Template talk:Rail-interchange

 Rail-interchange documentation sub-pages 

• Americas
• Asia
• Europe
  • Central
  • East
  • South
  • North & West
• Oceania

Talk pages:

• General
  • Americas
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Oceania
• Documentation
• Edit requests

Reducing the size of the label

As brought up in the pub, RINT as it stands right now is somewhat distracting from the content of articles, especially for cities with dense networks (the specific given example was the City of London). I would like to know if people support or oppose the changing of size, that being a change from  CIR  DLR  JUB  to  CIR  DLR  JUB . In other words, putting a "<small>" HTML-tag around the template. The major change being that the way RINT gets displayed in {{Station}} changes: Generic Station A  CIR  DLR  JUB .
-- Wauteurz (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• 'Support' as per the above: I cannot deny that the colours get overwhelming. I may not experience the most of it myself, but adding RINT-labels is easily overdone. I am more than happy to make the articles easier on the eye. The traveller comes first after all, and overwhelming the traveller with colours is to no-one's benefit. Wauteurz (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• 'Support': The use of <small></small> tags works decently in Firefox and serves as a good compromise that shouldn't entirely distract the reader. As mentioned in the pub section, despite being a Brit myself the Tube does confuse me and these icons are certainly helpful for my own use. Weirdly this change doesn't show in my Chromium installation and they still appear the same size, I'll have to see what other browsers make of this. Inferno986return (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  Thought I'd chime in: have no strong opinion on the template, but do see a size difference in Chromium as well as Firefox, the former major version 70, in case that helps narrow down any issue. ARR8 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

  I can't see a difference between the browsers I have downloaded (Firefox 63.0.3, Chrome 70.0.3538.110 and Edge 42.17134.1.0), but I can't confirm that Safari doesn't display the labels in a different manner. Nonetheless, we could also set the font size to something smaller as Andree.sk suggested below. 0.8 (80%), as they suggested, would result in this:  CIR , 70% may also be an option:  CIR 

  On a related note, I just noticed how there is already a small-tag present in {{RbE}}. I think we'll have to end up having to remove this tag in the process (examples in this comment already have adjusted for that), or think of some clever way to let individual templates set this size based on the use they have, since RbE may be used for other templates in the future.
  -- Wauteurz (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• 'Support', but I wonder what's the advantage of using the small tag compared to simply decreasing the font size? The former will generate bigger html, but I imagine the browser eventually just multiplies some (font/border/padding...) sizes by 0.8 (or some other number)? -- andree.sk(talk) 10:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
• 'Support'. I think that is an improvement. Thank you Wauteurz. Ground Zero (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Result. @Andree.sk, Ground Zero, ARR8, Inferno986return: I've gone ahead and reduced the font size down to 70%, removing the existing small-tag in the process. This change should be visible in all instances of the template. If the 70% font size is too small, then please reopen this discussion to find a more suitable size.
  -- Wauteurz (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Ground Zero (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Using images

@Wauteurz:, why are the labels preferred over images? And why were the local images replaced by the common ones in change [1]?

I would like to use these images with proper alternative texts for Budapest, which are the official ones:

And not these labels and images:

 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   11   12   14   M   H   D 

--City-busz (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@City-busz: Hey there, as can be read here, we prefer {{RbE}} to be used over loads of images as to have some limited amount of control over what appears. The generic images printed (for example {{rint|tram}} ) are the only exceptions to this rule. Other than that, there was a general aim to not depend on other projects a lot when displaying what were originally images. RINT as a result aims to be detached from Commons, and therefore, no images (or a limited use thereof) is used. I know that using the local and official icons is preferred by many, but Wikivoyage aims to serve the traveller first, rather than local transport businesses or any businesses for that sake. Hence we sometimes have to simplify icons used by local authorities in order to not overwhelm the reader of articles.

On a related note, how were you planning to use the system icons? I know they're available for other cities too, but this was done when converting the original RINT template from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage. They are left in as to not be destructive, which is another guideline for editing the template. RINT aims to show the lines rather than the systems though. I am not saying you're doing anything wrong, but I just wonder how you were planning to use the icons for  METRO  {{rint|budapest|metro}} ,  HEV  {{rint|budapest|hev}} and  BOAT  {{rint|budapest|boat}} , as well as the tram, trolleybus, (night)bus, funicular, chairlift and gyermekvasút?
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

When I talk about stations in Budapest and how to get in to specific locations, I would like to see this, e.g.:

• Short version: Batthyány tér .
• Long version: Batthyány tér: ; ; ; 19, 41; 11, 39, 109, 111; 990.
• Textual version: Batthyány tér: metro line M2; suburban railway line H5; boat line D11, D12; tram line 19, 41; bus line 11, 39, 109, 111; night line 990.

