This is an archive of past discussions about Template:S-line. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please replace {{Esoteric}}
[[Category:Rail transport succession templates]] with {{documentation}}. I have copied the template and the category over to the newly created doc page, and this would allow documentation to be created for this esoteric template by non-template-editors. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
How does the template generate the link to the station page without the full title?
For example, on the Essen Stadtbahn pages, the succession box for Altenessen Mitte station
just has: {{s-line|system=VRR|line=U11|previous=Kaiser-Wilhelm-Park|next=Karlsplatz}}.
But going from Altenessen Mitte station via the succession box to Karlsplatz station links through the redirect Karlsplatz (VRR); and going back is through the redirect Altenessen Mitte (VRR). it's the same to and from the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Park station page.
How does that work? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
@Moonraker12: It uses {{VRR stations}}, in which the #default option is to create a piped link with " (VRR)" appended to the name. In general, you need to examine Template:[system] stations to find out which articles will be linked. Certes (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Certes:: Aah! Templates are a bit of a closed book to me; I just wondered if there was an easy way to link stations directly, without going through the redirect. Anyway, thanks for that. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Moonraker12: It's a double-edged sword. Using templates keeps everything consistent but can add complexity for editors unfamiliar with this area. The template documentation has more details. The disambiguation guide may also be useful even if your work doesn't involve dabs. Certes (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Technically the same problem as above. I wanted to link San Fernando station (Pampanga) to the new S-line/S-rail parameters NSCRCIC, NSCRMAN and Airport Limited Express I just created for stations on the North–South Commuter Railway with the first subject being Angeles station, but this template uses [[{{{Name}}} station|{{{Name}}}]] as basis for its links. Therefore it appears as [[San Fernando station (Pampanga)|San Fernando]] when I use the pipe link feature and appears much worse if I use the {{!}} template.
Hello, S-line devotees! A couple of us editors have been looking at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates for opportunities to clear some unused maintenance burden out of Template space. If you look on page 2 of that report, you will see about 1,200 untranscluded subpages of Template:S-line. That is about 10% of all untranscluded templates (that are not redirects or stubs or subst-only).
In a 2011 TFD, the consensus was to delete all subpages of Template:S-line that were more than a year old and untranscluded. I wonder if that consensus still applies all these years later, or if there is some reason to keep some or all of these unused templates around. I spot-checked a few of them, and in each case, the template was untranscluded because the S-line left or right template that might have used it was spanning multiple rows, using a single template to point to a station shared by multiple lines.
Your feedback is welcome. I'd rather have a discussion here before starting a possibly contentious TFD that would get people all riled up. I am an experienced template editor and maintainer (who sometimes finds that I am making cleanup fixes to unused template pages when I could be making actual improvements to useful things), but I have little familiarity with this subject area, so I do not have a preconceived notion about the best resolution. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Cards84664, has there been a formal discussion somewhere to deprecate {{S-line}} subtemplates in favor of {{Adjacent stations}}? I have no position either way, but it seems like the project is going that way, and sometimes things get messy when there is not a discussion that can be linked to. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Not entirely sure, there is some mention of the intent in Archive 1 of the new module's talk page, but not on a formal scale. This is mainly a cosmetic update on the editing side, since there's little to no visual difference on the viewing side. I can at least tell you that editing one station module is easier than editing the five minimum templates to achieve the same output: colors, lines, stations, left-terminus, right-terminus. Cards8466402:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
