Template talk:High-speed rail

Redundancy?

{{Mergefrom|High-speed trains|Template talk:High-speed rail}} (That is, include the contents of {{High-speed trains}} in {{High-speed rail}}) Tompw 21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! —lensovet–talk – 05:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

High-speed lines inclusion

As there a lot of lines that might possibly be built, or only have vague plans, I feel that only high-speed lines that have been built, or are under construction should be included in the High speed lines section. Consequently, I removed Beijing-Shanghai Express Railway form the list (sorry Revas). Tompw (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ICE

Why you set not the german InterCityExpress in this template? The other European trains Thalys and TGV are in this template, why the InterCityExpress not? 213.10.27.88 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i did not look good, it's was there. 213.10.27.88 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Korea

In the 'lines' section, should the Gyeongbu Line and/or Honam Line be listed? Radagast (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Selectiveness?

Should we really be listing prototypes or trains that only ran in production for a very limited number of units? Trains like the HSR-350 were never meant to go into service, and this list should quadruple in size if we listed all the trains that were planned to gone into service or were one-off writeoffs that failed to make the grade. What criteria should be used, or do trains like the APT actually belong here? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think APT represents the cut off line, as it was in service, but not a full lifespan - I'd tend to only list full production trains that went into full service.Shortfatlad (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Southeastern HS and other

I added the class 395 under southeastern highspeed as its over 125mph, and also why do some links on the High Speed trains section go to the train and some go to the company should there be two sections for this (one for the train and one for the company) it would be less confusing. Likelife (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes agree - one section for rolling stock, and one section for named services perhaps? I note that all services should link from the bottom section "High speed rail in country X" - so I would prefer if the high speed train section (top section) linked to the rolling stock? eg AVE Class 102,AVE Class 103 etc, not AVE

I think this requires some consensus first as it could easily get messy.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Split

Propose splitting into 200km/hr+ and 300km/hr+ trains, also I think some Korean trains may be missing (though I agree with the sentiment a few sections above that only trains that went into proper service should be in - not prototypes.)Shortfatlad (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Done Tompw (talk) (review) 17:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - made a few minor changes [1] - please review.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel the convert template works best for sinlge values rather than ranges, so I've formatted it manually. The changes to the train names are definatley an improvement.

Since in many countries, the cutoff for HSR is 250 km/h, I split the categories further. I am still not happy with the result: if all 200 km/h trains would be included, then we would have to include most European IC/EC coaches and many of the locomotives that pull them, and we don't consider those HSR. For now, the list includes almost all EMUs or DMUs travelling at 200 km/h, as well as locomotive-pulled trainsets that are articulated or have special couplers and thus aren't separated normally (Talgos, railjet, Metropolitan).

I also added several train types that were left out. I think prototypes and demonstration trains do belong on the list, with the quibble that their top speed is achieved top speed, which is different from permissible top speed for regular service; I tried to be consequent by putting all of them in Italics. In-construction and planned models are in Italics, too (one of which, Spanish maker CAF's Oaris, doesn't yet have any mention on Wikipedia).

I also separated out many types that were listed collectively only - but this work is probably unfinished. Furthermore, some types now feature in two categories -- but all of those with a reason, to be found in the articles. For example, the top speed of Series 200 Shinkansens was raised and then reduced over time.

Finally, a question: should I now add the template to all the articles I newly linked into it, or is there some bot that would do it? --Rontombontom (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

gauges

Conventional HSR with use 3 gauges; 1676 Indian gauge, 1520 Russian gauge, and 1435 standard gauge are proposed. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no real evidence for this statement. So it is not relevant. Two tendencies can be observed for high speed railroad systems, concerning the gauge: Either the predominant gauge of the country is used or 1435 mm. Btw. a similar statement can be made about electrification of new high-speed-railroads: Either it is 25kV AC or it is the predominant electrification scheme of the country or region. Please stop spamming all talk and article pages with your fixed ideas about gauges, electrification schemes etc. --Bk1 168 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

high speed railroad systems:

1. gauges: either 1676 mm, 1520 mm or 1435 mm
2. electrification: either 50kV AC, 25kV AC, 3kV DC or it is the predominant electrification scheme of the country or region

In Brazil, 1600 mm gauge network should convert to 1435 mm. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the predominant gauge is narrow gauge, tend to choose 1435 mm. 220.210.143.190 (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Narrow gauge is not useful for high speed railroads, only up to 160 km/h, maybe 200. So in countries where there is mostly narrow gauge standard or broad gauge has to be chosen for high speed. Unless in neighboring countries it is broad gauge, they will most likely choose standard gauge.--Bk1 168 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Split experimental

