Template talk:Train topics

Too many links now

This template is getting way too long to be usable. It was originally designed to link to the core topics as were defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, and I think we should go back to that revision for brevity. Interested readers can explore the links within the articles. Slambo (Speak) 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slambo, I agree its a little unwieldy. I'd be in favor of removing the following links:

Push-pull trains
Cab car
Driving Van Trailer
Double decker train
Terminology (appears twice, only needs to be there once)

these seem to be the more obscure topics. Gw e rnol 20:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest also getting rid of

Terminal stations (a subtopic of stations)
Tilting trains (a subtopic of trains)
The second instance of "Passenger cars"
Railway coach (links to a five-line paragraph of Coach article)

... In fact, just revert back to the beginning of February. Henning Makholm 22:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing more agreement than dissent, I shortened the template back to just the core topics that were defined in the Trains WikiProject. Slambo (Speak) 17:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, let the items deleted from the

template be transferred to the ==See also== of the relevant articles. Peter Horn 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Template placement

Links templates are best placed in the "See also" section. SilkTork 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

What the f*** is this picture supposed to mean? This is not r*****.com here! 91.66.220.154 (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The three track image was chosen originally because it is generic and does not favor any particular system or nation. Slambo (Speak) 10:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is really bad. Cant see tracks in the small icon at all. Lets chose simple track to display.--Kozuch (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They appear properly on my 1440x900 resolution monitor. Do you have another image in mind? Slambo (Speak) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad Portal??

Wouldn't it be great to have a portal for railroad matters?? Saltwolf (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Track and track gauge?

I think track gauge can be removed from this long list. After removal, people who are interested in "track gauge" would generally click on the "track" which is Track (rail transport) article. That article already has track gauges in the infobox prominently displayed on the top. There is no need to have a separate item of track gauge on this list. If it is somehow justified to have a separate item for track gauge, why don't we add all subjects with a main article on that page (e.g. Ladder track, Rail profile, Railroad tie, Track geometry, etc.) to this list too? Z22 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it has become too long to be useful

Recent additions make this template to be very confusing to readers. It has to be cut down or consolidated to a list of 10 areas or so. Z22 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread may be a decade old, but the same problem has happened again. The link bloat here is ridiculous and defeats the entire purpose of linking the most important topics only. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following links should be removed:

TGV and Shinkansen (specific systems)
Electric-steam locomotive (far too niche, should be replaced with diesel locomotive)
Coupler conversion, dual coupling, couplers by country (too niche of a topic)
Battery-electric multiple unit and electric multiple unit (both should be replaced with multiple unit)
Wheelset (part of a truck)
Vactrain (hypothetical concept)
Platform screen doors (entirely too niche of a topic to merit inclusion)
Railway infrastructure manager (too niche)
Shuttle train (too niche as one aspect of some passenger train operations)
Passenger rail terminology (there are already five terminology articles linked in this template)

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed most of the links you suggested. Might need more trimming though. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template was completely readable and fine to navigate before. As to some specific points; who decides what s "too niche" and why is that even a criterion in the first place? Okay if there were over a hundred links or something unwieldly, but this was not that. Also, why remove "hypothetical concept"s and "specific systems", there's nothing to say these can't be included. If you genuinely think the template was too big then explain the specific problem it had because I don't see how it couldn't be navigated just fine before. I'd be willing to compromise the removal of some of these like "Railway infrastructure manager" and "Wheelset". Helper201 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are no policies, guidelines, etc. to say something can't be included doesn't mean that including it isn't bad practice. Pretty much all of the links I removed were the ones listed above, and for the same reasons as well. They're all arguments for why those articles shouldn't be included in the template, not why they can't. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the multiple discussions on this very page expressing opposition to this template becoming excessively large. You need to gain consensus for your proposed changes as they have been contested by other editors. If you cannot gain consensus for them, they cannot be included in the template. That's how Wikipedia works. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]