Template talk:West Coast Express

Albion
First, an RDT is a diagram (that's what the D stands for): "a simplified drawing showing the appearance, structure, or workings of something; a schematic representation." You are confusing it with a map: "a geometrically accurate representation of the features of an area, showing them in their respective forms, sizes, and relationships." Second, yes, it is mentioned in the text, but unless one is familiar with the region, there is no locational context. Furthermore, RDTs are not and never have been limited strictly to the present, "as is" situation. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways for more discussion relating to your erroneous line of reasoning. Useddenim (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think I'm confusing it with a map. If I were, I would be asking why it wasn't to scale or didn't include details about the surrounding neighbourhoods. What I am doing is wanting the diagram to reflect how things are and not include all potential might-have-beens. The potential station at Albion wasn't tendered, wasn't roughed in, and hasn't been on the drawing board for four years now. It does not belong on this diagram. Similarly, we don't include the once-potential station in northern Burnaby, either.


 * If the text doesn't provide context to the location of the once-potential station that now is never going to be built (barring a potential shift in priorities which has no current basis in evidence), then the place to indicate its location is in the descriptive text. Something along the lines of: A proposal in the 2009 10-Year Plan for a new station in Albion, between Port Haney and Mission stations, did not appear in the 2012 10-Year Plan. However, since that statement itself isn't properly sourced, really it should be removed for lack of evidence, and then I'm not sure what basis anyone would have for including Albion in the route diagram.


 * As for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, it appears to be a debate between you and one other editor who disagrees with you (for reasons fairly similar to the ones presented here), and then a third editor who agrees with you. While that's a majority, true, it certainly doesn't meet the level of consensus.


 * I would definitely support two versions of this diagram: essentially "currently" and "proposed" (or "historical"). But since a diagram is meant to be simple (by the definition you yourself quote), I don't see how including non-existent elements that are no longer even planned meets that purpose. Joeyconnick (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the only difference between a "currently" and "proposed" diagram is Albion (and the even more nebulous "between Port Haney and Mission station"), what is the objection to including Albion with the appropriate note and thus only have one, comprehensive diagram? Useddenim (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the station was merely proposed with no financing or pre-construction done for it (let alone actual construction), what's the objection to not including it on the diagram and just leaving mention of it in the text for the main article?


 * "between Port Haney and Mission stations" is no more nebulous than including it in the diagram: one's a graphical representation and the other's a textual one. Neither one is providing missing info the other doesn't, but including it in the diagram makes it seem like it will at some point be built (even with the note saying it's no longer planned).


 * And that's the crux of the issue: it's not even planned anymore. It's not even a "someday maybe we'll have this" thing. If we include every single proposed bit of transit infrastructure in these diagrams, they will quickly get ridiculously complex. There are cases where it's likely not as cut-and-dried, but in the case where something was planned, but is no longer (and even then, it's state of being on the drawing board, and then not, is still not properly sourced), it seems reasonable to state it does not belong on this kind of diagram. Joeyconnick (talk) 09:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Apparently, that's where you and I differ. I feel that if something that was firmly proposed at one point, then it does belong. By your logic, the RDT for the City and Brixton Railway should be deleted because the railway was never built. Useddenim (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the major difference there is that the entire line is a previously proposed line, as made clear in the article, so there's very little chance that anyone will be misled into thinking some of those stations exist or are likely to be built. That was what I was trying to get at above in my comment regarding having a "current" and "historical"/"proposed" route map. I agree, though, that that would seem to be overkill in this case because it's just one station, not an entire set or an extension that has since been scrapped. My preference in this case, then, would be to just keep reference to it in the text (provided we get some good reliable sources for it). Joeyconnick (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wanted to stay out of this but I agree with Joeyconnick. It was planned but is not any longer.  I don't remember the Albion stop as being mentioned let alone "firmly proposed", but if there is some literature that verifies this claim, please don't hesitate to provide a link (sourced material is always preferable to unsupported claims, which don't belong on Wikipedia).  The fact that mention of it is included in the text of the article is sufficient and including it in the diagram may be confusing to non-expert users (such as those just wanting to know what stops/connections exist).  Those users just want concrete, accurate, present-day information and that's what these types of diagrams should do. Sweetnhappy (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)