Template talk:Croxley Rail Link RDT

Trains 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 was considered for deletion on 2016 May 6. The result of the discussion was "withdrawn by nominator".

Reversion by Britmax

Not sure what Britmax is doing. I made valid corrections to the template using the standard icons and they got changed without explanation BRIANTIST (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Briantist: you are being reverted because you are removing all historical context. Please stop. Useddenim (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Briantist, There are links to this project in the article. I suggest you read up on the work being done on this line and acquire an understanding of why the stations are marked according to which is being kept when the project is finished and which is staying closed. You do not seem to understand that a disused line is being connected to the end of the Metropolitan line and will be disused until the work is finished and the trains run, when the current Watford Metropolitan station will close. Please leave the diagram alone until you do. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Britmax I remove the historical information as it is not relevant to the Croxley Rail Link. This isn't a history lesson! I am going to restore my corret version as you are not using the correct symbols. If you want to put the historical information I suggest you do it to my version with the correct symbols. BRIANTIST (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why your version, that "opens" two stations prematurely and "closes" Watford Met prematurely, is more "correct" than mine. And why can't we teach a little history while we are at it? Britmax (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Britmax on this. Useddenim (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Useddenim: also agree with Britmax, but I think it might be better to omit the legend (the understanding that blue is the Metropolitan line should be enough) and colour Vicarage Road blue like in this version, as well as having the double colour like the full diagram does. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 11:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"why can't we teach a little history while we are at it? " - see Wikipedia:Relevance BRIANTIST (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice about not wandering too far off track. Where that line is still seems a case by case thing. Britmax (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the matter with leaving the history of the lines on Template:Railways around Watford and Rickmansworth RDT rather than redundant information about the topic in hand? I'm just trying to make it comprehensible to a general reader BRIANTIST (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the diagrams on the Crossrail and Crossrail 2 pages show the final configurations. BRIANTIST (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Briantist: No other railways are shown in the Crossrail diagram, so they're not entirely comparable. It also seems to be an outlier in that almost every other diagram on Wikipedia shows railways either as they are now or as they were in the past. (The Crossrail 2 diagram shows stations not in existence as unopened, as usual.) If readers can understand the current diagram, they should be able to understand the addition of the Watford and Rickmansworth Railway junctions if they're added (although I think the legend is unnecessary here, since the colours just differentiate open/closed and railway/metro). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035 - If everyone thinks that showing stations that are to open and stations that will never open as being the same symbol on the map, then I'm just going to leave this well alone. Britmax likes HIS diagram and I guess he's going to revert anything any other one does. I'm really sorry for trying to help. I guess that why no one wants to be a Wikipedia editor. BRIANTIST (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think showing them all as unopened is fine on this diagram. The Metropolitan line stations can be INTs or blue HSTs, whereas the closed stations are red HSTs. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... How do you show stations that ARE being opened and stations that are being ripped out or have already been obliterated? No where does it say that all railway diagrams must be in the present tense as far as I know. BRIANTIST (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are shown as the same, using the disused icon. They are disused, when you think about it, whether it is because the station has closed or is yet to open. And yes, I know it's not my diagram, I was arguing rather for the status quo. Britmax (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: why have you made changes like these, twice, when there is an ongoing content dispute and you are fully aware that conversion to {{routemap}} is controversial? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]