Template talk:Infobox rail line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon 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
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I think a "Voltage" parameter would be useful under the Technical part of the template (immediately below Electrification). Other railway line templates have this so this one might as well too. Thoughts? Manmaru (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I interpret this infobox, the electrification parameter is to contain the voltage and carry system if electrified, and No if the railway in unelectrified. Arsenikk (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
See for instance how it is used in Dovrebanen. Arsenikk (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that works, however the template documentation says that the field el is for the type of electrification (overhead, third rail), not the amount of volts.Manmaru (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the documentation is just a guide. Anything that is suitable to be placed under "Electrification" and is easily understood by the reader is sufficient :) - oahiyeel talk 15:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright got it. Thanks. Manmaru (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Depot/TMD Information[edit]

Does anyone think that we need to added a row for depot/TMD information to the infobox?, or would that be overkill? It might be quite useful on self-contained lines. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is an optional parameter I see no problem with it; but I would say is better with depot than TMD—depot is a more generic term. Arsenikk (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No. of Stations: change?[edit]

I suggest removing "No. of" since the presence of a number makes it clear to readers that the entry is a number. The template's documentation makes it clear to editors. Any opinions? Fg2 (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the meaning is clear to readers, and the documentation should make it clear enough to prevent well-meaning editors from trying to list all the station names for a line in that field. I'm not really fussed either way, but wouldn't oppose any change. --DAJF (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

System map in this template[edit]

Could someone insert in this template |system map = |map_caption = |map_size = as referring to a system map rather than the route map at the end of the template, e.g. as is done in the following templates:

Semmering Railway
Track gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in)
Route map
Semmeringbahn route

Peter Horn 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a demonstrable need for another attribute here. What's the use case which would require two maps? Have you an example article? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking for another (additional) map, bur for additional data for the one and same map, i.e. | map_caption = & | map_size = . sample to follow. Peter Horn 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure why a system map is needed for this rail line template, but in any case, I've added a "map_name" parameter so the default "Route map" title can be optionally changed. Regards - oahiyeel talk 03:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I found out that in the case of this infobox only the additional parameters are not needed because one way or another the info does enter and show up, See Semmering Railway. Peter Horn 19:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple lines and multiple colours[edit]

Is there a way to get this template to display two colours for combined lines?  æronphonehome  21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Supposedly an already merged rail service would receive a single livery color. If the color scheme is complex you may want to use the image file instead of representing it by Wikisyntax. Can you show us which railway would require 2 or more color boxes? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Ampang Line. The two lines follow the same route half way then split. Previously the second line was called Sri Petaling (based on that route's terminus) but now they both go by the same name and Sri Petaling is only an old unofficial designation for the green route of the line, the yellow route was always called Ampang. There's only one article right now for both routes in the line and I'm trying not to create two infoboxes one on top of the other. Can you show me what syntax I would need to hack a second colour into the box?  æronphonehome  14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
     Ampang Line
You could insert a {{color box}} into the |name= parameter, like this:
{{Infobox rail line
|name = {{color box|#00FF00}} Ampang Line
|color = FFFF00
which produces the effect seen above right. Note that for |color= the color value must be a RGB hex triplet without an initial hash "#" - it can't be a literal name like "yellow" or "green". For {{color box}}, the color value may be a literal name (as in {{color box|green}}) or a hex triplet; in the latter case a hash must be provided, as in {{color box|#00FF00}}, --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Got it, I'm going to do just that for now. Also squeezed both route maps into the article unless that's not kosher. (check the link now). æronphonehome  15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two lines with unique service, create two articles with one infobox each. Create an article for the Sri Petaling Line, which already exists as a redirect. There are many cases of shared trackage for part of the route. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The only problem with this now is that there is no such Sri Petaling Line, it's all the Ampang Line and that's why the content was merged in the first place (not by me). Should I just use Ampang Line (yellow route) & Ampang Line (green route) or Ampang Line (Sri Petaling)?  æronphonehome  15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

box_width parameter went away[edit]

