Template talk:Edmonton LRT

New line means new route

When the NAIT line opens, the Edmonton LRT will no longer be a single line. How will the route diagram be altered?

The diagram can be widened to accommodate more stations, like this:

{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS3-2|RMq|RMq|RMq||[[118 Avenue, Edmonton|118 Avenue]]||O2=HALFVIADUCTr1|O3=uHALFVIADUCTl1}}
{{BS3-2|uexKBHFa|STR|uABZgr|[[NAIT (ETS)|NAIT]]|CN Spur End|(future)|O2=uSTR+l}}
{{BS3-2|uexBHF|uENDEe|uSTR|[[Kingsway (ETS)|Kingsway]]||(future)}}
{{BS3-2|uexBHF||uBHF|[[MacEwan (ETS)|MacEwan]]|[[Stadium (ETS)|Stadium]]|(future)}}
{{BS3-2|uextSTRa||utSTRa||}}
{{BS3-2|utexSTRlf|utABZrxl|utSTRr||}}
{{BS1-2|utBHF||[[Churchill (ETS)|Churchill]]||12min}}
|}
|}

Or the two routes could each have their own diagrams, like this:

{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 201<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS2|RMq|RMq||[[118 Avenue, Edmonton|118 Avenue]]|O1=HALFVIADUCTr1|O2=uHALFVIADUCTl1}}
{{BS2|STR|uABZgr||CN Spur End|O1=uSTR+l}}
{{BS2|uENDEe|uBHF||[[Stadium (ETS)|Stadium]]}}
{{BS2||utSTRa||}}
{{BS2|utexCONTr|uteABZlg||[[:Template:ETS LRT route 202|LRT Route 202]] (future)}}
{{BS2||utBHF|12min|[[Churchill (ETS)|Churchill]]}}
|}
|}

and

{| {{Railway line header}}
{{Rail-header2|<big>Edmonton LRT Route 202<big>|#0093D0}}
{{BS-table}}
{{BS2|uexKBHFa|||[[NAIT (ETS)|NAIT]] (future)}}
{{BS2|uexBHF|||[[Kingsway (ETS)|Kingsway]] (future)}}
{{BS2|uexBHF|||[[MacEwan (ETS)|MacEwan]] (future)}}
{{BS2|uextSTRa|||}}
{{BS2|uxtABZg+l|utCONTfq||[[:Template:ETS LRT route 201|LRT Route 201]]}}
{{BS2|utBHF|||[[Churchill (ETS)|Churchill]]}}
{{BS2|utCONTf||}}
|}
|}

My vote is for the two separate diagrams, because as more extensions are built, the diagram will get more complicated. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps multiple diagrams will be needed one day, but I don't think there's any immediate danger of the ETS getting complicated enough for there to be enough possibility of confusion to outweigh the benefits of showing the high degree of integration between the existing and new infrastructure. David Arthur (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The diagram was been altered July 3, 2009, to the widened option with the announcement of the MacEwan station receiving funding. 117Avenue (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 117Avenue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.95.149 (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Valley Line

Here's the full system. → Useddenim (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The Valley Line does not need to be added to the route, (a) because there are no station articles to link to yet, and (b) the Valley Line will be street cars, a totally different system than the Capital and Metro Lines. Also, the colours are wrong for a route diagram. 117Avenue (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

unbuilt built

1. There is no requirement that all (or any) locations on an RDT must link to anything.
2. There are many multi-modal RDTs. (Although Template:ETS Rail network may be a better name than Template:ETS LRT future).
3. The line colours look wrong because the Valley and Northwest lines are as yet unbuilt. If 117Avenue thinks that the Northwest LRT line should be light-rail blue, then what colour should be used for the Valley streetcar line?

