Template talk:Welsh Highland Railway RDT

Template display changes

from User talk:Kevin Steinhardt

Not sure how you can say the text is being distorted as I am not detecting any either with IE7 or Netscape 4. I will be reverting this later this evening. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All I'm asking you to do is look at the current template, and decide if it looks better or worse than the previous overcrowded and illegible revision. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The text gets distorted in both Firefox, as well as in the latest version of Safari. Wikipedia uses Helvetica to display regular type and, below a certain size, the text gets distorted; this renders the type unreadable. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • You have also changed the header colour and removed the BHF from the major (non-request halt stations). I suggest you re-consider these changes. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • The symbol does not imply that the station is a halt. It implies that the station is not as major as another station on the route diagram template; in this case Porthmadog

However you have shown Porthmadog Harbour as "not major". --Stewart ^(talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. I had shown Porthmadog Harbour as "not major". I had shown Porthmadog as "major". Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that Caernarfon, Rhyd Ddu and Porthmadog Harbour as a minimum get BHF. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Porthmadog Harbour only has one platform. How does it qualify to be awarded major station importance - ?

Over 300,000 passengers per year; headquarters of the Operating Company..... --Stewart ^(talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a heritage railway station. Heritage. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

...and that bars it from being major. I think not - it is the busiest station in Porthmadog. --Stewart ^(talk) 22:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another look back at the template as it existed this morning had what I consider an appropriate balance between BHF and HST. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess then if you look at many of the Historical Scottish Railway templates you are going to have display issues (for example Template:Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway). --Stewart ^(talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's true. But my revision of the Welsh Highland Railway template (a) displays the route more clearly that the previous revision, (b) reduces the number of excess columns used, and (c) displays non-station type at a readable size. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(a} I would disagree regarding the clarity of the display, I think you have oversimplfied it. For example, you have lost the detail that Porthmadog deserves, including the connecting platforms at Penymount infer that this station is the only major one on the route; (b) agreed that BS5 was overkill, however BS3 would have been appropriate; (c) one of the other editors of the Historic Scottish Railway templates is using Firefox and has not had any difficulty with using the features of the BS templates for small text and right align small text. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(a) I admit I have oversimplified it. I apologise for that. (b) BS3 is what I'm using, along with BS(1) where no other column is required. (c) Firefox displays small text using small tags correctly. With the pipe in place, the text gets distorted. Would you like proof?

Agreed as regards the Afon Glaslyn, but not with respect to the railways in Porthmadog; the use of BHF and HST; and using html <small> code. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you agree. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel your edits have been a retrograde step with the template --Stewart ^(talk) 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, how did I ruin the template? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also no explanation as regards the change of the colour at the top of the template. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Easier to read. Black on green isn't as easy as black on a light colour. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A slightly lighter green could be used, however green had been specifically selected. --Stewart ^(talk) 17:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the blue header. It's green now. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Pen-y-Mount: I didn't choose those symbols; there's only one set of cross-platform interchange symbols, for major stations. And having a cross-platform interchange, or any interchange for that matter, implies that the station has importance.

I've added the National Rail station at Porthmadog back into the route diagram. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I note there has been some discussion here regarding status and colours. Having looked at 07:00 Sunday 20 April, I see the following:

1) Dinas should be a major station. Reason - It is a timetabling point, railway works, and the start and end point of all published runs (maybe not in service though).

2) Waunfawr should be classed as major, again on being a major timetabled, passing, and reconstruction location.

3) Beddgelert station, although not yet in existance, will be a major station, and will probably more likely have a staff presence than any other intermediate locations.

I have also split the tunnels into individual ones and marked with the company designations

On the point of the header colour. I dont know if there is a wiki standard or precendence, but if there isn't, then shouldnt the FR header be Red with cream/white letters, and this one Blue with cream white, to fall in line with the colours the operating company ses???

I have made above changes --Keith 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC) So, we're finished with the arguments now? Let's just leave the template alone, as long as everyone's happy. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

Acting on a request from the FR publicity department to update and correct this file, I have amended the status of various items below Beddgelert. It now reflects the position "AS IT IS NOW" - not as it will be or want it to be. This is in line with a number of corrections to text in various files.

In line with this the Cambrian has been changed to Blue to indicate it is not the same gauge. (later, colours were corrected and reversed) --Keith 17:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tryfan Junction

Has appeared in 2011 timetable, but with no scheduled opening - expected to be before high season. --Keith 21:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - the same happened with Plas-y-Nant, which took another two seasons to become operational. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 23:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It trnspired it opened on the day the 2011 summer season commenced- - by reference to fares list and Guards instructions --Keith 08:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Pitt's Head

Boyd does make a reference to Pitt's Head in the original NGRISC (1970), but as a proposed halt, rather than actual one. There was a stone crusher nearby and there MAY have been some traffic for this - but not passenger traffic. Keith 21:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Pitt's Head

Incorrect colour code.

Should be shown as RED i.e closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarrieHughes (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)