A recent change switched away from using the "bodystyle=" parameter from the parent Template:Infobox page. The "box_width=" parameter on this template used that parameter to set the size of the infobox. Can someone please restore the width-setting functionality? It seems to be defaulting to 22em at the moment, which is too small for a lot of pages I work on (particularly when there are route diagrams). —Mulad (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I simply added the old line back in ("| bodystyle = width:25em; font-size: 90%;"), and it seemed to work. In the future, please make sure your edits don't cause the box_width parameter to stop working. —Mulad (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


I have added autoconversions using {{convinfobox}} to make things easier & consistant. See the doc. JIMp talk·cont 04:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

'character' parameter[edit]

The parameter character is not defined on the template's page, and I couldn't find anything on the talk page. Just what does it mean? Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. It's been in right from the start. When it is used, it normally contains some sort of short description. Those most commonly used seem to be any one or more of: the vertical position relative to ground level (e.g. "Elevated", "Above ground", "Embankment", "At-grade", "Surface", "Street-running", "Open cut", "Underground"); the importance of the line (e.g. "Main line", "Secondary line", "Branch line", "Provincial", "Suburban", "Commuter", "Metro", "Streetcar", "4-track", "Single line"); the type of trains using the route (e.g. "Intercity", "Long-haul", "Regional", "Express", "Passenger", "Freight", "Mixed", "Heritage", "Industrial"); or even the type of terrain "Mountainous", "Coastal", "Rural", "Urban"). There are many others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This seems to replicate the type parameter. --Stewart (talk | edits) 18:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Add "style" feature from template:infobox station[edit]

Template:infobox station uses a style parameter to change the header colors to match the railroad's color scheme (for an example, see Santa Fe Passenger Depot (Fresno)). The advantage is to easily and quickly recognize which railroad is associated with the station. I would recommend implementing the same feature for this infobox, for the same reason. The color scheme would default to the grey/black color scheme currently in use if no parameter is entered. Skyman9999 (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Line and Track lengths[edit]

What is the difference between line length and track length? Reubot (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the line length is what you measure if you run a surveyor's wheel from one end of the line to the other. It does not take into account the number of tracks. By contrast, the track length is the sum of the length of each separate track. So, to take a hypothetical example, if a line is ten miles long, and has a single track without loops or sidings, the track length is also ten miles. But let's assume that half way along, there is a passing loop 110 yards in length, so that two trains may pass one another. the line length is still 10 miles, but the track length is 10 miles 110 yd. Now consider a double-track route, again ten miles long. At each end is a station with crossovers and sidings, perhaps 440 yards in addition to the two "main" tracks, then the track length will be about 20.5 miles. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Operating vs Average Speed[edit]

The template has operating speed but not average speed under normal operating conditions. For example, GO Transit rail service lists their operating speed at 150 km/h for their new MP40 locomotives, but the average speed is 30 to 50 km/h according to some sources (due to typical congestion as tracks are shared with VIA rail and freight). In light of that and for full disclosure, average speed should probably be added to the template as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninel (talkcontribs) 04:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion problem[edit]

Any ideas why this template is not transcluding properly in certain pages? See for example Lea Valley Lines and Great Central Main Line. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If I take out {{Infobox rdt|Lea Valley Lines}} and preview, it's fine. Put it back, it's broken. I expect the problem is in {{Infobox rdt}}. The RDT templates have recently been altered significantly, I had to help in fixing up the Panama Canal mess. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
fixed it here. the problem was apparently something to do with transclusion depth or overall complexity of what was being transcluded. when I previewed the page with the {{Infobox rdt|Lea Valley Lines}} moved to the bottom of the box, I saw some complexity errors (Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.). reducing the complexity of the code here seems to have partially fixed the problem. I will work on it some more. Frietjes (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
and now appears to be fixed in both places, by further reducing the transclusion depth complexity of {{Infobox rdt}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Great - thanks alot. Perhaps this template should be fully protected to force users to discuss changes in advance. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
but then I wouldn't be able to fix it for you :) this sort of bug is hard to predict since it will only show up when the map being passed is larger than normal. I could foresee this happening even if the template were fully protected. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Template include size is exceeded. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the Infobox rdt template so you can if the inline parameter: |inline={{#if:{{{inline|}}}|1|}} and legend parameter |inline=|legend={{#if:{{{legend|}}}|{{{legend|}}}|'setting for when the not in a infobox'}} Dkbottomley (talk)