Useddenim (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a template that doesn't link to anything is superior than an image. 117Avenue (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Metro Line routes

Two-colour lines

I suggest added the future version with the Valley line to stations on the metro line, as it is the only one with good detail on it. Also rename the current route the ETS Capital Line LRT route, as it is the Capital Line route diagram. As soon as possible try to make a new template for the ETS Metro LIne LRT route. It should be added a soon as can be done to stations on the Metro Line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingeroscar (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't totally follow what you are trying to say, your grammar isn't that great. If you are suggesting adding the Valley Line to this template, I disagree. I'll explain further to my comments above, it is very much too early to add a line that has no construction plans, I feel that to not misguide the reader, and keep this diagram simple, we shouldn't be adding stations that aren't under construction yet. Useddenim has suggested converting this template into one similar to Budapest or Vancouver, where the different lines are shown with different colours, this I support. However, we will need to work out a way to show the blue and red lines using the same track and stations. If you are suggesting creating separate templates for the Capital and Metro Lines, similar to Template:Valley Line (ETS), I don't see the necessity. This template can easily display the two routes, and they wouldn't be any more than a list of stations, which the Line articles and navboxes already have. 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Useddenim (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ditto, but I was hoping you would have an idea on how "to show the blue and red lines using the same track". 117Avenue (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was “Ditto”ing your comment to Gingeroscar. See the example to the right for a couple of ways of doing it. Useddenim (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps the technique used at Template:Tel Aviv suburban railway map - see the stretch between Tel Aviv University and Lod; compare it with this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but at a glance I can't tell which lines run together and which are independent in your examples. Useddenim (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That multiple line thing is confusing. ETS has only one set of tracks and stations. The way I interpret what Template:ETS LRT future illustrates is that the primary existing route in Blue is overlaid by the new route in Red, where the tracks are shared. Churchill simply avoids any conflict. I have not used line names since it is the graphic representation we are discussing here. I think you've already got it right there - if we really need to use colour. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Downtown
Churchill Central Bay Corona Grandin

Redrose64, are you suggesting this? The problem with that is that they look like two parallel tracks, not two routes using the same tracks. Useddenim, could you please make a practical example? I've stripped down this template, to the right, you can see how close the stations are, and how little room there is to show two colours. Your example is either not to scale, or are you suggesting adding straight portions between stations? 117Avenue (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Useddenim (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Full colour
112 Street NAIT 106/105 Street MacEwan Centre West Churchill N. Saskatchewan R. Central Quarters Corona Strathearn Health Sciences/Jubilee Wagner

So, before we even conclude the debate about colour coding the lines, 117Avenue decides to unilaterally break change the template (which he opposed to keeping in the first place) to monochrome? In any case, here's a full-colour segment to illustrate what it would look like. Useddenim (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Template:ETS LRT future, and not this live one. That template had several errors. It only showed some of the roads that the LRT goes over or under, it only showed some of the heavy rail crossings, it placed Quarters wrong, it had an extra station after Mill Woods, several station names were wrong, and it did not have a clear colouring scheme. For the latter I decided to go with the light/heavy rail scheme over the blue/red/green for several reasons. It was showing heavy rail, the legend indicated it used the light/heavy rail scheme, the Capital Line was using the light rail colour, and we haven't reached a consensus to use a different scheme yet. Even though I heavily edited the page, I still think it doesn't replace this one as a navbox. 117Avenue (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is what I would like to propose. Some of the icons have the wrong colour because they don't exist, but it illustrates the combined line in one column. 117Avenue (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess since Useddenim, the main proponent for change to this template, has left this discussion the template will stay as is. Any objection to removing the road and creek crossings at the bottom of the diagram, which, like Ellerslie, aren't under construction yet? 117Avenue (talk) 03:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ellerslie and future

I don't think there is anything more to say than in my last comment. If it is consensus to not include the stations that are not yet under construction, the crossings shouldn't be included either. 117Avenue (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest putting the "near future" extensions in a (normally-hidden) collapsible section. Useddenim (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

What's "near future", the next two years? Ellerslie is somewhere between four and twenty years away. 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing. Any answer is subjective and WP:OR in my opinion unless it is defined by a reliable source as it relates to this topic. I agree with 117Avenue's proposal to remove the road and creek crossings in question.

