User:Simply south/Merseyside template talk page

Any suggestions?

I feel i should also add stations on other towns in Merseyside. Views? Simply south 19:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reason for the dots...? I think the name of this template is somewhat misleading: what about St Helens Central or Southport? And is the Wirral not in Merseyside anyhow? Divy 19:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm relatively new at this. Okay, i will change the name of the template. I am also trying to figure out how to do the layout. This is my first template. I am having truble with seperation and spacing and that. That is why the dots are there. Simply south 19:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I've never done a template before either. I think sticking to the main Liverpool and Birkenhead stations makes the most sense: so that'd be Lime Street, Central, James St, Moorfields and Liverpool South Parkway in Liverpool; with Hamilton Square, North and Central in Birkenhead. If you were to add any more stations, possibly Hooton, West Kirkby, New Brighton on the Wirral; Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby and Hunts Cross as terminii on the electric lines; maybe Huyton, St Helens Central and Newton-le-Willows as others. Edge Hill and Bidston aren't big enough in my opinion. Hope this helps! Divy 20:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bidston is included as it is an interchange with the Borderlands Line. Edge Hill is historic, an original station, and so i thought i would include it as one of the main stations due to its historical significance, not because of its usage. Simply south 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am probably going to add Conway Park.

I've added Hunts Cross on to the Liverpool list. Mtpt 16:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I sorted out minor layout problems at my last talk. I am very new to this. If anyone feel this template could be better, please feel free to add to it and make it a better template. Simply south 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am now thinking of getting rid of this template, at least from the stations. The actual template should remain until possibly VfD. Simply south 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?
I really don't think this is a useful template, as the Northern and Wirral Line pages cover the stations in detail. Is there any need for this template at all? If anyone agrees, I may nominate it for deletion. 62.69.34.159 10:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. Anyway this is not meant to be just about the Northern and Wirral lines. It is meant to be about any major stations in and around Liverpool and Birkenhead etc. For my criteria, see Template talk:Greater Manchester main railway stations. These are not stations just plucked from anywhere. Simply south 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd also disagree, although I do think there's an argument for having a template for Merseyrail stations, or one for each of the Merseyrail lines. The fact that the Northern and Wirral Line pages list their stations is no argument against a template, given that most of the stations have their own pages (some quite detailed). However, the criteria for this template are rather vague, and quite arbitrary. Surely it should either list every station in Merseyside, or else be broken up (such as by Merseyrail line)? Mtpt 20:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but I think this template ought to at least be cleaned up. As detailed below, stations such as Huyton are not in the area specified (i.e. Huyton is in Knowsley, not Liverpool). L1v3rp00l 14:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The template
Currently, this is a work in progress. I am tring to add a section to include towns but currently i am under time constraints and so right now this template is unfinished. Simply south 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's a "work in progress", it's probably best to keep it in you sandbox until it's finished. --RFBailey 07:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this template
I have a number of gripes with this template in its present form:
 * The heading should probably not be in block capitals.
 * Huyton is in Knowsley, not Liverpool.
 * Ormskirk is not in Merseyside, but in Lancashire (despite being part of the Merseyrail network); similarly, Ellesmere Port is in Cheshire and Runcorn is in Halton.
 * I appreciate Simply south's explanation, but I agree with the person who suggested that Edge Hill and Bidston aren't important enough to be included. Additionally, I don't think that being at the end of a line is a criterion for importance: Kirkby, New Brighton and West Kirby could be removed.
 * I would prefer "Major" instead of "Main" in the title, to be consistent with UK Major Railway Stations.

That said, overall I would prefer something more along the lines of Glasgow railway stations, listing all stations in Merseyside, but perhaps with the main Liverpool city centre and Birkenhead town centre stations emphasised at the top (and without the line colours). --RFBailey 08:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about a template listing all of the stations in an area. It immediately avoids all of the inevitable debates about which ones should be called "main". It also neatly sidesteps the future problem of someone creating the template "minor stations of x". Road Wizard 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives/Criteria
I've put together templates for Merseyrail's Northern and Wirral Lines - in situ on Liverpool Central railway station, individually at Template:Merseyrail Northern Line and Template:Merseyrail Wirral Line (They still need some work on the layout to compact them a little).