Spacing problem[edit]

See Talk:Cape Cod & Hyannis Railroad. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Color icon[edit]

I would like to propose a slight modification to the color icon, from what we have to the version you see in the sandbox. the reason for this is to reduce the crowding of the name line, which can cause the icon to wrap to the next line in the case that the name is relatively long. the other potential solution would be to do what is done in Lyon Metro Line B, which adds the color as a top border. any objections? thoughts? alternative suggestions? Frietjes (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement. The box always looked a bit random. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
And improvement for the reasons mentioned. I was sort of expecting, why not put the colored line along the full vertical side of the box? That be a direct suggestion (hm...) with a line color - to me at least. The horizontal demos at first & second glance look like frivolous illustrations to me, there is no connection at all with the line-identification. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Could someone add the definition of "character" to the list? --Izno (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And I see that this was mentioned above. Would anyone be against marking the parameter deprecated or starting a tracking category to see how it is actually used? --Izno (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Add parameter (field) for headquarter city[edit]

Add parameter (field) for headquarter as exists in Template:Infobox rail, like "|hq_city= City X". Peter Horn User talk 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why? HQ is not relevant to a rail line, only the actual operating company. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


The standard infobox width is 18.0 em. This one is 25.0 em. I was on a page using this infobox, and there was a big blank space at the beginning of the article. A diagram at the top of the article had been pushed to below the infobox because this infobox is so wide, and so the article looked blank. To see what I mean, view this article on a screen narrower than 1150px. Please narrow this infobox template to 18.0 em which is the standard width. If this causes problems with your infobox, please edit your infobox, don't widen this template beyond the standard width. Darx9url (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem until I go below 1000px, at which point the image File:KTL ga map.png gets forced below the infobox. Is that the image that you had in mind? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Why isn't this a field here under operations? It should have a field for that (denominated in tph would be my suggestion). - Grahamdubya 07:11, December 20, 2013‎

Could somebody please explain the difference to me? This template seems to get used a lot more than {{Infobox rail service}}, and as a result, it is missing a number of categories that should be added to make this Infobox more useful: e.g. headway, and train_length, to name two categories that I think really need to be added to it. I'd rather just see these categories added to this template (by comparison, {{Infobox rail service}} looks to be even worse off than this template in terms of missing categories...), rather than be forced to switch a bunch of current 'rail line' Infoboxes to {{Infobox public transit}}. I'm tempted to try to add them to this template myself, but I'm hoping to get some feedback first... TIA. --IJBall (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite simple really. This template deals with railway lines as such from the point of infrastructure and usage, whereas {{Infobox rail service}} is concerned with services operated on railway lines. Items such as headway and train length belong under the rail service template. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be pretty arbitrary to me. I mean, for example, this template includes categories for "Ridership", but from what you're saying those should really be transferred to {{Infobox rail service}}. If "Ridership" falls under "usage" rather than "operations", then why shouldn't "train length" and "headway"? In any case, shouldn't the most important factor be making this template useful on the greatest number of Wiki articles, rather coming up with somewhat arbitrary "divisions" (and two different templates) like this? Because, as I said, this template would be much more useful if it contained the two categories (at least) I mentioned, but without them, I think I'll be forced to switch, for example, the Metro Rail (Los Angeles County) suite of articles to the {{Infobox public transit}} template (which contain the missing categories, but which are missing other useful categories that this one has such as "Character"...), which seems like a really unfortunate solution when this template could still be even more useful if just a couple of categories could be added to it... --IJBall (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Because ridership is about the line itself whereas train length and headway relate to the units which at any particular time may be operating the route. Parameters such as |stock, |operator and |owner are quite sufficient to deal with the operational aspects which strictly relate to the line. Enlarging that list still further will not only increase the length of infoboxes but also blur the distinction between what relates to infrastructure and what relates to operations, for which we have separate articles. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, message received: I'll just start switching to {{Infobox public transit}} at most of the articles I'm thinking of... --IJBall (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


