Template talk:Amtrak Coast Starlight

Template length
I think the template has gotten too long per my comments at Template talk:Amtrak Cascades. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the additions add up to about 1/3 of the total length (56 vs 37), and the template has been updated for a lot of other information, as well. I think it is critically important to have information about connecting services, so I'm going to remove the service begin/end lines, while keeping the branching services but consolidating multiple branching services at 1/2 line each. That should get us down around 45 lines - a less than 25% size increase. I agree that rivers and other features would be inappropriate for this template. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Branching services have typically been included, but I think it should be as minimalistic as possible (no service provider icons). See for an example. I think connecting services should be abstracted by having icons to the side of the stations (see, e.g. . This helps encourage station articles as a centralized source of information. Mackensen (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you think they should be minimalistic? Icons seem to me to add a significant amount of information in a very small space, and in fact, if I were trying to pare this down to the bare-bones, I would get rid of the names, and have the icons link to the service, eg. BSicon LOGO Amtrak2.svg, which links to Empire Builder. Right now, the icons set back the connecting service information - a visual clue that it's not a station - and also add information about whether a service is part of the Amtrak system or some other. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 01:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it stems from how I view the template and its role in the article, and the purpose of the article. The article documents a train service; where it runs, what equipment it uses, how it is funded, and how it is perceived. The template gives the stations on the route, in part to avoid describing that information in the article, where it can take up a good deal of space. I'm also concerned that we not give too much to current events, or that we slide from being an encyclopedia to being a travel guide. It's not our job to explain how to get from one place to another; that's really a job for Amtrak's official website. Having these other routes on the template implies a relationship which really doesn't exist. I think it's one thing if a train carries through cars for another; quite another if it's just another train which happens to operate over the same route. There's also a question of accessibility; loading up a template with linked images may cause problems for screen readers. To my mind, the best place for connecting information is the individual station article, not the route template of a different service. As a reader, I still find the template cluttered. We don't need to tell the whole and ever-changing story of a route's connections (official or no) in that template. I really do think it's best to just have some side icons denoting the type of connections available at a particular station, and leave it at that. Mackensen (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I have a distinctly different vision behind what these should be, specifically that they can show, at a glance, all major transit - local, regional, or national - accessible from a line. I guess that since they are autocollapsed, I think of them as being an extension of the infobox, so it should have extended content.
 * As to accessibility, I can assuage your concerns - the rail-interchange template inserts alt text for, I believe, every US transit system it supports, and all Canadian, except for some of the Toronto transit (and I think those were commuter bus lines). I just inserted code that also allows you to manually set the image link and alt text with  and , so we could actually make sure on all of those. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 02:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)