Template talk:Rail-interchange

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Midland Metro icon in routeboxes

I notice that you've changed "midland" to "birmingham" in the rail interchange template. I'd like to request a reversion, as the name of the network is "Midland Metro", not "Birmingham Metro", and it also serves the city of Wolverhampton; and there are as many planned lines that don't serve Birmingham as those that do. This makes it somewhat different to Manchester Metrolink, London Underground, Sheffield Supertram et al. I just can't see the reason for the change - sorry! Fingerpuppet (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I just spotted your self-revert! If you're really worried, then add a new entry for {{rail-interchange|wolverhampton}} and point it to the same logo. (A similar example I can think of is Rotterdam/Delft). My intention with the {{rail-interchange}} template was to abstract away issues of current branding, current link, current naming... In a place with only one form of rapid transit, it's simple—in a place with several, then it'd be 'tram/etc' (again, not branded).
I would urge you to consider if there's any reason other than regional pride, why the addition Wolverhampton entry would be necessary, although if you feel you need it, please do go ahead and add it. —Sladen (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm not particularly worried, just looking for accuracy! Hence, the requested revert to "Midland" to cover both cities and the Black Country with no "turf war" issues! 15:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingerpuppet (talk • contribs)
Okay, I'll move this to the Template_talk:rail-interchange for useful future reference. —Sladen (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
How about {{rail-interchange|westmidlands}}? Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping to avoid setting a precedent at this early time. The (idea behind the) {{rail-interchange}} is be a function that maps a $place and $method_of_transport to details of its local rapid transport (most visible the icon that people have already added). If I've just placed a node on a diagram (eg. Birmingham Moor Street), then it should be as simple as placing a {{rail-interchange}} link next to it with the same name. The template is a function, an abstraction layer. f(where,how) \to brand,link,icon(s)
What I am interested in, is, if you can think of any instances where this interface—as it stands—will not easily scale to. "If it ain't broke don't fix it"! Consider what happens when Birmingham builds a metro, a monorail or futuristic pod transport system... what will they all be known [branded] as? —Sladen (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple methods

My hope in the future is that it will be possible to do something like:

{{rail-interchange|london|tram underground overground rail}}

For that reason I have add the london|rail option back in. When this gets split into an array basis, they can, of course, be both pointed at the same sub-template page. —Sladen (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Rail icon

At present, there's no visible icon for the london|rail option. The obvious candidate would be the circular part of Image:NationalRail.svg, but that's a copyrighted image used under our fair use guidelines, which don't allow non-free images to be used in templates. Any ideas what we can put there? -- Earle Martin [t/c] 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that the image was a bitmap downloaded off the web. If a new one is drawn from scratch, that might fall under use of a trademark, but shouldn't fall under any copyright issue ("I draw it afterall..."). When I investigated this issue last week, the circular National Rail logo (BR double arrow in reverse colour on blue circle) is a trademark of the ATOC ("National Rail"). The plain BR double-arrow (red on white, or white on red) was transferred to the DfT and seems to be available for any british rail (lowercase) related use. Eg. on road signs. I need to double check the wording again. —Sladen (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Research notes: "S 38 B 13/11/02 Railway station symbol On website 31 Jan 2003" from [1] (PDF). NR logotype (PDF doesn't render correctly) [2]. Then the NR Design Guidelines (Page 18) states:

The double arrow symbol, indicating access to the National Rail network, can be used in many forms but these have restrictions and should only be used in specific areas. This page indicates the differing forms and specifies areas of application. The double arrow symbol is owned by the Department for Transport which licenses its use. Where space permits, the following acknowledgement is to be included: “The [SYMBOL] logo is a registered trade mark in the name of the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport”

Page 19 then goes on to give "Example use on third party maps", which differentiates between stations immediately at the vicinity and those within walking distance. There are two shapes of the logo, depending on whether the logo is used in red-on-white, or white-on-red:

It is important to know that the reversed version is not just a white copy of the positive version. It is actually slightly heavier in weight to give the visual impression of being the same when reversed.

—Sladen (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your research in this area. Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions says: "Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace. Used outside article space, they are not covered under the fair use doctrine. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)... Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." I think there would be little disagreement that it is fair to use the National Rail symbol to identify National Rail stations, as we are already doing with the Tube roundel. -- Earle Martin [t/c] 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We should not have any of symbols if this is the case that none can be used even though it is fair-use as it quite clearly shows to the user what the interchange is. However if this is going to be a sticking point we need an alternative to the symbols.. text is the only way (in a sense even these are copyright/trademarked). pebbens (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)