I've added an example, showing the use of this template for a junction, rather than a line. Are there any parameters we could usefuly add, or re-label, for such purposes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Use this template when?[edit]

Is this template now redundant with "rail", or does it serve a separate purpose? It seems to overlap considerably, but there is no description on the main page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Infobox rail}} appears to have been intended for private railway companies which own and operate the track. This was the case during the advent of railways, in Britain and elsewhere, but most rail lines have since been nationalised. Merge proposals of various combinations of rail infoboxes appear to have been repeatedly rejected, and no resolution was subsequently sought. Alakzi (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a difference, and not just in Britain. Amtrak, Via Rail, and many other services in North America are operated over tracks owned by the private railway companies. These infoboxes do not clearly make that distinction and have become confused. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so this template would be used for which of these two examples? It is the line itself, like Toronto and Ottawa, or the company running on it, like Via? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
{{Infobox rail}} is for railway companies, the old-style kind where the company that owned the track and stations also operated the trains. {{Infobox rail line}} is for lines (track and stations) where the company that operates the trains often operates trains on other lines as well; in some cases, two or more train operating companies provide services over the line. I've added two boxes at the top of this; the TfM discussions linked have more on the matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
and {{Infobox rail service}} is for each of those services. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tracking categories added[edit]

I have added tracking categories:

Lists articles with bad parameter. The parameter error is shown in preview. Category should be empty.
This page lists all accepted parameters.
  • Category:Infobox rail line tracked parameters tracks parameters to be checked. Currently: articles using |logo2= 3 instances, no conflicts seen (see next point).
  • |logo= and |logo2= are swapped: #2 now in righthand side, as expected.
-DePiep (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 Done -DePiep (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
@DePiep: It's the way that is described at Wikipedia:Template documentation#How to create a documentation subpage, with the exception of my omission of the "Please add ..." comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That's an interesting read. And not applicable in this situation. All in all, I have good reasons to do it this way. So it's OK as I left it. (For conversation interests only: how come you 'asked' in the es while reverting without waiting for an answer, and now here you don't even ask at all? No follow up on my es?). -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have added some more meaningful parameter names, next to existing ones:
|daily_ridership= for |ridership=
|tracks= for |notrack=
|electrification= for |el=
|availability= for |ra=
|old_gauge= for |ogauge=
|load_gauge= for |lgauge=
Category:Articles with unknown parameter in Infobox rail line almost empty now. Done some 1400 edits, mostly trivial ;-). The remaining 10 have weird parameter set (like, being taken from a totally different template), or have the Route diagram incorrect ({{BS-table}} &tc.). Please take a look if you're familiar with any such issue. -DePiep (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Two infoboxes in same article[edit]

