Template talk:MBTA Green Line

Pruned version
Given the problems that the biggest version of the template caused for the main article, here's a pruned version which should hopefully work much better:

{{BS5|||uACC|O3=lhSTRaf|uexhSTR|||{{stnd|Lechmere|MBTA}}}}


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }

}}
 * }
 * bottom=
 * }

Comments welcome. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 17:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on pruned version
There is previous extensive discussion at Talk:Green_Line_(MBTA).
 * I agree with 's comment of 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC) there. That no history, and ONLY extensions under construction, be in this version of the template. — Lentower (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks good for the most part. Some remaining issues:
 * The 1975 Orange Line changes are making the template far, far too wide - it should fit in a standard 300px infobox without stretching.Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This template is too wide for narrow screens, like those on notebook computers. PLEASE make it less wide. Also note Template talk:MBTA Green Line full. — Lentower (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 1975 Orange Line changes does not belong in this template. — Lentower (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Adams Square and the Pleasant Street Portal were both closed pre-MBTA. Close in time to the MBTA creation, but that's 6 lines (one sixth of the current unexpanded height) for one decent article and two redlinks.Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, this history from 1975 does not belong in this template.
 * Arborway, despite being a different station, was always shown as a transfer to Forest Hills. Note this map. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Version 2
{{BS4|||uACC|O3=lhSTRaf|uexhSTR||{{stnd|Lechmere|MBTA}}}}


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }


 * }

}}
 * }
 * bottom=
 * }


 * 1975 Orange Line changes: Done.
 * Pleasant Street/Adams Square: Done.
 * Arborway/Forest Hills: I tried, but it ended up breaking the template every. single.  TIME!!!!!  (This is also why the Arborway/Forest Hills transfer hasn't made it onto MBTA Green Line full yet...) Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 21:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments on version 2
The remaining ramps that were permanently removed by the MBTA should also be deleted here. The route map should show connections as they are in the present, plus committed projects for the near future. Reify-tech (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Changes made specifically to the Green Line during the MBTA era (A Line, Arborway Line, Causeway El) should stay - they will be relevant to the text of this article, not just the history article. If the Causeway Street El label can be moved to narrow the template, then I think it's good enough for now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree in principle that the route map should show items which are mentioned in the text. However, I think that topics which are now purely historical, such as the long-gone "A Branch" and even much of the coverage of the unlikely-to-be-resurrected Arborway extension of the "E Branch" should be covered in the History article.  I love the history of the MBTA and its coverage in Wikipedia, but its overly-detailed presence in the Green Line (MBTA) article just confuses most readers who want to know about the present service (and possibly near future changes). The MBTA has been around since 1964, half a century ago, and has undergone many changes (sadly not enough, perhaps). The historical aspects should be mentioned briefly here, with ample detailed pointers into the History of the MBTA Green Line article. But unless a historic constraint still seriously affects the current operations (or is expected to imminently) it doesn't need more than passing coverage in the main Green Line article, which still will remain quite lengthy. Reify-tech (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Those three major route changes - one of which is not yet a decade old, and the other still very fresh in many memories - are the three of the most important things that have happened to the Green Line. They absolutely deserve coverage in the article of several sentences each (and paragraphs in the history article) and they are important to include in context. There are active talks about a partial return of the Arborway Line (which wasn't even officially dead until 2011), and the article and template would both be incomplete without the three. After all, what's the number one question asked about the Green Line? Why there's no A branch. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I'm rewriting the history section to make it more useful to the article. I have to check out a few sublets but I'll be finishing that tonight. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that this template should only have currently routes and open stations, as well as work in progress: stations being renovated, and extensions under contract and construction.
 * Even the recent closures should point at the History article, and that template with the full history can show the interconnects. — Lentower (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So, delete — Lentower (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tremont Street Subway | Causeway Street Elevated (closed 2004)
 * Canal Street Incline (closed 2004)
 * The E branch beyond Heath
 * This template is still too wide for narrow screen notebooks.
 * I've fixed the width issue - the titles just needed to be moved slightly. Reift-tech and Lentower, can you explain why you wish to purge all history from this template? History details that are pertinent to the article - as the A Branch, Causeway El, and Arborway Line are - are standard in all route diagram templates that show route (as this does) rather than service (like Acela Express). They are a substantial and important part of the line that the article is about. The lettering system and the issues with the inner "B" branch make no sense without the context of the "A" Branch (the close stops were not as much of an issue with doubled frequencies), the frequent debates and odd terminus of the "E' make no sense without the Arborway Line, and there are a lot of service patterns that are relics of the old Causeway Street terminal. Frankly I will have a very difficult time explaining all those things in the article without them in the template. We don't need to have every stop on the A and the Arborway - just one-icon stubs to indicate where they were. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to be dogmatic about this, and it's more important to ensure that the route diagram shows features discussed in the accompanying text. Long term, I think that some more details of the history in the main Green Line (MBTA) article should migrate to the History of the MBTA Green Line article, but it will take some time and thought to disentangle history that is directly relevant to current operations from other material.
 * As a side note, I have found some online sources of useful historical information, such as a timeline of MBTA history on the MIT OpenCourseWare website, which was published under the Creative Commons License. See the "Koebel" reference I added to Arlington (MBTA station) for details. Reify-tech (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The route map & article should reflect the current situtation. We should edit toward that, even if incrementally. I doubt many readers consult the route map about the history, partly because of having to scroll up quite far, and then back. (Though we really have no way of knowing how the deiverse readership uses WP's articles, and as editors are quite atypical readers). It be better if there was a route map segment with each piece of history text, just the closed routes and a few adjacent current stations. No scrolling for the readers. — Lentower (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you make a list of these online sources of useful historical information on Talk:MBTA, so they are more accessible to editors. Perhaps in a notice box at the top. Especially as we don't have a WP:WikiProject:MBTA. — Lentower (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the lack of a WikiProject Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, I've made a proposal to that effect here. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 17:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)