Template talk:TransLink services

Table cell background colours
WP:COLOR states that "links should be clearly identifiable as a link". Without the blue links, readers might not notice that the links aren't there, because "Lougheed branch", "Airport branch" and "General" aren't linked to anything. There could also be issues with colour contrast for colourblind people, and general overuse of background colours. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 13:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 15:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC) spelled your username incorrectly, sorry! Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 01:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you hover over the titles it shows that they are linked and there are no colour contrast problem. You are doing a drive-by change without any interaction. Raise the question here to get a consensus. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Readers might not know to hover over them, and those with touchscreen inputs (mainly tablet users on the desktop site) cannot mouseover. I assumed this change would be uncontroversial, but I apologize for adding this to the template without obtaining consensus first.
 * Is the change okay? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * I'm okay with the proposed changes, but since the Airport and Lougheed branch have no links shouldn't they remain coloured with their respected line(s)? Northwest (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Northwest in that the branches should remain coloured or alternatively be outlined with their respective line colours. Sweetnhappy (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with Northwest. On a side note, shoudl we add Evergreen Extension to the template? George Leung (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessary as it is an extension of a line and that it does not split/branch away from any portion of the Millennium Line. A little off topic, but I also think that the green outline should be removed from File:Vancouver SkyTrain Map.svg as the current platform maps do not show it. Northwest (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That may be true but the green outline is present at the extension's platform maps and on the maps inside SkyTrain cars. Sweetnhappy (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would like to argue that they still call those stations as "Evergreen extension" over at Lougheed, but sure. It is Millennium Line regardless. (They are probably too busy to figure out how to solve the crowding on the skytrain for the next year or two) George Leung (talk)
 * I prefer the way it is currently... the links are still underlined despite their not being the standard Wikipedia link colour(s), and in well-designed webpages, underlining is only used for links. However, I did take a look at the TTC, New York, the Underground (which has a separate template for each line... ugh!), and Muni... and none of them have line-coloured background, so I guess we should change it. I think I just find the purple so... blah. Maybe we could increase the width of the right colour bar to spruce it up a bit? The TTC and Muni use the coloured logos of the lines to add some visual distinction but I guess we don't have that. Oh wait... we kinda do (from here). We could use something like that (I guess an open-source version) enclosed within the light purple table background.
 * There are the ones used in the info boxes (and route maps) of the Expo Line, Millennium Line, and Canada Line articles. Sweetnhappy (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , Northwest (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's interesting the label for the T icon is "translink" because, to the best of my knowledge, the T they are using on signs is meant to be short for "transit", not the authority itself. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But anyway, I definitely think the branch backgrounds should match the main lines' ones... otherwise the branches will stand out more than the main lines, which would send the wrong message. So light purple for everything. The branches are subsections of the row for the main lines so they don't need further off-setting by the use of more colouring.
 * As for the Evergreen Extension as a separate thing in this template, I am of the "Evergreen? What's that?" camp, as in: it's not a separate line anymore, so if I had my way, everything mentioning the Evergreen Extension would just be a subsection of the Millennium Line articles and it would have no separate articles, categories, or templates. does make a good point that on official TransLink maps and signage, those six stations are still yellow highlighted with green, though, so while I'm against showing them as separate in this template, I think for maps we should leave the colouring as is. I'm sure in a few years, TransLink will quietly update stuff so that Evergreen ceases to be coloured differently. (It's also still highlighted green in the Interactive SkyTrain System map here) —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where are the links underlined, aside from on mouseover? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * This is what it currently looks like for me: screenshot There are clearly underlines happening for Expo Line, Millennium Line, Canada Line. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a browser extension installed or a gadget enabled? Underlines don't normally display for me (Firefox/Safari on macOS 10.12). Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;
 * I'm on Chrome on a Mac but apparently I do, because I tried with a clean profile and there's no underlining; how hideous! Can't believe people surf the web not knowing what's clearly a link or not. 😀 —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm coming around to thinking that the change by User:Jc86035 was correct. Get rid of the background colour and use icons if needed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need more than just the icon, something more like these three: a reversed icon with the background to serve as a label rather than just a spot of colour. Although to be fair, I haven't seen a version with the icons. Okay, here's one and here's an alternate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I love the second version (the alternate), though what about the icons for the WCE, SeaBus, and B-Lines? An easy fix of course, just thought I'd mention it. Sweetnhappy (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to be quick, so I didn't do the other services' icons. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I like the alternate version better as well. Could a colour bar be added to the branches as well? I don't think it would deter from the main lines as it would not use the line icons. Northwest (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good, I'd say. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe just a tad bit more space between the icons and the text? They look a bit too close. Sweetnhappy (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I placed the icons as we normally would, with just a space between the text and the wikicode. Any other spacing modifications would be really kludgey/possibly overkill and I would rather keep things simple. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * please have a look at my updated version. Not much changed from yours other than the added icons and the extra space between the text and icons (also left the entire template uncollapsed for quicker viewing – not intended for actual template). Sweetnhappy (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I updated mine, too... I prefer using the actual character en-dash (–) rather than the HTML entity. Also made the second line of the main title small. We can't unbold it as the title being bolded is apparently part of template, which is fine. I like it smaller. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Should we pick one of the sandboxes, or use my initial edit? I prefer Joeyconnick's second sandbox, although any of the others would be fine. Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 07:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I support your preference, otherwise the debate could go on forever. Thanks for doing this, because it stirred up a lot more than the simple question of colour. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of using Joeyconnick's second sandbox. Northwest (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have made the changes... I also included 's extra space (as a ) before the service icon since no one seemed to mind. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