150px|thumb|First image 150px|thumb|Second image 150px|thumb|left|Third image Hi, could someone please have a look at Dresden–Werdau railway: This article currently contains two infoboxes. For some strange reason the images, which are supposed to appear in the "Route" section, currently show up out of this section (even after "External links") at the same place where the second infobox begins. Until now I couldn't find out why. If the second infobox gets hidden those three images appear where they are supposed to appear. So now I assume some internal connection between the files and the second infobox, but cannot find out about this. The problem is the same for me both using Firefox as well as Microsoft Edge. The problem persists since this template was introduced into the article. Thanks in advance! --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kleeblatt187: It's not a problem with this infobox, nor is it strange: it's expected (and documented) behaviour of most web browsers. When you have floated box-type objects, such as infoboxes or images, the order in which they are displayed is the same as the order in which they occur in the page source: the upper edge of a later object must be no higher than the upper edge of the preceding object. So, as [[File:Dresden Hauptbahnhof 2008.jpg|thumb|left|Approach to [[Dresden Hauptbahnhof]]]] is after the second {{Infobox rail line ...}}, the upper edge of that image can be no higher than the upper edge of the second infobox. For a simple example, I've added three images to the start of this section - notice how the third one is pushed down by the second even though it could comfortably sit at top left. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! I had heard about this behaviour, but didn't think of it now. Nevertheless, the outcome is still strange to me. Is there a possibility to include the essential parts of the second infobox into the first one, so that there will be only one floated box? So possibly some solution which looks like in the german language article de:Bahnstrecke Dresden–Werdau or even in an older version of this Dresden–Werdau railway article, which was using a different infobox template allowing two headers within the same box? Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Neither of those have infoboxes. The German one has a table with rows and cells; the older version has a WP:RDT of very non-standard form. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Frietjes fixed it. Obviously a simple thing with Template:Stack which I didn't know of until today. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


I have a streetcar line I want to switch to using this template, but it looks like this template lacks the attributes for frequency of service, trip time, and hours of service. Given that this template can be used for a specific line within a rail system, can we add them like they exist in {{Infobox bus line}}? Zr2d2 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Add maximum gradient parameter[edit]

Hi Great work on the template, which I'm using in my first sandbox project (which may move out into the real world at some point). How about adding a maximum/ruling gradient(UK)/grade(US) parameter to the template? I noticed the lack as the original-language article on de.wikipedia uses a different infobox which does include this information. Ssptwriter (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Locale parameter[edit]

Hi, is there any chance we can give editors the option to display the parameter "location" instead of "locale". Locale is very much a North American term and hardly ever used in some other English speaking countries; when it is, it tends to mean the immediate vicinity rather than region, state or country. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support changing the label to "location", although it's probably not necessary to have an option for which one to display since they have very similar meanings. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
14:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We could add parameter |engvar= that changes that label when entered |engvar=en-US. This way the infobox can follow WP:ENGVAR choice of the article. -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Signalling parameter[edit]

There would be of interest to add a "signalling" parameter. With the introduction of ERTMS it becomes more interesting because you might get lines where trains not equipped with it can't go, creating subnetworks inside countries. Also in some countries like UK, the signalling system varies over the country.--BIL (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


This template seems to be causing a number of errors directly (as I've inspected at least one article which does not appear to use any abnormal syntax at PATCO Speedline). I think it is related to the block for |below=/|map=.