There's still a place for this template if we set proper criteria for what constitutes a "major" station. What about: Mtpt 20:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * >0.2 Million passengers/year; or
 * Interchange (not just between Merseyrail lines)
 * Unfortunately, rail usage figures are only indicative and have several key flaws. Primarily, where stations have group tickets available, the figures for the group stations are allocated in the statistics to the largest station (e.g. in Manchester where "Manchester Stations" tickets cover the four stations of Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road and Deansgate the figures for Piccadilly are wildly inflated and the other three are deflated). Also in PTE areas the use of specialist tickets distributed by the PTE are not counted accurately, and those that are counted are divided between all of the possible start and end stations using modeled assumptions. See the usage figures' Disclaimer (PDF) for more information. Road Wizard 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the main problem with usage stats. I'm not keen on the Northern/Wirral Line templates either: as they are at the moment they are rather confusing and take up quite a lot of space.  Also, the use of the logo may not be "Fair Use".
 * I've created a proposed replacement. (Note: I've done this in my user space, which is where experimenting should be done!).  I suggest this as a replacement for this template, and for the Northern/Wirral Line templates.  I would recommend similar templates for West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire etc.  --RFBailey 22:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The new template addresses the problems about inclusion criteria, but fixing on Merseyside is fairly arbitrary. The new template doesn't include Chester or Ormskirk for example and I think there's still an argument for Merseyrail line templates. No argument on the size of the current Line templates though - hence the comment above about compacting them. The layout is an attempt to show the branch structure. Mtpt 06:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Line" templates, if retained, definitely need "compacting": at present they take up far too much space. I can see that their layout of is trying to show the branch structure, but it's not at all clear.  As the layout is quite complicated, it's better explained in the text of the Northern/Wirral Line articles, where there are also maps.  That's not what templates are for.  As for Ormskirk, Chester, etc., I'll think about it.
 * Incidentally, I've fixed the factual and spelling errors in this template, but that doesn't mean I want to keep it! --RFBailey 21:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

New Liverpool template
I have created the above template but not implemented it yet. Would this be okay, also less controversial? I was just thinking of creating a series of templates in townns and cities but only with ones containing three stations or more. I have just implemented one in Birmingham (replacing the controversial "West Midlands major railway stations" template. Simply south 15:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My first thought would be that the city name should not be a wiki link. The template will only be appearing on pages where the city will already be linked. For example, in the Liverpool Central article, the 9th word in the introduction links to the city. Also, as this is an ongoing discussion, it may have been better to place the template in a personal sanbox for comment rather than make wholesale changes to the article and template namespaces. I suggest you leave the city name wikilinked for the moment until the other editors have had a chance to comment. Road Wizard 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that I believe that this proposed template should be implemented, this would render Simply south's newest suggestion unnecessary. --RFBailey 21:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw i have already implemented the Birmingham and Manchester templates. Anyway, wouldn't they be easier to see...? Simply south 22:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't what be easier to see than what? Where?  --RFBailey 08:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The small print in your templates of the centre stations. Simply south 12:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (above comment moved from User talk:RFBailey)


 * I don't think the text size should make too much difference. Besides, I can always change the font size in my proposed template to 100% from 90%.  I would welcome suggestions for how to improve it.  --RFBailey 13:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose i should consult people more when creating new templates. Unrelated to Liverpool i have not created a template, although not yet implemented it, on Glasgow city centre stations. This one incoporates both railway and Underground (not LU) stations. What do you think?

Actually i am just going to paste it here

Simply south 11:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mtpt's templates
I have a few remarks about User:Mtpt's Merseyrail Northern Line and Merseyrail Wirral Line templates. While these are a reasonable idea, and their current versions are a lot better than the original ones, I'm still not sure about them.

