Template talk:Public transport infrastructure in Sydney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Colour coding

As you can see, unlike its previous iterations, there is no provision for this template to be colour-coded to match transit operator marketing material. This is, to say the least, contentious. However, there are sound reasons for keeping Wikipedia coverage of the CityRail network colour consistent.

• First, and most importantly, none of our readers need to have the concept of "red", "blue" and so on illustrated for them.
• Wikipedia is not a railway timetable, it is an encyclopaedia. While CityRail's use of colour is worth noting (in the map_colour field), it need not mandate the manner in which we display information.
• CityRail maps are coloured to make sense of the tangle of intersecting lines, and to clearly convey navigational information to fast-moving passengers on visually crowded platforms. These imperatives do not exist at Wikipedia, nor at any other encyclopaedia.
• The garishly coloured CityRail pages look messy and - in some cases - violate best practice for accessible web design.

As you can see, I have selected one colour to highlight titles on a range of Sydney public transport templates. This shade of yellow is composed using the RGB values listed in NSW Ministry of Transport approved pictograms and arrows and thus ties in with the Ministry's overall look and feel for public transport signage in Sydney. I recognise that this change reverses long-standing practice on the CityRail pages. I would ask that anyone who strongly disagrees with the move away from colour-coding here to address the issues outlined above first. Joestella 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

JROBBO, before you go undoing all the work I've done, I'd ask that you'd engage with my approach, as outlined above. Is that so much to ask? As a graphic designer, I think I have a lot to contribute to the layout questions at play here. Joestella 05:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the colour names from the article namespace - that's not necessary and actually was decided against on the CityRail page except for the Lines section of that page - so I'm sorry for reverting that. However, I think it's reasonable that since the lines are identified PRIMARILY by their colour on maps and other merchandise, which is an encyclopaedic reference point which is done just about everywhere else on Wikipedia pages on railway lines, that it's reasonable just to have a header identifying the colour. Sure we don't have to, but since it is the identifiable colour for the line, it's good if we do use it, as we have everywhere else. Secondly, I think the image I have placed in several of the lines (and will continue to do so with other lines when I can find an identifiable image of each line) looks better than the weird line thing you have drawn which is pointless and serves no purpose at all— to a non-train user or CityRail user, no one will know what it means - whereas a header in the colour, with a contrasting background is a good identifier of the line. I have no intention of changing the shade of yellow elsewhere on your table except for the header. The header is done in the CityRail colour of the line that is located elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is NOT garish— I changed them so that they reflect the colours accurately. Now please stop being rude and reverting changes. You do not have consensus and you should not just go and barge ahead and change things without asking first, considering the large amount of work people have done previously. I'm happy for your userbox to exist; it's an improvement, I just ask that you accept the small compromise of the header only. JROBBO 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JROBBO. I think that even though it is an encyclopaedic entry the lines on CityRail are mainly identified with their colours. This provide viewers an easier navigation and an identifiable image of each line. Also, the words that describe the line colour does NOT really reflect to the viewers what colour it is, it's a visual thing to the eyes and brain. It'd be better to at least have a header with the colour of the line, instead of just a word "Red" or "Yellow". I do not object with the use of yellow at the remaining sections of the userbox at all. Pikablu0530 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The colour is depicted in the line graphic. Remember that this userbox applies consistent design and fields across public transport "line" articles in metro NSW, and not all modes use the same colours. If you're trying to make these pages more convenient for intending passengers, then you need to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory. Joestella 08:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much

I think there is too much in the infobox- the page could potentially just become one big infobox with no need for any text! Quaidy 10:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I take your point. What do you think should stay in and out? Joestella 10:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the area and connect fields that take up too much room. Can we change them and cut them down to something more reasonable? JROBBO 10:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess separating them with commas rather than <br /> would help. I've been defining areas by LGAs, which is more precise than Sydney regions but potentially more obscure—and much longer. The connect field, listing major stations, I feel is important, though they could all be linked I suppose. Joestella 10:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CNG Busses

page reads volvo...diesel busses but reference website indicates CNG fuel, any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.152.139.216 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)