History — Lines and stations — Rolling stock
As an aside, should "History — Lines and stations — Rolling stock" be emboldened? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125; to reply to me 05:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect it is because it's in the "title box" for the table, even though it's the second line. I would leave it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have a related point... currently those are spaced em-dashes between History, Lines and stations, Rolling stock. Per MOS:DASH, em-dashes aren't supposed to be spaced, so I think we should move to "History – Lines and stations – Rolling stock" (spaced en-dashes) or "History—Lines and stations—Rolling stock" (unspaced em-dashes). Any thoughts? —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC) to reply to me 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would go with the spaced en-dashes. Not having spaces between them looks very odd to me and may be confusing considering some are links. Sweetnhappy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer spaced en dashes. Maybe enclose the line in  tags? Jc86035 (talk) Use &#123;&#123;re&#124;Jc86035&#125;&#125;

creating a historical section and getting rid of the strikethrough and redlinks for the buses section
What do people think about adding a "Historical" or "Former" section to the "Bus routes" section, as per Template:Hammersmith & City line navbox? I am not a fan of the extreme amount of redlinks and the hard-on-the-eyes strikethroughs, so I mocked up what that might look like at User:Joeyconnick/sandbox/Template:TransLink Services2 (this also now has the spaced en-dashes for History/Lines and stations/Rolling stock, which is also in smaller text) —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks much better not having former exchanges/B-Lines mixed in with active ones, the smaller text for the History/Lines and stations/Rolling stock is also a plus. It has come to my attention that there is no longer a Walnut Grove Park and Ride as it is no longer listed here on TransLink's website. I'm assuming it closed when Carvolth Exchanged opened in 2012. Northwest (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just went through the List of transit exchanges in Greater Vancouver yesterday and took out any discontinued or otherwise unmentioned loops/park and rides. I think that the bus routes Exchanges section needs to match with the article (excluding major stations/interchanges that are on other lines above). And I'm also in favour of the changes Joeyconnick has made on his template. Sweetnhappy (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Inbound is now meaningless
Since Arbutus is no longer inbound, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TransLink_Services&oldid=prev&diff=908347604 this edit is meaningless. We either need to change the wording or change the order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How is Arbutus no longer inbound? If you are at Lafarge Lake–Douglas and heading towards Arbutus, you are inbound. If you are at Arbutus heading towards Lafarge Lake–Douglas, you are outbound. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Downtown is inbound. Once you reach Main (well, Ontario), you're outbound again. Direction of travel is no longer a binary inbound or outbound. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * And without a WP:RS we should not assume what "inbound" means in relation to the extension. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well we've worked fine without any WP:RS to "officially" define outbound and inbound until now, so you implying we require one now seems to shifting the goalposts considerably. Until something contradicts what's established WP:STATUSQUO, "towards Vancouver" seems to be what "inbound" means in the Greater Vancouver context of TransLink. Previously Lafarge Lake–Douglas to VCC–Clark was inbound; that hasn't changed simply now that there are future stations as we move farther in that same direction. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Because until now, inbound has been obvious: trains travelling into the downtown core are inbound. No need to shift the goalposts, we simply need to correctly define them otherwise it's WP:OR (at best) or a lie (at worst). I have been watching SkyTrain articles for several years and have seen a lot of assumptions be blown to pieces by decisions at the corporate level. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)