However, inspection of this source seems to indicate all of the information is well-nested. I tried a hack at Template:Infobox rail line/sandbox which didn't work in the above article. Does anyone know of a way to fix this one, or will I have to walk over to WP:VPT? --Izno (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: It's likely to do with {{Infobox route diagram}}, which has been deprecated for several years. (I might get around to replacing its transclusions in a bot task someday but that's probably not happening anytime soon, given that it still works mostly fine and there are a thousand transclusions.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jc86035: Probably right that that was the cause since the error has gone away; the same issue seems to affect Template:Infobox station also. It would be nice if "not any time soon" would be sooner than "unknown", since the linter errors are prepping us for the Depurate deployment sometime next year. If you think it will take longer for you to get to it, you might reasonably make a bot request. Alternatively, we could simply change Template:infobox RDT to always insert a table cell, though I don't know if it is used outside Istation/Irailline. --Izno (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: The primary issue with the replacement is that I haven't learned how to write (or read) Python yet and so can't write a Pywikibot script; and many of my posts on WP:BR have gone unanswered (there hasn't been an Alexa ranking updater bot since April 2014!).
Is RemexHtml/Depurate (which one of those is being used?) actually going to break the formatting? I'm not sure what's causing the error but it's probably that this (which contains the right number of opening and closing tags)
<table class="wikitable"><tr><td><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
</td></tr></table><table class="wikitable"><tr><td></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
results in
This came up earlier with {{Infobox song}}, also because of mixed wikitable/HTML-table nesting, and one of the nested tables sometimes ended up outside the infobox. I think if {{Infobox route diagram}} used <table> instead of {| and dropped some of the line breaks it could temporarily work, but I haven't tested that. Jc86035 (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh. It's because a | (vertical bar/table cell) is missing. It's missing in PATH (rail system) as well, before the &#32;. Jc86035 (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
$HTML5ParserName. :^) Right, it's because the inner table is being placed directly into the outer table without being in a table cell. I anticipate it will break the page in horrific fashion--hence why it's a high criticality issue. --Izno (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Just add a single pipe on a line of its own, so that the two {| class="wikitable" are not on consecutive lines:
<table class="wikitable"><tr><td><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
</td></tr></table><table class="wikitable"><tr><td></td></tr></table></td></tr></table>
results in
Ideally that extra pipe would also be preceded with a |- new row marker. Most browsers can manage without. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Izno: It turns out adding a vertical bar ends up adding a <pre> block if {{Routemap}} is used inside the template, since {{Routemap}} sometimes generates \n or something like that (I am not sure why this was added to the module but maybe there's a reason hidden in an old edit summary). I think the template is actually replaceable with AWB but the instances using {{Routemap}}, {{BS-map}} and {{BS-table}} would have to be separated (and I would have to do an insource search to find all the RDT names). Jc86035 (talk) 12:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Redrose64, your code example still looks the same as the first if there is no line break before the table. Jc86035 (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
What <pre> block? Which pages do you see this in? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: I tested this in my sandbox with {{Infobox rdt/sandbox}}. Jc86035 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any <pre> block. Which of the four RDTs is it in, between which two rows? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: It's the box which appears to be empty with the faint grey border, between the two "Legend" links of the third infobox (the first Gospel Oak to Barking Line diagram). If you don't see it, check the page source. Jc86035 (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That's what happens when spaces are put in undesirable places. This edit should fix it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Oh, so that's where it was coming from. Thanks. Jc86035 (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
This space was harmless; indeed, such spaces are often desirable to distinguish the triple braces that close the parameter from the double braces that close the template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Exclude User and User talk namespaces from deprecated paremeter check?[edit]

I've been going through Category:Pages using infobox rail line with deprecated parameters for a while updating the template calls as needed (and making other improvements to articles as I edit them). I haven't updated any of the articles that are in either the User or User talk namespaces primarily because articles under development are often built there before being moved to the main namespace. Would there be any objection to adjusting the deprecated check to exclude articles in User or User talk namespace? It should be as easy as modifying:

{{#if:{{{ridership|}}}{{{notrack|}}}{{{ra|}}}{{{ogauge|}}}{{{lgauge|}}}{{{el|}}}|[[Category:Pages using infobox rail line with deprecated parameters]]}}


{{#if:{{{ridership|}}}{{{notrack|}}}{{{ra|}}}{{{ogauge|}}}{{{lgauge|}}}{{{el|}}}|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|User||[[Category:Pages using infobox rail line with deprecated parameters]]}}}}

Perhaps we could add an inline warning if the page is in User namespace? Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Why bother? People drafting up articles in userspace should be warned of potential problems, they shouldn't have to wait until it's moved to mainspace. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The category is hidden and wouldn't be seen by the user unless he has hidden categories turned on in preferences. There are no other warnings about deprecated parameters that appear. Slambo (Speak) 12:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)