Revision as of 23:09, 2 September 2013 editUseddenim (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers, Template editors37,047 editsm →Metro Line routes: formatting← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:21, 3 September 2013 edit undo117Avenue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers64,480 edits →Metro Line routes: replyNext edit → | ||
Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
I suggest added the future version with the Valley line to stations on the metro line, as it is the only one with good detail on it. Also rename the current route the ETS Capital Line LRT route, as it is the Capital Line route diagram. As soon as possible try to make a new template for the ETS Metro LIne LRT route. It should be added a soon as can be done to stations on the Metro Line. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I suggest added the future version with the Valley line to stations on the metro line, as it is the only one with good detail on it. Also rename the current route the ETS Capital Line LRT route, as it is the Capital Line route diagram. As soon as possible try to make a new template for the ETS Metro LIne LRT route. It should be added a soon as can be done to stations on the Metro Line. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
:I'm sorry, I don't totally follow what you are trying to say, your grammar isn't that great. If you are suggesting adding the Valley Line to this template, I disagree. I'll explain further to my comments above, it is very much too early to add a line that has no construction plans, I feel that to not misguide the reader, and keep this diagram simple, we shouldn't be adding stations that aren't under construction yet. {{u|Useddenim}} has suggested converting this template into one similar to ] or ], where the different lines are shown with different colours, this I support. However, we will need to work out a way to show the blue and red lines using the same track and stations. If you are suggesting creating separate templates for the Capital and Metro Lines, similar to ], I don't see the necessity. This template can easily display the two routes, and they wouldn't be any more than a list of stations, which the Line articles and navboxes already have. ] (]) 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:21, 3 September 2013
Canada: Alberta Template‑class | ||||||||||
|
Trains: Rapid transit Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
New line means new route
When the NAIT line opens, the Edmonton LRT will no longer be a single line. How will the route diagram be altered?
The diagram can be widened to accommodate more stations, like this:
{| {{Railway line header}} {{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT<big>|#0093D0}} {{BS-table}} {{BS3-2|MWHSTR|MWHSTR|MWHSTR||]||O2=HALFVIADUCTr1|O3=uHALFVIADUCTl1}} {{BS3-2|uexKBFa|STR|uABZrf|]|CN Spur End|(future)|O2=uSTRrg}} {{BS3-2|uexBHF|uENDEe|uSTR|]||(future)}} {{BS3-2|uexBHF||uBHF|]|]|(future)}} {{BS3-2|uexTUNNELa||uTUNNELa||}} {{BS3-2|utexSTRlf|uetABZlr|utSTRrf||}} {{BS1-2|utBHF||]||12min}} |} |}
Or the two routes could each have their own diagrams, like this:
{| {{Railway line header}} {{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 201<big>|#0093D0}} {{BS-table}} {{BS2|MWHSTR|MWHSTR||]|O1=HALFVIADUCTr1|O2=uHALFVIADUCTl1}} {{BS2|STR|uABZrf||CN Spur End|O1=uSTRrg}} {{BS2|uENDEe|uBHF||]}} {{BS2||uTUNNELa||}} {{BS2|utexCONTr|uteABZlg||] (future)}} {{BS2||utBHF|12min|]}} |} |}
and
{| {{Railway line header}} {{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 202<big>|#0093D0}} {{BS-table}} {{BS2|uexKBFa|||] (future)}} {{BS2|uexBHF|||] (future)}} {{BS2|uexBHF|||] (future)}} {{BS2|uexTUNNELa|||}} {{BS2|uxtABZrg|utCONTl||]}} {{BS2|utBHF|||]}} {{BS2|utCONTf||}} |} |}
My vote is for the two separate diagrams, because as more extensions are built, the diagram will get more complicated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps multiple diagrams will be needed one day, but I don't think there's any immediate danger of the ETS getting complicated enough for there to be enough possibility of confusion to outweigh the benefits of showing the high degree of integration between the existing and new infrastructure. David Arthur (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The diagram was been altered July 3, 2009, to the widened option with the announcement of the MacEwan station receiving funding. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Valley Line
- Here's the full system. → Useddenim (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- The Valley Line does not need to be added to the route, (a) because there are no station articles to link to yet, and (b) the Valley Line will be street cars, a totally different system than the Capital and Metro Lines. Also, the colours are wrong for a route diagram. 117Avenue (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that all (or any) locations on an RDT must link to anything.
- There are many multi-modal RDTs. (Although Template:ETS Rail network may be a better name than Template:ETS LRT future).
- The line colours look wrong because the Valley and Northwest lines are as yet unbuilt. If 117Avenue thinks that the Northwest LRT line should be light-rail blue, then what colour should be used for the Valley streetcar line?
- Useddenim (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Metro Line routes
I suggest added the future version with the Valley line to stations on the metro line, as it is the only one with good detail on it. Also rename the current route the ETS Capital Line LRT route, as it is the Capital Line route diagram. As soon as possible try to make a new template for the ETS Metro LIne LRT route. It should be added a soon as can be done to stations on the Metro Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't totally follow what you are trying to say, your grammar isn't that great. If you are suggesting adding the Valley Line to this template, I disagree. I'll explain further to my comments above, it is very much too early to add a line that has no construction plans, I feel that to not misguide the reader, and keep this diagram simple, we shouldn't be adding stations that aren't under construction yet. Useddenim has suggested converting this template into one similar to Budapest or Vancouver, where the different lines are shown with different colours, this I support. However, we will need to work out a way to show the blue and red lines using the same track and stations. If you are suggesting creating separate templates for the Capital and Metro Lines, similar to Template:Valley Line (ETS), I don't see the necessity. This template can easily display the two routes, and they wouldn't be any more than a list of stations, which the Line articles and navboxes already have. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Template-Class Canada-related pages
- NA-importance Canada-related pages
- Template-Class Alberta pages
- NA-importance Alberta pages
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- Template-Class rail transport pages
- NA-importance rail transport pages
- Template-Class Rapid transit pages
- NA-importance Rapid transit pages
- WikiProject Rapid transit articles
- All WikiProject Trains pages