My main concern is that trying to explain something complicated like the line structure should be done in an article, not on a template. From the perspective of someone who doesn't know the network, the way they are arranged at the moment is probably rather confusing. The Northern Line and Wirral Line articles explain the layout of the network already, so the casual reader should look there for this information, rather than having to decipher a template. --RFBailey 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing really to decipher - if a "casual reader" doesn't get that the line template communicates something about the line's layout, they've lost nothing, and still get the full list of line stations. The templates just try to marry that with simple indication of where a given station sits on the particular line. I'm not sure the line templates are as confusing as all that, but if you've a suggestion for clarifying them, edit away!


 * Regarding the geographic templates - they seem to exist more for classification than because there really is something in common between the listed items. Moreover, the only stations on *this* template not on either Merseyrail line template are St. Helens Central, Edge Hill, Newton-Le-Willows and Earlestown, and I can't think of a convincing reason why it's useful for an article on, say, Conway Park include a template offering links to one on Earlestown.


 * Your proposed template doesn't raise quite the same issues because it's more comprehensive, but still I'm not sure what real advantages it has over List of railway stations in Merseyside or the matching category. The same could, I acknowledge, be argued for the line templates, but they list stations which have a genuine connection (pardon the pun), rather than happening to fall with the (literally) artificial boundaries of Merseyside.


 * On the fair use issue - the four fair use criteria probably do apply to a non-commercial provision of information about something (no such would apply if Wiki was based in the UK), but I've no strong feelings about keeping the Merseyrail logos. Mtpt 14:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you change the layout slightly of the Merseyrail Northern Line template?. It is hard to distinguish between the different stations and also distinguish the seperate branches. Simply south 18:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll need to be more specific about how you'd like it changed. Mtpt 18:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On the left as you can see it is rather squashed and seems to say the first set of stations belongs to "Hunt's Cross -", Moorfields to Southport is on the "Southport Branch". Okay i am probably being a bit pinickety. I am just thinking, maybe you could set it out as a table, but still keep it in its current format (don't ask me how) or lay it out so it is like

Well okay, not as big, keep the main title, below but with the titles of the branches at the top of each section, if you know what i mean. Obviously not so much a "mess" as my one. Simply south 20:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Like this?


 * Mtpt 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i think that is much clearer. Do you think you should do that to the other templates or are you going to leave the as they are? Simply south 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It makes them a fair bit taller - I'm not sure whether it's worthwhile. Mtpt 18:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO i think it doesn't matter if the template is slightly taller, it is quality and clarity which count, not size as much although i do admit mine was too big. Yours is much smaller and easier to read etc. Your template really is not that much bigger so i don't think it will matter as much. If you are still worried, ask other people and insert the template. Simply south 19:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The current suggestion is fine, as far as ease of reading, layout and size are concerned. (The only modification I'd make would be to add a separator (such as - ) between each station.)  However, this coupled with the Wirral Line template (suitably modified to match) will leave the stations on Merseyside that aren't on the Northern or Wirral lines unrepresented on any template.  --RFBailey 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still not clear as to why they need to be represented - as I already said above. They would appear in List of railway stations in Merseyside. Mtpt 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lists and navigational templates serve different purposes. A navigational template like this is placed on an article to provide links to related articles, and to do so in a standardised way.  For instance, Constituencies in South East England is placed on all articles about such constituencies to provide links between them (and contributes to the level of uniformity of the layout of these articles).  There are also separate articles, such as List of Parliamentary constituencies in Hampshire and List of Parliamentary constituencies in Kent, which provide more information.  Also, there is the category Parliamentary constituencies in the South East, which is also effectively a list.  --RFBailey 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate all of that. The point I made above was that the articles aren't in fact related in a way which requires a navigational template. Adjoining political constituencies are related in a way railway stations that happen to be in the same county (particularly a non-unitary one) are not. Railway stations on the same line are obviously linked (pardon the pun), and a navigational template is appropriate.Mtpt 09:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This sub-page
Just to note i acknowledge and accept full responsibility for this. I copied and pasted current issues raised in Template talk:Merseyside major railway stations. I am thinking of possibly doing VfD of my own template. It proved to be quite controversial.

Is this sub-page allowed? I would like to use it for future reference. Any other comments on the template talk page i will copy until the template is deleted