Also suggest, regarding this, that the "to Fort Saskatchewan" be removed. Haven't seen anything reliable confirming such as of yet (please do advise if something exists otherwise). These land use plans [1] [2] show its potential extension through Horse Hill into the Edmonton Energy and Technology Park with alternative alignment directions as it gets closer to the far northeast, but actual extension to the city boundary or beyond is not depicted. Hwy43 (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Then change it from unbuilt to proposed and mark it as such. (And shouldn't this latter bit properly be discussed at Template talk:ETS LRT future?) Useddenim (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:RDT, Template:Railway line legend, and Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/straight tracks, a dotted line is used when there is an interruption in the route that needs to be collapsed. There doesn't need to be a visualization of something that doesn't exist, Wikipedia isn't a device to aide a user to view the future. This talk page is about this template, if you'd like to talk about Template:ETS LRT future, there is an open discussion about its use on its talk. 117Avenue (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can agree that in order to use this template everywhere, and keep it from becoming bloated, it should be kept to only what is built, and what has a construction timeline. Without a timeline for Gorman, Ellerslie, Provincial Lands, and beyond, we can't state what can, or can not, be included. At a point we thought that Gorman and Ellerslie were going to be in the near future, but the City Council changed its focus, and postponed Gorman and Ellerslie indefinitely. We were wrong, and realizing this I don't want to continue to be wrong in saying that Ellerslie will be before Gorman or Blatchford, or Provincial Lands won't be at the same time as Ellerslie. I know I continue to say this, but I don't like adding future information, we just don't know what will happen. Hwy43 agrees, suggesting any order in which further stations will open is original research. Could we please remove the 23 Avenue, Blackmud Creek, Anthony Henday Drive, and Ellerslie Station items until the City announces when construction on them will begin? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked (admittedly a while ago) Edmonton Light Rail Transit hadn’t been updated to reflect the revised priorities and indefinite postponement. So, OK; I guess the north and south extensions (other than just / and a note that they are proposed) belong on Template:ETS LRT future. Useddenim (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The postponement was added 3 July 2009, and has been on Capital Line since its creation in April 2013. 117Avenue (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

I don't pretend to know how this template works, but I reverted this because it inexplicably made the Grandin/Government Centre label a smaller font size than all other stations. Not sure why we would make the font sizes across all stations inconsistent. Hwy43 (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim: please respond to this rather than continually reverting my good faith reversion. I have explained my edit here because I accidentally forgot to include an edit summary on my first revert. Collaborate rather than edit war. You have not clearly explained why the Grandin/Government Centre station label has been demoted to a font size lower than every single other station label. You can clearly explain so here. If it is about abbreviating Government to Gov't, then confirm such but explain why then the font size is reduced rendering it inconsistent with the others, while being mindful there are abbreviations elsewhere for station labels (e.g. S. Campus/Ft. Edmonton). Hwy43 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@117Avenue and Hwy43: Re this edit, claiming "that is not how it was abbreviated on signage" in the edit summary is WP:OR, so the name should be displayed in full. (The most efficient way to do this without making the template excessively wide is to split it into two lines using {{BSsplit}}). Useddenim (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, your usage is contrary to WP:MOSABBR. Useddenim (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Useddenim:There is currently a discussion on the name of that station at Talk:Grandin station#Requested move 4 October 2017. I had assumed that there would be no opposition to the name change, and preemptively starting changing links. If the result is no move I will revert my link change, if you disagree with the name please comment there rather than starting an edit war. There you can see a timetable of the line, which shows the name "GRANDIN/GOV'T CENTRE", and an image of a route sign, which shows the name "Grandin/Gov't Center", I hope you can ignore the Canadian spelling error. I am glad that we agree that the name is too long for this template, I think it is best that we use the abbreviated name given by the transit service, I did not come up with the name myself. As for WP:MOSABBR, would you please be more specific? I see there that an abbreviation should be well sourced, which isn't possible on a template, and that Wikipedia doesn't have a limit in size, which is why names can be spelled out in full in an article, but we both agree this navbox is too small for such a large name. 117Avenue (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@117Avenue: If ETS is making a consistent change to Grandin/Gov't Center|Centre, then I'm OK with that. (WRT to WP:MOSABBR, “Gov’t” isn‘t on the “acceptable” list.) Useddenim (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian National spur to the Capital Line

The CN spur line with the switch to the Capital Line was ripped up some time ago with the refurbishment of the 66 Street and 125 Avenue intersection, as part of the rebuilding of Fort Road. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The CN line in the template diagram should be removed altogether; this template concerns the Edmonton LRT, and the CN line is not part of that. 162 etc. (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)