Talk:Melbourne tram route 64

Australia: Melbourne / Transport Low‑importance

	Australia portal Melbourne tram route 64 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Reasons the schematic map has been reverted to original

Does not have accessible stops indicated on the map
The connecting routes section has errors. For example: Route 71 displaying on La Trobe street when it actually does not exist, Route 70 displaying on La Trobe street instead of Flinders, and Route 5 displaying at High street.
The bottom was incorrect as all stops are displayed. Yes, there are some gaps in stop numbers simply because they don't exist.
Why yellow?

Fremantle99 (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That can easily be fixed with the icon.
Sorry, that was an error I copied over from another map, route 71 (on Flinders St not La Trobe St) did exist, but has been discontinued. It has now been updated. High St 5 was also a mistake, should be 6. Both these can be fixed.
I put that down the bottom so people may not rely on it for 100% current information. Although correct now, in a year of two it may no longer be correct, people should be referred to PTV for all timetableing/routing information.
Because all the others are yellow, and it can be used with half yellow half blue to show zones (Melbourne tram route 86#Schematic map).

The current map has many problems, by floating right it causes huge stacking issues, which unfortunately exist with the one I put in, but can be mitigated by the addition of more text, like in some of the other much more comprehensive articles. It doesn't match any of the other maps, it doesn't show zones, having every parallel line shown at every stop is information overload and unneeded (it becomes hard to read and obscures which lines are leaving, only interchange stops are needed), and it didn't show some connections. My changes were improvements, but yes, I made a couple of mistakes, it doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water though. Also, writing in all caps is often considered to be 'yelling' and rude. Liamdavies (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are going to keep them yellow, you can't have the wheelchair symbol replacing the station on the map, unless you plan to add another parameter, which I assume you want to do.
If the route has been discontinued, can we create a wikipedia article about it? And the issues should be fixed on the other maps before they come here as the information is inaccurate.
In that case, can't we just label it effective December 2013?
The wikipedia article does state the entire route is in zone 1. Besides, if you were changing the colour to yellow, you should add a key at the bottom of the map. Also you can just add the BS split template.
Which connections didn't it show? Fremantle99 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with your points inline:

Another parameter isn't needed, it can be after the icon but before the stop name, either way, it is hardly a big deal and is an issue that should be dealt with on all other maps; making the route map yellow pulls it into line with all other schematic maps.
No, articles must pass WP:GNG an old route would likely not, in fact articles such as Melbourne tram route 68 are so small, and linked with other routes that they should become redirects.
Sure, we can do that, but we must say it in a way that makes the information known to be possibly unreliable.
Good idea, the footnote should explain what the colours mean.
It failed to show connecting railway lines, and the method of showing all routes that run parallel is absurd.

Liamdavies (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that
An old route will, you just have to add content
I think this point is sorted
I added the routes that run parallel just so people know they do.
Just a question, did you start putting schematic maps up on other routes after I did?

Fremantle99 (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having all the routes that run parallel listed just causes visual clutter (that type of info is best displayed in a map), it's best to simply write where they depart. That is where people would typically change, is the same as how PTV and YT list connecting services, and seems to follow the trend on Wikipedia (have a look at other BSICON maps). I started placing schematic maps on Melbourne tram articles in September 2011. Are we good to change this map to be like the others, but with disabled icons and no mistakes? Liamdavies (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are Fremantle99 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]