This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK Trains Portal This template 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 Associated projects or task forces: /  This template is supported by WikiProject UK Railways. Yorkshire Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire

After tweaking I noticed Hull bridge had depot icon, not bridge icon. And could not find reference for KG & Saltend so more digging is needed. Also doubts about connections between the rivals west of the city. Can anyone help?--SilasW (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm think the current links, at one time (briefly) there were also links to the NER accross the river hull as well. Unless you meant the barnsley end - no idea.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention on the main page.. Talk:Hull and Barnsley Railway#Route diagram minor changes Shortfatlad (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I put in Stnlnk templates I found Sprotborough called a halt in its article though that was not named in what seems to be the usual style "Xxxxx Halt railway station" and also that usage of "&" versus "and" was not consistent, the H&B, perhaps to spread it catchment seemed to have had many "Xxx and/& Zzz" stations. Without counting it looks as though the article favours "&" at the east end while the west is Andy (though WP has several redirects). Is there a definitive work on the line?--SilasW (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After saving I see that there are "H and B" and "H & B" articles!!!!!!!!!--SilasW (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give links as I cannot locate any H & B article. Keith D (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This diagrammatic map ^[1] uses a circle to mean "station" "unless otherwise stated". The only pure H&B not-station use is for BALNE MOOR GOODS DEPOT, the other uses are not H&B and say "(Goods Only)", so it can be in or out as you fancy a mere depot or not.--SilasW (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's only a small depot it could be left out, as others have been.

[1]

I think that the H&BR went over the pontefract line at Gowdall junction. This is what G.D Parkes says in "The Hull & Barnsley Railway" Then almost immediately after crossing over the Lancashire and Yorkshire line the Hull and Barnsley is carried over the North Eastern main line from Shaftholme Junction to York and the north

Current OS maps seems(?) to show an embankment on the old H&BR trackbed too.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope what I did was to follow what was already shown and to make the junction neater and later to fill in an omitted snippet of connecting chord. If the wrong line was shown as Over then an editor who knows which line was on top can now copy the correct icons from one or other of the past varieties of complete junction into the template.--SilasW (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok now [2] I missed the "xk" prefix I think [3] which I managed to infer - I couldn't actually find a description of how to get the missing chord corner markup from Wikipedia:Route diagram template.Shortfatlad (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

diff I modified the map, and placed it in the infobox.

Points.

• Changed double columns to single to reduce width.
• More detail at southern end, but lacking some GC lines at the final stage - too fiddly.
• Corrected the map to remove anachronistic features
• Major changes at the Hull end to show the line in proper historical context.

• The original Hull end may be useful for a more modern map, maybe about the Hull Docks Branch - however it still needs work - it appears to show the situation roughly 1960, but some stuff is missing - eg Withernsea line and Newington Branch of Cottingham line.
  • If cut that bit out below:

Legend
Non-H&B track (Hull area) Non-H&B stations omitted (Joint NER) Saltend (Joint NER) King George Dock Alexandra Dock River Hull Hull Cannon Street 1885 1924 1854 1964 to Hornsea & Withernsea Beverley Road Hull Paragon to Cottingham Chord to Paragon (built by LNER) Boothferry Park Halt Post H&B 1951–86 Springhead works Springhead Halt Neptune Street Willerby and Kirk Ella to York & Sheffield Eppleworth Viaduct 83 ft 25 m deep Little Weighton cutting File:BSicon exCUTae.svg

As an aside - if anyone wants to make a better map (or multiple maps) - possibly "full width" I would welcome that (as long as it doesn't have anachronism issues).

eg Full width as at York and North Midland Railway - using the route diagram templates in thsis way rather than a drawn map could be very informative, as well as having wiki-linking benefits.

I think that a full width map would be a good solution if it avoids various "bunching" issues that arise when trying to make a "straight" route map.Prof.Haddock (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no idea if you actions were right (we should better ping Britmax), I must note the following about your edit:

1. Never upload BSicons to en.wp. Their proper place is Commons.
2. Never call the icons "mk2" or something. If you are not 100% sure how the icon should be properly named, ask at C:Talk:BSicon/New icons and icon requests. Actually, better ask in any case.
3. It's not good to use the "ex" icons for anything else then former/future lines. Better use a different colour (as it was before your changes).
4. Current layout with two labels shoved into a single line is awful. Better convert to BS-2, as before.
5. Always place overlaid icons directly following the icon below them, not after other icons.
6. Do not leave tracks ending abruptly, as you did near Stairfoot and with minor connecting routes. Similarly, what's that track ending abruptly at Alexandra Dock? If that's a dead end track, then add  (lENDEg) to the cell below (for example).
7. Pay attention to the corners: in half of cases you used  (STRc1) instead of  (exSTRc1) and so on.
8. Do not mix up different icons, like  (exABZq+lr) vs.  (exSHI4gr+rq) (the first turns by 90°, the other is a scissors crossing and requires  (exSHI4gl+lq)) and  (exCONTf) vs.  (exCONTff) (the first one is the standard, the second should only be used in special circumstances).
9. There's {{BScvt}}.

