Template talk:S-line

Template-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Please remove the small font sizes. They serve no good reason, the template is not harmed by having all text at the same size, and it really helps readers with visual acuity issues if small text is not used. Please consider those with accessibility issues WP:ACCESSIBILITY 10mmsocket (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done see further in next section. — xaosflux Talk 15:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 12 January 2022 (2)

NOTE: This request is separate from the one above, not a duplicate. It concerns the /side cell template.

Please remove the small font sizes. They serve no good reason, the template is not harmed by having all text at the same size, and it really helps readers with visual acuity issues if small text is not used. Please consider those with accessibility issues WP:ACCESSIBILITY 10mmsocket (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done this styling change seems controversial, please establish a consensus for this update by way of discussion, then reactivate the request when ready. — xaosflux Talk 15:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#Styling_of_S-line_template. If there is no response by anyone in say a week, feel free to reactivate. — xaosflux Talk 15:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pings to some editors that worked on this: @Mackensen and NE2: — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to see mockups of the current and proposed styles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I agree that this for the Hastings Line was too small, someone had double-invoked small. I however disagree that the regular subtext isn't readable. Cards84664 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the sandbox and testcases to show removing the small text for the termini and side notes only: Template:S-line/testcases. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Oppose. Gives undue weight to the termini. Cards84664 19:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only removing the small text. As currently displayed that does make it significantly harder to pick out the important detail from a sea of text. If small text is an accessibility issue (I don't know) then there needs to be some way of recreating the distinction between primary and subsidiary information. My first thought was bolding the adjacent station, but I'm not sure that's going to do anything but add to the too much text feeling. I haven't yet had a second thought. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the use of small text here, if generated appropriately (I've not looked at the code), seems to be allowed by WP:FONTSIZE. If so that strongly implies there is no accessibility issue that needs correcting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate problems here. First, when used outside of an infobox, the {{s-start}} template sets the declaration font-size:95%; (which itself is not a problem) and the {{S-line/side cell}} that is inside {{s-line}} sets the declaration font-size:85%;, and 85% of 95% is 80.75%, which is below the 85% limit set by MOS:SMALL. The same happens in {{s-line}} for some of the text in the middle column (visible when the |branch=, |notemid= or |transfer= parameters are in use). If those declarations in {{s-line}} (three in all) and in {{S-line/side cell}} (two in all) were all to be adjusted to font-size:89.5%; the net effect in conjunction with {{s-start}} would be 85.025%, which solves that problem. But there is a second problem: when one of these boxes is placed inside an infobox, the font-size of all textual elements is reduced still further, which is a definite accessibility problem. For this and other reasons, I have never been in favour of using such boxes inside infoboxes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed too small font per MOS:FONTSIZE.

I have removed some excessive shrinking of the font sizes in a couple of this template's subpages per MOS:FONTSIZE. Because infoboxes already reduce the font size to 88% of normal, the most you can reduce the font size beyond that is to 97%. I know this is not a fun situation, but the previous text sizes were just too small. Since MOS started enforcing this size limit a few years ago, we've had to change a lot of templates and template transclusions. For what it's worth, the text in the infobox S-rail templates is currently at 85.4% of normal size, so that's as small as it can go. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After posting this message, I noticed the above discussion. I see that people have various opinions about whether they like the smaller size or not, but accessibility is the policy here. The previous code, when used in infoboxes at articles like Rathaus Spandau (Berlin U-Bahn), was too small. There are probably creative solutions for distinguishing important text from less-important text, but reducing the size of text is not one of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably look at a CSS-based approach, such that the text is only reduced if the element is not within a table that belongs to the infobox class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95 and Redrose64: I've implemented such an approach for {{Adjacent stations}}, but this template only uses inline CSS so it would have to be converted to use {{Adjacent stations/styles.css}} or something similar in order for that to be replicated here. I'm not sure if anything would be broken by such a change. Jc86035 (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was my intent, to use WP:TemplateStyles rather than inline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This change unintentionally removed the linebreaks between the line, system, and transfer components. Here are before and after screenshots. The quick fix would be to put plain <div> tags back in, just without the style attribute. Decrypt3 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, and thanks for AGF. I have restored the div tags. You didn't link to an article, but Northfields tube station looks good to me now. Please link to any articles that still show errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks good now. The screenshots were of an example on the S-line doc page; sorry I forgot to mention that. Decrypt3 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new line to a system that already exists on S-line

Hello, our city will open a new line in future and I want to ask, how we can add a new line to s-line template?
EMREOYUNMessage - 20:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which system is it? It can be converted over to the new module. Cards84664 21:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ankara Metro
EMREOYUNMessage - 15:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emreoyun: I have created Module:Adjacent stations/Ankara Metro and updated the Metro articles. The Module will allow for easy additions. Cards84664 01:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]