I edited this version - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:High-speed_rail&oldid=384768854 part from the random use of bold it looks a total mess, now the version is still a mess with too much information - I'm going to split off experimental trains into a separate template. Probably that could eventually be a collapse box within the template? eg Template:Navbox with collapsible groups Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

see Template:High-speed rail experimental Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible split or re-organise

Possibly the template should be re-split into "High speed rail lines" and "High speed rail trains". This would allow to have links to invididual lines per country - such articles exist for china, france, germany etc. Also it might make sense to then re-organise high speed trains by country eg major users, and then sections for "Europe (other)" with the origin shown eg [[GMB Class 71|GMB Class 71 (norway)] .. this prevents the current problem of having a list of codes which may not be immediately apparent to the reader what they mean eg who knows that "X2000" is from sweden? The distinction between different speeds could be done within sub-groups, on separate lines or not at all.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Bold on experimental trains was an error, I should have remove it days ago. You did not have to remove experimental trains. Template:High-speed railway lines already exist. Feel free to create Template:High-speed trains. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. I should have checked the edit history. I still think that the template was getting too complex.. (It's still fairly information heavy) I think at least experimental/prototype trains should be a separate group - though if we split trains from lines then I would remerge.

Possibly "lines" and "high speed rail by country" should be the same template, and "trains - prototype and operations" should be another. I'm thinking that trains by country might be a better way to present it too as I suggested above. I'll wait and see if there are any other suggestions, or general agreements. In the meantime I notice that Template:High-speed railway lines is missing some chinese lines, so I'll add those and hopefuly stay out of trouble.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Now I notice that there is Template:High-speed rail in the People's Republic of China .. there's a lot a lines there - should they just be incorporated into [[Template:High-speed railway lines - that would make the china template superfluous.. I think more discuss is needed. I'll post some messages. (see below)

"I still think that the template was getting too complex.. (It's still fairly information heavy) I think at least experimental/prototype trains should be a separate group" (Sf5xeplus) This doesn't sound stupid. I'll deal with your removing of experimental trains in Template:High-speed rail. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm thinking that trains by country might be a better way to present it too as I suggested above." (Sf5xeplus) It can be high-speed trains by continent and country, by speed, by type and family. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Template(s) consolidation

We currently have Template:High-speed rail, Template:High-speed railway lines, (and Template:High-speed rail experimental) as well as Template:Shinkansen, Template:High-speed rail in the United States, Template:High-speed rail in the People's Republic of China, Template:TGV navbox, Template:AVE navbox. Though there's no reason why the regional and worldwide navboxes cannot coexist there is incomplete rollout, and coverage in the worldwide boxes.

I think there needs to be some sort of re-do of Template:High-speed rail, Template:High-speed railway lines which gets them up to date. But an up to date box may be too big (eg see the amount of data in the china box) - there are various options including collapsable navbox sections, or splitting into different coverage (eg one for trains, the other for lines), or merging both, or something else.

Please suggest. (I suggest dropping the info about individual country lines, and leaving that info in the individual country navboxs, and then merging the remainder of world wide info. Experimental trains I'd prefer separate as a section or different navbox to keep it simple. I'd also suggest organising trains by country - since train speed is pretty consistently linked to country of usage anyway. ?? Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For your information, high-speed lines have been moved out of Template talk:High-speed rail on 2010-01-03. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"But an up to date box may be too big (eg see the amount of data in the china box)" (Sf5xeplus) Template:High-speed railway lines will not be too big this year if high-speed railway lines under construction or planned are not included. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a need to create a separate Template:High-speed rail by country? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'd also suggest organising trains by country" (Sf5xeplus) I can make a sort by country/by speed/by type parameter in Template:High-speed trains. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ok I'm tending to think that the issue is the merge see Template_talk:High-speed_rail#Redundancy?, that was a good idea at the time. But I haven't got a total solution.

The sort by.. sounds interesting (new to me) - I'm not sure if it defeats the point of a navbox (or not?) - ie to have an easy and well presented way to go to other articles - sorting sounds like a technical solution that solves a lot of the issues raised above, but does it make the navobox better to use? I like the idea but don't want to lose the 1 press navigation there already exist.Sf5xeplus (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever solution you end up with, I make one broader note regarding the category split: there are more train categories here than Italics/Bolding could express. On one hand, there are the manufacturers' train platforms (Velaro, Zefiro, Talgo...), which you can't fit into a country category; and there are the in-service series of operators (some of which are multinational). On the other hand, the earlier bold setting was for both experimental trains and planned/in-construction regular service trains; the latter (KTX III) now look odd in the Experimental trains template.