-- YLSS (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about the icons - I couldn't work out the naming conventions. Re: colours - are the needed icons available in other colors , or do they need creating - I couldn't find the same set in ochre etc.
• Re correctness - you can check against historic maps here maps.nls.uk , or check against the referenced description of the line in the article. (which I wrote).
• I see single column is not perfect, but double column reduces a large part of the article to text of about two words width on a reasonable display width expectation (1024px) - hence my comment about a "full width" template.
• When you say Always place overlaid icons directly following the icon below them, not after other icons. - why? surely the point of "O3=.." etc is that it allows placing at any position, not just before - if its a readability issue - I'm not sure I agree.
• On the subject of readability etc - I see you changed BS6 to BS4/BS2 etc where it was not necessary - I understand the motivation for this - but it just makes it difficult to make post edit modifications - it definately makes it harder for non experience editors to make changes - I speak from past experience - that's why I try to keep a constant 'BS6 grid' or whatever

• Re Alexandra dock - not sure how to deal with this - it's a complicated situation - and it isn't 100% clear how far the track was advanced - there's a discussion about it here http://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1957 - and a proper reference to it here https://archive.org/stream/northeasternrail00tomlrich#page/708/mode/1up - I came to the conclusion that an unterminated link (rather than a proper siding) better represents the actual situation as it was - though I need to do more research. (possibly the link was made during WWI, but haven't been able to confirm). I need to add a note to the article about this as it currently isn't covered.

• I don't understand this change:

{{BS6|exCONTgq|eKRZol|exSTR+r|STR+4|O3=STRc1|||| ''[[Swinton and Knottingley Joint Railway|Swinton & Knottingley Jnt. Rlwy.]]'' }}

to

{{BS7|exCONTgq|cd|O2=eKRZol|excSTRq|exSTR+r|O4=STRc1|STR+4|||| ''[[Swinton and Knottingley Joint Railway|Swinton & Knottingley Jnt. Rlwy.]]'' }}

eg how does BS7 fit in - is |cd| a "magic word"

• I see {{BScvt}} - I think it is really intended for a single column of line distances - as shown in the template usage - to me it doesn't look right at all out of that context.

As a final note I should have noted that the template doesn't show sidings, marshalling yards, and industrial connections and collieries. This is not for want of information but due to the difficulting of representing the complex situation within the confines of the route templates - they really aren't up to the job at this scale. I am considering using expanded templates for the Hull and Barnsley ends where the complexity lies, but a drawn map seems to be more suitable.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also could I suggest not "removing junk" from the infobox- this would make sense if your edit was a final one - but it isn't, eg Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress .. other editors need to go back to the template documentation to find fields they need etc.. I suppose Premature optimization should say something about this too.Prof.Haddock (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, all sets except the standard red and blue are quite poor... That's why I do not press with this issue – I don't want to upload them either.
• WRT columns: Possibly it would be better to make this a standalone template and not to embed it into the infobox? It can then be set to collapsed by default. (I dislike collapsing embedded RDTs because fewer people will notice them. A separate diagram is quite noticeable even if collapsed.)
• WRT |O3=... see WP:RDT#Overlay. It is editors' convenience issue.
• WRT BS6/BS4/BS2 see here.
• WRT cd: no, it's File:BSicon cd.svg. See here and here.
• WRT BScvt: I dunno, I've seen it used in all the places. It just helps saving space, just a more specific version of {{BSsplit}}.
• WRT unused parameters: I would say that precisely those that you added (in contrast to "bg-color" etc.) should always be left blank – or rather not used at all. Additional styling should only be used is some special cases, and 95% RDTs should be "standard simple". Legend should be always present (unless you employ the icons in a totally unconventional manner). And anything added at the bottom of the RDT is customarily placed at the bottom of the code (check other templates).

-- YLSS (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we are changing this can something be done to get rid of the small crowded text in the diagram by making the icons spaced out more or placing all of the text on a single line so that it is readable. Keith D (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. @Prof.Haddock: pls check. YLSS (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - that's not okay. The reason (as stated above) why the infobox was converted to single line is that the double line version makes a mess of the formatting on the main page. It's just too wide.

Do I need to upload a screenshot to show just how bad this looks - it is not acceptable.

As I mentioned above - if someone wants to fix this properly - by making a full width template that would be a good idea.

There are, if I count correctly, 6 double lines out of about 50-60. The use is not excessive. I see that it doesn't look perfect. Template:BSsplit exists for a reason - and this is an example of it's use.

Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to reduce the usage even further eg diff That leaves about 4 examples. There's no real justification to make changes at this level of usage.Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BSsplit exists for making information of second-importance less in size. Primary information - such as station names - should be full width. I made the template collapsible by default, that should give the readers with low screen resolution the option what to read - the text or the diagram. BTW, you can now place the infobox about the company to the lead. YLSS (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat what I said before a third time - because it's important - if the template is to go "wide", then lets "go wide" properly (suggest forking the template whilst working on it) - there are numerous errors and oddities, and 'less than optimum' bits imposed on the diagram (especially at the southern end) by trying to fit it into 8 or six units. These could be fixed by going to 12 units and make a much better template, which better hints as to spatial as well as topographical meaning , plus the inclusion of the important collieries etc.Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do that! YLSS (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've forked the 'thin' version to Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway (inline).Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, it was better as it was before these changes with the text on both sides of the diagram as that was understandable the current version with text on just one side of the diagram is not clear and difficult to follow what refers to what. Keith D (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the reasons are set out above - namely that the template is not viewed in isolation but in the context of another article. it's the same reason why we don't have images 700px wide by 2000px long .. despite the fact they would be easier to see. A monitor pixel width (non-mobile) of 1024 should not give poor formatting. There are now about 4 lines which have double text.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)So now we have Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway with no transclusions (verify) and Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway (inline) with one transclusion (verify). Is there any good reason to have both, or should the inline one (being the newer) be put one up for WP:CSD#T3? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was currently use the "inline" one, and work on improving the other to "full width" with a better representation of the line.Prof.Haddock (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When it is desired to make experimental changes to a template, with those changes not appearing in the live version until settled, the normal way (see WP:TESTCASES) is to use a template sandbox. So, in this case, the live (and stable) one would be at Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway and the non-live one with the experiments at Template:Hull & Barnsley Railway/sandbox. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally support Redrose64's idea. Forking is not the way to go. YLSS (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]