Template talk:Infobox GO Transit rail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Extending this template

For reference, view Barrie (GO Transit). Currently, after the template header, GO Transit lines have no information. The template simply jumps to the second header, in this case "Train lines". For articles about train stations, the address of the station is listed. What info, if any, should be placed after the first header? Further, what other info should be added to the template? Per discussion on my talkpage with User:Secondarywaltz, bus terminals is one possibility. Others include:

  • date of station/line opening
  • number of passengers handled (per day/year?)
  • train length accomodation (stations can handle 8, 10 or 12 cars)
  • average time to/from Union (is this relevant?)
  • average fare to/from Union (is this relevant?)

Is there anything else to consider? I'll try to integrate suggestions on which we agree in my next major edit of this template. Mindmatrix 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes: some stations were once unable to handle 8 cars, but I believe GO has extended the platform for each of these to handle at least eight cars. Further, is this information relevant, or even available? If not, then it probably shouldn't be included. Mindmatrix 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a distance/time indicator for each station to all other stops in the line? I'm not certain if it's possible to do this, though. Mindmatrix 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

First I'll respond to the suggestions in order.

  • opening - this should be left in the article along with a press release and other news etc. All stations need to be enhanced with some history or description in the body of the article.
  • passengers - a lot of work to maintain. (Don't do it)
  • platforms - perhaps something for this but it could be for anything notable about the platform not just train length. (Perhaps)
  • time/fare/distance - your external links to GO Transit pages can do this better and don't need to be updated. (No)

Navigation using the "ladder" of stations out of Union works better than a next/previous style of box, and allows you run up and down the line, except when in Station mode you can't switch to a different Line. Similarly the Line mode only lists the stations for that line within the body of the article. More thoughts to come. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way, for the opening date you state this should be left in the article - of course, this would be done. The purpose of the infobox is to provide a set of quick info about the station that the reader may find useful. Some of it will surely replicate what's in the text, but that shouldn't be a concern.
Regarding platforms, is there other info you had in mind. I can't think of any features other than length, and perhaps cover (as at Union) or curvature (are there such stations?).
Also, I wasn't going to replace the ladder with succession boxes; I was thinking of enhancing the ladder with extra info.
Other ideas: Maybe the number of tracks? Number of train visits per day (per direction)? Mindmatrix 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A smattering of my thoughts, admittedly with less organization than I probably should have invested in this. These first bunch relate to stuff that would go in station infoboxes, not the template's iteration on the line articles, although I suppose they could/should share variable names.

  • I'm not questioning the overall encyclopedicity/notability of these stations, but on at least some level, we run up against the problem that there's frankly not a lot to say about some of them in the body text. For instance, a "History" section would in most cases be along the lines of "East Gwillimbury station opened in November, 2004. It's still there." Given that sort of situation, article readability, IMHO, benefits from just representing that sort of information via a line in the infobox. If there actually is a more extensive discussion about the historical particulars that's worth going into--I dunno, for example maybe the Barrie South article could go into the various comings and goings of service in that city over the years, it's hardly verboten to duplicate info between body text and infobox. And while its admittedly a little odd when an infobox has far more content in an article than the body text, it isn't explicitly wrong (elements of WP:NOTPAPER?) and I think we should just accept that in the case of these station articles it will be a common enough phenomena.
  • I would love to see annual station-by-station ridership data on Wikipedia, but then I'd love to see it anywhere. What I'm saying is that despite it's obvious usefulness in understanding the nature of the system, I've never seen it released by GO. Perfectly appropriate for the infobox if we had our hands on a source. It wouldn't be too hard to maintain, seeing as we might see new figures only annually.
  • Platform lengths would make sense in an infobox--it's IMHO about fitting that "simple question, simple answer" pattern--but again you rub up against the problem of a lack of a straightforward source. More nuanced info about other platform characteristics (ie, it's curved and you can only disembark from car x, or its icy as all hell in the winter and killed 14 little old ladies in fiscal yr 06-07) seems to be as best suited for body text.
  • A potential inclusion you haven't mentioned that might be relevant would be distance to Union in track km. That seems straightforward enough. As for the the time from Union aspect: one obstacle is there tends to be some variation in scheduled running times, but provided we felt comfortable fudging the variations and arriving at a figure that we could flag as "approximate" I'd think that's also worth noting. Barrie South's being "95 minutes out," for instance, strikes me as a more important defining characteristic of its nature as a station than whether it has bike racks. If you wanted to list times to stations other than Union, I suppose you could arrange the data so it sat in the line "ladder" section of the infobox, but I think that might be a bit of a nightmare from a technical implementation standpoint.

