Template talk:Infobox future infrastructure project

Usage
Thanks for creating this. Here are some places where it is being used: PeterEastern (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Royston,_Hertfordshire
 * Cambridgeshire Guided Busway
 * SnOasis

Additional parameters
Can you add some more optional parameters:- PeterEastern (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * estimated_construction_start_date
 * estimated_construction_end_date
 * status (aspiration/proposal/under_construction/cancelled/suspended/completed)
 * aspiration/proposal/cancelled/suspended - OK sprocketonline (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * under_construction/completed - Not in this infobox, they would go in a construction or building infobox, as this is for future projects sprocketonline (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To my mind a 'future infrastructure' project is one that is not available for use yet, however I agree that it is a bit different from a planned one that has not been started. For my purposes I would need a similar info-box for an under-contruction scheme, and suggest that using the same infobox for both will avoid the problem of spec divergence - is the template name correct? PeterEastern (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * estimated_cost_minimum
 * estimated_cost_maximum
 * official_information (link to proposer's official information page)
 * supporters (for links to groups that actively support the project - notability rules will apply)
 * opponents (for links to groups that actively oppose the project - notability rules will apply)
 * non-notable supporters and opponents can be added, but in text without a link. sprocketonline (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * osm_id (a place to put a wayID or relation ID using the same format as used by Flickr

Hierarchy and capitalisation
I find the 'hierarchy' of the proposed tags a little weird. I believe attribute names should follow Wikipedia capitalisation rules. For example:-


 * 'Estimated Maximum Cost (date of estimation)' or 'Estimated maximum cost (date of estimation)' or 'Estimated cost maximum (date of estimation)'
 * 'Planned start date' or 'Planned start date (date of estimation)' or 'Start date planned (date of estimation)' PeterEastern (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been adjusting the labels as seems appropriate PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Implementing Multiple infoboxes per page through to DBPedia and Freebase
There appear to be compelling reasons to allow multiple scheme boxes per article. I have raised the question of multiple infoboxes per page on the infobox project talk page with no adverse comments so propose that we should start using them. I understand that DBPedia and Freebase currently assume that there is only one infobox per article, and then uses the title of the article as the first element of the tuple together with the attribute name and the value (ie 'M1 motorway - length-km - 310.0'). I propose that the import first establishes if there is a 'property name' or 'name' field for the infobox in question and if it is the same as the article title. If this is the case the proceed as normal. If it is not the same then use the property name as the first element of the tuple instead and also create a holding tuple to associate each sub-infobox with the subject of the article. For example with the M1 motorway there is an infobox for the motorway itself and then there are four additional 'future Infrastructure Project infoboxes' spread through the article, each with a different property name which would create four different projects. One tuple might therefore be 'M1 widening J25-28 - cost - £340m'. All of these infoboxes would then be associated with the M1 object which also has an infobox (ie. 'M1 Motorway - Future Infrastructure Project - M1 widening J25-28'). The description for each scheme can be taken from the open para of the section in which the infobox appears (ie M1 widening J25-28 - description - "Work to widen the 15-mile section between Nottingham and Mansfield to four lanes each way began in January 2008 and is scheduled for completion in 2010 at a cost of £340m" '. PeterEastern (talk) 09:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Geometry/KML
KML is an excellent open format for storing geometry information, it records data spatially and included dimensions such as length. As such it seems appropriate that links to KML data should be internal links to KML text that can be edited by anyone as per wiki standards, rather than as happens at the moment, having to link to privately editable externally hosted files.

SERT busway KML being an example of the current method of handling KML files.

Are there any plans for KML support in the wikipedia/wiki projects, and is how I am going about placing KML links at the moment appropriate?

EricITOworld (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposer?
This line is a bit too vague. Is it intended to refer to the organisation that did most to kick it into life? Or the organisation/government department picking up the tab? Or the "arm's length body" that is placing the contracts and monitoring them? Or some kind of 'commissioning body' as in the NHS? In some project management systems, there is also a 'project sponsor',

Example: East West Rail was originally proposed by the County and Borough Councils along the route, collectively (for this purpose) the East West Rail Consortium. The Department for Transport is paying the bill. Network Rail wrote the business case and the TWAO submission. Mid way, the DfT established a semi-state company, East West Rail Ltd, to place and manage the contracts. So which is it? Why? Can the argument be renamed to minimise disputes? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)