reluctantly (because I don't want to hurt the Trains project) I think I have to agree with Durin. Gwernol 16:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9, fair use images are not permitted to be used outside of the main article namespace "even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law". I've re-removed the images. Please do not re-add them to this subject of this talk page or any templates. There might be a fair use justification, but it is still not allowed. The underlying reason for this is that creating a system whereby we have a dizzying array of justifications becomes very, very difficult to police. Instead, we have a simple policy; no fair use outside of main article namespace. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you, --Durin 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you've also removed the text that simply describes the parameters. Removing images from a non-article page is one thing, but removing text talking about how to use a specific parameter is another, and I believe, is wrong. Slambo (Speak) 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The text advocated the insertion of a corporate logo, which is just as improper. --Durin 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:SPUI reinserted it again, I've changed it rather than remove it. --Durin 17:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can live with the descriptive text that we've got now, but I hesitate to ask this... Are you going to now go through the myriad articles on individual railroads where the infobox is transcluded (Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad, for example) to move the logo out of the infobox and down into the text somewhere? And then, are you going to do the same thing to all of the places where {{Infobox Company}} is transcluded? In those uses, the image is displayed on the article that discusses the logo's owner, where I would think the stated policy would allow it. Slambo (Speak) 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it's a sensitive issue. There are many infoboxes that are highly unlikely to ever be used outside of the main article namespace. Yet, there's no flexibility in allowing such images on templates. In the case of {{Infobox SG rail}}, the image is not directly on the template. I grant there is plenty of wiggle room about the wording I put in. Feel free to re-word it; I just don't want to see fair use images used on the template when the template is used outside of the main article namespace. --Durin 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken. Thanks for sticking around to discuss the issue. Slambo (Speak) 18:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. In fact, I'll amplify it a little bit. Mangoe 18:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I was looking at the Metro North articles and noticed that references are cited by HTML links. I was wondering if there was guidance on this as it seems like all of the Metro North articles are referenced this way. I would think that more information can be retrieved by using inline citations as listed in WP:Cite and include a references section to articles. There is no guidance provided on the main page and I was wondering if this would be a valid discussion to provide editors further guidance. I do not want to make blanket changes to articles without discussing it here first. If consensus is made great, if not I will leave it alone and return to my box! Rob110178 23:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is one case where I usually go ahead and make the change if I have the time. In addition to converting inline http references to footnotes, I'll also apply the appropriate Citation templates (usually either {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite press release}} or {{cite journal}}) to show them in a uniform manner. We don't have anything in the WikiProject Trains/Manual of style about citations yet, but with what happened in the WP:GA process over the summer regarding inline citations, I think we should. Slambo (Speak) 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template for trains

After I posted the following at WP:NYCPT, someone suggested that I transform it into a template. The table organizes information about specifics of trains, especially those of mass transit ones. Does anyone know how to do that? I would greatly appreciate the help.

Example from R160A:

==Specifications==

Car Builder	Alstom Transport Inc., Hornell, NY and Lapa, Brazil
Car Body	Pure stainless steel
Unit Numbers	4 Car Set: 8313-8652 and 5 Car Set: 8653-8712 (Primary Order)
Fleet size	400 cars
Car dimensions	Length: 60 feet, 2-1/2 inches (18.3 m)
	Width: 10 feet (3.048 m)
	Height: 12 feet, 1-5/8 inches (3.7 m)
Track Gauge	4 feet, 8-1/2 inches (1.435 m)
Maximum Operating Speed	~65 MPH
Propulsion System	Alstom Onix AC Traction
Seating capacity	Cab car (A car): 42 / No Cab (B car): 44
Total capacity (seating plus standing)	Cab car (A car): 144 / No Cab (B car): 132
Cost per new car	USD$1,319,589

==Specifications==
{|  class="wikitable"
|-
|'''Car Builder'''
|colspan="2"| 
|-
|'''Car Body'''
|colspan="2"| 
|-
|'''Unit Numbers'''
|colspan="2"| 4 Car Set: '''####''' and 5 Car Set: '''####''' (Primary Order)
|-
|'''Fleet size'''
|colspan="2"| ### cars
|-
|'''Car dimensions'''
|colspan="2"| '''Length:''' feet, inches (meters)
|-
|'' ''
|colspan="2"| '''Width:''' feet, inches (meters)
|-
|'' ''
|colspan="2"| '''Height:''' feet, inches (meters)
|-
|'''Track Gauge''' 
|colspan="2"| feet, inches (meters)
|-
|'''Maximum Operating Speed'''
|colspan="2"| ## MPH
|-
|'''Propulsion System'''
|colspan="2"| 
|-
|'''Seating capacity'''
|colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ## / No Cab (B car): ##
|-
|'''Total capacity (seating plus standing)'''
|colspan="2"| Cab car (A car): ### / No Cab (B car): ###
|-
|'''Cost per new car'''
|colspan="2"| $
|-
|}

Herenthere (Talk) 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar to {{Infobox Locomotive}} would be appropriate for this. I won't have a whole lot of time this week to work on it myself, but I'll try to put something together as an example. Slambo (Speak) 11:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate templates

Why have both {{TrainsWikiProject}} and {{WPRT}} ? Seems like the latter could be deleted...68.167.252.191 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

'ALCO diesels' template

Hiya. FYI, I've added this template to the ALCO 300 article, but it doesn't seem to be included in the template itself. Could someone please review and determine if it needs adding ? Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to and edit this page to add it - I have done it for you. Have I put it in the right spot? Wongm (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I'm not knowledgeable about trains - I only came across the article while going through uncategorised pages, and I'm reluctant to change templates unless I'm > 95% sure I'm correct. I'll have to leave comment to someone who knows about these things :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]