I note that you mis-categorised some types (Oaris: a planned platform, ER200: it was not experimental but in regular service, Transrapid: a platform including both experimental and for-service types etc.) I will review your edits in detail later on when I have time. --Rontombontom (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bulk reversion of purely cosmetic improvements

The bulk reversion of a series of purely cosmetic improvements to this template by Imgaril is disappointing. What possible reason is there for reverting even/odd swap edits and the addition of the main cat and key at the bottom of the template.

If there is an issue with the addition of the 'Rail transport' as an 'above' link (I struggle to see what it could be but am happy to discuss) - why not just revert that and discuss? Rangoon11 (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I just didn't think it represented an improvement.

Couple of points

• the planned lines are in italics comment should surely be next to the section it represents.
• I'm convinced that a top level link to rail transport this version is totally unneccessary. It's unlikely that this will not already be linked in the text

Your change that added an 'other' group sort of makes sense, and does improve the look - however - these are links to categories not articles, and should be labelled as such, as per principle of least astonishment

Also linking Category:High-speed rail as Category is a little non obvious

I'm also not sure why the icon for category from Template:Icon is being used - the documentation states it is for meta and talk pages. I've been here ages and I don't recognise it as meaning "category" - it's a bit crufty - so I have removed it [2]

I appreciate edits that improve readability and appearance, but caution against making "purely cosmetic" edits too (apologies for using your own words).

Imgaril (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The edits made essentially conformed the look and feel to the majority of templates which I have come across, as well as fixing the current even/odd swap errors and moving what I see as core topic links within the template to an 'Other' section - which I expect could also have some other links - rather than being in the 'below' line.

- It is very common for the category icon to be used at the bottom of templates, together with simply the word 'Category'. To give a couple of examples from very high useage templates: Template:United States topics and Template:2011 Libyan civil war. Where there are relevant links to portals, wikiprojects and books these are also put in the bar with the relevant icons.

- The 'above' line is often used to link to 'higher level' topics. A link to Rail transport is useful and helps to place the topic within its context. In the Libyan Civil War template a link is given in the 'above' line to the Arab Spring. To compromise I could certainly live without this, although I do think it adds something.

- When categories are linked within templates sometimes they are shown with the category icon beside the link, sometimes not. In my view it looks neater to not include the icon within templates. When the cursor is placed over the link it becomes clear that it is a category link.

- Keys/legends are generally given at the bottom of the template, within the 'below' bar. The Libyan Civil War template is an example of this, as is Template:Disney. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm not sure about the category icon, but my guess it is been added uneccesarily (in a good faith attempt to add a bit of colour) - many people do similar things adding the "flagicon" template to everything - in fact it can end up being distracting/confusing. In my case I saw the icon and thought "what does this mean?"

I tried this for the 'italics links' test any better?

There doesn't appear to be a manual of style for navboxes, the page Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates only gives basic common sense advice.

I've got to admit that your version [3] looks noticeably 'cleaner',

It also maybe true that the "above" part makes the box look less cramped overall - even though I think it's contents are uneeded - I've re-added that. I also re-added some bits that I hastily removed, without inspecting their effect current diff

What does "evenodd" do - I can't even see the difference.

Ideally I don't want to argue over this - perhaps a third person will step in and tidy the template as they see feel best. User:Visite fortuitement prolongée usually does a good job.

Imgaril (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've just done the even/odd swap edit on its own so you can see how it works - it is used to make the striped lines alternate in order when using sub groups.

'Cleaner' is a good word and essentially represents my thinking, as well as a desire to present as consistent as possible a look and feel. Personally I do feel that my series of edits made the template look neater and also more like the majority of other templates, particularly the 'high profile' ones, but accept that this is not an issue that merits lengthy discussion and debate.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge AT300s into one link

Having the Class 800, 801, 802, 803, 805, 807 and 810 all separate is an inefficient use of space. I was going to move them into a link to the AT300 article, but since there isn't one, I believe it could be created, but if not, it could be linked to the base Hitachi A-Train article, although it's not as specific as I'd like it to be. Doomotron (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)