Template talk:Railway accidents and incidents in 2021
(Redirected from Template talk:Railway accidents and incidents in 2021/doc)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Deeday-UK in topic Format
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Format
editThere isn't a consensus to include the titles of the incidents rather than only the dates & locations, which is sufficient for the display of each link in the templates. Having shorter descriptions would make the templates clearer & easier to use, as well as allow an increase the number of columns, which would make it smaller. Jim Michael (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Jim Michael: for that matter, a simple number [1], [2], [3] etc is perfectly "sufficient for the display of each link in the template." The point is to give the reader enough information about the link so that they don't have to click on it just to figure out what the link is about. Rail accidents come in all sorts of types: derailments, crashes, collisions, fires, bombings... and you argue that hiding that information makes the template "clearer & easier to use"? I'd say it makes it a lot less useful and informative. The amount of space taken is of secondary importance, and this template certainly doesn't take more space than many other navboxes found at the bottom of articles. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- A number wouldn't be enough, because readers usually search for such events by location - few will know which order in the year they occurred in. The articles nearly all have train/rail in their titles, so the principal detail is the location & date. That previous format was usual before it was changed to how it currently is without the discussion in regard to the matter having reached a consensus for such a change. In the absence of consensus for a substantial change, the format should have remained as it was. The only part of the change which I agree with is for the entries to be in columns, because that makes the templates easier to use. Jim Michael (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus was tacitly given when I said "If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and implement the first version of the new template", and nobody objected, but of course feel free to reopen the discussion there.
- And yes, nearly all articles have train/rail in their titles, but the type of event varies widely. These articles are about events; the principal details therefore are what happened, where and when, not just where & when. --Deeday-UK (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Consensus was tacitly given when I said "If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and implement the first version of the new template", and nobody objected, but of course feel free to reopen the discussion there.
- A number wouldn't be enough, because readers usually search for such events by location - few will know which order in the year they occurred in. The articles nearly all have train/rail in their titles, so the principal detail is the location & date. That previous format was usual before it was changed to how it currently is without the discussion in regard to the matter having reached a consensus for such a change. In the absence of consensus for a substantial change, the format should have remained as it was. The only part of the change which I agree with is for the entries to be in columns, because that makes the templates easier to use. Jim Michael (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)