--City-busz (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion at Brussels a while ago... Basically, it probably doens't make sense to name each and every line for each attraction. I guess only specifying metro for most POIs and busses/trams for the hardly-reachable places is a good compromise? -- andree.sk(talk) 20:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree to not list every buses/trams for those locations, which are easily accessible by metro. But I would like to use the official symbols in Budapest, not those that created with {{RbE}}.--City-busz (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I insist in not making an exception to the rule here, for if we do, every city can get an exception. Images change much more rapidly than the labels and having to adjust the size of an image every time it changes on Commons is a tedious task that no-one will do. The service images, by the way, shouldn't be added if the numbering of lines is city-wide rather than network-specific. What I mean by this is that, for example, line 1 is by definition a HEV line and not a bus or tram line as well. For example, we'd use Battyány tér  2  5  rather than Battyány tér  METRO  2  HEV  5  as you described above. I get that you want to use the official icons, but a rule is a rule. We try not to overwhelm the traveller and keep imagery to a minimum and instead prefer to recreate the imagery into labels with the means available, which reduces the many ways in which an icon can be attention-grabbing, as to not drag attention away from the article's content.
-- Wauteurz (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand the rule. But then it should be Batthyány tér  M2  H5  rather than Batthyány tér  2  5 , because the name of the routes are 'M2' and 'H5'.--City-busz (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Updating rint template

Swept in from the pub

WikiVoyage has a "rint" template, for example {{rint|amsterdam|5}} produces:  5 . However the template does not support tram line 6 in Amsterdam, which opened May 27, 2019 with rush-hour service only. I found the rint documentation. I have never updated a template, and don't know how to do it or whether I should do it. The question is: How can I update this template? Thanks. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks easy enough. Just edit Template:Rail-interchange (not the documentation, but the actual template). Scroll down about 70-80 lines to where the options for Amsterdam are defined (or just search for "amsterdam"). To add support for tram line 6, you should just have to copy-paste one existing line of that code, and modify the new line of code to have the correct number (6), color, and name (which is shown when you hover your mouse over the icon).

If you're still uncomfortable updating it yourself, let me know what color it should use and what the name should be in order to match the existing entries, and I can put it in there. --Bigpeteb (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated both the template and its documentation. I don't know if the colour (  6  ) I selected was the most appropriate, but it was sufficiently different. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Adding <abbr> tags?

Example of hover-over on Dungog

@Wauteurz: Following the existing practice on {{CanberraCycleRoutes}}, I decided to add abbr tags to this template temporarily as a test to see if it would have the same benefits when the text in question was hovered over, ultimately giving readers more context for what those "cryptic" routes mean. I checked the output on a few pages, here were my few observations:

• It works well in most, as long as the |mo= parameter is present.
• It decrypts the sometimes "cryptic" routes that we use.
• It does not, however, work well on routes without an |mo=.

My test was a bit rushed, but do you think we should implement this? Feel free to revert Special:Diff/4739332 if you want see how it looks, need it be.

(sorry if this message seems all over the place – I should probably sleep now...)

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 13:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see what an abbr tag would add, that isn't supported in {{RbE}} already. There already is a parameter that does the exact same as <abbr>, that being the one you mention yourself: Mouseover (mo). The only thing that an abbreviation tag would add that {{RbE}} currently doesn't support, is that dotted underline (and I'd say that's a great way of visualising that a route label has hidden information).

If that's what you're after, then I can just add that to {{RbE}}, which would look slightly cleaner, as we can make it match the text colour, and it'd save some fiddling with html tags in the process.

For an example of how it'd look, compare  M1  and  M1 , or  M2  and  M2 .
― Wauteurz (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The underline doesn't work for me on mobile if there are no abbr tags around, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, as for me it does show on mobile using Firefox 117.1.0, same on Chrome 85.0.4183.127. They're faint lines in the example above though, so perhaps a dashed line would be better? I don't think this is a deal-breaker for mobile though, as typically, they do not support mouseover texts seen the lack of a mouse...

So I'm aware: What browser (and version) are you using, and can you, for example, see the underscore line in these examples?  Dashed   Solid 
― Wauteurz (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

On desktop, I'm using Chrome 118.0.5993.32 on macOS Sonoma and can see both lines; on mobile, I'm using version 16.5 of Safari on iOS 17 (beta testing). Both seem to be a hit or miss on mobile (occasionally comes up before disappearing quickly – can't even take a screenshot!), but as you say, it's probably caused by the lack of mouse. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)