Template talk:A Line (Los Angeles Metro)

This template is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles

Trains: Rapid transit

Trains Portal

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This template is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Rivers

The growing list of water features in the first map sort of detracts from the conciseness of the layout. They're already marked in the detailed diagram, and I just don't think they add value to the first condensed map. -MJ (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. While I have been making many edits (not the best at it, admittedly) to update the templates for each Metro Rail and Busway line while keeping them consistent with how they were when I first started (including water, bridge, tunnel, and freeway features), the templates are all getting very bloated (both condensed and detailed) and could use some trimming down. I'd be in favor of removing all features besides stations in the former and trimming down some of the code in the latter. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My only ask is that we keep it consistent it across all Metro Rail/Busway diagrams. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it, I do not see much use of the detailed diagrams. Most other rail line templates lack such a feature, especially since BSicon was never intended to be used, nor was it designed for such detailed diagrams in the first place. They are incredibly clunky and hard to read for the average user. They do not provide much educational usage besides showing detailed crossings, especially when they are expanded and futz with the articles. I would be in favor of removing them entirely. Still, I was interested in seeing what you all may be thinking about this since I would not want to take such drastic action without any prior popular consensus. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Backstory: when the E Line page was first created, that one line had a much more detailed map (heck, a much more detailed page) than any of the other Metro Rail lines. There was one user who was fiercely protective of the detailed map showing all crossings. Having both maps was a compromise proposed at the time.

Always important for Wikipedia editors to remember: while we most often edit on a desktop or laptop computer, the vast majority of users read Wikipedia on their phones.

These maps can be collapsed on desktop/laptops, but not on mobile. I really feel like the maps are a pretty poor user experience on mobile. So for those reasons, I'd be happy to see the detailed maps go away and the simple diagrams kept as simple as possible. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsible section captions not lined up

I have a bit of a pet peeve. Ever since I made a few more subsequent edits to this template, this has caused the captions for the collapsible section for the Foothill Extension to not line up with the rest of the route diagram template. I understand this may not be the biggest issue, but if anyone possesses the knowledge of how to fix it, since I do not, I would greatly appreciate it! --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just reversed the order on the D Line template as well, and am running into the same issue. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]