In terms of the line aricles, in no particular order, here's what I think can be done reasonably simply:

  • Ridership. We've actually got rail-line numbers from the annual report and should use 'em on the line articles; while I'd love to roll in buses from the corridor too, GO doesn't do that breakdown, so the template should be quite explicit about it being a train journey-only number.
  • Opening date. As with the stations, its exactly the sort of straightforward cross-article data point that infoboxes are made for.
  • Train length. I say yes, at least provided counting the damn things as they roll out of Union station doesn't constitute original research ;).
  • "Runs on" or "Rail line and ownership" or "Rail subdivisions" or whatever name gets the point across. IE, Milton = CP Galt; Georgetown = CN Weston + CN Halton and so on. Individual rail subdivisions don't seem to articles yet, but that mightn't be the case forever. And even without the additional context that would give, I think it's a noteworthy enough thing to include, if a bit technical.
  • Rail operator. Right now CN for everyone except Milton and CP for Milton, and then Bombardier for everyone else when that rolls over in what, a month?
  • Some sort of way of quickly expressing if it's an all-day or bidirectional service line versus an in-and-out at rush hour line. Again, typical wording might be tricky. "Off-peak service = Yes/Limited/No," perhaps?

Probably not done yet, but I think I'll stop here for now. Your work on this is really appreciated, needless to say! The Tom (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that ridership info isn't disseminated, other than per line. As far as platform length is concerned, we can't simply count cars on the train; at some stations the platform doesn't match the train length - for example, at King City some years ago (not sure if it's still true today), the locomotive and first car would be beyond the end of the platform, and the last car would overflow into the road intersection beside the platform. That is, it had a capacity of 6.5 cars, but the train had 8 cars. The value might be useful for the line, though.
I think distance to Union in track km might fit well in the line's station ladder, without cluttering things too much. I'll certainly consider this. I'm not sure if adding rail operator or rail owner is worthwhile, but I'll test it to see how it looks. I like the idea for off-peak service; an additional value of "bus only" might be useful. Do all stations have off-peak bus service? If so, then one of the "no" or "bus only" options becomes superfluous.
Given the number of suggestions between the three of us, I'll probably have to trim them a little to prevent the template from becoming too large, but I'll certainly consider any other suggestions. Mindmatrix 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, to clarify, I was saying that train length figures were sensible enough for lines, in that it's straightforward enough to come up with those, but troublesome for stations precisely because of reasons you cited.
The no buses, no off-peak rail category would be Kennedy, Agincourt, Milliken, York University and Kipling, I think. Actually, I think it might be clearer to have two variables, one being "Off-peak train service" (Yes, no or limited) and one being "Bus service" (Yes or no). That might help milk out some of the nuances of stations like Bloor (No buses, Limited rail) or Exhibition (No buses, All-day rail). The Tom (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caution: This is not real

Barrie South GO Transit station
{{{location}}}
Barrie  line
Facility information
Station schedules {{{code}}}
Fare zone {{{zone}}}
Station building {{{building}}}
Wheelchair access {{{wheelchair}}}
Parking spots {{{parking}}}
Bicycle rack {{{bikerack}}}
GO Transit webpage {{{code}}}

How about the non station information collapsing within the infobox - things might be getting too long if Other Lines are included. This, of course, is only simulated. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been working on a local copy of this template and made similar changes. However, in my version, I default to showing the stations for the line and hiding the other lines. I've also considered not using the navbox for the stations, though I've also thought about some points you raised above (not being able to view other lines). Each of these will require some re-structuring of the logic flow in the template. Mindmatrix 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New, hopefully improved

I've updated the template to add distance information to the station ladder (a few figures are missing - Lisgar, Lincolnville, and possibly others). I've also added info about ridership and service frequency to the line's station ladder. There's too much bolding, which seems to be inherited from the navbox; I'll have to peruse the code to see why this is happening - I'm probably missing something obvious. Is the formatting otherwise OK like this?

Next up will be addressing bus service and its frequency. This will have to be station-dependent, I think, since bus service does not follow the rail corridor, and stations along the same corridor have differing frequency. I was thinking of using a "Bus frequency" parameter in the facility section, with entries such as "every 15 minutes", "hourly" etc. (Perhaps two entries, one for peak, one for off-peak bus service, would be useful.) This is a slight refinement of the ideas discussed above. Any thoughts? Mindmatrix 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Originally I admired your Infobox for the way that so much relevant information and linking was available from a small footprint, but I am afraid that it is becoming overloaded and in danger of losing focus. Much of the new information on 'lines' would be more appropriate as part of each article. The item on 'Milton GO line', for example, has only 29 words (with the list of stations now redundant) and even the main article on GO Transit has more schedule information for the line than that. Ridership and service information should be expanded within those articles about specific lines. With the links to appropriate external GO Transit pages there is no need to develop this further as a timetable for trains and buses. Addition of "Km" is good. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)